It's dreaming to think religious views like the Sunni-Shiite split can change. It's more practical to hope for a gradual withering of religious belief in genera, as seen in Europe due to prosperity and education.
3
Yes, Islam desperately needs a reformation!
Before the changes brought on by Martin Luther and Henry VIII of England, the Catholic Church co-ruled Europe with the Aristocracy in a hybrid theocracy. Wars, corruption, abuse, all in the name of God, were not so different than what we are seeing in the Muslim world today. The Christian reformation began the process of separating church from state and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made it law.
So, yes, a political solution is needed to take the power of Islam out of the hands of those at the top of the hierarchy who are abusing it. Muslims will need to acknowledge a thousand year old mistake made at Islam's inception that has made their religion an excuse for war. Then they may practice their religion of peace without looking over their collective shoulders.
This political solution would also open the door to the emancipation of women in the Muslim world creating the dynamics for a true Arab Spring. We must keep our dreams alive...
Before the changes brought on by Martin Luther and Henry VIII of England, the Catholic Church co-ruled Europe with the Aristocracy in a hybrid theocracy. Wars, corruption, abuse, all in the name of God, were not so different than what we are seeing in the Muslim world today. The Christian reformation began the process of separating church from state and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made it law.
So, yes, a political solution is needed to take the power of Islam out of the hands of those at the top of the hierarchy who are abusing it. Muslims will need to acknowledge a thousand year old mistake made at Islam's inception that has made their religion an excuse for war. Then they may practice their religion of peace without looking over their collective shoulders.
This political solution would also open the door to the emancipation of women in the Muslim world creating the dynamics for a true Arab Spring. We must keep our dreams alive...
4
As with other religions, the so-called "religion of peace" spread to other regions not merely by its teachings but by the sword.
In fact, the perverse obsession with beheading continues to this day in many places, including Islam's birthplace, Saudi Arabia, where the Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was executed in January, aggravating the deep divisions between the Sunnis and Shias.
Until the rights of other religions are not impinged as they are in the numerous Islamic states, Islam will be seen not so much as a religion of peace but of intolerance.
In fact, the perverse obsession with beheading continues to this day in many places, including Islam's birthplace, Saudi Arabia, where the Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was executed in January, aggravating the deep divisions between the Sunnis and Shias.
Until the rights of other religions are not impinged as they are in the numerous Islamic states, Islam will be seen not so much as a religion of peace but of intolerance.
3
Believing there is only one religion or even one god or any god is the problem for all religions. It insights violence. It enables zealots. Problems go unsolved in such environments and all forms of destruction of environment, economy, lives follow. We desperately need secular states purposely excluding religion.
Excellent historic explanation by Aykol. Could he have said more if it were not a legally actionable offense with prison time in today's Turkey? Blasphemy as a legal charge needs to be excluded from governments and our own Supremes, Scalia and Thomas by name.
Excellent historic explanation by Aykol. Could he have said more if it were not a legally actionable offense with prison time in today's Turkey? Blasphemy as a legal charge needs to be excluded from governments and our own Supremes, Scalia and Thomas by name.
1
I liked this article, or perhaps more accurately I liked the author. But Islam has too much blood on its hands including the blood of millions of Hindus. The extremist Hindu organization, the RSS, is a reaction to the centuries of Hindu slaughter by Muslim rulers.
The RSS should now recede into the background, for Indian Muslims are brothers and sisters and not a threat to Hindus. But I would love it if the NYT, at least once, were to acknowledge these centuries of slaughter and the fact that Buddhism came to an end in India when Muslim armies slaughtered the monks teaching at the University of Nalanda. Our PC sage Amartya Sen says that Nalanda was destroyed by "armies from West Asia" but omits to say that these armies were Muslim.
What is needed in India is for Hindus to say to Muslims, "You are our brothers and sisters" but also for Indian Muslims to say to "Hindus, "We are sorry that our ancestors killed yours, but let us live together in peace now."
If the NYT wants to promote peace in the Indian subcontinent, as it SAYS it does, it needs to acknowledge Hindu grievances, gone, but not forgotten until there is an apology.
Apologies can heal. Just as Japan needs to apologize to Korea and China, Turkey needs to apologize to Armenians and Kurds, so do Indian Muslims AND the NYT need to apologize to Indian Hindus. "We are sorry and let us be friends". That word "sorry" will heal the sorrow.
The RSS should now recede into the background, for Indian Muslims are brothers and sisters and not a threat to Hindus. But I would love it if the NYT, at least once, were to acknowledge these centuries of slaughter and the fact that Buddhism came to an end in India when Muslim armies slaughtered the monks teaching at the University of Nalanda. Our PC sage Amartya Sen says that Nalanda was destroyed by "armies from West Asia" but omits to say that these armies were Muslim.
What is needed in India is for Hindus to say to Muslims, "You are our brothers and sisters" but also for Indian Muslims to say to "Hindus, "We are sorry that our ancestors killed yours, but let us live together in peace now."
If the NYT wants to promote peace in the Indian subcontinent, as it SAYS it does, it needs to acknowledge Hindu grievances, gone, but not forgotten until there is an apology.
Apologies can heal. Just as Japan needs to apologize to Korea and China, Turkey needs to apologize to Armenians and Kurds, so do Indian Muslims AND the NYT need to apologize to Indian Hindus. "We are sorry and let us be friends". That word "sorry" will heal the sorrow.
4
No one mentions the factor of the West's insatiable self-indulgence in the consumption of oil, in the arming of Muslim against Muslim or against outsiders. Without petrodollars, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, would be no more than the ragged bands of brigands who have always existed on the margins of civilization. Because they shout "God is great," they become eligible for funding from those who manipulate belief for political - yes, political! - aims, social power and control. And because the West has founded not only its economy but its very culture on mechanization, the petrodollars and euros keep flowing, and the dacoits have automatic weapons, rockets, armored vehicles and electronic media. Further, the role played by resource revenue in enriching and sustaining repressive elites, whether the mullahs of Iran, the whiskey-swilling Sauds or Russian oligarchs. ensures a steady population dispossessed, disenfranchised and vulnerable to the draw of fanaticism and regular meals.
Until our own political aspirants cease to pick bits and pieces from our Scriptures to advocate or justify exclusion and violence, until we acknowledge our own responsibilities (too many to list) for the support of oppressive regimes, we will remain blind to all but the visible difference of religion and to any response but blaming and bigotry.
Until our own political aspirants cease to pick bits and pieces from our Scriptures to advocate or justify exclusion and violence, until we acknowledge our own responsibilities (too many to list) for the support of oppressive regimes, we will remain blind to all but the visible difference of religion and to any response but blaming and bigotry.
1
Sorry, this author is speaking of something unreal. Islam is inseparable from a theocracy. He notion of a caliph is central, despite contradictions. All infidels should be killed, and "killing one person is the same sin as killing mankind." If Muslims believe that it is a religion of peace, then they are not paying attention to a text written in a largely incomprehensible, confusing, tautological, ancient Arabic.
Only strong cultural forces have succeeded in taming the core nihilism of this philosophy (see Sufis ; recent converts from other religions). There are several forward-thinking sects of Islam (you see them in places where religious freedom exists) - and they are interpretations of a local strongman/ religious leader. The original religious doctrine, however, is very clear. Every Muslim should work toward an Islamic state; and when achieved, should kill all non-believers. If a Muslim finds himself in a non-Islamic state, he must demand instant changes from the host - which over time kills the host. All of these factors are endogenous. REFORM is sorely needed.
If there is an outside force that is transforming this nihilistic philosophy into a global nuisance, it is oil-fed money. If this religion is to be preserved in its original form, and coexist, it needs the deprivation of its chief sustenance (oil-money) and benefactor (Saudi Arabia). People can believe what they want to, as long as their swing does not connect with my nose.
Kalidan
Only strong cultural forces have succeeded in taming the core nihilism of this philosophy (see Sufis ; recent converts from other religions). There are several forward-thinking sects of Islam (you see them in places where religious freedom exists) - and they are interpretations of a local strongman/ religious leader. The original religious doctrine, however, is very clear. Every Muslim should work toward an Islamic state; and when achieved, should kill all non-believers. If a Muslim finds himself in a non-Islamic state, he must demand instant changes from the host - which over time kills the host. All of these factors are endogenous. REFORM is sorely needed.
If there is an outside force that is transforming this nihilistic philosophy into a global nuisance, it is oil-fed money. If this religion is to be preserved in its original form, and coexist, it needs the deprivation of its chief sustenance (oil-money) and benefactor (Saudi Arabia). People can believe what they want to, as long as their swing does not connect with my nose.
Kalidan
3
The problem is the organized religion. Most religions started as spiritual relationship between humans and a supreme being. Soon thereafter, somehow a group of "clergy" are inserted in this relationship and it all gets corrupted. Organized religion, communism, fascism, etc. are all part of ideological, tribal hate politics trying to control masses using made up rules.
Time to eliminate organized religion in the world.
Time to eliminate organized religion in the world.
1
I applaud Mustafa Akyol's courageous call to remove politics from Islam. Only by doing this can Islam be a true religion of peace.
Removing politics from Islam would cut the legs out from under terrorism. It would destroy ISIS and Boko Haram. It would end the long feud between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It would ameliorate the tensions in the Middle East. It would reduce the anti-Islam sentiments around the world. It would enable decent politicians to actually address the causes of poverty and war, instead of advocating never-ending wars. It would raise the standard of living of all poor Muslims. It would lead to increased hope for a good life.
There would be some losers. It would be bad for the worldwide military industrial complex. It would be bad for the non-Muslims who make a living hating Muslims, and bad for the Muslims who recruit suicide bombers. It would very bad for the fanatics who would rather kill innocent people than work at a real job, supporting a family. It would be bad for the executioners and the self-righteous. It would be terrible for those who would rather shout "blasphemer" than love their neighbors.
Removing politics from Islam would cut the legs out from under terrorism. It would destroy ISIS and Boko Haram. It would end the long feud between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It would ameliorate the tensions in the Middle East. It would reduce the anti-Islam sentiments around the world. It would enable decent politicians to actually address the causes of poverty and war, instead of advocating never-ending wars. It would raise the standard of living of all poor Muslims. It would lead to increased hope for a good life.
There would be some losers. It would be bad for the worldwide military industrial complex. It would be bad for the non-Muslims who make a living hating Muslims, and bad for the Muslims who recruit suicide bombers. It would very bad for the fanatics who would rather kill innocent people than work at a real job, supporting a family. It would be bad for the executioners and the self-righteous. It would be terrible for those who would rather shout "blasphemer" than love their neighbors.
2
It is extraordinary that a column on this issue can avoid discussion of the role of Saudi Arabia in fomenting a dangerous brand of Islam, financing ISIS and virtually destroying Yemen. Give peace a chance by employing a modicum of honesty!
4
The writer basically tries to isolate Islam from the base of violence. As far as I read in fact Islam has a strong background tone of violence, fostering authoritarian and violent mentality. These flaws lead to extremist ideologies and strong oppression to secularism.
The most damaging part of Islam is that the Qur'an is also a book of rules and laws. Entangled with regulations with socials codes and rules Islam is automatically connected to everyday politics! As a result blaming politics for poisoning Islam is against Islam itself. The writer may be unaware of this fact but gets caught.
As I know him from Turkish newspapers he will probably never criticize Islam.
(for detailed information I recommend Al-Ahzab (the Clans) sura from Qur'an for legal rules and regulations. It also contains interesting instructions about how to treat the prophet and his wives.)
The most damaging part of Islam is that the Qur'an is also a book of rules and laws. Entangled with regulations with socials codes and rules Islam is automatically connected to everyday politics! As a result blaming politics for poisoning Islam is against Islam itself. The writer may be unaware of this fact but gets caught.
As I know him from Turkish newspapers he will probably never criticize Islam.
(for detailed information I recommend Al-Ahzab (the Clans) sura from Qur'an for legal rules and regulations. It also contains interesting instructions about how to treat the prophet and his wives.)
4
Blaming politics of poisoning islam is like blaming politics of poisoning communism. Islam is much, much more than a mere religion: it is a social system, intimately entwined in the life of the individual from cradle to grave, not unlike the power of the Catholic church in the European MIddle Age. It is no coincedence, that where islam dominates development - social and cultural - has stagnated in comparison with the rest of the world. Economically they are doing just fine: our dependance of some of their products assures a steady revenue.
4
Reading the comments, I am amused by the readers lack of sophistication and intellect. They blame all on Islam and Muslims.....and yet US is the biggest defender of the most fundamentalist, or I should say, only fundamentalist Muslim states. And amongst the biggest arms provider to the most fundamentalist Muslim states. And the only Muslim countries to date US has attacked, invaded, and supported regime change via CIA trained militia are exclusively secular Muslim states. And yet the problem with Middle East is everything but US policy of bloodshed and mayhem. Even after US sold Saudis $1.5 billion in smart bombs, after Paris attacks, and while Saudis are bombing the poorest Arab country for having the nerve to remove their own leader, and even after US blocks human rights inquiry about Saudis crimes, Americans still don't get it
It behooves Americans to know that when the rest of the world was asked which country they see as the biggest threat to world peace, US topped the list.
It behooves Americans to know that when the rest of the world was asked which country they see as the biggest threat to world peace, US topped the list.
1
> "[R]epublican Turkey abolished the very institution of the caliphate"
No, Ataturk abolished the caliphate. Akyol is well-known in Turkey for denying Ataturk's legacy.
And while Said Nursi may have been against politics, his other vices far exceed this one virtue.
No, Ataturk abolished the caliphate. Akyol is well-known in Turkey for denying Ataturk's legacy.
And while Said Nursi may have been against politics, his other vices far exceed this one virtue.
4
Wow, talk about your anemic polemics - this article has no hemoglobin. Religion and politics both depend on one thing for their survival - wish fulfillment. The intersection of religion and politics forces politicians to submit to the faith-based reasoning of their constituents. This conjunction always produces an accident of ideologies resulting in public policy carnage The separation of Church and State has always been a fairy-tale - another product of that wish-fulfillment thingamajiggy (from the Latin, thingamegistus).
What a wonderful informative article that explains the historical rift within the Islamic community. However I don't believe that this a problem unique to Islam. The protestant reformation was a perfect example of using religion as a rationale for geopolitical strife. Every religion has it's extremes. Unfortunately Islam's conflicts largely exist within nation states that do not have the infrastructure of political will to manage them.
1
Religion is not actually at the heart of these conflicts?
Islam is actually at the heart of the conflict and to be in denial is hiding the head in the sand, like an ostrich.
Ambedkar the architect of the Indian constitution observed that the Muslims "“Having been taught that outside Islam there can be no safety; outside its law no truth and outside its spiritual message there is no happiness, the Muslim has become incapable of conceiving any other condition than his own, any other mode of thought than the Islamic thought. He firmly believes that he has arrived at an unequalled pitch of perfection; that he is the sole possessor of true faith, of the true doctrine, the true wisdom ; that he alone is in possession of the truth—no relative truth subject to revision, but absolute truth...The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in politics".
Catalyzing the conflict is the Postnormal times (PNT) a concept developed by Ziauddin Sardar, describing the turbulent and changing times we are living in. Sardar defines PNT as "in an in-between period where old orthodoxies are dying, new ones have yet to be born, and very few things seem to make sense."
This period is characterized by three C’s: chaos, complexity and contradictions, which come together to produce uncertainty and different varieties of ignorance.
Islam is actually at the heart of the conflict and to be in denial is hiding the head in the sand, like an ostrich.
Ambedkar the architect of the Indian constitution observed that the Muslims "“Having been taught that outside Islam there can be no safety; outside its law no truth and outside its spiritual message there is no happiness, the Muslim has become incapable of conceiving any other condition than his own, any other mode of thought than the Islamic thought. He firmly believes that he has arrived at an unequalled pitch of perfection; that he is the sole possessor of true faith, of the true doctrine, the true wisdom ; that he alone is in possession of the truth—no relative truth subject to revision, but absolute truth...The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in politics".
Catalyzing the conflict is the Postnormal times (PNT) a concept developed by Ziauddin Sardar, describing the turbulent and changing times we are living in. Sardar defines PNT as "in an in-between period where old orthodoxies are dying, new ones have yet to be born, and very few things seem to make sense."
This period is characterized by three C’s: chaos, complexity and contradictions, which come together to produce uncertainty and different varieties of ignorance.
4
The true story is that the Muslim religion was hijacked and used by politics to disrupt the stability. Everyone knows this! They must think that the world is stupid and that they can get away with it. There is close to 2 billion muslims on the planet, imagine if it was really a religion of hate and violence WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE WORLD. The big problem is that almost everyone is afraid to speak the truth unfortunately. What a shame. All terrorism is funded and supported by Saudi arabia (the wahabi and salafi sect) and the western countries still deal with them! Can someone please explain because i am confused right now!
2
Maybe it is me , but I was left unclear as to what exactly was the message that Mr. Akyol tried to deliver , also not finding a connection between the heading of this Op-Ed , and its contents .
Still , noting Mr. Akyol is a Turk , and knowing nothing about him , I am expressing the hope that he is a dedicated and loyal follower of the incomparable Mustafa Kemal Ataturk , and that he ( Akyol ) is a vocal and courageous fighter WITHIN Turkey for maintaining the wonderful system of modernity and separation of State and Church that Ataturk instilled , and that is now being demolished by the regrettable Erdogan step by step .
May there be more Muslim rulers and leaders like the Ataturk , for if there were , the Muslim and Western worlds will benefit immensely .
I am mentioning Ataturk , because Mr. Akyol did not , which I found strange . To write a piece about Islam and politics , and incorporating references and names dating back so many centuries ago , yet ignoring the name of the one who was probably the greatest political reformer in Islamic history ( and a Turk , to boot ) , is a most unfortunate omission . Yet , he is the BEST symbol of what the politics of the Islamic world should be like .
Still , noting Mr. Akyol is a Turk , and knowing nothing about him , I am expressing the hope that he is a dedicated and loyal follower of the incomparable Mustafa Kemal Ataturk , and that he ( Akyol ) is a vocal and courageous fighter WITHIN Turkey for maintaining the wonderful system of modernity and separation of State and Church that Ataturk instilled , and that is now being demolished by the regrettable Erdogan step by step .
May there be more Muslim rulers and leaders like the Ataturk , for if there were , the Muslim and Western worlds will benefit immensely .
I am mentioning Ataturk , because Mr. Akyol did not , which I found strange . To write a piece about Islam and politics , and incorporating references and names dating back so many centuries ago , yet ignoring the name of the one who was probably the greatest political reformer in Islamic history ( and a Turk , to boot ) , is a most unfortunate omission . Yet , he is the BEST symbol of what the politics of the Islamic world should be like .
5
The author inadvertently confirms that Islam and politics have gone hand to hand throughout the Islamic history. This phenomenon is a natural product of Islam itself. Islam, through its all-comprehensive Sharia establishes control over all worldly affairs. Obeying the ruler is a pillar of Islam, acting otherwise is "fitnah", a major sin. Consequently throughout the Islamic history the rulers and the doctors of Islam ruled the "flock" (their own term) employing Islam as their main policy tool. This very fact continues in our time, In Saudi Arabia, Petroleum Sheikdoms, Iran etc. and now in once a secular country Turkey. If Muslims one to get rid of these continuing troubles they should honestly face the facts and then try to remedy their dismal state.
2
Organized religion trains people to think that belief defines rightness, and that belief defines identity.
Democracy relies on people to allow disagreement on what is right, and despite disagreement on belief, the importance of civility and process is more important than personal belief. Democracy relies on the limits & self restraint of personal belief, to not tread over the shared, common public sphere.
Modernism & science relies on people to change their beliefs as new objective and proven facts & theories are discovered.
Democracy relies on people to allow disagreement on what is right, and despite disagreement on belief, the importance of civility and process is more important than personal belief. Democracy relies on the limits & self restraint of personal belief, to not tread over the shared, common public sphere.
Modernism & science relies on people to change their beliefs as new objective and proven facts & theories are discovered.
4
(1) The author makes a good point that the idea of a Caliph is not to be found in the Quran or teachings of Mohammed.
However, I have two issues which I believe Islam must deal with.
(2) I simply don't find the idea of Jizya, namely, a tax imposed on non-Muslims to be fair. It is inconsistent with democracy.
(3) I would also ask: Is Islam consistent with what we know understand about homosexuality, namely, that it biologically determined rather than a choice? Is Islam open to the latest scientific facts about this issue?
However, I have two issues which I believe Islam must deal with.
(2) I simply don't find the idea of Jizya, namely, a tax imposed on non-Muslims to be fair. It is inconsistent with democracy.
(3) I would also ask: Is Islam consistent with what we know understand about homosexuality, namely, that it biologically determined rather than a choice? Is Islam open to the latest scientific facts about this issue?
4
Jesus was a failure and Christianity has been blessed by that fact. Islam was founded by a charismatic man who became a successful dictator or warlord. You cannot remove Muhammed's example from history. Muslims judge actions by his example. Islam was political at the very beginning. Maybe you should try changing that but I would suggest getting a good bodyguard first.
7
Religion is governance around ideology. Politics is governance around geography. They overlap, and so they come into conflict, and necessarily so. This conflict is old, but mass media and the Internet have re-invigorated religion's political power by connecting dispersed people sharing a faith, and letting them coordinate their efforts.
When we see our own leaders professing their faith we see them playing both sides. Yes, GWB had more in common with Osama bin Laden than he knew.
It's too easy to blame religion. Non-religious ideologies will contend for power with the geographic ones. And we should not assume that the politics we take for granted - organized by geography; the nation state - will win.
When we see our own leaders professing their faith we see them playing both sides. Yes, GWB had more in common with Osama bin Laden than he knew.
It's too easy to blame religion. Non-religious ideologies will contend for power with the geographic ones. And we should not assume that the politics we take for granted - organized by geography; the nation state - will win.
1
Unfortunately this article illustrate well why reformers are unable to reform their religion.
They must necessarily base that argument for reform on Muhammed and Quran.
Yet both do support the combining of religion and politics.
"During the seventh-century leadership of the Prophet Muhammad, whose authority was accepted by all believer"
This statement implies a voluntary acceptance of his authority. Aykol should know that that was certainly not the case. Numerous and reliable sacred hadiths, as well as the Sira, sacred biography of the prophet, tell us how intimidation and force were used on many "believers". These same sacred stories tell us how Muhammeds critics were assasinated.
"None of this means that Islam, with core values of justice, should be totally blind to politics. "
The Quran, which is literally God speaking to mankind" allows concubinage, and also allows slavery. It gives nonmuslims a secondary status in Islamic society, especially if they are not Christians or Jews.
Does the Quran, the Final Revelation of God to man, truly demonstrate core value of justice to all people in the opinion of reformers? They are necessarily bound to say "yes", despite the Quran clearly having quite an obviously mixed message. It is totally inadequate for a Final Message, the end point of human ethical development - unless one thinks slavery and concubinage, crucifixion, chopping off hands, etc is consistent with what God would say to mankind as a Final Revelation.
They must necessarily base that argument for reform on Muhammed and Quran.
Yet both do support the combining of religion and politics.
"During the seventh-century leadership of the Prophet Muhammad, whose authority was accepted by all believer"
This statement implies a voluntary acceptance of his authority. Aykol should know that that was certainly not the case. Numerous and reliable sacred hadiths, as well as the Sira, sacred biography of the prophet, tell us how intimidation and force were used on many "believers". These same sacred stories tell us how Muhammeds critics were assasinated.
"None of this means that Islam, with core values of justice, should be totally blind to politics. "
The Quran, which is literally God speaking to mankind" allows concubinage, and also allows slavery. It gives nonmuslims a secondary status in Islamic society, especially if they are not Christians or Jews.
Does the Quran, the Final Revelation of God to man, truly demonstrate core value of justice to all people in the opinion of reformers? They are necessarily bound to say "yes", despite the Quran clearly having quite an obviously mixed message. It is totally inadequate for a Final Message, the end point of human ethical development - unless one thinks slavery and concubinage, crucifixion, chopping off hands, etc is consistent with what God would say to mankind as a Final Revelation.
3
It is not just intra-Muslim strife in the Middle East that makes Islam look like a religion of bloodshed. Anyone who has paid any attention to world events since the 7th century knows this.
All religions, or almost all, have been spread by bloodshed in addition to words and kind acts. The most popular have become most popular by shedding the most blood.
Christianity had brutal wars between sects for centuries. Christianity also spread through warfare. Though many would prefer otherwise, this process continued into the 20th century, even inside the US, and still lingers.
Islam has not stopped being a religion that is spread through bloodshed. Nearly every place where Islam contacts non-Islamic culture, Islamic believers act in violence against non-believers. You can draw a line across Africa from the Atlantic coast of the Sahel to the southerly reaches of Africa's Great Lakes and find Islamic soldiers on the march. The centuries old conflict between Hindu and Muslim in South Asia rank as the world's most likely nuclear war scenario.
And the continuing terrorist attacks on every continent advertise slaughter on a global scale.
It is not the Middle East that makes Islam seem bloody. The world would be a much happier place if that were all.
And more words of protest and denouncement from the millions of moderate Muslims said to exist would also help greatly.
All religions, or almost all, have been spread by bloodshed in addition to words and kind acts. The most popular have become most popular by shedding the most blood.
Christianity had brutal wars between sects for centuries. Christianity also spread through warfare. Though many would prefer otherwise, this process continued into the 20th century, even inside the US, and still lingers.
Islam has not stopped being a religion that is spread through bloodshed. Nearly every place where Islam contacts non-Islamic culture, Islamic believers act in violence against non-believers. You can draw a line across Africa from the Atlantic coast of the Sahel to the southerly reaches of Africa's Great Lakes and find Islamic soldiers on the march. The centuries old conflict between Hindu and Muslim in South Asia rank as the world's most likely nuclear war scenario.
And the continuing terrorist attacks on every continent advertise slaughter on a global scale.
It is not the Middle East that makes Islam seem bloody. The world would be a much happier place if that were all.
And more words of protest and denouncement from the millions of moderate Muslims said to exist would also help greatly.
4
The appalling carnage of the two great wars of the 20th century was predominantly managed - theologically speaking - by fervent appeal the god of the Christians.
Nowadays, the carnage in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere is endorsed -theologically speaking - by appeal the god of the various stands of Islam.
One would think - having a mind to only these most recent examples how belief in a god has always complicated political affairs - that a secular world would be simpler and easier to manage. It's difficult enough as it is without having to bring a god into it.
Nowadays, the carnage in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere is endorsed -theologically speaking - by appeal the god of the various stands of Islam.
One would think - having a mind to only these most recent examples how belief in a god has always complicated political affairs - that a secular world would be simpler and easier to manage. It's difficult enough as it is without having to bring a god into it.
2
This article seems to have been written in the 1990s, and back then I would have agreed with this author. Back then, Osama Bin Laden was an extremist. Fast forward to today, after multiple wars, both with and without the U.S., Bin Laden's thinking has become mainstream for many Muslims. This is what I call a strategic failure and has led to a humanitarian catastrophe. Unfortunately, I believe we have only seen the beginning and it will get much worse.
3
I think Sharia law, particularly the punishments, has poisoned Islam.
3
Why must Akyol history Turkish history to make his "point."
Surely he knows that the the Ottoman Parliament lasted for less than two years before the Sultan shut it down in 1878.
Only the Young Turk Rebellion forced reopening in 1908.
Surely he knows that the the Ottoman Parliament lasted for less than two years before the Sultan shut it down in 1878.
Only the Young Turk Rebellion forced reopening in 1908.
2
It would perhaps serve as a counter to Islamicist thought to remember that when the Islamic world was more pluralist and tolerant than Christendom (Middle Ages in Europe) it was an originator and repository of learning. When Andalusia became Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella what had been an intellectual center into the Inquisition. If Daesh wants to revisit the true glory days of Islam they should look to this period
2
There is no hope. I rejected religion and its nonsensical beliefs when I was a child. How can anyone subject their children to belief systems formulated by basically cavemen. There is no hope.
1
If the Islam was so thoroughly politically riven virtually from its inception, such that the very faith itself meant aligning with one side or the other eternally destined to bloody war of annihilation with such ferocity that believers are compelled, for whatever political instigation, to actually still blow themselves up in an effort to cause as much gruesome death & injury to adherents of the other side of this primal rift, how is it that billions of intelligent adults continue to buy into such a fundamentally riven faith more than a thousand years since the origin of the rift that has ruled the faith since its very inception?
That is the modern question (now don't fatwa me for asking it).
That is the modern question (now don't fatwa me for asking it).
1
Mr. Akyol ignores that for devout Muslims, religion, politics and war are one and the same. It is not for nothing that Moors, Arabs, Ottomans and other Muslim empires always marched under the banner of the prophet, conquering lands in the name of their religion. For devout Muslims and in teachings in Islam, all war is holy war, all politics is about putting religion above all else. That is the internal conflict that modern, peace-loving Muslims living in democracies have to resolve.
3
Humans construct ideologies to assist in the endless struggle of human groups and individuals for access to and competition over scant resources.
Organised religions constitute one category of ideology. Political ideologies are another. Often, political ideology goes hand in hand with religion. For example, National Socialism went hand in hand with, and then broke away from, the Jew-hating Roman Catholicism that ruled the daily lives of peasants in the Kingdom of Bavaria (Königreich Bayern) from 1805 to the end of WW1 in 1918.
The so-called Christian Church split early on into Trinitarian and Unitarian factions. The Schism of 1054 split the Eastern from the Western Churches. Protestantism arose in opposition to Roman Catholicism. Non-conformists arose in opposition to the Church of England. Competition for economic power, combined with nationalism and identity based on linguistic differences, underlaid and drove all these religious conflicts.
Early Christianity was split even earlier by the power struggle between James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul, the son of the rich Tarsus tent-maker who had bought Roman citizenship. Christianity initially appealed to the powerless: to women, children and slaves.
The machinations of the City State (the Polis), economic activity, religion, demands for political rights, gender and sexuality rights, are all inextricably linked and mixed up together. Our endless struggle for dominance over each other is what we all have in common.
Organised religions constitute one category of ideology. Political ideologies are another. Often, political ideology goes hand in hand with religion. For example, National Socialism went hand in hand with, and then broke away from, the Jew-hating Roman Catholicism that ruled the daily lives of peasants in the Kingdom of Bavaria (Königreich Bayern) from 1805 to the end of WW1 in 1918.
The so-called Christian Church split early on into Trinitarian and Unitarian factions. The Schism of 1054 split the Eastern from the Western Churches. Protestantism arose in opposition to Roman Catholicism. Non-conformists arose in opposition to the Church of England. Competition for economic power, combined with nationalism and identity based on linguistic differences, underlaid and drove all these religious conflicts.
Early Christianity was split even earlier by the power struggle between James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul, the son of the rich Tarsus tent-maker who had bought Roman citizenship. Christianity initially appealed to the powerless: to women, children and slaves.
The machinations of the City State (the Polis), economic activity, religion, demands for political rights, gender and sexuality rights, are all inextricably linked and mixed up together. Our endless struggle for dominance over each other is what we all have in common.
1
Islam is a religion of submission, not peace. From what I have read, the root of the word Islam is submission.
"Extremists" have not hijacked Islam, they are inspired by it. The terrorists are very explicit in their religious certainty of the righteousness of their actions.
Devotion is the root of Islamic terror, not politics.
"Extremists" have not hijacked Islam, they are inspired by it. The terrorists are very explicit in their religious certainty of the righteousness of their actions.
Devotion is the root of Islamic terror, not politics.
3
If you examine the history of Christianity, you will find that Christians were killing each other over who had the correct version of it within 100 or so years after Jesus. Sounds not so dissimilar to Islam.
Christianity also got messed up with politics. That's how it replaced the Roman Empire and Greek civilizations and took on a monarchical structure that still reigns to this day.
Fortunately the Enlightenment and the Reformation shook Christianity to its core. Today we have the Christian churches removed from civil power. (Even though those theologically illiterate fundamentalists in the USA still try to turn us into a theocracy. Look no further than Rafael Ted Cruz and his ilk.)
Islam is several centuries behind Christianity. Hopefully it will catch up and undergo its own enlightenment. But those will be (are) difficult centuries for them.
Christianity also got messed up with politics. That's how it replaced the Roman Empire and Greek civilizations and took on a monarchical structure that still reigns to this day.
Fortunately the Enlightenment and the Reformation shook Christianity to its core. Today we have the Christian churches removed from civil power. (Even though those theologically illiterate fundamentalists in the USA still try to turn us into a theocracy. Look no further than Rafael Ted Cruz and his ilk.)
Islam is several centuries behind Christianity. Hopefully it will catch up and undergo its own enlightenment. But those will be (are) difficult centuries for them.
2
From an American liberal perspective it would be great to see an Islamic Renaissance and Enlightenment that strip both Sunni and Shiite theocracies of their power. Hmmm... we could probably use some Enlightenment ourselves to strip Republican theocracies of their power.
2
Akyol simplifies, though perhaps inevitably. I am familiar with Mr Akyol's byline in Turkish newspapers, but he is a journalist and not a scholar; while he takes a "reasonable" line, there is less dimension and less nuance than you would find with a scholar of Islam. And by this I do not mean an Islamic scholar, but the many academics who engage in sophisticated yet well informed study of the relation of Islamic revelation to interpretation to communication strategies to economic, political and social structures etc etc. The relation of knowledge to power, relevant to the subject at hand.
The presumably "secular" majority of Times readers may be let off too easy by Mr Akyol's simplistic categorizations. He generalizes about the entire, enormous Muslim world from Malaysia to Nigeria; He compares early Muslim and Christian religious fragmentation without solid basis; he also leaves so much out; post colonial resentment, the role of culture.
I blame the New York Times for its blindness to the world of high quality anthropology of Muslim societies; at a time when so many false "experts" in Islam are peddling theories that are themselves based on ideology and politics, not theoretical debate and scholarly consensus.
Akyol is not a hater, but he does not fill the gap in thinking. The roots of authoritarianism are complex-- as a Turk, Akyol should know this-- and we must struggle if we are to engage diverse Islamic leaders as part of the pluralistic future of the world.
The presumably "secular" majority of Times readers may be let off too easy by Mr Akyol's simplistic categorizations. He generalizes about the entire, enormous Muslim world from Malaysia to Nigeria; He compares early Muslim and Christian religious fragmentation without solid basis; he also leaves so much out; post colonial resentment, the role of culture.
I blame the New York Times for its blindness to the world of high quality anthropology of Muslim societies; at a time when so many false "experts" in Islam are peddling theories that are themselves based on ideology and politics, not theoretical debate and scholarly consensus.
Akyol is not a hater, but he does not fill the gap in thinking. The roots of authoritarianism are complex-- as a Turk, Akyol should know this-- and we must struggle if we are to engage diverse Islamic leaders as part of the pluralistic future of the world.
1
With the exception of Sufism, other versions of islam are off-putting to those who value human dignity. They have turned into violent fundamentalist struggles as rigid as those between the calvinists and catholics in britain and far more savage, and as ignorant as the rantings of evangelicals in the US. I know that for many islam is an important part of their cultural identity and a means of emphasizing their pride in their middle-easternness, but at its best it is about submission to a set of arbitrary rules.
1
Islam definitely can be "a religion of peace" by the fact that there are peaceful Muslims. But despite that Mustafa needs to recon with the fact that Islam is also practiced by a large number of Muslims, as seen in the Middle Eastern countries, as a religion that subjugate women and girls and abhor pluralism and democratic ideals of individual liberty and freedom. It is also a religion that believe in a "jihad" against the western way of life. Even those more "devote" Muslims who live the western countries tend to live isolated from the larger society. It is ironic that these Muslims who think "American" culture in general immoral and corrupt should freely choose to live still in this country.
If not anything else, the very fact that Islam "outlaws" and casts out its followers who want to stop being Muslim should give us pause. Malaysia is known to be a moderate Islamic state, not mired in extremist jihads. Even then, it is illegal in Malaysia for anybody to try to convert Muslims to other religions. A Muslim in Malaysia, (I think any where else) is a life long Muslim. They can be punished by sharia law if they try to convert. How is this compatible to the democratic ideal of religious liberty, individual liberty, or peace, for that matter?
If not anything else, the very fact that Islam "outlaws" and casts out its followers who want to stop being Muslim should give us pause. Malaysia is known to be a moderate Islamic state, not mired in extremist jihads. Even then, it is illegal in Malaysia for anybody to try to convert Muslims to other religions. A Muslim in Malaysia, (I think any where else) is a life long Muslim. They can be punished by sharia law if they try to convert. How is this compatible to the democratic ideal of religious liberty, individual liberty, or peace, for that matter?
Reform has to come from within the Islam and that too a big-drastic one. It can only begin once there is an acknowledgement that something wrong with the genesis of the islamic religion which would amount to challenging the core beliefs of the islam including Mohamed. Acknowledgement is possible if there is a space for debate, criticism and questioning about shortcomings of the faith- and that too without fear or any kind of restriction. Islamic faith has no room for all this. All most all the islamic scholars and people including moderate and liberal refrain from debating or criticising their theological values. They must accept the truth about their religion and that atrocities (forceful conversions, murders, etc) committed by islam were not because of politics but of religion, since politics are eventually guided by religious principles, at least in islam. Moderate muslims should accept the problems with the ideology of religion and not keep on defending it (saying it was politics, good muslim, bad muslim, etc) as they have been it for 1500 years.
While they are extra vocal about any mild attack by a non-muslim on islam, the otherwise is not true.They must develop and practice (not pretend) a humane view of world and other religions, communities, etc. Christianity, eventually, reformed itself and the results were spectacular - renaissance, industrial revolution, human rights, democracy, etc, despite of lots of bloodshed within community.
While they are extra vocal about any mild attack by a non-muslim on islam, the otherwise is not true.They must develop and practice (not pretend) a humane view of world and other religions, communities, etc. Christianity, eventually, reformed itself and the results were spectacular - renaissance, industrial revolution, human rights, democracy, etc, despite of lots of bloodshed within community.
7
The writer is incorrect when he says early Christianity was divided into sects based on disputes about the nature of Christ. Christ declared himself to be the Son of God, and so Christians take him at his word. Those who denied the deity of Christ were not different "sects," but heretics who were outside the faith. Christians believe Christ is who He who said He was.
This is an excellent and perceptive analysis. I remember thirty-five years ago listening to Iranian students praise the Iranian revolution. When I suggested to them that there should be separation between religion and state they all disagreed. It was apparent to me that they saw the Western secular world as a dire threat to their own identities. So they looked to strength in numbers, anonymity and loud hypnotic chanting. Their loud religious chanting seemed like a kind of imagined bulwark to ward off the dangers of Western secularism.
I am heartened to see an educated Muslim argue for the separation of mosque and state. The road to Sectarianism is the road to bloodshed and ethnic cleansing. The rejection of Western secularism will eventually lead to the Islamic State's war of all against all.
I am heartened to see an educated Muslim argue for the separation of mosque and state. The road to Sectarianism is the road to bloodshed and ethnic cleansing. The rejection of Western secularism will eventually lead to the Islamic State's war of all against all.
6
"This conflation of religion and politics poisons Islam itself." Yes, this is true. It is equally true of contemporary Christianity in the United States, especially as practiced by those who vote for Republicans..
"From the civil wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen to internal tensions in Lebanon and Bahrain, to the dangerous rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Middle East is plagued by intra-Muslim strife that seems to go back to the ancient Sunni-Shiite rivalry."
Interesting that the writer seems to not care less about how Muslims treat non-Muslims, which is rather poorly. How many Jews remain in Muslim majority countries? Almost zero. How was their life under Muslim rule? Awful. How do the Copts in Egypt fare under Muslim rule? Horribly. Same for Christians in Indonesia.
Interesting that the writer seems to not care less about how Muslims treat non-Muslims, which is rather poorly. How many Jews remain in Muslim majority countries? Almost zero. How was their life under Muslim rule? Awful. How do the Copts in Egypt fare under Muslim rule? Horribly. Same for Christians in Indonesia.
1
Please, pay attention to this excerpt:
This solution should start with a paradigm shift about the very concept of the “caliphate.”
What Koran verse does prescribe the caliphate?
If it’s not prescribed by the Koran, it’s not a part of the faith at all.
Caliphate comes from word “caliph” meaning “successor”. The Koran clearly stated there is no successor to the last prophet…
This solution should start with a paradigm shift about the very concept of the “caliphate.”
What Koran verse does prescribe the caliphate?
If it’s not prescribed by the Koran, it’s not a part of the faith at all.
Caliphate comes from word “caliph” meaning “successor”. The Koran clearly stated there is no successor to the last prophet…
1
Once again M. Akyol takes liberties with Islam, trying to fold into some heir of the Enlightment thinking. Securalism is not the answer, rather a better knowledge of one own's faith. Then, the author rewrites Islamic history as though the schism between Muslims and Shia came from a particular view of politcal power. Anyone versed into Islamic Studies knows that Shiism was founded on fabrications (rewriting the hadiths, claiming that there is another Koran, for example) and idolatry for the family of the Prophet. Lastly, M. Akyol would be hard in explaining what he means by "practicing their religion as they see fit." Is it Islam à la carte, when for instance you forgo the five prayers for 'lack of time', of skip the Ramadan fasting because 'days are too long'?
1
"...but today Islam looks more like a religion of conflict and bloodshed."
Mr. Akyol, please. The memory of the West, with respect to the peaceful nature of Islam, dates to 610 CE (or there about).
There is no evidence in the historical record of a peaceful nature of Islam since that time. This is true not only of Islam's relationship with the West and Christianity but all of Islam's neighbors.
But forget that.
To say that religion is not at the heart of conflict is at best disingenuous. It is a theocracy - the epitome of the conflation of religion and politics - everywhere one turns.
I lose hope for peace with Islam when a spokesperson for Islam is absolutely blind to what we in the West see and experience.
Mr. Akyol, please. The memory of the West, with respect to the peaceful nature of Islam, dates to 610 CE (or there about).
There is no evidence in the historical record of a peaceful nature of Islam since that time. This is true not only of Islam's relationship with the West and Christianity but all of Islam's neighbors.
But forget that.
To say that religion is not at the heart of conflict is at best disingenuous. It is a theocracy - the epitome of the conflation of religion and politics - everywhere one turns.
I lose hope for peace with Islam when a spokesperson for Islam is absolutely blind to what we in the West see and experience.
3
“Their followers killed one another by the thousands in the infamous Battle of the Camel in 656. The next year, they fought the even bloodier Battle of Siffin, where followers of Ali and Muawiyah, the governor of Damascus, crossed swords, deepening the divisions that became the Sunni-Shiite split that persists today.”
Obviously, none of those fighters who disobeyed God’s Commandment not to kill believed in the Almighty at all.
The true believers obey the God Commandments unconditionally. The non-believers are willing to kill for the earthly power…
Obviously, none of those fighters who disobeyed God’s Commandment not to kill believed in the Almighty at all.
The true believers obey the God Commandments unconditionally. The non-believers are willing to kill for the earthly power…
2
"We Muslims like to believe that ours is “a religion of peace,”
Now that's dissembling for you. 1500 years of religious war swept out of the Arabia desert and conquered North Africa and the Middle East. It overran Spain and was turned back at the gateway to Paris by Charles Martel, the victor at Tours. In the East Constantinople fell to the Ottomans and the Hagia Sofia, one of the greatest churches in Christendom, was turned into a Mosque. The Ottomans laid siege to Vienna twice with only the intervention by a Polish army led by Sobieski saving the day. At Lepanto the Italians and Spanish were just able to stop the Ottoman expansion across the Mediterranean. Does any of that sound like a peaceful religious movement to anyone. 1500 years of ethnic and cultural cleansing, military onslaught, swept away Christianity in North Africa and the Middle East and came close on several occasions to obliterating it in Europe. That's not a history of peace.
Now that's dissembling for you. 1500 years of religious war swept out of the Arabia desert and conquered North Africa and the Middle East. It overran Spain and was turned back at the gateway to Paris by Charles Martel, the victor at Tours. In the East Constantinople fell to the Ottomans and the Hagia Sofia, one of the greatest churches in Christendom, was turned into a Mosque. The Ottomans laid siege to Vienna twice with only the intervention by a Polish army led by Sobieski saving the day. At Lepanto the Italians and Spanish were just able to stop the Ottoman expansion across the Mediterranean. Does any of that sound like a peaceful religious movement to anyone. 1500 years of ethnic and cultural cleansing, military onslaught, swept away Christianity in North Africa and the Middle East and came close on several occasions to obliterating it in Europe. That's not a history of peace.
2
“This political question even pit the prophet’s widow Aisha against his son-in-law Ali.”
Does it really take more than 14 centuries for the Arabs to understand that prophet’s widow Aisha and his son-in-law Ali have nothing in common with faith?
The faith is always the personal choice, not the family matters…
Does it really take more than 14 centuries for the Arabs to understand that prophet’s widow Aisha and his son-in-law Ali have nothing in common with faith?
The faith is always the personal choice, not the family matters…
1
The brain is an organic computer, pre-programmed by nature.
Running man-made code along side nature's code is a recipe for disaster. It does not compute.
Subsequent generations of brains running these double instruction sets will become more defective as the brain rewires itself with flawed logic.
Bandaging women's heads is also going to prevent normal skull development.
This should be researched further because it is becoming worse and affecting everybody on earth.
Running man-made code along side nature's code is a recipe for disaster. It does not compute.
Subsequent generations of brains running these double instruction sets will become more defective as the brain rewires itself with flawed logic.
Bandaging women's heads is also going to prevent normal skull development.
This should be researched further because it is becoming worse and affecting everybody on earth.
“It was about political power: Who — as the caliph, or successor to the prophet — had the right to rule?”
Is it possible that the ancient Arabs were so reckless, faithless and incompetent?
Does it really take 14 centuries for the Muslims to understand there is no successor to the Prophet?
It is theoretically impossible to be a successor the last Prophet…
There are the leaders but there are no successors. The leaders are elected by the majority of the voters for the predetermined amount of time, according to their skills and abilities to implement the most important principles, keep the society going into the right direction and motivate the people to act as a team.
If he or she cannot unite the people then they are the inefficient leaders and have to be replaced.
By the way, even Prophet Mohammed refused to personally appoint the next leader so he obviously wanted the people to freely elect their next leader.
If that’s not the most obvious sign that the true faith and democracy are inseparable, then nothing else can be explained to the people…
Is it possible that the ancient Arabs were so reckless, faithless and incompetent?
Does it really take 14 centuries for the Muslims to understand there is no successor to the Prophet?
It is theoretically impossible to be a successor the last Prophet…
There are the leaders but there are no successors. The leaders are elected by the majority of the voters for the predetermined amount of time, according to their skills and abilities to implement the most important principles, keep the society going into the right direction and motivate the people to act as a team.
If he or she cannot unite the people then they are the inefficient leaders and have to be replaced.
By the way, even Prophet Mohammed refused to personally appoint the next leader so he obviously wanted the people to freely elect their next leader.
If that’s not the most obvious sign that the true faith and democracy are inseparable, then nothing else can be explained to the people…
2
My own view as a Christian is that this ancient problem in Islamic politics has had very salutary effects as far as Christendom and the history of Europe are concerned.
The military expansion of the Arab empire after the arrival of Islam was unprecedented in history and has never quite been equaled. And its results were largely permanent. At several junctures, Islamic forces came close to "finishing the job" with reference to the Christian world. The two failed Arab sieges of Constantinople in the 8th century, the failure to expand out of the Iberian peninsula not long after, are just two examples-- both happened because of civil war and disunity at the Islamic center. There are many other instances.
These divisions and political flaws at the heart of Islamic history have been a blessing for the Christian world for centuries. Long may they continue!
The military expansion of the Arab empire after the arrival of Islam was unprecedented in history and has never quite been equaled. And its results were largely permanent. At several junctures, Islamic forces came close to "finishing the job" with reference to the Christian world. The two failed Arab sieges of Constantinople in the 8th century, the failure to expand out of the Iberian peninsula not long after, are just two examples-- both happened because of civil war and disunity at the Islamic center. There are many other instances.
These divisions and political flaws at the heart of Islamic history have been a blessing for the Christian world for centuries. Long may they continue!
2
Mustafa Akyol is wrong about the causes of violence in Islam and knows it. Tasim Ansari, an Afghan Muslim historian ln the United States, explains this in his excellent book Destiny Disrupted. Mohammed himself and his immediate followers who wrote down his words defined the Koran as not only religious law but also as civil and common law governing all social and individual order. One of the principle tenets of Islam is that law and religion, and civil government and the practice of religion cannot be separated - to do so is apostasy for which the penalty is death. The Koran defines the secondary role of women and the separation in public life of men and women. As originally conceived, Islam means peace - but it is the peace which follows after conquest of all non-Muslims around the Islamic center. The current Moslem battles around the world simply continue what occurred during Mohammed's own life, and for all the centuries following. Christ got around this problem n the New Testament of the Bible by stating: Render unto God that which is God's, and unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The United States Constitution is based on this concept, as interpreted in the late 18th century by our country's founders, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. American politicians like President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton must address this inherent conflict honestly in order to arrive at a truce between Islam and Western governments.
2
“But the misuse of Islam and its history makes these political conflicts much worse as parties, governments and militias claim that they are fighting not over power or territory but on behalf of God”
By the very definition, God is the Almighty so no human being ever has to fight on behalf of our Creator. By very definition, the one who gave us the life could give us the instant death too.
It means the faith doesn’t consist of forcing the others to obey the God Commandments but voluntarily trying to personally implement them in the best possible way.
Frankly, I have never met a single person yet that managed to faithfully implement even the Ten Commandments, not to talk about something extra…
“Thou shall not kill”
As long as there are the chronic wars on this planet there is a lack of faith in the people…
By the very definition, God is the Almighty so no human being ever has to fight on behalf of our Creator. By very definition, the one who gave us the life could give us the instant death too.
It means the faith doesn’t consist of forcing the others to obey the God Commandments but voluntarily trying to personally implement them in the best possible way.
Frankly, I have never met a single person yet that managed to faithfully implement even the Ten Commandments, not to talk about something extra…
“Thou shall not kill”
As long as there are the chronic wars on this planet there is a lack of faith in the people…
1
True faith would always overpower the faulty politics.
If the Islam cannot overpower the warring local politics, then the Islam is not the faith.
Of course, the Islam has never been equal to the faith.
If it were, it would be called the Koran…
As long as the Islam exists it will be different from the Koran…
If the Islam cannot overpower the warring local politics, then the Islam is not the faith.
Of course, the Islam has never been equal to the faith.
If it were, it would be called the Koran…
As long as the Islam exists it will be different from the Koran…
This is a terrible article and explains nothing. At best, the author exemplifies the exact complex nature of Islam in that everyone feels their interpretation is the most accurate or relevant to discourse. Akyol writes, "Religion is not actually at the heart of these conflicts- invariably politics is to blame." Oh really? Then what inspires the leaders and politicians of almost every Muslim country to want to wipe Israel off the map? Could it quite possibly be the Quran?
7
There is a reason why there is a difference between the faith and the religions.
The Judaism was created by mixing the faith with the Jewish culture. That’s why the Hebrew is the official language of that religion.
The Christianity was created by mixing the faith with the Roman culture. That’s why the Latin used to be the official language of the prayers and clergy.
The Islam was created by mixing the faith with the Arab culture. That’s why God allegedly only understands and accepts the prayers in the Arabic language…
Regardless how much energy has been wasted to prove that the three main monotheistic religions are different from each other, all of them have made the identical kind of mistakes.
The clergy from all three religions has another common trait in common. They preach that without them there would be no faith either, so you better come and see them personally at least once weekly…
According to all of them, the Almighty is not omnipresent but could be found only in the local temples, churches or mosques.
Are they serious?
The Judaism was created by mixing the faith with the Jewish culture. That’s why the Hebrew is the official language of that religion.
The Christianity was created by mixing the faith with the Roman culture. That’s why the Latin used to be the official language of the prayers and clergy.
The Islam was created by mixing the faith with the Arab culture. That’s why God allegedly only understands and accepts the prayers in the Arabic language…
Regardless how much energy has been wasted to prove that the three main monotheistic religions are different from each other, all of them have made the identical kind of mistakes.
The clergy from all three religions has another common trait in common. They preach that without them there would be no faith either, so you better come and see them personally at least once weekly…
According to all of them, the Almighty is not omnipresent but could be found only in the local temples, churches or mosques.
Are they serious?
1
Except for Mohammed's time in Mecca, Islam has never been about peace. To state otherwise is an oft told lie. Mohammed himself conducted violent raids, ordered mass murder and committed it himself.
We need to start telling the truth about Islam.
We need to start telling the truth about Islam.
7
The author has it backwards. Religion poisons politics. Not the other way around. The Muslim world will never solve this problem until their nation-states have a separation of religion and state...
4
Reforming a religion based on ideas from 5000 BC, 1000 AD or 700 AD will accomplish nothing. The enlightenment was not based on reforming catholicism, but on changing the culture of the european elites. That is what produced modernity. Ethics, constant reforms, freedom, socialism, economics, scientific thinking...did not come out of reforming the churches or its old mythology. Of course, religions could not be swept aside, but they became part of a cultural heritage, not governing bodies. Islamic countries are the last remnants of theocratic power on the planet. This form of power is simply not compatible with modernity. It will eventually die down. All these wars are just accelerating the final stages...
4
Every single fool in this world can kill a man. Only the true believer can turn him into a friend.
Here it's the other way around; Radical Christianity is destroying politics.
3
I totally agree with Mustafa Akyol's assessment of the "problem of Islam." But he is a Turkish liberal Sunni Muslim, and not a Sunni Arab. The Turkish Ottoman Empire was "the seat of the /last/ caliiphate," which at its height ruled the Balkans, the Levant, parts of North Africa, and territories on both sides of the Red Sea. However the Ottomans hadn't been able to subjugate the rest of the Arabian peninsula, and the degree of their control there fluctuated, allowing the British adventurist T.E. Lawrence to chase them out of Arabia during World War I.
Mecca was the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad and the region was the venue of these bloody conflicts, which led to the Sunni-Shiite schism.
The Al Sauds, who came to power in the 18th century espoused a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam - Wahhabism, which led it to develop a strongly religious self-identity. From the mid-18th century, imbued with the religious zeal of the Wahhabi Islamic movement, they became aggressively expansionist. With oil revenues after World War II, they began to fund madrassas in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and support clerics to preach hatred against infidels, and this is the problem that we non-Muslims are grappling with - Islamist terrorism.
Mecca was the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad and the region was the venue of these bloody conflicts, which led to the Sunni-Shiite schism.
The Al Sauds, who came to power in the 18th century espoused a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam - Wahhabism, which led it to develop a strongly religious self-identity. From the mid-18th century, imbued with the religious zeal of the Wahhabi Islamic movement, they became aggressively expansionist. With oil revenues after World War II, they began to fund madrassas in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and support clerics to preach hatred against infidels, and this is the problem that we non-Muslims are grappling with - Islamist terrorism.
3
If the violent struggle for power dates all the way back to those who established Islam as a religion, I don't see how you can say it isn't inherent to the religion. The teachings of Muhammad aren't in themselves a religion, just as the sayings of Jesus aren't; it was the enacting of these teachings by a community, and not their recorded utterance, that turned teachings into a religion. It's like trying to remove the theology of Paul from Christianity. Like many converts, Paul is harsher, and subordinates women although they played a much more active role in the community around Jesus. But that was two thousand years ago. If you're going to try to unwind everything, why bother adhering to an antiquated faith anyway?
The split in Islam is Islam; it existed at the very origin. Obviously the mythologizing of political conflict captures the imagination and gives expression to a fundamental impulse toward a desire for power. One wonders whether Islam would exist without it, just as Christianity might have remained one religion among many, had the Roman emperor Constantine not seen utility in monotheism as a way of imposing a unity of authority on a religiously pluralistic empire. Islam can be viewed as existing in reaction to that: it expresses the eternal conflict in desiring and trying to acquire the power of monotheistic religious authority.
The split in Islam is Islam; it existed at the very origin. Obviously the mythologizing of political conflict captures the imagination and gives expression to a fundamental impulse toward a desire for power. One wonders whether Islam would exist without it, just as Christianity might have remained one religion among many, had the Roman emperor Constantine not seen utility in monotheism as a way of imposing a unity of authority on a religiously pluralistic empire. Islam can be viewed as existing in reaction to that: it expresses the eternal conflict in desiring and trying to acquire the power of monotheistic religious authority.
8
Whereas the spiritual-moral dimensions of Islam unite the humanity and liberate the self, the politicisation of Islam has not only led to deep divisions in societies and mutual antagonisms but tarnished the very image of Islam as the faith preaching universal Brotherhood. As such political Islam is nothing but a negation of Islam.
3
"It ended when republican Turkey abolished the very institution of the caliphate after World War I."
Actually Turkey didn't abolish the caliphate. Outside powers did it, forcefully and installed a government, with a leader picked from Salonica, to follow the dicta of the western powers Erdogan is probably the first PM that has sought to clean out the deep state in Turkey.
As for Islam vs. politics, with all due respect, all religion were invented to control the masses and to date they are used for the same purpose. When Saudi sultans are fearful of the gravy train being taken away, they start a war and call it sunni vs shiite to get people to do their fighting. All of it is power struggle, territorial control, basically: GREED.
Actually Turkey didn't abolish the caliphate. Outside powers did it, forcefully and installed a government, with a leader picked from Salonica, to follow the dicta of the western powers Erdogan is probably the first PM that has sought to clean out the deep state in Turkey.
As for Islam vs. politics, with all due respect, all religion were invented to control the masses and to date they are used for the same purpose. When Saudi sultans are fearful of the gravy train being taken away, they start a war and call it sunni vs shiite to get people to do their fighting. All of it is power struggle, territorial control, basically: GREED.
9
Read history first before distorting truth anything on how Ataturk established independent secular Turkish Republic in 1923 against all odds including Britain and France, and the US.
Turkey has been a staunchly secular country until neo-fascist Islamist Erdogan had been picked by Graham Fullers and Morton Abromovitz of CIA circa 1990s and had been supported by the US/the EU since he came into power 14-years ago as a 'moderate Islamist' including the author of this article.
Turkey has been a staunchly secular country until neo-fascist Islamist Erdogan had been picked by Graham Fullers and Morton Abromovitz of CIA circa 1990s and had been supported by the US/the EU since he came into power 14-years ago as a 'moderate Islamist' including the author of this article.
1
I agree with Mark B that blaming politics is cop-out.History suggests that Islam,like most religions,is inclined towards violence;good and evil are part of the same religious coin.This goes for Christianity too.
What islam needs is a heavy and sustainable dose of modernity.
Unlike other diasporas that have been populating Asia,Eu and US(to a less degree),Muslim communities are the least assimilated and economically well off.Why u should ask rather than blame the societies that Moslems have chosen as their adopted homes? For those who find Western culture in direct convict with Islam should consider returning to their countries of origin;the onus is not for these to bend backwards to accommodate migrants.
Cheers
What islam needs is a heavy and sustainable dose of modernity.
Unlike other diasporas that have been populating Asia,Eu and US(to a less degree),Muslim communities are the least assimilated and economically well off.Why u should ask rather than blame the societies that Moslems have chosen as their adopted homes? For those who find Western culture in direct convict with Islam should consider returning to their countries of origin;the onus is not for these to bend backwards to accommodate migrants.
Cheers
6
Mustafa Akyol is right.
Indonesia has the largest Muslim country on this planet -- some 203 million adherents, nearly 90% of its population -- yet it also is a democracy with pro-American attitudes and a Western-style economy. (I know, I just visited there.)
Why? Because Islam came to Indonesia without the baggage of Middle Eastern religious politics.
Poisonous political power struggles are the primal motivating factors in today's terrorist wars, not religious faith. Akyol has eloquently and courageously explsined this, and the example of Indonesia proves his claim.
Indonesia has the largest Muslim country on this planet -- some 203 million adherents, nearly 90% of its population -- yet it also is a democracy with pro-American attitudes and a Western-style economy. (I know, I just visited there.)
Why? Because Islam came to Indonesia without the baggage of Middle Eastern religious politics.
Poisonous political power struggles are the primal motivating factors in today's terrorist wars, not religious faith. Akyol has eloquently and courageously explsined this, and the example of Indonesia proves his claim.
8
Islam needs to come into the modern world. It is stuck with the ideology and conflicts of the 6th Century. This is particularly ironic since at one time Islamic scholars were the leading scholars in the Western World. In addition, when it was written, the Qur'an provided rights to women and others that were not common at the time. Islam used to be a force for progress and good in the world.
Since that time two things have happened:
As the author points out, politics has hijacked much of Islam and perverted it into a justification for terror.
The second is that Islam has not progressed. It has allowed itself to be frozen in amber and is badly out of touch with the modern world. The Book is no longer addressing illiterate 6th Century tribesmen. The principles are just as valid now as when the Profit spoke them to the world. It is their
application to the modern world that needs to be updated.
In today's world we could use more of the compassion contained in the Qur'an 76:8-9
8 "And they give food, out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the captive."
9 "We feed you, for Allah's pleasure only-We desire from you neither reward nor thanks."
This is the Islam that people need to see. For as it is said "I, Allah, am the best Knower."
Since that time two things have happened:
As the author points out, politics has hijacked much of Islam and perverted it into a justification for terror.
The second is that Islam has not progressed. It has allowed itself to be frozen in amber and is badly out of touch with the modern world. The Book is no longer addressing illiterate 6th Century tribesmen. The principles are just as valid now as when the Profit spoke them to the world. It is their
application to the modern world that needs to be updated.
In today's world we could use more of the compassion contained in the Qur'an 76:8-9
8 "And they give food, out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the captive."
9 "We feed you, for Allah's pleasure only-We desire from you neither reward nor thanks."
This is the Islam that people need to see. For as it is said "I, Allah, am the best Knower."
3
Bravo for yr wonderful article. You hit the nail on the head. We all need to know the history you just outlined. I live in Indonesia which can a model muslim majority democractic country where NUvthe largest muslim political party has made a film denouncing ISIS. tx again and I will get yr book. yrs Robert in Bali
1
I doubt any religion can really be a religion of peace - as long as the religious text on which it is based - codifies discrimination against women - and Muslims believe it to be true. The results from the Pew Research inquiry into the views of Muslims- clearly demonstrates that most Muslims see women as inferior. As we know, in many Islamic countries, members of the LBGT community are given death sentences. This is not about religion vs. politics. This is about Islam's world view. Personally, I find it a frightening one.
19
In my opinion a lot of the commentary to this column has been unduly harsh. Mr. Akyol is taking a look at his own culture/religion and trying to discern which parts are worth encouraging and which should be discarded.
He is being roundly criticized for not going far enough. How many of us would be willing to jettison the nucleus of the culture we came from - be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or multicultural democracy?
There are beautiful parts to Islam. Let's honor these parts at the same time as we rightly reject and oppose those elements which are violent and exclusivist.
Thank you, Mr. Akyol, for a courageous column.
He is being roundly criticized for not going far enough. How many of us would be willing to jettison the nucleus of the culture we came from - be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or multicultural democracy?
There are beautiful parts to Islam. Let's honor these parts at the same time as we rightly reject and oppose those elements which are violent and exclusivist.
Thank you, Mr. Akyol, for a courageous column.
10
As much as the West, and particularly the USA have benefitted from the idea of "the separation of church and state," (though admittedly there is a strong conservative element in this country that strongly thinks otherwise); one could similarly argue that Islam and the political turmoil in the Middle East would benefit from "the separation of mosque and state." The two spheres can certainly inform each other as just politics are derived from moral order.
However, the real culprit, I feel in both Christianity and Islam, and to a degree in other faith traditions is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a belief system that champions that only the group adhering to that system to be the rightful inheritors of both this world and the next. Everyone else must either be converted or executed. The recent Billy Graham magazine "Decision," for example, has a whole article dedicated to expounding that Christians and Muslims aren't worshipping the same God. And I wouldn't be surprised to find an Islamic publication that states the same view. To both our losses. Yet this is what we are up against.
Until we can evolve beyond this need for absolutist theologies, the carnage will continue in the political arena. May God forgive us - of our own stupidity most of all.
However, the real culprit, I feel in both Christianity and Islam, and to a degree in other faith traditions is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a belief system that champions that only the group adhering to that system to be the rightful inheritors of both this world and the next. Everyone else must either be converted or executed. The recent Billy Graham magazine "Decision," for example, has a whole article dedicated to expounding that Christians and Muslims aren't worshipping the same God. And I wouldn't be surprised to find an Islamic publication that states the same view. To both our losses. Yet this is what we are up against.
Until we can evolve beyond this need for absolutist theologies, the carnage will continue in the political arena. May God forgive us - of our own stupidity most of all.
9
Excellent piece that provides important context to the dreadful situation in the modern era. Thanks!
1
It's interesting to read an article like this when at the same time the politics in America are on view for all to see. Prior to the invasion of Iraq there may have been instances of violence between different Muslim religious groups, but absolutely nothing like the appalling conflict which has escalated from the interference of the West. Why do we keep interfering in other countries when there is so much to fix in our own? Or is it simply to take our minds off the dysfunction at home that we say Oh look over there!
2
If one feels the need to defend Islam, it's easy to point to the horrors perpetrated by other religions. The obvious conclusion is that religion in general is a dangerous business that brings comfort to some and suffering or death to others. If there's anything worse or more dangerous than politics, this is it.
8
The Ottoman view was NOT secular. Islam needs a non-western system so that these conflicts do not arise. Islam needs an Islamic political system. Islamic moderates such as the Muslim Brotherhood have been recast as extremists. Mr Akyol is blaming Islam for the results of Western intervention.
The author lets Wahhabisim off the hook to easily.
6
The writer has pointed out a couple of points which are representing very true image islam with historical context.One of the most important problem islamic world is facing today that there is not one true interpretation of true islam but many ,so a follower of muslim community could easily blame some other muslims as infidel, the only solution is as Said Nursi states " When you know your way and opinions to be true, you have the right to say, “My way is right and the best.” But you do not have the right to say, “Only my way is right.”
2
At this stage of the game, Islam is its own worst enemy with or without "Politics". And thanks to the horrific acts of religious zealots, Islam has also lost the battle for hearts and minds in the eyes of the world. There is little way to explain a religion that so often and effortlessly metes out cruel and barbaric punishment to those who deign to act and think otherwise. Stonings and beheadings went out with the Dark Ages, and should have stayed there. That Islam has been compromised and contaminated by politics is of course at the root of the problem, and this article has put that all into a very informative historical context. But that won't stop the likes of ISIS or other fundamentalist groups who continue to use Islam as a sword of reckoning. And it won't help to protect us from them either.
4
Could any religion born in the harsh desert ever really be peaceful, no matter how much it were to preach the virtues of peace? The three examples I know of certainly fail to be peaceful.
6
I find the arguments here to be astonishing. Within Islam, religion has as much an impact on politics where it is the dominant religion as Catholicism had on Spain of the 15th and 16th centuries. Its prescriptions for conducting life are the guiding force of governance in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other deeply religious Islamic societies. Indeed, a primary argument of Islamists is that Islam is diametrically and unalterably opposed to democracy, an argument that assumes Islam’s essentially political role.
If a religion dictates how humans interact with one another at all levels so as to be acceptable to God, there’s very little left to do for government NOT embedded in that religion.
If a religion dictates how humans interact with one another at all levels so as to be acceptable to God, there’s very little left to do for government NOT embedded in that religion.
5
Why are we so ignorant?
All we have to do is read the Quran and the Old Testament the authoritative manuals to
Two Semitic faiths and then the conclusion is very very clear
They are violent religions
Their God is a violent God
Whoever refers to Islam as a peaceful
Religion please read Surat #9 of the Quran
If you still think Islam is a peaceful religion
Then you are resentful reject full and disloyal
To truth goodness and beauty
All we have to do is read the Quran and the Old Testament the authoritative manuals to
Two Semitic faiths and then the conclusion is very very clear
They are violent religions
Their God is a violent God
Whoever refers to Islam as a peaceful
Religion please read Surat #9 of the Quran
If you still think Islam is a peaceful religion
Then you are resentful reject full and disloyal
To truth goodness and beauty
Separation of mosque and state is the way to go. Just like we need separation of church and state.... Unless that is strictly enforced, there are going to be problems...
9
San Francisco should should form a 6% Battalion, sadly enough the only demographic which surpasses gay men in lacking the spine to defend their own country are migrant Muslim men infesting Europe.
Obama stated today that Islam is a religion of equality. He certainly has a distorted view of that concept when mainstream Islam in the ME, NA and even some western countries sees women having to cover their bodies head to toe in 100 degree heat, unable to leave the house unless in the presence of a male relative, unable to drive, unable to vote, unable to go to school, subject to stoning to death given even an unfounded whisper of adultery, selling girls and women to settle debts, genital mutilation and the list goes on and on. Yes, the brutal violence of ISIS ticks me off, but I am perhaps more offended when I see Muslim women denied equality in the West, and when western men like president Obama tell me not to believe what I see.
30
Of course, that is what this writer was arguing, that religion should not govern state matters. The writer has it spot on.
you have singled out one particular Muslim Country where your points apply to, perhaps two, Saudi and Pakistan. Those issues are of Saudi and Pakistan and have nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. Malaysia/Turkey are Muslim countries..... and had women in public offices way before any Western country has had. 1400 years ago Islam gave women the right to participate in social/economic practices , right of inheritance and freed the slaves. You might want to educate yourself about Islam.
BTW, genital mutilation is an African continental problem not Islam. Ethiopia 90 % Christian with 90% female mutilation. Check your facts!
BTW, genital mutilation is an African continental problem not Islam. Ethiopia 90 % Christian with 90% female mutilation. Check your facts!
The author is correct when he states that his religion has been used as a tool in powers struggles since its earliest days. Where he goes wrong is not understanding that this is, in fact, exactly what religion is for and how it arose.
This is true of all religions.
Put in its simplest terms, imagine a community from pre-history arguing over how to deal with something among them. A number of people have different ideas about which way things should go, and who should have the power. One of the men seizes upon the argument that there is an invisible, all-important being who speaks only to him, thus only he knows the being's wishes. In many cases at least, this finished the argument. If the others accept the premise, who can now argue with the man since the all-important decider speaks only through him?
Too simple, you say? I disagree. So would Jacques Chirac, the President of France who was forced to listen to George W Bush explaining that God had told him to invade Iraq.
Religion is the problem, not which variety of it you choose. It's time to grow out of it once and for all.
This is true of all religions.
Put in its simplest terms, imagine a community from pre-history arguing over how to deal with something among them. A number of people have different ideas about which way things should go, and who should have the power. One of the men seizes upon the argument that there is an invisible, all-important being who speaks only to him, thus only he knows the being's wishes. In many cases at least, this finished the argument. If the others accept the premise, who can now argue with the man since the all-important decider speaks only through him?
Too simple, you say? I disagree. So would Jacques Chirac, the President of France who was forced to listen to George W Bush explaining that God had told him to invade Iraq.
Religion is the problem, not which variety of it you choose. It's time to grow out of it once and for all.
34
And what is the religious leader is uninterested in political power? You are willfully blind
It is too simplistic to simply blame the ills of the world on religion. It doesn't explain the evil committed by atheists such as Stalin and Mao for instance.
Jesus Christ is a shining example of how all of mankind should live. If we all imitated Jesus, the world would be wonderful.
Jesus Christ is a shining example of how all of mankind should live. If we all imitated Jesus, the world would be wonderful.
Extremists of all religions are more alike than they are like the more passive and less literal-minded of their own co-religionists.
For the most part Western countries are no longer governed by partnerships between church and state though some are still subject to strong church influence - Italy, Poland, Ireland come most readily to mind - and mainstream Christianity has abandoned the notion of holy war as a means of expanding its influence. Islam has not.
I have little doubt that American fundamentalist and evangelical Christians would be glad to fight a holy war against the rest of America's population if they could figure out how to go about it or could seize enough political power to force their agenda on the rest of us without bloodshed (their own). Jewish extremists in the Middle East are showing more of their aggressive, warlike side with every passing month. We know what sort of violence Hindus are capable of. We'd be better off without religious dogma and with a shared moral philosophy instead. Ethical Culture looks better and better to me as time goes by.
For the most part Western countries are no longer governed by partnerships between church and state though some are still subject to strong church influence - Italy, Poland, Ireland come most readily to mind - and mainstream Christianity has abandoned the notion of holy war as a means of expanding its influence. Islam has not.
I have little doubt that American fundamentalist and evangelical Christians would be glad to fight a holy war against the rest of America's population if they could figure out how to go about it or could seize enough political power to force their agenda on the rest of us without bloodshed (their own). Jewish extremists in the Middle East are showing more of their aggressive, warlike side with every passing month. We know what sort of violence Hindus are capable of. We'd be better off without religious dogma and with a shared moral philosophy instead. Ethical Culture looks better and better to me as time goes by.
Mustafa Akyol is very correct. I remember in 2001 before 9/11 when my family visited Turkey and our devout Moslem guide gave us a lecture on what it is to be a Moslem and how all people are welcome in that faith and it was described as peaceful and gentle. This took place in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul. We were very impressed with his explanation. After the 9/11 attacks this man and his father said they couldn't believe that Muslim extremists did it.
13
Mr. Akyol has it backwards, Islam has poisoned politics, not the other
way around as he writes.
The silence in the Middle East is deafening about the plight of the Palestinians and the Syrian refugees.
In the fight against ISIS about 5.5 million armed Arabs (the military capability of the Sunni nations such as Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc.) sit idly by while it is left to others to fight this evil group.
When Muslims fail to help their own or fail to defend their own turf, they become irrelevant and poisonous.
And then they complain when other nations step in and do the job they should be doing.
Typical and outrageous.
way around as he writes.
The silence in the Middle East is deafening about the plight of the Palestinians and the Syrian refugees.
In the fight against ISIS about 5.5 million armed Arabs (the military capability of the Sunni nations such as Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc.) sit idly by while it is left to others to fight this evil group.
When Muslims fail to help their own or fail to defend their own turf, they become irrelevant and poisonous.
And then they complain when other nations step in and do the job they should be doing.
Typical and outrageous.
36
The Muslim countries are not indifferent to the Palestinians who are being played by their religious brethren after they were kicked out of Jordan, and take a guess why Syrians are not fleeting to other Muslim countries. On the other hand, if they send enough to France and Germany those countries will end up the Muslim majorities.
1
I would differ from some of the commenters who single out Islam as the problem. Religion is the problem, or rather religious identification. That most definitely includes Christianity. As an example, I give you the attempted genocide of Bosnian Muslims by Orthodox Christian Serbs and Catholic Croats.
Right now ISIL is committing the most visible atrocities, but I assure you that less publicized atrocities are happening all over the earth, in the name of virtually every religion, even putatively peaceful ones like Buddhism.
I don't know what the answer is, absent a magic wand to banish all religions from the face of the earth. It wouldn't solve all of our problems, but at least it would take away the excuse of claiming a god is on our side.
Right now ISIL is committing the most visible atrocities, but I assure you that less publicized atrocities are happening all over the earth, in the name of virtually every religion, even putatively peaceful ones like Buddhism.
I don't know what the answer is, absent a magic wand to banish all religions from the face of the earth. It wouldn't solve all of our problems, but at least it would take away the excuse of claiming a god is on our side.
25
All religions? How does your analysis apply to, say, Unitarian Universalism? How about Ethical Culture?
1
Can you please explain what Jesus Christ taught to support your stand that Christianity is also the problem? For the entirety of his life, Jesus was the epitome of love and peace so really you are just another moral relativist, who only pretends to know all religions.
Religion is good as long as it is not taken too far. Religions provide a code of ethics for people to abide on (ex: thou shall not covet the wife of thy neighbor). As long as religious moderates control the religion, everything is fine. It is only when extremists take over that religion becomes a problem.
Politics haven't poisoned Islam.
What's poisoned Islam is the non compromising convert or die attitudes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iran and Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Hezbollah, Hamas, Libya, Turkey, Ergodon, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Gulf States, Sharia Law, Afghanistan, Pakistan Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid, Chechnya, Munich Olympics, 9-11 and the ongoing security checks we must tolerate every time we get on an airplane anywhere in the world.
This isn't politics poisoning Islam, this is evidence of an absolutely impotent and silent 'moderate' Muslim majority which spends more time hating Israel and the Jews and the west than fighting for equal rights, peace and egalitarianism among its own religion.
What's poisoned Islam is the non compromising convert or die attitudes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iran and Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Hezbollah, Hamas, Libya, Turkey, Ergodon, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Gulf States, Sharia Law, Afghanistan, Pakistan Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid, Chechnya, Munich Olympics, 9-11 and the ongoing security checks we must tolerate every time we get on an airplane anywhere in the world.
This isn't politics poisoning Islam, this is evidence of an absolutely impotent and silent 'moderate' Muslim majority which spends more time hating Israel and the Jews and the west than fighting for equal rights, peace and egalitarianism among its own religion.
50
He's right about one thing. The caliphate is the root of the problem. Most Americans have no idea how key this concept is, how many Islamists are pursuing it and the lengths they will go to create one. It is a disaster for anyone standing in their way.
If the drive for a caliphate could somehow be weakened and/or shown to be less than "pure", imagine how many lives could be saved?
If the drive for a caliphate could somehow be weakened and/or shown to be less than "pure", imagine how many lives could be saved?
15
Caliphate concept is like the EU. Muslims would like to see Muslim countries unit..... hint spreading the wealth of the Gulf Region, becoming an industrialized union, moving freely between 36+ Muslim country , one currency ... and yes an army & economy that has its weight!
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that?
If your religion is so important to you that you are willing to kill another human being for drawing a silly cartoon of your prophet, you are a highly diseased person, and politics has nothing to do with it.
I don't remember hearing a massive protest on the part of Islamic leaders when Muslims killed the Charlie Hebdo team. IN fact, the silence was deafening. Where was the outrage? Why weren't Muslims--including the imams--out on the streets making it very clear that cartoons of ANYTHING--including Mohammed!!--are never justification for murder, no matter how vile and insulting those cartoons might be.
Islam and its values are completely incompatible with modernity. In the modern world, we express ourselves freely, draw cartoons of anything we gosh darned please, and leave others to do what they want with regard to their own thoughts and beliefs.
Many Muslims voluntarily come into western societies, leaving the impoverishment of their own behind. But when they get into those western societies, they expect the west to change to accommodate them. If you don't like free speech, please don't come to the west. We have free speech in the west. You can expect everything you hold dear to be ridiculed. Deal with it, or leave.
Meanwhile, the sickness that is the Islamic religion has nothing to do with politics, Mustafa. Stop kidding yourself. It is a highly diseased belief system, and the sooner we are all willing to shout that from the rooftops, the better.
I don't remember hearing a massive protest on the part of Islamic leaders when Muslims killed the Charlie Hebdo team. IN fact, the silence was deafening. Where was the outrage? Why weren't Muslims--including the imams--out on the streets making it very clear that cartoons of ANYTHING--including Mohammed!!--are never justification for murder, no matter how vile and insulting those cartoons might be.
Islam and its values are completely incompatible with modernity. In the modern world, we express ourselves freely, draw cartoons of anything we gosh darned please, and leave others to do what they want with regard to their own thoughts and beliefs.
Many Muslims voluntarily come into western societies, leaving the impoverishment of their own behind. But when they get into those western societies, they expect the west to change to accommodate them. If you don't like free speech, please don't come to the west. We have free speech in the west. You can expect everything you hold dear to be ridiculed. Deal with it, or leave.
Meanwhile, the sickness that is the Islamic religion has nothing to do with politics, Mustafa. Stop kidding yourself. It is a highly diseased belief system, and the sooner we are all willing to shout that from the rooftops, the better.
61
This article is another DISTRACTION away from the real problem of radical Muslim terrorism. Lets discuss politics instead of discussing how we can exterminate this enemy. There is no politically correct way to say that, but they can't be reasoned with and they need to be eliminated. I'm sorry if "peaceful Muslims" catch some heat because of this situation, but they should be attacking the terrorists who have created this situation. Why don't the peaceful Muslims fix the problem. Peaceful Muslim nations leave it up to the non-Muslim nations to defeat this enemy. Why don't the American "peaceful Muslims" at least point out the "radicals" in the mosques.
23
Interesting article. Of course, Islam ought to be free of interference from a secular state, so it can imbue its values and beliefs to all Muslims. That Islam has been politicised is also true, most unfortunately creating faith-based violence between Sunnis and Shia. Further, Muslim faith is viewed diverging in three 'interpretations',the vast majority minding their own faith in the seclusion of their home and mosque; then, a political branch (the islamists) in search of converting 'infidels' to Islam; and finally, the jihadists, representing radical Islam, extremists that have poisoned their religion by killing innocent folks, all in the name of an all-loving god. It behooves all of us, but particularly Muslims, to oppose these radicals and stop the mayhem. It is regrettable that the Koran does contain some passages, perversely chosen, to justify violence. The Islamic State is everybody's enemy and must be destroyed. Life and beauty must be uphold and enjoyed, as there is no other reality out there.
2
"We Muslims like to believe that ours is “a religion of peace". Anyone who objectively examines the history of Islam from its inception cannot possibly agree with that assessment. "You Muslims" should consider honest reappraisal.
32
Fascinating and very informative. Thank you so much for adding to knowledge and to the debate.
6
It's kind of sad to see that a religious ideology couldn't straighten itself out since it began in the 7th century. A religion that believes a book to be infallible says something about the mindset of its followers.
Lastly, check any Muslim society if it provides the same rights it demands in the West?
Lastly, check any Muslim society if it provides the same rights it demands in the West?
30
A few years ago, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied the outcomes and voting blocks in predominantly Muslim countries during the past 40 years. They found, on average, roughly 15% of the vote went to Islamist candidates - those wish to foist the religion of Islam on others and those who favor the implementation of edicts in the Hadith and Sharia law.
To take a very conservative extrapolation of that number - let's say 10% - of Muslims worldwide are or vocally support Islamists and their rhetoric (death to apostates, stoning of adulterers and killing homosexuals, etc)...that would mean more than 150 million Muslims have convictions and belief structures that are fundamentally at odds with basic human and civil rights. I'm not saying 150 million muslims worldwide are Jihadists and are willing to commit violent acts, I'm saying they're Islamists who otherwise favor specific laws and outcomes that go against secular western values of human decency and human rights.
Mr. Akyol's glib analysis of modern Islam ignores these facts and his (and Reza Aslan's) deliberate disassociation of Islamic religious doctrine and the kind of violence we see in places like Paris and San Bernardino only exacerbates society's inability to have an open and honest discussion about Islam and violence.
To take a very conservative extrapolation of that number - let's say 10% - of Muslims worldwide are or vocally support Islamists and their rhetoric (death to apostates, stoning of adulterers and killing homosexuals, etc)...that would mean more than 150 million Muslims have convictions and belief structures that are fundamentally at odds with basic human and civil rights. I'm not saying 150 million muslims worldwide are Jihadists and are willing to commit violent acts, I'm saying they're Islamists who otherwise favor specific laws and outcomes that go against secular western values of human decency and human rights.
Mr. Akyol's glib analysis of modern Islam ignores these facts and his (and Reza Aslan's) deliberate disassociation of Islamic religious doctrine and the kind of violence we see in places like Paris and San Bernardino only exacerbates society's inability to have an open and honest discussion about Islam and violence.
33
We have a lot of fundamentalist Christians around the world -- and here in the US -- who have pretty extreme views as well. We also have numerous presidential candidates who seem to preach Christianity, and criticize those who don't share their religious beliefs, in this supposedly secular nation. What's the difference?
The problem is that Islam IS politics. Islam through its scriptures decrees that it must rule men, all men, through sharia as the instrument of Allah because men are not fit to rule themselves. What other religion comes with a totally comprehensive set of laws that are applied rigidly to everyone living under it with extremely harsh penalties for contravening them, including death and mutilation for "offences" that normal people untainted by the destructive hand of Islam would not even consider offences? If it has enforceable laws, then it is political.
When Islam reforms itself into merely a religion, a thing of the spirit, then it may be considered to be just that; a religion. Unfortunately there is a barrier built into Islam, that the Quran is the perfect word of Allah and therefore it may never be altered. If that is so, then it must simply be defeated and eventually eradicated, not least for the benefit of the Muslims it has violently held in ignorance and poverty since its inception 1400 years ago.
When Islam reforms itself into merely a religion, a thing of the spirit, then it may be considered to be just that; a religion. Unfortunately there is a barrier built into Islam, that the Quran is the perfect word of Allah and therefore it may never be altered. If that is so, then it must simply be defeated and eventually eradicated, not least for the benefit of the Muslims it has violently held in ignorance and poverty since its inception 1400 years ago.
42
Politics will always poison religion, whether it's Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Benjamin Netanyahu or the Taliban or Osama bin Laden or ISIS. Their hate rhetoric is remarkably similar, even if their actual behavior varies. That's because political thinking is antithetical to religious thinking.
Statutory law and religious faith do not mix -- which is what made the founding of the United States of America exceptional and revolutionary. Our Founding Fathers learned from the religious-political intolerance in the early colonies and, in the Constitution, kept government from interfering with religion -- and, equally important, kept religion from interfering with government.
Meanwhile, fundamentalists of all stripes will continue to wage war based on religious differences. I guess that's politics.
Statutory law and religious faith do not mix -- which is what made the founding of the United States of America exceptional and revolutionary. Our Founding Fathers learned from the religious-political intolerance in the early colonies and, in the Constitution, kept government from interfering with religion -- and, equally important, kept religion from interfering with government.
Meanwhile, fundamentalists of all stripes will continue to wage war based on religious differences. I guess that's politics.
13
Back-to-front! As Christopher Hitchins put it, "Religion poisons everything." Only a religion past its prime and disintegrating in its own incompetence in the face of today's complex world could have persuaded so many people to replace political activity with sheer destructiveness. One flaw among many is the threat of death for 'apostacy' or 'heresy' that makes it impossible for poor devils born into Islam, and later disillusioned, to change their allegiance or simply opt out. It's no use protesting that many of today's so-called Islamic practices were not part of the original deal: a religion is defined by the current claims and practices of a sufficient number of its current adherents. The Prophet, poor guy, created a movement; his successors at every turn have debased it into a monument that requires only human sacrifices of its adherents -- themselves and/or others.
18
there is an old adage....." never argue about religion and politics"........in this case there doing both. many of the authors claims are valid. in fact all you have to do is look at islam today and you'll see a a replay of what happened to the church during the middle ages( there is a good reason why its called the dark ages). there is another old adage that applies here........" power corrupts, and absoult power corrupts absoultlly".......in this respect christinty and islam are alike . however , christianity moved on . we had are " reformation " . its time that islam had its reformation as well.
4
There are 57 member countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Outside of hijacking the UN to help them in their obsession with destroying Israel, I can't think of anything that they do, certainly nothing of value. We hear nothing from them on solving either the Muslim inter-family fight in Syria or the refugees caused by the war. Nothing to help the Rohinga being evicted from Burma, and nothing on critical topics such as climate change or women's rights.
I hope that the Islamic world figures this out soon. I'm tired of taking off my shoes at the airport because the the Muslim world can't govern itself.
I hope that the Islamic world figures this out soon. I'm tired of taking off my shoes at the airport because the the Muslim world can't govern itself.
48
A view of Islamic history can give an answer to the seeming inability of doctrinal Islam to adjust to our secular world. This answer remains largely unaddressed today not just by Muslims but also by Jews and Christians as they attempt to understand Islam and those who practice it. If all sides did, perhaps there would be better communication and insight into the problem. Key is an historical fact: Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam was not forced during the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries to question its own weakness. During that time period Islam lay dormant, a part of the Ottoman Empire, encapsulated in its own originating doctrinal mold.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
www.InquiryAbraham.com
10
What a coincidence! The Times is pushing the peaceful Islam we all know and love, while the President is in Baltimore scolding us because Americans just aren't being as tolerant as we should be. Notwithstanding 9/11, San Bernardino, and so forth.
Shame on us Infidels for not turning the other cheek to jihad.
Shame on us Infidels for not turning the other cheek to jihad.
28
Yes, according to President Obama, Christian Americans "cling" to their religion, poor fools, while Muslims' beliefs are to be respected. I notice he didn't mention the Little Sisters of the Poor.
It's campaign season, and the president is doing what he does best, which is campaigning.
It's campaign season, and the president is doing what he does best, which is campaigning.
8
Islam poisons politics.
10
The violence between Muslims is a problem for Muslims.
The violence of Muslims against non-Muslims is the larger issue for the world. That violence began during the life of Mohammed. That war IS religious and is found in the Quran and the Hadith.
If the violence between Muslims was resolved, a united Islam would tun all its combines resources against non-Muslims.
The lesser of the two evils is a divided Islam.
The violence of Muslims against non-Muslims is the larger issue for the world. That violence began during the life of Mohammed. That war IS religious and is found in the Quran and the Hadith.
If the violence between Muslims was resolved, a united Islam would tun all its combines resources against non-Muslims.
The lesser of the two evils is a divided Islam.
21
You are wrong is not the politics that poison the Islam it is the terrorism
11
Even this point of view would be considered “un-Islamic” by some. You’re not Muslim if you’re not Muslim my way.
8
Please explain how ISIS has become successful to poison young men and women from so may western nations? Is the faith of Islam more infectious than other religion? The British woman that is now behind bars wanted to become a martyr by joining ISIS. It appears that Islam is really a very infectious and poisonous religion for some believers like ISIS thugs at least. One could argue that as the Muslims are not "integrated" etc, they are frustrated and wanted to revenge injustices..."there are hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim immigrants in the west that are underprivileged. Yet they do not go to join some Jihadi group oceans and oceans away! Why?Islamic scholars must answer these question. We the secular liberalists must also ask ourselves why our values can´t "infect" the would be martyrs? There are huge problems in this area. Mustafa´s write up is a small strep towards solving these utterly painful riddles. Many thanks Mustapha!
4
Of the Abraham religions, the Jews through centuries of migration, persecution and the Christians through the Great Schism, Reformation and both through the Scientific-Industrial Revolution developed a pluralist diversity in both spiritual and temporal affairs -- abandoning belief in "heresies" and a State to "enforce" His will on earth. The transformation was not overnight, nor without bloodshed or dissenters. Islam, the youngest of them, is only now going through her version of the Inquisition and the "30 years" wars. Besides, almost all Islamic countries are feudal theocracies or military dictatorships --- thanks to the suppression of democratic movements in favor of feudal religious movements (e.g., India and Egypt) by the Colonial powers and the Oil wealth and the Cold War necessities (e.g. Middle East). Democracy, secularism and Industrialization are the remedies.
1
Part of the problem is that in the majority of Muslim countries, the state is rarely accountable to the needs of its citizens. At the same time, Muslim-rulers try to legitimize themselves in the eyes of the people by pretending that they are guardians of the faith (e.g., the Saudi monarch is the 'Custodian of the Holy Mosques'). In this environment, political protest is caught in a Catch-22: if one protests against the state, one can be accused of protesting against Islam itself, an intolerable accusation. On the other hand, if one is to resign himself to not protest, government is never held accountable, and things never change.
Governments are fallible. By definition, God (whether Jesus or Yahweh or Allah) is not. By conflating the two, Islamic states do themselves a disservice by making political actions on the part of the state impossible to criticize. To do so is tantamount to criticizing the divine. And yet, the fact that there is corruption, lack of transparency, and so forth means that dissent has no legitimate avenue for expression, leaving citizens no choice but to either meekly submit or resort to force of arms. This must change.
Governments are fallible. By definition, God (whether Jesus or Yahweh or Allah) is not. By conflating the two, Islamic states do themselves a disservice by making political actions on the part of the state impossible to criticize. To do so is tantamount to criticizing the divine. And yet, the fact that there is corruption, lack of transparency, and so forth means that dissent has no legitimate avenue for expression, leaving citizens no choice but to either meekly submit or resort to force of arms. This must change.
11
The ignoramuses (like Ted Cruz) who insist that America is a Christian nation could not be more wrong about the essential facts of American history. And the main reason so many Muslims confuse politics and religion is because they have only known life under an "Islamic state" in which, as you point out, government and religion are intentionally, traditionally conflated. When the government is corrupt, the failed state a sham, it can still claim to have Allah on its side -- which is further evidence of its degeneracy and inauthenticity. But Muslims living under such a bogus "theocracy" may be too close to recognize it for the fraud that it is.
But I think you're wrong on one score: In the Torah (including what many Christians refer to as the "Old Testament"), G-d is indeed fallible, makes mistakes, and expresses regret. It's a very human G-d, indeed. Because He was written into existence by men.
But I think you're wrong on one score: In the Torah (including what many Christians refer to as the "Old Testament"), G-d is indeed fallible, makes mistakes, and expresses regret. It's a very human G-d, indeed. Because He was written into existence by men.
1
In 1648 Europe took concrete steps to reduce the power of the religious authorities in political affairs after the religious savagery of the Thirty Years War. That was followed by the European Enlightenment and enormous advances in the arts, sciences and political philosophy. Islam has never had a similar moderating period and Muslim clerics to this day are still politically empowered to interfere with the creative and intellectual expression and development of Muslim culture. Until that changes, the stagnation that has characterized the Islamic world for at least 500 years will continue.
19
Islam has stifled its adherents since the 8th century - that would be 900 hears - and it's getting worse as weapons and the ability of technology to cause mass slaughter grow.
Christianity in the United States has the same problem. A lot of the dysfunction in our political system is the direct result of Christians who ignore the New Testament's instruction to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" -- i.e. religion should not be mixed with politics. Jesus (as related by the early Christans who wrote the New Testament) also continually emphasizes the importance of not craving or seeking power over others by political means. This does not mean Christians are not called to leadership and public service. But Christianity is not a political mission. It is a personal one.
13
Glad to see someone in the media finally pointing out the violent history of Islam and what it is doing to our present world. As the writer points out, this violence has taken place since its inception and is the biggest reason for Islam being spread to other countries. I also agree with the author who calls for the leaders of Islam to "undo the conflation of politics within the religion". Only when the followers & leaders of Islam eschew violence, choose freedom and have tolerance for other religions will they then have the moral authority to call itself a "religion of peace"
4
As everyone worldwide has the religion of their parents, the thing we call "religion" is not the intellectual exercise called theology but rather is an element of ethnicity, which has its ideological dimension (religion) as well as for example the dimension of physical appearance, which derives from one's parents about as dependably as religion does.
So religion is usually enlisted as a form of solidarity in political relations with other ethnicities.
Mr. Akyol's point, however, is about theocratic politics within a single community. That is an issue in all communities.
So religion is usually enlisted as a form of solidarity in political relations with other ethnicities.
Mr. Akyol's point, however, is about theocratic politics within a single community. That is an issue in all communities.
Absolute separation of religion from politics must be the top priority of all Muslim reformers. Their amalgamation is bad for religion and it is bad for the state.
8
Maybe Islam needs secularism but secularism doesn't need Islam. The idea that theologians want to tamp down internecine sectarian conflicts by finding a "secularism that respects religion" falls short of the realization that false beliefs about book dictating deities are at the root of those conflicts. Any revealed religion is a box. To put an end to religious conflicts you need to think outside the box.
5
Religion is inherently too powerful not to be abused for temporal gain. It's just one convenient weapon in the political toolbox for building alliances and destroying one's enemies. Our founding fathers understood this fact because of their knowledge of the destructive outcomes from the abuse of religion throughout European history — and thus the separation of church and state was prescribed as a vital antidote to the abuse of religion in a pluralistic world. Islam is undergoing a painful and violent reformation as the Muslim world seeks to modernize and remain relevant in today's globalized society. Political change is never easy or smooth when the very core of societal values is challenged.
2
The power and legitimacy of political Islam is gradually diminishing throughout North Africa and the Middle East. This process will necessarily continue for secular forces to get the upper hand. Note that Europe suffered through hundreds of years of religious wars that killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, and eventually precipitated the Enlightenment. A similar paradigm shift will eventually moderate the Islamic world, too. The American revolution was fought to displace the divine right of kings with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
2
Wonder what Ted Cruz and his legions think about the dangers of mixing religion and politics.
3
Religion and politics are inescapably intertwined - specially when the religion (Christianity, Islam) is intolerant of non-members. And in Judaism (to complete the family) ask any of the ultra-orthodox how much of the middle east they wan to claim 'god' promised them You'll be startled. Everything and more.
No, the common denominator here is power; how to get and maintain it. Christianity particularly from Constantine on, was absolutely a political project; Christianity, he hoped, could be used as the glue to keep the empire together. He got a rude awakening. And no Pope, since there have been such things (Peter wasn't, no matter what Rome now says) has ever said to his congregation, 'People! We're lovers of peace! Live and let live! We have no territorial ambitions on Earth!' But of course they did. And but for various accidents of history, still would. See how they treat their women.
It's not just simplistic and ahistorical to attempt to disentangle politics and religion; it's flat out pointless.
All justice, and injustice, is inherent in the species, not any one organization. All have lost, and none shall have prizes.
No, the common denominator here is power; how to get and maintain it. Christianity particularly from Constantine on, was absolutely a political project; Christianity, he hoped, could be used as the glue to keep the empire together. He got a rude awakening. And no Pope, since there have been such things (Peter wasn't, no matter what Rome now says) has ever said to his congregation, 'People! We're lovers of peace! Live and let live! We have no territorial ambitions on Earth!' But of course they did. And but for various accidents of history, still would. See how they treat their women.
It's not just simplistic and ahistorical to attempt to disentangle politics and religion; it's flat out pointless.
All justice, and injustice, is inherent in the species, not any one organization. All have lost, and none shall have prizes.
"It is time to undo this conflation of religion and politics. Instead of seeing this politicization of religion as natural — or even, as some Muslims do, something to be proud of — we should see it as a problem that requires a solution."
This sounds awfully similar to "separation of church and state" that the Western world has been practicing for 200 years.
This sounds awfully similar to "separation of church and state" that the Western world has been practicing for 200 years.
6
Of course it is. This is, another words, the position that ever secular humanist has ever asked Islam to take. And yet I can find almost no comments here that acknowledge this, except this one which treats this fact as some sort of "gotcha" moment. The fact of the matter is, there seems nothing that any Muslim can do or say right now that won't inspire vituperative hysteria from large numbers of westerners. I fear for our future.
the rules:
nomadic Arabs= distributed egalitarian consensus tribal politics
city dwelling Persians= self perpetuating bureaucracy with a King to validate the system.
Hence Sunni and Shia schism.
Persians want hereditary vs Sunni want consensus.
Irony is everyone has swapped roles.Sunnis have become less egalitarian and Shias more democratic.
nomadic Arabs= distributed egalitarian consensus tribal politics
city dwelling Persians= self perpetuating bureaucracy with a King to validate the system.
Hence Sunni and Shia schism.
Persians want hereditary vs Sunni want consensus.
Irony is everyone has swapped roles.Sunnis have become less egalitarian and Shias more democratic.
3
Mustafa Akyol continues the worn-out excuses to defend Islam. Casting themselves as the victim they always play the blame game. But stop blaming "politics" already and look into the violent souls. They all say that deep down in its unfathomable core of Islam one find "peace, humility & compassion". But facts and evidence speak otherwise, and louder.
To judge a religion and its teaching, look at how it influences its followers and the society they built together. Does this teaching make the followers more peaceful, tolerant, compassionate, better educated and forward-looking? As Mustafa Akyol pointed out: as soon as their founder died sectarian warfare erupted among Muslims and the bloodshed continues to this day.
Thousands and thousands of riotous Muslim around the world would march onto the streets around the world for the Danish cartoons. In the process Muslims were killed by other Muslims. Some Muslim students in France continue to think that the Charlie Hebdo massacre victims deserve to die. Recently a Pakistani boy chopped off his own hand for fear of his fellow Muslims. Both the Saudi regime and ISIL think nothing of chopping off the head of their enemies, both Islam and Christians. "Honor killing" of women continues in Islamic countries.
President Obama visited a mosque today and spoke Political Correct statements. No wonder Americans are fed up with P.C.
To judge a religion and its teaching, look at how it influences its followers and the society they built together. Does this teaching make the followers more peaceful, tolerant, compassionate, better educated and forward-looking? As Mustafa Akyol pointed out: as soon as their founder died sectarian warfare erupted among Muslims and the bloodshed continues to this day.
Thousands and thousands of riotous Muslim around the world would march onto the streets around the world for the Danish cartoons. In the process Muslims were killed by other Muslims. Some Muslim students in France continue to think that the Charlie Hebdo massacre victims deserve to die. Recently a Pakistani boy chopped off his own hand for fear of his fellow Muslims. Both the Saudi regime and ISIL think nothing of chopping off the head of their enemies, both Islam and Christians. "Honor killing" of women continues in Islamic countries.
President Obama visited a mosque today and spoke Political Correct statements. No wonder Americans are fed up with P.C.
28
Very interesting. It remind me the Jesus would not recognize most of the the current crop of politicians as Christians. Pope Francis is trying to set and example of love and compassion but their are few buyers among the political class.
3
Religion has always been used as a motivator and justification for political action; just listen to Ted Cruz's victory speech after Iowa.
7
you are right
1
Islam is inherently divisive, hateful and violent.
46
'...Religion can play a constructive role in political life, as when it inspires people to speak truth to power...'
It cannot.
Islam is a fundamentalist religion and, like every one of them, is based on suppressing the rights of 50% of the population.
This belief has no place in a democracy, no matter how many pious men argue otherwise.
It cannot.
Islam is a fundamentalist religion and, like every one of them, is based on suppressing the rights of 50% of the population.
This belief has no place in a democracy, no matter how many pious men argue otherwise.
43
The problem is that the shift to the theology of the caliphate does seem to be rooted the pre-caliphate origins of Islam. The author of Islam wanted to establish a political community (not just a church) founded on the law and justice of God, indeed solely as he interpreted it, and at least initially principally for Arabs. Doesn't that inevitably create an issue, as political as it is theological, of succession?
And doesn't every religion professing exclusive possession of an absolute truth revealed in a special book and prophecy have analogous problems? On both the political and the theological sides. Even Christianity, an anti-political religion in the Gospels, had to make its peace not only with politics but with political supremacy in the Roman empire and ever after in Christendom. Moreover, some elements of the political theology of Christianity must have been shaped by its inferiority complexes and fears of the Caliphates as they existed a thousand years ago down to the 20th century.
The idea of the caliphate is an effect of actual history, but its the kind of effect that seems much more consistent with the political-prophetic-revealed-exclusive character of the religion itself in its origins in Medina. This seems much more consistent with Islam than liberalism does--much as I am happy to see Muslim liberals. Going back to a supposedly more "original" form of the religion, as in Christianity too, often turns out to be a major revision of it.
And doesn't every religion professing exclusive possession of an absolute truth revealed in a special book and prophecy have analogous problems? On both the political and the theological sides. Even Christianity, an anti-political religion in the Gospels, had to make its peace not only with politics but with political supremacy in the Roman empire and ever after in Christendom. Moreover, some elements of the political theology of Christianity must have been shaped by its inferiority complexes and fears of the Caliphates as they existed a thousand years ago down to the 20th century.
The idea of the caliphate is an effect of actual history, but its the kind of effect that seems much more consistent with the political-prophetic-revealed-exclusive character of the religion itself in its origins in Medina. This seems much more consistent with Islam than liberalism does--much as I am happy to see Muslim liberals. Going back to a supposedly more "original" form of the religion, as in Christianity too, often turns out to be a major revision of it.
1
Islam has historically been a theocracy. Politics cannot corrupt the religion because there is no separation between the two. Turkey has been an anomoly and Mr. Erdogan often looks like he is moving the country back to its Ottoman roots.
31
Interesting editorial but lacks full scope of the problem.
Politics may have poisoned Islam for Muslims but Islam generally poisons everything for non-Muslims. At the core is a steadfast belief in superiority, an immense battle for power (i.e. politics) and an adherence to violent scripture that paints a picture of a global Islamic religion that rules everything (i.e. more politics codified in religious texts).
These same factors drive fighting within the Islamic world (Sunni vs Sunni vs Shia) and with the non-Islamic world manifested in terrorism against the west and an outright rejection of western values. Islam was born out of violence with a forced conversion of Arabs and a clearing of the Saudi Peninsula of non Muslims. The author lives in Istanbul which was Constantinople a western city but overthrown by Muslims centuries ago.
The world will never be a peaceful place with these factors in play. Obedience or death are the only options for a zealot and zealots will be reborn in every generation.
Islam struggles to look in the mirror and admit it has destroyed so much. It has kept millions of people living in the dark ages with tribal and primitive thoughts. Not many people travel to the Middle East to get an education or work for a great company. In fact the reverse is true.
Islam should blame itself but that takes critical thinking which Islam eschews and there has to be a fear that people would leave Islam when faced with reality. It's a long road ahead.
Politics may have poisoned Islam for Muslims but Islam generally poisons everything for non-Muslims. At the core is a steadfast belief in superiority, an immense battle for power (i.e. politics) and an adherence to violent scripture that paints a picture of a global Islamic religion that rules everything (i.e. more politics codified in religious texts).
These same factors drive fighting within the Islamic world (Sunni vs Sunni vs Shia) and with the non-Islamic world manifested in terrorism against the west and an outright rejection of western values. Islam was born out of violence with a forced conversion of Arabs and a clearing of the Saudi Peninsula of non Muslims. The author lives in Istanbul which was Constantinople a western city but overthrown by Muslims centuries ago.
The world will never be a peaceful place with these factors in play. Obedience or death are the only options for a zealot and zealots will be reborn in every generation.
Islam struggles to look in the mirror and admit it has destroyed so much. It has kept millions of people living in the dark ages with tribal and primitive thoughts. Not many people travel to the Middle East to get an education or work for a great company. In fact the reverse is true.
Islam should blame itself but that takes critical thinking which Islam eschews and there has to be a fear that people would leave Islam when faced with reality. It's a long road ahead.
201
Introspection doesn't seem to be a Muslim trait at least when it comes to thinking about their relgion and its interaction with humankind. One other thing talking about the results of yr introspection in the Muslim world can lead to death.
1
Since when was this a 'religion of peace'? Who gave Islam this title?
It never ceases to amaze me just how much people try to sugarcoat this particular brand of theology. And this in fact is the heart of the problem. Islam has fought all along the way to get to where it is today. A messed up foreign policy of the Western world post-World War II has only made matters worse by allowing the Islamic apologists to propagate how 'it was all fine before'. Power vacuums are a recurring for as long as humans interact with one another to organize and survive, but the fact that it has been made time and again an excuse to explain chaos in the Muslim world is laughable.
Humanity has evolved, and will continue to evolve. Our thinking and morals evolve with nature. Evolution and change of thought are cancer to religion in general, but hit Islam the hardest given its extraordinary claim of being the final and yet the perfect teaching for mankind. For those who continue to believe to no objection that a scripture written 1400+ years prior will elevate all their morals and guide mankind to eternal glory are sure in for a long struggle among themselves, and one that it seems would consume the religion itself.
Emancipation from totalitarianism, absolutism and dogma is an initiative Muslim world better take for itself, and hopefully soon.
It never ceases to amaze me just how much people try to sugarcoat this particular brand of theology. And this in fact is the heart of the problem. Islam has fought all along the way to get to where it is today. A messed up foreign policy of the Western world post-World War II has only made matters worse by allowing the Islamic apologists to propagate how 'it was all fine before'. Power vacuums are a recurring for as long as humans interact with one another to organize and survive, but the fact that it has been made time and again an excuse to explain chaos in the Muslim world is laughable.
Humanity has evolved, and will continue to evolve. Our thinking and morals evolve with nature. Evolution and change of thought are cancer to religion in general, but hit Islam the hardest given its extraordinary claim of being the final and yet the perfect teaching for mankind. For those who continue to believe to no objection that a scripture written 1400+ years prior will elevate all their morals and guide mankind to eternal glory are sure in for a long struggle among themselves, and one that it seems would consume the religion itself.
Emancipation from totalitarianism, absolutism and dogma is an initiative Muslim world better take for itself, and hopefully soon.
174
You hit the nail squarely on the head. Thank you.
How about emancipation from Islamophobic rambling and mind-boggling ignorance of anything Islamic?
Well, the title comes from the meaning of the Arabic word 'Islam' , which does mean 'Peace'.
Not sure Islam has a corner on violence ensuing from the conflation of faith and politics, Europe's post-reformation dust up, the Thirty Years War, while ostensibly concerned with the primacy of Catholicism or Protestantism, was as much about the primacy of France v. the Hapsburg states (with the intervening Swedes thrown in for good measure). Suppose the same could be said for the Ottoman-Safavid conflict, as much a struggle for West-Central Asian hegemony as a face-off between Sunni and Shi'a Islam. Mr. Akyol's excellent motives notwithstanding, people are always going to find some reason to go to war. If it weren't religion, it'd be lebensraum, or liberation, or class-struggle, or borders, or indeed some other excuse we haven't even thought of yet. Humanity is just kind of hopeless that way.
62
Thanks for the history lesson which most of us didn't need, but this is 2016. Most Humans, even when fighting an enemy, don't see the point of strapping bombs onto themselves and blowing up a crowd of total strangers they have no quarrel with except they belong (arguably) to a different religion but 450 of 452 suicide terror attacks in 2015 were perpetrated by Muslim extremists. One of the remaining two attacks was carried out by the Kurdish underground. The other was perpetrated by a woman supporter of a leftist group in Turkey. Attempt at equivalency failed.
4
Glad to know, Glenn, that I’m not the only one who lies awake at night worrying about a suicide bomber from the Habsburg (not “Hapsburg”) monarchy, the Thirty Years War or the Ottoman-Safavid War.
4
Are you responding to my letter Roger, because I was responding to what I perceive to be Mr. Akyol's premise: that Islam, were it shorn of political baggage, would somehow be less bloodthirsty (a surmise I most certainly do not share). You may not need a history lesson, but maybe brush up on your reading comprehension.
The problem doesn't seem to be that enemies are viewed as heretics, therefore making peace harder to achieve. The problem seems to be that, in today's Middle East, the very idea of peace with heretics is anathema.
So long as the Middle East remains religiously diverse but opposed to the value of religious pluralism, war is inevitable. The answer is not to remove Islam from worldly concerns but to cultivate an Islam that recognizes the inalienable rights of all human beings, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. The recent Marrakesh Declaration articulated this goal well, but the hard work will be realizing this vision at all levels: theological, pastoral, pedagogical, cultural, and - yes - political.
So long as the Middle East remains religiously diverse but opposed to the value of religious pluralism, war is inevitable. The answer is not to remove Islam from worldly concerns but to cultivate an Islam that recognizes the inalienable rights of all human beings, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. The recent Marrakesh Declaration articulated this goal well, but the hard work will be realizing this vision at all levels: theological, pastoral, pedagogical, cultural, and - yes - political.
82
The writer states the the "conflation of religion and politics poisons Islam itself", but then proceeds to conflate politics and violence, and blame all violence on politics, which is absurd on its face. Politics is more often an alternative to violence rather than inciting the kind of terrorism currently practised by Islamic extremists. As other comments have noted, it is religious beliefs and social principles the extremist cite in support of their odious violence, not politics. This article contributes nothing to the discussion. The writer needs to looks at his religion, as practiced and interpreted by leading clerics and their followers, and then answer the question whether there isn't a strong link between that religion and the violence being propagated globally by Islamic extremists. They are, for example, shooting young women who want to attend school based on their religious/cultural beliefs -- not out of political motives!
118
Excellent reply. Thanks for standing up for truth in place of obfuscation and misdirection - the very elements of taqiyya
1
Religion is often perverted by those in power to expand their control and influence over the people. Power is a very corrupt and addictive thing. They will twist words and meaning of whatever 'holy scripts' they can lay their hands upon to fit the narrative desired. This is not something new and has been going on since religion was first conceived. One dose not even need to look into the past for examples just at the current presidential campaign.
Thank you for speaking to the inherent justice of Islam. It has, just like Christianity, been corrupted by those seeking power and domination. The true believer of any religion is tolerant, humane, humble, and informed. If s/he is not, religion means nothing.
17
Why do people think it is beneficial to believe anything based solely on faith?
2
Because if you have to ask the question the answer will not be acceptable. Carry on.
You are mistaken; whether it is about making money, increasing the number of followers or convincing others to act or believe as the righteous, religion is always about politics and power.
27
Politics, power, and, of course, who gets the women.
6
"In other words, unlike early Christians, who were divided into sects primarily through theological disputes about the nature of Christ etc."
Does Mustafa Akyol really think that the world of early Christianity was not rife with, determined by and part of the surrounding political world? And this includes the theological issues to which he briefly refers. And the same is true for Judaism. Politics and economics go hand in hand with the theologies of these religions, in the past and in the present. And the background political, economic ad social issues have caused wars throughout the course of history.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have truth and beauty at their cores. They all celebrate peace and justice. But they all also contain the opposite. How is that possible? Problem for theologians, but less so when one remembers that the practitioners of religion are people.
Religion to survive is going to merge with power. It is up to the people who practice the religion to decide what to do with that power. The connection between the two is not inherently bad or problematical. The misuse of that power is. Is that the case in Islam? Mustafa Akyol seems to think so. Is his solution of secularism viable? Unlikely within the Islamic world today.
Does Mustafa Akyol really think that the world of early Christianity was not rife with, determined by and part of the surrounding political world? And this includes the theological issues to which he briefly refers. And the same is true for Judaism. Politics and economics go hand in hand with the theologies of these religions, in the past and in the present. And the background political, economic ad social issues have caused wars throughout the course of history.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have truth and beauty at their cores. They all celebrate peace and justice. But they all also contain the opposite. How is that possible? Problem for theologians, but less so when one remembers that the practitioners of religion are people.
Religion to survive is going to merge with power. It is up to the people who practice the religion to decide what to do with that power. The connection between the two is not inherently bad or problematical. The misuse of that power is. Is that the case in Islam? Mustafa Akyol seems to think so. Is his solution of secularism viable? Unlikely within the Islamic world today.
7
Why can't we think about religion, any religion as a personal conduct of faith; while keeping politics completely separate and secular? Then a state can govern only based on secular constitution law; while citizens privately practice any religion whether it is - Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism etc?
We can then avoid the key reason for almost all the wars in this world.
We can then avoid the key reason for almost all the wars in this world.
2
'Does Mustafa Akyol really think that the world of early Christianity was not rife with, determined by and part of the surrounding political world?"
Mr. Schwartz, I believe that Mustafa was referring to "the early Christians," who for the first three centuries debated, often through competing gospels, the nature of Christianity itself. It was only with the Byzantine adoption of Christianity as the religion of state that a particular Christian theology was adopted that would dominate most of the Christian world for over a thousand years.
Mr. Schwartz, I believe that Mustafa was referring to "the early Christians," who for the first three centuries debated, often through competing gospels, the nature of Christianity itself. It was only with the Byzantine adoption of Christianity as the religion of state that a particular Christian theology was adopted that would dominate most of the Christian world for over a thousand years.
2
Maybe Muslims should study European political/religious history. They just might gain some insight and understanding of their own politico-religious conflicts.
There really isn't all that much difference between the methods, doctrine and aims of proselytizing religions.
There really isn't all that much difference between the methods, doctrine and aims of proselytizing religions.
11
Thank you for an illuminating piece that helps us understand a complex issue far away yet still so important. A good reason our forefathers made a good choice to keep religion and politics separate, though some current candidates are trying to force religion into our politics.
62
The writer has given very good explanation but still refuses to acknowledge that Quran has violent passages, it is not question of interpretation, it is question if one chooses to follow these violent passages or ignore them and go for good ones preaching brotherhood which abound in the Quran. Without openly acknowledging that there are violent passages in Quran any such opinion does not sound that sincere
48
But doesn't the Bible have violent passages? But I suspect that centuries old writings for many faiths contain violence.
It is neither religion nor politics that are the culprits, but it is the human behavior that will make them source of good or evil. Look at the Republican and Democratic party and all Presidential candidates, all claim to follow and uphold the constitution but they are poles apart in good and bad ways. Supreme court makes decisions based on personal ideology but uses the Constitution as a cover to advance it.
Whether it is religion, politics or constitution, it is as good or as bad as its followers.
Whether it is religion, politics or constitution, it is as good or as bad as its followers.
18
Refreshing to read an Op-Ed by a Muslim that looks forthrightly at problems in the Muslim world, and does not use that inquiry as a springboard for warnings about Islamophobia.
62
Not to worry. The president is doing his part to elevate the issue of Islamaphobia.
6
In regards to the caliphate, to be fair, ancient Christianity fell into much the same trap following the conversion of Constantine the Great and the establishment of orthodox Christianity as the universal religion of the Roman Empire. For centuries, to a great extent the Church saw itself as co-terminus with the Empire, and the concept of one faith, one emperor carried a great deal of authority for centuries after the Roman Empire fell.
In Byzantium where Rome would not fall for another 1,000 years, the emperor continued to wield great power over the institutional church, appointing and dismissing its leaders. Byzantine emperors even deposed and/or imprisoned popes. One of the reasons why Pope Leo III specifically crowned Charlemagne emperor was the concept that the Church relied upon the protection of that office, that the emperor's writ ran wherever Christianity ruled and vice versa. Faith upheld the secular authority which upheld the faith, similarly to the situation referred to by Mr Akyol.
Christianity outgrew such notions due to force majeure (although it has continued to live on in Russia through tsarist times to present resurrection). So in both Christianity and Islam, at one time non-scriptural insistence upon equating secular authority with religious authority was in effect. Christianity has long move beyond that, will Islam?
In Byzantium where Rome would not fall for another 1,000 years, the emperor continued to wield great power over the institutional church, appointing and dismissing its leaders. Byzantine emperors even deposed and/or imprisoned popes. One of the reasons why Pope Leo III specifically crowned Charlemagne emperor was the concept that the Church relied upon the protection of that office, that the emperor's writ ran wherever Christianity ruled and vice versa. Faith upheld the secular authority which upheld the faith, similarly to the situation referred to by Mr Akyol.
Christianity outgrew such notions due to force majeure (although it has continued to live on in Russia through tsarist times to present resurrection). So in both Christianity and Islam, at one time non-scriptural insistence upon equating secular authority with religious authority was in effect. Christianity has long move beyond that, will Islam?
25
Kurt, thanks for putting this issue in historical context regarding the theocratic tendencies of post-Constantinian Christianity. However, I would modify your suggestion that Christianity matured beyond its totalitarian tendencies. I would instead suggest that Christianity returned to the ideal of its origins. Jesus clearly established a separation between Church and State by declaring that believers should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. Jesus also set the example of victory through passive resistance, not violent force. He told his disciples to turn the other cheek and specifically rebuked Peter when he wielded the sword to prevent Jesus' arrest. Compare that to the actions and teachings of Mohammed and you understand why Islam is so slow to liberalize. They do not have much to work with from their original model.
1
Mustafa Akyol is flat out wrong. Religion *is* at the heart of the conflicts we see in the Middle East -- and beyond.
Blaming “politics” is far too vague, simplistic and insufficient to explain the nature of jihadi violence. The root cause of the conflicts is a particular ideology that is steeped in theology, knows no borders and extends across the entire socioeconomic spectrum. Beliefs matter. When jihadists and their supporters tell us that they are acting on their beliefs about the metaphysics of paradise, martyrdom, apostasy, blasphemy, and honour – as they do ad nauseam – we should take them for their word.
The “counter-ideology” required to defeat Islamist ideology requires intellectual honesty. Secular and moderate Muslims need to reform the faith by first being honest about the very doctrines that are in need of reform. They need to stand up for liberal and pluralistic values, not by obfuscating Islamist ideology, but by publicly acknowledging the central role that it plays in the worldview of the jihadists and their supporters. Furthermore, my fellow secular liberals must not conflate criticism of specific *ideas* with bigotry against *people*.
Blaming “politics” is far too vague, simplistic and insufficient to explain the nature of jihadi violence. The root cause of the conflicts is a particular ideology that is steeped in theology, knows no borders and extends across the entire socioeconomic spectrum. Beliefs matter. When jihadists and their supporters tell us that they are acting on their beliefs about the metaphysics of paradise, martyrdom, apostasy, blasphemy, and honour – as they do ad nauseam – we should take them for their word.
The “counter-ideology” required to defeat Islamist ideology requires intellectual honesty. Secular and moderate Muslims need to reform the faith by first being honest about the very doctrines that are in need of reform. They need to stand up for liberal and pluralistic values, not by obfuscating Islamist ideology, but by publicly acknowledging the central role that it plays in the worldview of the jihadists and their supporters. Furthermore, my fellow secular liberals must not conflate criticism of specific *ideas* with bigotry against *people*.
255
It is almost always the political use of religion that results in violence. Religion has been and continues to be an excuse to rule and subjugate others. Christianity has been used to forcefully convert "savages" over the millenia, whether by the Spanish in Latin America or Charlemagne in Saxony. It was a convenient way to eliminate foes. Even a totally pluralistic and non-violent religion like Hinduism is being used by nationalists in India to oppress and kill religious minorities.
The author made the correct historical observation that the initial split in Islam was caused by a political power struggle, not a disagreement of a matter of faith, as was the case in the split between Western and Eastern Christianity, e.g. the addition of "filioque" to the Creed.
The bottom line is that there is no ideology, theist or atheist, that cannot be abused for political gains.
The author made the correct historical observation that the initial split in Islam was caused by a political power struggle, not a disagreement of a matter of faith, as was the case in the split between Western and Eastern Christianity, e.g. the addition of "filioque" to the Creed.
The bottom line is that there is no ideology, theist or atheist, that cannot be abused for political gains.
1
With America's & Europe's long history of violent intervention in the Islamic world, overthrowing democratically elected governments, installing dictators & client states, invading & bombing countries, sometimes without being bothered to give a plausible reason or to replace destroyed infrastructure, conducting & supporting torture, conducting an ongoing program of drone assassination that kills more or less at random . . . it is absurdly hypocritical for us to lecture their political & cultural institutions on how to reform themselves in order to behave better. I know it is politically incorrect to say this, but it is the truth. American political discourse on this subject has become entirely self-serving & morally relativist: we define morality entirely as what we are pleased to do, and lecture others so as not to examine ourselves.
1
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how Mustafa Akyol is wrong at all, and I'm not a Muslim. You just have to listen to President Obama, today, who became the first president to visit and address Muslims and the American people from within a mosque (https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/02/03/email-rumana-ahmed-tune-presi....
President Obama affirmed everything that Mustafa is saying, that the roots of Islam say nothing about dictating the direction of political power and on the contrary, the Quran specifically affirms the equality of all people, Muslim and otherwise. Mustafa, likewise, is calling for an Islamic reformation in which Islam recovers that central message from errors in its own past.
It is important to recognize, as the President noted, that all religions have erred in precisely the same way, and in some cases, continue to do so today. And, as he said, too, it is one of the central tenets of our nation's founding to affirm both freedom of religion and freedom of the state from domination by any one religion. All that Mustafa is doing is to show that Islam, at its roots, teaches the same message, which needs a new affirmation within Islam today.
President Obama affirmed everything that Mustafa is saying, that the roots of Islam say nothing about dictating the direction of political power and on the contrary, the Quran specifically affirms the equality of all people, Muslim and otherwise. Mustafa, likewise, is calling for an Islamic reformation in which Islam recovers that central message from errors in its own past.
It is important to recognize, as the President noted, that all religions have erred in precisely the same way, and in some cases, continue to do so today. And, as he said, too, it is one of the central tenets of our nation's founding to affirm both freedom of religion and freedom of the state from domination by any one religion. All that Mustafa is doing is to show that Islam, at its roots, teaches the same message, which needs a new affirmation within Islam today.
If I understand correctly, the Koran is filled with passages inciting violence, so how is this a religion of peace? Have you ever heard of a radical Quaker?
105
I have heard of a radical Quaker. Many of them. But I've never heard of a Quaker terrorist.
Quakers are considered to be radical because of their insistence on promoting peace and social justice. And today we in America are surrounded by radical war-loving, stranger-intolerant Christians. Both supposedly follow the same guidebook, so why the contrast? As noted, it's the politics, not the religion itself. Why separation of church and state is essential.
Have you ever read the Old Testament? Those ancient Israelites slaughtered their neighbors brutally, claiming that God told them to do it. Add to that their fixation on genital mutilation, even for the dead. And their treatment of women was pretty barbaric too. All done in the name of God. They were a bloodthirsty and creepy bunch.
And yet, most "Bible-believing" Christians and contemporary Jews do not feel bound to continue these practices. I'm guessing most men would walk into a room of Christians or Jews without fearing for their private parts, or thinking they'll be murdered.
Along with the bloodthirsty bits, the Koran contains passages telling folks to behave themselves in a civilized way. Just like the Bible does.
And yet, most "Bible-believing" Christians and contemporary Jews do not feel bound to continue these practices. I'm guessing most men would walk into a room of Christians or Jews without fearing for their private parts, or thinking they'll be murdered.
Along with the bloodthirsty bits, the Koran contains passages telling folks to behave themselves in a civilized way. Just like the Bible does.
4
I am not sure where the writer is going with this. Islam is not the problem but Muslims are?
19
What if we just remove Islam and all religion altogether?
14
And how do you propose we do that?
How ironic that Islam needs secularism to be true to Islam. Islam needs a reformation much like the advent of Protestantism in the 16th century.
12
Since when is Islam a religion of peace Mustafa, since the beginning of Islam it was only about conquering other faiths and annihilation of infidels.
61
Islam without extremes is not Islam
16
Jihad, Taqqiyah, Hijrah and Mo's own bad behaviors as they become more widely known are Islam's own poison and they are welcome to it.
5
"We Muslims like to believe that ours is “a religion of peace,” but today Islam looks more like a religion of conflict and bloodshed. "
That seems to the history since the death of the founder of Islam. Centuries of war refutes the brand, "religion of peace".
That seems to the history since the death of the founder of Islam. Centuries of war refutes the brand, "religion of peace".
75
Americans who for centuries have waged war against other nations and humans are asking question whether "Islam is a religion of peace?"
Ironic.
Ironic.
2
Mohammed himself was almost killed and had to flee from Mecca to Medina. The word Islam means peace, but it is only the peace that comes after Muslims at the perimeter of their controlled area wage constant warfare to convert non-
Muslims. This continues today, as it has since Mohammed fled Mecca.
Muslims. This continues today, as it has since Mohammed fled Mecca.
Islamic societies have enjoyed long periods of relative peace. THe Ottoman lands have not fared well with Sykes Picot borders but the same placed had many cultures living side by side in Ottoman times. Indonesia today is home to millions of peaceful Muslims. Muslims are not incapable of living in peace.
you can say the same about christian nations who were bent on destroying ea other in WW1 and 2 . Was it religion ?
6
> slam is a “religion of peace”
It’s very difficult to find much in history that backs up this claim of Muslims and their apologists that Islam is a “religion of peace”. The article makes that point, without offering much to demonstrate that Muslims are really “peaceful”, tolerant, and interested in co-existing with others on a basis of equality.
Anyone who takes the time to review the history of Islam walks away quickly from anyone claiming that Muslims are peaceful people who welcome peoples of other religions as “brothers”.
Most religions seem to have had a violent period. For Islam—this violent period is a lot longer than most. For whatever reason, the core values of Islam do not seem to reign in the violence of those practicing the faith.
It’s very difficult to find much in history that backs up this claim of Muslims and their apologists that Islam is a “religion of peace”. The article makes that point, without offering much to demonstrate that Muslims are really “peaceful”, tolerant, and interested in co-existing with others on a basis of equality.
Anyone who takes the time to review the history of Islam walks away quickly from anyone claiming that Muslims are peaceful people who welcome peoples of other religions as “brothers”.
Most religions seem to have had a violent period. For Islam—this violent period is a lot longer than most. For whatever reason, the core values of Islam do not seem to reign in the violence of those practicing the faith.
52
Is this a joke? It's politics that makes Islam: violent, intolerant, mysogynistic and anti- modern??!! Really? I don't think so. Just look at the polls in Islamic countries. They express the beliefs of a people caught up in the 11 th century. Majority's believe : adulterers should be killed, along with anybody who tries to quit the faith etc. It ain't ur politics- it's ur religion.
Until u guys have a real reformation that reigns in ur extremists, v few of us in the west will blame ur problems on "politics".
Until u guys have a real reformation that reigns in ur extremists, v few of us in the west will blame ur problems on "politics".
72
Al trease, please provide the evidence of the polls you say show a "majority of muslims like to live in the eleventh century'.
I was also looking at the number of parliamentary seats won by the Islamic parties in Pakistan, historically they have always been less than 10 percent.
The majority of the muslims live in underdeveloped countries with high illiteracy rates and extreme poverty, again in Pakistan twice they voted in a Socialist governments, hoping it would improve their lot (they did not).
The Saudi's took ownership of the religion and did not allow it to develop and be accepting of modernity, this I believe us the biggest issue which still remains unaddressed.
I was also looking at the number of parliamentary seats won by the Islamic parties in Pakistan, historically they have always been less than 10 percent.
The majority of the muslims live in underdeveloped countries with high illiteracy rates and extreme poverty, again in Pakistan twice they voted in a Socialist governments, hoping it would improve their lot (they did not).
The Saudi's took ownership of the religion and did not allow it to develop and be accepting of modernity, this I believe us the biggest issue which still remains unaddressed.
3
use this thing called the Internet and Google polls in Islamic counties. The results are there for all to see.
Of course you could try an experiment yourself. Draw a stick figure of "the prophet" on a tee shirt and walk down any street in any majority Muslim country. Make sure someone videos what happens to you because you won't be coming back. that kind of ignorance and barbarity doesn't happen anywhere else.
Of course you could try an experiment yourself. Draw a stick figure of "the prophet" on a tee shirt and walk down any street in any majority Muslim country. Make sure someone videos what happens to you because you won't be coming back. that kind of ignorance and barbarity doesn't happen anywhere else.
How Islam has poisoned Islam.
The teachings of Islam are unacceptable and incompatible with life in the 21st century.
Naturally there had to be a clash of civilizations when globalization allowed previously isolated ignorant Muslim masses a glance into the modern world.
The teachings of Islam are unacceptable and incompatible with life in the 21st century.
Naturally there had to be a clash of civilizations when globalization allowed previously isolated ignorant Muslim masses a glance into the modern world.
85
Excellent Op-Ed and right on target. That said, if there is a God, one would wonder what he thinks when he sees how humans behave under his name. Pretty much a sick joke.
9
We have the opposite problem in the USA: "How Religion has Poisoned Politics"
23
This is the most refreshing, honest article I have read about Islam since Hersi Ali's Heretic. One can only hope there is a growing demand for the expulsion of politics from Islam. Of course the west should also do some self reflecting on religion in politics. The two should never mix.
8
Can we please all agree that no discussions will take place regarding problems within Islam--whether religious, political, personal, or spiritual--without also mentioning the appalling treatment of half of all Muslims (women) by the other half (men). Given the utter silence on issues pertaining to this appalling treatment, you would think Muslim women enjoyed full equality with men, and everything was hunky dory.
And yes, before anyone bothers saying it, I know that mistreatment of women happens within other societies and cultures, including our own. But the abuse of women within Islam is mainstream (written and unwritten) and apparently largely accepted (as opposed to anomalous and largely condemned in our own society.)
Mustafa, please don't attempt to address the violence and barbarism within Islam without mentioning this issue.
And yes, before anyone bothers saying it, I know that mistreatment of women happens within other societies and cultures, including our own. But the abuse of women within Islam is mainstream (written and unwritten) and apparently largely accepted (as opposed to anomalous and largely condemned in our own society.)
Mustafa, please don't attempt to address the violence and barbarism within Islam without mentioning this issue.
127
The Koran requires separating women from men, and not allowing women freedom to go out in public. The Koran specifies how a Moslem man leaves his wealth to his children and baring children, the next in line. Women are defined as being very unequal to men - similar to how slaves were defined in the US Constitution. The Koran puts males totally in charge of females.
This is embedded in the Koran which is both religious and a civil code.
This is embedded in the Koran which is both religious and a civil code.
2
The most sexist people are those who see women as helpless and weak. They are not. There are millions of Muslim women in US. Instead of speaking to them, and listening to them, you chose to listen to non Muslim men speaking for Muslim women. And you would be surprised to find out that exactly the same is true vice versa. Muslim men speak of western women as exploited, divorced, alone struggling to make ends meet, while the man has it easy, and alas Muslim women too buy all that.
Muslim women are not weak and helpless. Yes, they want more control over their lives, but the problem with women is women. If women have support of other women, there is nothing men could do. Nothing.
Muslim women are not weak and helpless. Yes, they want more control over their lives, but the problem with women is women. If women have support of other women, there is nothing men could do. Nothing.
There is no possibility to maintain a harmonious coexistence of diversity (an umma) where articles of faith can be enacted into secular laws governing everyone.
26
Islamic argument is going through the same process that American political argument has undergone. When your opponents take on all the hate and ange hat your mind can muster, howdo you even come to any agreements with them?
American political primary fights feature a lot of this, and the resolution of all these spats is an uneven process. While losing nominees find it easy to get in line behind the winner, the negative feelings their supporters dealt with really slow that process down.
The Koran seems to be full of such total moral judgments from what we read in the Western media. No wonder Islamists go straight to exclamation points when dealing with even minor spats within their circles.
American political primary fights feature a lot of this, and the resolution of all these spats is an uneven process. While losing nominees find it easy to get in line behind the winner, the negative feelings their supporters dealt with really slow that process down.
The Koran seems to be full of such total moral judgments from what we read in the Western media. No wonder Islamists go straight to exclamation points when dealing with even minor spats within their circles.
4
This is well written and thought out. In many respects he is right but neglects several things. What is needed is a reformation much like most other religions have achieved. Islam is not only a religion but a political system that many perceive as inseparable. Too many conservative sects and followers believe that other religions cannot co-exist and that those of other faiths can not be friends. Those that advocate this reformation are usually shunned by the leaders of Islam as heretics. Unless this changes, there will always be the conflicts he speaks against.
10
This is a great argument for a legal separation of religion and state. There is no workable way for a theocracy to be just, fair and open. There is no place for dissent in a theocratic state.
The problem s within Islam will only be solved by people within Islam. No government, no Army, no outsider can not do it for them.
I do not wish to live under theocracy of any kind and want no influence of anyone's faith in government. No candidate in this country should ever answer stupid questions about a candidate's personal faith. Our Constitution say no religious test shall ever be required for office, yet journalists and debate moderators ask. Candidates should remind them of our Constitution and laugh in their face.
Finally, all religious organizations should lose their tax exempt status. All.
The problem s within Islam will only be solved by people within Islam. No government, no Army, no outsider can not do it for them.
I do not wish to live under theocracy of any kind and want no influence of anyone's faith in government. No candidate in this country should ever answer stupid questions about a candidate's personal faith. Our Constitution say no religious test shall ever be required for office, yet journalists and debate moderators ask. Candidates should remind them of our Constitution and laugh in their face.
Finally, all religious organizations should lose their tax exempt status. All.
147
Interesting perspective. But I tend to assume that all religions are open to abuse in an equivalent way. Certainly Christianity's history of violence in the service of power, from slaughtering infidels in America & the Middle East, to torturing & killing its own in Europe, is as appalling as any, in spite of being premised on ideas like "turning the other cheek," not judging others, and loving one's enemy. The political abuse of religion is obviously a problem, but so is the whole modern idea of fundamentalism or literalism--the idea that religion is a set of unambiguous rules for evaluating (usually others') behavior, rather than a model for challenging oneself.
16
As Muslims worldwide struggle with the conflation of their religion and politics, I find myself looking worriedly at the modern western conservative movement. Until the separation of church and state and the ideas of secularism emerged out of the Enlightenment, the west, too, was embroiled in inter and intra religious conflict. Secular government is one of the crowning achievements of the western world and continual attacks on this by the religious right should be deeply concerning to all those with an eye to history.
I wish Muslims who believe in secular government all the very best in what will undoubtedly be a long, messy but ultimately essential struggle.
I wish Muslims who believe in secular government all the very best in what will undoubtedly be a long, messy but ultimately essential struggle.
55
"Religion is not actually at the heart of these conflicts — invariably, politics is to blame."
I question that among some a difference exists between what is called religion and politics. So long as belief is expressed outside one's person it is not nor can it be considered anything but social, which of necessity and by common definition is "of the city" i.e. political.
While i respect all of my fellow humans I consider some personal views to interfere with a functioning society where belief is held above perceptible reality.
I value my freedom, respect that of others and have no desire to impose or feel the imposition of others.
I question that among some a difference exists between what is called religion and politics. So long as belief is expressed outside one's person it is not nor can it be considered anything but social, which of necessity and by common definition is "of the city" i.e. political.
While i respect all of my fellow humans I consider some personal views to interfere with a functioning society where belief is held above perceptible reality.
I value my freedom, respect that of others and have no desire to impose or feel the imposition of others.
3
Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation in the world by population -- some 203 million adherents, nearly 90% of its citizens -- yet it is a religiously tolerant, pro-American democracy with a Western-style economy.
Why? Because Islam was introduced there without the sociopolitical baggage of the religion's Arabian Peninsula origins. The example of Indonesia proves his case.
Mr. Akyol has written an eloquent and unflinchingly honest historical critique of institutional Islam. Those who are knee-jerk dismissive of his characterization of Islam as "a religion of peace" should take an equally honest look at the terrible history of violence in institutional Christianity, from the Crusades to the Inquisition to subjugation of native populations and beyond.