US Engagement with Religion in Conflict-Prone Settings

[jmm99]

seem to me to have a good practical grasp of their systematic theology (your points ## 1-2 & 5-6 - points ## 3-4 are issues of moral theology, on which I'll pass). On issues of systematic theology, there are real differences between Islam and Christianity. The latter, in its orthodox posture (e.g., Pope Benedict and John Ankerberg, to illustrate that that posture is not a monolith) is tied to Creed and Christ. Those two concepts cannot be reconciled with Islam or, for that matter, with Judaism.

Thus, on the level of systematic theology, engagement between orthodox Christianity and orthodox Islam is more likely to lead to flaming than anything else. What about engagement on a political level ?

Here, your last statement applies (I changed "is" to "if" since that seemed to be what you meant, not typed):

Whereas a Muslims entire way of life and daily existance is bound up in Islam, literally, as are their various types of government(s), they just don't get basic democracy [if] they are "religious" Muslims vs. some who are moving away from Islam altogether toward a secular way of life and thinking.

This is so true (I'm interpreting your use of "basic democracy" to equate to the Western constitutional theories of that concept).

The ideal political community for a religious Muslim (and I am not talking about extreme Salafists only) is what Paul Tillich termed a "theonomy". The particle "nomy" comes from "nomos" (law); so, theonomy is divine law. That was the religio-political state in Europe of the Middle Ages.

Maududi (just to use a Pakistani example) lays out the basics of an Islamic theonomous community - and in fact feels it would be a true democracy.

Our (US) concept of democracy is very much a product of the Enlightenment, and so much more autonomous (and separated from divine law). As the Preamble proves, our basic organic law comes from the People. In Islamic political thought (e.g., Maududi), autonomy still exists (the individual has free will and can reject God), but it is very much aware of its divine ground which is supreme. Again, in their thought, our recognition of political autonomy (but without accepting the supremacy of divine law) is a degeneration into mere humanism.

Wilf has made the point, over and over, that Middle Eastern politics are very much based on religion (at least in part theonomous communities). There are, however, as you point out, secularists and pragmatists.

The Bush administration (IMO) attempted to gloss over these fundamental religious and political differences. Perhaps, President Obama has a better grasp of Islam - and his administration will take a more pragmatic approach. We shall see.