In the neocon thread both Canadian Steve and Faith have argued that Islam, when it is practiced according to the literal and proper reading of its holy texts, are not conducive. I'll leave aside the fact the broader, general problems within this argument, as well as their generalized arguments about how Xianity is conducive to science and democracy.
What I want to do is get down to actual evidence for an argument on this subject. My position is that while certain fundamentalist strains of Islam have come to power which do act in an oppressive manner, Islam (like any religion) is improperly characterized as inherently oppressive by nature and not only can be, but was conducive to both science and democracy.
Indeed the Islamic world generated the very foundations of modern science and democracy we currently enjoy in the West, when they were imported by those looking to throw off the shackles put in place by Xian dogma.
SCIENCE
The very foundation of modern science is the scientific method. While it is well understood that science began as a very undisciplined discipline, almost "magickal" in its pursuits and methods, eventually methodology was developed to focus research and improve results. This was the scientific method, and its origins are in Islamic nations.
From Wikipedia on Islamic science...
The scientific method in its modern form arguably developed in early Muslim philosophy, in particular, citation ("isnad"), peer review and open inquiry leading to development of consensus ("ijma" via "ijtihad"), and a general belief that knowledge reveals nature honestly.
During the middle ages, the advances in mathematics, medicine, astronomy, engineering, and many other fields were evidence that Islamic civilization had some knowledge of science and technology. During this time Islamic philosophy developed and was often pivotal in scientific debates—key figures were usually scientists and philosophers.
Ibn Al-Haitham used the scientific method to obtain the results in his book Optics.
It's known that Roger Bacon (who is usually erroneously given the credit for having founded the scientific method) was familiar with Ibn Al-Haitham's work.
Faith in particular tried to suggest Roger Bacon was a key player in modern science, playing up that he was a Xian monk, and thus that Xianity was conducive and influential. Yet here we have seen that Islamic scholars were some of the first practitioners if not the source of scientific method, and that Bacon was influenced by them.
More interesting is what can be found on
Bacon himself ...
He was an English philosopher who placed considerable emphasis on empiricism, and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method; though later studies have emphasized his reliance on occult and alchemical traditions. He was intimately acquainted with the philosophical and scientific insights of the Arabic world, which was the most advanced civilization at the time.
And what exactly did he face from the church in his attempts to modernize according to Arabic principles...
The scientific training Bacon had received showed him the defects in existing academic debate. Aristotle was known only through poor translations; none of the professors would learn Greek. The same was true of Scripture. Physical science was not carried out by experiment in the Aristotelian way, but by arguments based on tradition. Bacon withdrew from the scholastic routine and devoted himself to languages and experimental research.
Faith should note some counterevidence accumulating in some of her assumptions...
Bacon fell out of favor, and was in fact later imprisoned by the Franciscan order for the second time in 1278 as his dissemination of arab alchemy, and doubtless also his protests against the ignorance and immorality of the clergy, roused accusations of witchcraft. He stayed imprisoned for over ten years, until intercession of English noblemen secured his release.
He possessed one of the most commanding intellects of his own, or perhaps of any, age, and, notwithstanding all the disadvantages and discouragements to which he was subjected, made many discoveries, and came near to many more. He rejected the blind following of prior authorities, both in theological and scientific study.
To the church's credit, he was encouraged by some (one who became pope) to continue his writings in secret. But there can be no discounting where dogma and oppression came from, and where his source of scientific achievement derived.
From the first source above, here is a discussion of science in the Islamic world, prior to its fall and subsequent division...
Science was encouraged by the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad and they established the "House of Wisdom", an academy of science where they gathered important Sanskrit and Greek manuscripts and supported scholars to study and translate them. Some of these manuscripts were thus saved for humanity only through the Arabic medium.
The important contributions made by Islamic scholars can be seen in many words still in use today:alkali, algebra, alchemy, alcohol, Aldebaran, Altair, Algol, alembic, algorithm, almanac, Almagest, through to zenith and zero.
This situation fell apart toward the late 1400's, and not back in 1000 as Canadian Steve suggested...
With the fall of Muslim Spain in 1492, scientific and technological initiative generally passed to Christian Europe and led to what we now call the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The fiqh of Islamic Law froze more or less along classical/medieval lines, and no longer encouraged science.
There is now a movement to return to the pro-scientific strains of Islam, much as there was a return to pro-science in Xianity with the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Thus it would seem that there is an ebb and flow within both, which prevents the characterization of either as inherently anything. Indeed while some in Islam are moving back toward a pro-science stance, some Xians in the West are avidly seeking a return to preEnlightenment antiscience and antiscientific methodological positions.
GOVERNMENTAll Abrahamic monotheistic religions have as their core concept laws given by God, both obligations and restrictions. One cannot escape this core fact, with such an unforgettable image as Moses carrying the Ten Commandments down from the mountain.
Indeed there is much irony and hypocrisy when Xians deride Islam as only allowing theocracy and not democracy, and declare Xianity devoid of theocratic and monarchical instruction, while at the same time claiming that Images of the ten commandments should be posted at our courthouses to show where the first laws were derived and what we have to stay faithful to or will fail as a nation.
In the full analysis, Judaism began under Mosaic laws, which did not allow for democracy and indeed resulted in the genocide of anyone who would not submit. It went on to found a Kingdom, and even for Xians who would later use Jesus' death as a reason for renouncing some of Mosaic Law, certainly argued that Jesus was a King and were attempting to establish him as a King when he was killed. Their recourse in light of his death was to announce a second coming of that same man, to finally take his Kingdom.
There simply is no getting around the full and clear wording of both the Old and New Testaments with respect to this. If Xians have passages they want to show where God or Jesus extoll and encourage democracy this would be the time to post those quotes.
Islam is essentially not that different. Unlike Judaism and Xianity, it did not so much form within and then fight democratic nations. It formed within tribal and near feudal nations and then fought democracies. So its beginnings outside democracy are not unusual.
Unlike Jesus, but like Moses and David and to some degree Paul (at least his followers), Mohammed was able to establish his nation and so set religious doctrine as national law.
In practice however, which were more democratic, or in its teachings accepting of democratic concepts? It would seem that that is only true within Islam,
Source on Islamic Democracy,
Source on Islamic Law. Here are some excerpts regarding democratic concepts found within Islam...
Finally Sharia law can be based on ijma, or consensus. Justification for this final approach is drawn from the Hadith where Muhammad states; "My nation cannot agree on an error." The ummah, or community of Muslims, comes together with each person applying his or her ijtihad, or independent thought and judgement, to achieve this consensus. The role of ulema, i.e. scholars, is critical, since they are the ones who study the Islamic law and therefore have authority to represent it.
So even in Sharia, one of the strictest, there is the concept of some level of representative decision making allowed, though it is clearly not wholly democratic. Some subfactions of Sharia have moved on to become even more strict in investing the power to formulate opinion, and so oppose adequate representational models of any kind. This however is not unique, and is best comparable to Mosaic Law.
Indeed traditional Islamic Law as characterized by Sharia, can be viewed as almost directly analogous to Mosaic Law, which is traditional (or fundamentalist) Judaic and to varying degrees Xian law.
But like Judaism and Xianity, there are many flavors of Islam, with ideas of how traditional law and govt must intersect, and muslims (unlike the others) can find support within their texts.
Muslim democrats... {following argument by specific scholar}... argue that concepts in the Qur'an point towards some form of democracy, or at least away from despotism. These concepts include shura (consultation), ijma' (consensus), al-hurriyya (freedom), al-huqquq al-shar'iyya (legitimate rights). For example shura (Aal `Imran 3:159, Ash-Shura 42:38) may include electing leaders to represent and govern on the community’s behalf.
...despotic Islamic governments have abused the Qur'anic concepts for their own ends: "For instance, shura, a doctrine that demands the participation of society in running the affairs of its government, became in reality a doctrine that was manipulated by political and religious elites to secure their economic, social and political interests at the expense of other segments of society,"
and this has been seen as practiced by muslims in Western nations as well as different nonSharia factions within nonWestern nations...
The Sunni tradition, as opposed to the Shia, has tended away from Ayatollah type religious leaders, and the establishment of a religious class that is believed to have special access to divine will. Sunnis argue the Qur'an warns against the establishment of a religious class. Furthermore, Sunnis believe that after the Prophet Muhammad there is no one who has direct access to God’s will, and therefore no one person or group has the legitimacy or authority to claim a pope- or priesthood-like status in the Muslim community.
This stands in stark contrast to the traditions of Judaism and Xianity, and stands as a counter to the arguments against Islam not being compatible with democracy as seen voiced by CS and Faith, and paraphrased well in thise passage...
...{analysts have been led to} dismiss the compatibility of Islam with democracy. The arguments for this position include: Islam and secularism are opposite forces; theocracy is incompatible with democracy; and Muslim culture lacks the liberal social attitudes of democratic societies. For example, Ausuf Ali, a former professor of business at the University of Karachi writing on Beliefnet, argues that the case of Pakistan (where democratically elected governments have been regularly overthrown by the military) shows that: "Islam and the Sharia, or Islamic law, simply do not have the conceptual resources, flexibility, and dynamism to suffice for the governance of a modern state and operation of a rational economy and an expanding civil society." However, it should be noted that Ali is only arguing that "fundamentalist Islam and democracy are not compatible".
CS and Faith argue that fundamentist Islam, or traditional Shia Islam, is the true reading, though this has not been established by either author and stands countered by above refs which include an Islamic scholar. Yes certain strains would be, but those strains are not necessarily the only real, literal interpretation, as has been shown.
Could it be that fundamentalist strains of all Abrahamic religions then fall to the same criticism?
Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law means different things to different people in different times and places. In the hands of moderates, religious law can be moderate, even liberal. In the hands of post-Enlightenment readers of philosophy, religious law is relegated to ritual (as opposed to law in a civil sense), or even to just being history. In the hands of fundamentalists, it is legally binding on all people of the faith, and even on all people that come under their control. Islamic law to American Muslims in Dearborn, Boston, or Houston is a very different thing than Islamic law to religious Muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, western China, Nigeria[1], Indonesia, or Pakistan. All of them are following Islamic law, yet it varies as much as individual Muslims vary.
This would seem to be an argument that it is liberal ideas regarding social development which temper conservative strains of all monotheist religion from growing oppressive, and as we have seen there is support within Islam for such social ideas.
As a matter of fact,
Mohammad wrote a Constitution in 622, which interestingly enough shows him allowing other faiths, and specifically Jews, to live and be protected by law.
I will admit to my own error of mistaking that for the Charter of Liberties, which set precedents eventually leading toward the US Constitution, but this clearly indicates a use of manmade law which is inclusive of other faiths.
There seems to be no inherent problems then with acceptance of liberal democracy, or secular constitutional law, in Islam, as there would be within any of the other Abrahamic faiths, depending on how militant and fundamentalist (or perhaps opportunist) any particular faction wishes to become.
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-18-2005 06:27 AM
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-18-2005 08:42 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2