Book #1: Religion and State by L. Carl Brown

[jmm99]

Regards

Mike

[TheCurmudgeon]

T,

Fully understand and agree with your position. Did not realize that was what you were going for. From my perspective, a practitioner of social instability needs to understand things at the level you are talking. To say that one group believes the the trinity and one group does not is interesting from a historical perspective. To say that one group does not easily separate religion from politics (and why that is the case for many people) helps to understand the issues at hand at a very basic level. To say that those who have separated it do so in definition only and some of the actual social functions performed by religion is now part and parcel to the political I believe helps some of us understand why things are as they are. I know I bastardized what you said, and I like the elegant way you said it, but I hope I got your point right this time.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I am sure I am not the only council member who felt that way.

[Tukhachevskii]

T,

Fully understand and agree with your position. Did not realize that was what you were going for. From my perspective, a practitioner of social instability needs to understand things at the level you are talking. To say that one group believes the the trinity and one group does not is interesting from a historical perspective. To say that one group does not easily separate religion from politics (and why that is the case for many people) helps to understand the issues at hand at a very basic level. To say that those who have separated it do so in definition only and some of the actual social functions performed by religion is now part and parcel to the political I believe helps some of us understand why things are as they are. I know I bastardized what you said, and I like the elegant way you said it, but I hope I got your point right this time.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I am sure I am not the only council member who felt that way.

Thank you for saying in one paragraph what it took this pedant to do in four posts!

[Tukhachevskii]

It seems a little (a lot?!) redundant now but as I have just found my copy of Hegel (Philosophy of Right) (when I had given up looking; always the way!) and as I had intended to include him previously I shall do so as a footnote of sorts to my previous post as his comments are well worth mulling over;

“The state is the march of God in the world ( Es ist der Gang Gottes in der Welt, daas der Staat ist); its ground or cause is the power of reason realizing itself as will. When thinking of the idea of the state, we must not have in our mind any particular state, or particular institution, but must rather contemplate the idea, this actual God, by itself.” (my italics, §258A)

and

“We must hence honour the state as the divine on earth, and learn that if it is difficult to conceive of nature, it is infinitely harder to apprehend the state. That we in modern times have attained definite views concerning the state in general, and are perpetually engaged in speaking about and manufacturing constitutions, is a fact of much importance. But that does not settle the whole matter. It is necessary further that we approach a reasonable question in the mind of rational beings, that we know what is essential, and distinguish it from what is merely striking. Thus, the functions of the state must indeed be distinguished; and yet each must of itself form a whole, and also contain the other elements. When we speak of the distinctive activity of any function, we must not fall into the egregious error of supposing that it should exist in abstract independence, since it should rather be distinguished merely as an element of the conception”. (my, italics, §272A)

In “The Relationship of Religion to the State” (url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hegel-Politi...9753]Political Writings[/url]) Hegel elaborates further and is a text which repays careful reading (in many ways it is a distillation of themes begun in the Philosophy of Right,

“In general, religion and the foundation of the state are one and the same thing – they are identical in and for themselves. In the patriarchal condition and the Jewish theocracy, the two are not yet distinct and are still outwardly identical. Nevertheless, the two are also different, and in due course, they become strictly separated from one another; but then they are once more posited as genuinely identical. [That the two have then attained] that unity which has being in and for itself follows from what has been said; religion is knowledge of the highest truth, and this truth, defined more precisely, is free spirit. In religion, human beings are free before God. In making their will conform to the divine will, they are not opposed to the divine will but have themselves within it; they are free inasmuch as they have succeeded, in the [religious] cult, in overcoming the division [die Entzweiung aufzuheben]. The state is merely freedom in the world, in actuality. The essential factor here is that concept of freedom which a people carries in its self-consciousness, for the concept of freedom is realised in the state, and an essential aspect of this realisation is the consciousness of freedom with being in and for itself. Peoples who do not know that human beings are free in and for themselves live in a benighted state both with regard to their constitution and to their religion.– There is one concept of freedom in [both] religion and the state. This one concept is the highest thing which human beings have, and it is realised by them. A people which has a bad concept of God also has a bad state, a bad government, and bad laws”.(my italics in bold, p.225-226)

However, standing as Hegel does at an epochal moment where religion has almost completely been separated from the political (de-sacralised) and confined into a distinct realm with distinct functions Hegel also notes that,

“the state and religion can also be divorced from one another and have different laws. The secular and the religious spheres are distinct, and a difference of principle may also arise. Religion does not simply remain in its own distinct sphere, but also affects the subject, issuing precepts with regard to the subject’s religiosity and hence also to its activity. These precepts which religion issues to the individual may be distinct from the principles of right and ethical life which obtain within the state.(my italics in bold, p.228)

On a different tack does the book club have a formal structure or do we simply flag up issues that concern us about Brown's Religion and State as we encounter them?

[jmm99]

On a different tack does the book club have a formal structure or do we simply flag up issues that concern us about Brown's Religion and State as we encounter them?

Initially, I skim the ToC and look for interesting chapters to skim or read; after that, I'll slog through the book from start to finish, if it seems worth it. I've never learned how to read through a book backwards ; so, I'd have to pass on that methodology.

Other than that, I'm flexible in how you decide we should discuss Brown's book. So far as I'm concerned, you can take the lead in setting the framework for us to "follow".

cowboys herding cats (1 min)

Regards

Mike

[omarali50]

I am almost done with the book. Not bad at all. The following post is in some ways based on this book
http://www.brownpundits.com/2013/10/...m-brotherhood/

[graphei]

I apologize for my extended absence. Work has been rather treacherous and the purchasing of a new car was a stressful endeavor. I hope not to do that again for a very long time.

I will do my best to address issues and questions, but first a question.

Every time I encounter a new book I do two things: I always flip to the page with the copyright year on it and read the back cover. Did any of you do this?

If you didn't, it's a good habit to get into. Here's why. From that information, I can see and figure out three very important things.
1. Who it is geared toward;
2. When it was published; and ultimately,
3. Where this book is going to fall in terms of larger conversations the author is responding to or addressing.

So, in the case of our current selection, I flip and I see "Copyright 2000". Ahh, pre-9/11 when if you said the word 'jihad' Americans either had no clue what you were talking about or they thought you were referencing 'Dune'. I think we can all agree the discussions regarding Islam on September 10, 2001 and on September 11, 2001 were vastly different.

Then, I flip to the back. I see a few big names, so I know this isn't the author's first dance, so to speak. This is someone seasoned who has a generally good reputation. I see reviewers are from places like Foreign Relations and 'Discourse'. That piques my interest. In their platitudes, they drop words like "overview" and "students", and talk a lot about history, and I make mental note of each. I read the little blurb at the top and from it confirms what the reviewers have said. This is going to be a basic historical overview suitable for students and people who don't know their shura from their shari'a. Then, I remember it was written and reviewed by people outside of the Religious Studies/Islamic Studies realm. So, I know the author isn't going to delve into the nitty-gritty theological issues because he or she isn't equipped to do so. Plus, it wouldn't really be suitable for the audience now would it?

So, if you've been disappointed by the lack of rigor, bleeding edge research, or a definitive treatise on some hot-button issue, it makes sense because this book isn't designed to address those topics. Also, concept that most Muslims don't live in the Middle East would not have been well known at this point in time. Within the US, it’s still not a well known fact.

In short, before you read one word of the introduction, I cannot impress upon all of you how important to do that quick check. You'll approach the book differently, which results in you asking different questions and expanding your frame of reference. It’s not just about reading the words on the page and then applying to to your current frame of reference. Instead, it’s about learning how to situate the book in its larger context, both in terms of the larger (scholarly) discussion and history. From there, more nuanced and accurate analysis can occur.

Second, the concept that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God. Where did that belief come from and why does it persist? The belief comes from the religions themselves. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are categorically referred to as the Abrahamic traditions because all three trace their theological lineage to Abraham, and the God he interacted with. Torah, Bible, and Qur'an all remind their followers they are following the God of Abraham. That is why we, (those of us in Religious Studies) say Muslims, Christians, and Jews follow the same God. Why does this thought persist? Generally speaking, because it is true.

Islamic thought generally takes issue with the concept of Jesus as the Son of God. The other third of the trinity, the Holy Spirit, they have no issue with. The Holy Spirit is mentioned numerous times in the Qur'an. As for Jesus, the virgin birth and all of the miracles Christ performed throughout his life are mentioned in the Qur'an and the Virgin Mary even has her own Chapter. Refer to Christ as God or the Son of God, then you're getting into contested turf. Another sticking point is the Crucifixion, but that's for another time. Of course there will be Jews, Muslims, and Christians who say they do NOT follow the same God as the other two. With that said, just as you'll find Messianic Jews, there are Muslims who take no issue with the Trinity.

A professor of mine in grad school said one day, "There are as many Islams as there are Muslims"(It was Zebiri, Tuck), and that lingered with me. The simple fact that no two people believe or practice in the same way is too often forgotten. It seems trite and naive, but when you're attempting to understand belief patterns in any group of people- let alone 2 billion- it is unequivocally true. Islam, much like Judaism and Christianity, has an enormous corpus of theological and legal literature surrounding it. There are a millennia worth of voices commenting on issues.

Speaking of cherry picking, I see you're quoting Maududi, jmm. While it’s awesome you’ve found a treasure trove of his work, I’d stay away from him and Qutb for now. As one of the founders of Islamist Thought, he uses his background in Islamic theology to string together some very interesting opinions. I promise, we will cover both of them, but I am attempting to figure out a way to condense my research on tafsir into something easily digestible for all of you so he’s not only more accessible, but you can see how the thought evolved- and I’m using the world evolved loosely.

Unfortunately, the difficult part of working on extremist thought is you need to know their tradition better than they do. Doesn’t matter what religion they are. They all roughly pull the same ‘scholarly’ tricks. Heaping praise on an intellectual giant of a religious thinker in the 15th Century C.E. in a fatwa? It really helps to know said individual wasn’t qualified as an ulema (religious scholar), but was just a jurist, and his opinions were viewed as ‘too extreme’ in his day. A group releases a message they’re quoting a hadith of Muhammad as justification? If you know where to look, you can find the isnad (chain of transmission) and you can see, Oops, the chain was broken and that hadith has been discredited since the 1870s. You did a little more and then you find it persists in one specific region. Either that group is from that region, or some extremists had a mini-conference and someone who is from that region passed through.

But before you can do all of that, one must see the forest for the trees. Some of you have a decent background in the area, but what I hope to do is show you a different approach to that material.

I’ll check in again on Sunday. Saturday, I’m driving out to my alma mater and I plan on doing some research. I will have a more structured approach for the next book!