Leaving Afghanistan

[Al B. Sure!]

Are you suggesting that Islamic countries have greater religious freedom that Christian ones?

They're supposed to if religion was the most critical thing in the societies of countries.

But, like I went on to say, the issue is not religion. It's politics with the guise of religion. Only what is politically expedient is taken from the religion, and other things are ignored.

See, this is what I hate about Apolyton. I make a coherent point and you want to act like I'm stupid by responding to a portion of the point out of context. You also ignore that I was responding to Pax's statement that the "main goal of Islam is to spread Islam by any means necessary" and the implications that that has a significant role in modern politics.

It's annoying. I made my points two pages ago and no one but crazy Catholic Ben had anything to say and now you want to come in and say something? I get your game. After two pages and several days, it's easy to pull off the revisionism and make me look like an idiot.

[giblets]

Maybe you shouldn't assume someone is trying to insult you whenever they disagree with you. You are so easy to rile up.

[Al B. Sure!]

Maybe you shouldn't assume someone is trying to insult you whenever they disagree with you. You are so easy to rile up.

I know from experience... especially you.

[Dinner]

Sure, lots of folks make fun of you Albie but you have to admit he's right, you are very easy to rile up and that does make you an easy target.

[Cort Haus]

I wasn't targetting Al. I actually like the guy despite his annoying habits - such as wildly over-reacting to polite enquiries.

Back to the point - is the tolerance he seemed to be referring to, ie the dhimmi system of 'protected' status, a religious or political construct? Furthermore, isn't Islam an inherently religious-and-political system anyway that doesn't acknowledge secular space? In other words, the politics comes bundled with the religion. IMO the dhimmi system was a denial of equality, therefore a denial of freedom. By contrast, the religious freedom I see in my society is based on equality of civil rights - and I fail to see how pointing to this is taking things out of context.

[giblets]

There are a lot of Christians who bring religion into politics again and again- just look at Ben Kenobi. I'm not convinced that Islam is inherently more political.

[Cort Haus]

Ben is no representative of contemporary Christianity - not in most of Europe anyway - not so sure about the US, where it all seems a lot heavier. Islam is currently where Christianity was in Europe several hundred years ago.

Of course there will be an intersection of religious belief into politics, but I'm sure that Islam is inherently more political (ie, Islam is the State). To quote Alia Izetbegovic, who attempted to establish an Islamic state in Europe: "There can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic societies and political institutions"

[Cort Haus]

I would add though, that Catholicism is more state-ist than most other Christian denominations, in terms of Vatican power over local sovereignty. This might help explain Ben's political profile.

[Al B. Sure!]

Ben is no representative of contemporary Christianity - not in most of Europe anyway - not so sure about the US, where it all seems a lot heavier. Islam is currently where Christianity was in Europe several hundred years ago.

Of course there will be an intersection of religious belief into politics, but I'm sure that Islam is inherently more political (ie, Islam is the State). To quote Alia Izetbegovic, who attempted to establish an Islamic state in Europe: "There can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic societies and political institutions"

How? Historically, the authority in Islamic nations was split between the secular (the malik, emir, etc.) and the religious scholarship (the ulema). Islamic nations have had a long history of distinguishing the secular from the religious.

[BeBMan]

I thought there's no secular system of law outside the sharia? Is this wrong, or what is "the secular" then?

[Al B. Sure!]

I thought there's no secular system of law outside the sharia? Is this wrong, or what is "the secular" then?

Law is not the same thing as political authority. There has always been secular political authority in the Islamic world, an authority which gains its religious legitimacy from the ulema.

According to the scholar Ira M. Lapidus:
In fact, religious and political life developed distinct spheres of experience, with independent values, leaders, and organizations. From the middle of the tenth century effective control of the Arab-Muslim empire had passed into the hands of generals, administrators, governors, and local provincial lords; the Caliphs had lost all effective political power. Governments in Islamic lands were henceforth secular regimes - Sultanates - in theory authorized by the Caliphs, but actually legitimized by the need for public order. Henceforth, Muslim states were fully differentiated political bodies without any intrinsic religious character, though they were officially loyal to Islam and committed to its defense.[10]

In the same period, religious communities developed independently of the states or empires that ruled them. The ulama regulated local communal and religious life by serving as judges, administrators, teachers, and religious advisers to Muslims. The religious elites were organized according to religious affiliation into Sunni schools of law, Shi'ite sects, or Sufi tariqas. [...] In the wide range of matters arising from the Shari'a - the Muslim law - the 'ulama' of the schools formed a local administrative and social elite whose authority was based upon religion. Thus though the Muslim madhahib were not organized in the same way as Christian churches, they had many of the religious and social functions we associate with churches. But whether or not we wish to speak of churches, religious organizations, institutions, personnel and activities were clearly separate from the ruling regimes.[11]

As long as two decades ago, Sir Hamilton Gibb, in his essay 'Constitutional Organization', showed that Muslim political thinkers themselves had become aware of the separation of state and religion and recognized the emergence of an autonomous sphere of religious activity and organization. For example, Ibn Taymiyya held that apart from the Caliphate, the ulama constituted the true umma of Islam, and that ruling regimes were 'Muslim' regimes not by any intrinsic quality but by virtue of the support they lent the Muslim religion and religious communities.[12]

[Dinner]

There are a lot of Christians who bring religion into politics again and again- just look at Ben Kenobi. I'm not convinced that Islam is inherently more political.

It does contain doctrine on exactly how a state should be structured and run with specific policies listed so it is hard to say it is not political.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would add though, that Catholicism is more state-ist than most other Christian denominations, in terms of Vatican power over local sovereignty. This might help explain Ben's political profile.

I'm probably one of the least statist people here. I believe the feds should stick to the enumerated powers in the constitution. One of which is the defense of the nation, not Afghanistan and Libya. I believe the Church should have a larger role in society, but not because of legislation to that effect, but because they fill a need that can't be met otherwise. Let the Church sink and swim with everyone else, and see how it works.

As for the Vatican, technically it is a nation that is sovereign. That of Rome. You can't argue national sovereignty and then argue that the Vatican should not exist.

[giblets]

God damn it, how delusional do you have to be to consider yourself one of the least "statist" people around here when you think divorce should be illegal?

[Cort Haus]

Ben, I was referring to other peoples' states, and Rome's power & influence over them.