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.

[George L. Singleton]

analysis.

Trying to talk "politics" with university and high school age Pukhtuns invariably is to the majority them "talking religion."

Your implication is that we Westerners have the burden to bending over backwards to accommodate them and their unusual beliefs.

I have a problem with this personally, as it offends me in what I believe and practice, religiously, as a [Protestant} Christian. Most I correspond with via both their mainline website and via individual e-mails they sometimes send me on the side, outside their website [my e-mail address is readily avaiable in DAWN.com archives in many letters published there, as well as whenever a letter is published [occasionally even an article is published] in the Peshawar FRONTIER POST.

Mature website respondents/correspondents, as in adult members of Hujra Online.com, have no problem discussing different interpretations from Abraham to current times. But, many youths don't even know their own religious history and having built Islam from and on Judaism and Christianity...my opinion.

Have to admit that when you get into Tillitson et al you are the level of an old friend in Nashville who is a semi-retired egg headed Episcopalian Priest who once taught in seminary.

I am just a simple country Methodist, who was raised as a fundamentalist Southern Baptist in my youth...giving me a Calvanist outlook in a Wesley setting...pretty hairy!

Cheers, and I make so many typos feel free to correct me any time,
George

[jmm99]

from GLS
Your implication is that we Westerners have the burden to bending over backwards to accommodate them and their unusual beliefs.

definitely not my implication - in fact, quite the opposite, because bending over backwards (or forwards) would violate my concept of the separation of church and state.

1. Muslims (and Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists) should have freedom to practice their own religion so long as they do not injure others.

2. Special US laws for Muslims (or Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists) are unacceptable to me.

3. Sharia Law (in the US in any guise) is in its fundamental construct contrary to the US Constitution, which I'm thrice-sworn to support.

4. I will not accept dhimmitude imposed because of my religion (whether by Muslims or anyone else) - and would die first (relatively easy at my age ).

I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding of where I stand.

[William F. Owen]

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.

I have, but I should also add the dimension that religion in the Middle East is why you believe something, not how you believe it. Very, very little conflict actually comes from interference in religious practice. It is mostly about land and blood, and they inform belief, in the context of religion, - which is why you see Hezbollah victimising Druze and Sunni families in the Lebanon.

Now you don't need an HTT to understand this. It's all pretty simple, once you get that, and it's what makes the Israelis so difficult to second guess, as they have lots of competing sets of beliefs, as they are more politically and ethnically diverse.

[Bob's World]

Not specifically about any of this, but indirectly about all of it; if you get the chance read or listen to "Children of Jihad" by Jared Cohen. Great insights from the recent solo travels of a young American jewish man to meet and learn about young Muslims in several of the most heated areas of the Middle East.

Will agree with WILF that it is not about religion. He boils it down to "blood and land," and certainly that is always involved. I boil it down to one word: Respect.

Respect is a complicated emotion, toward the top of Maslow's heirarchy, but it is the one I believe that is most likely to drive men to a very committed form of conflict. From individual duals, to the American Revolution, to much of the Muslim strife in the world today. We may not know ####-all about Islam, but we all understand respect. Focusing on understanding the respect-based issues of the region and attempting to address them first would in my mind be a wise strategic sea change of approach.