Islamic Exceptionalism, and Why It Matters | Hacker News Reader

Islamic Exceptionalism, and Why It Matters

abc.net.au

26 pointszhengiszen17 comments

Yes it is true that Islam ties politics to religion, and that is a weakness not a strength.

I struggle to listen with open ears to someone who defends the Muslim Brotherhood. I know some kind, good Arab Americans who support them, and I also know a refugee who was forced to flee Sudan after the MB publicly executed her local cleric for advocating equal rights for women.

That's fascism at work. The Muslim Brotherhood encourages the view that some sects of Islam are superior to other creeds, and it is not OK.

I think the author's point is that it WAS working, up until 1924 and the deposition of the Caliphate. Then in the modern era, it suddenly became hopelessly outdated - and unfortunately since, so-called "Islamists" have defined themselves on the opposition to other principles (secularism, nationalism and the like) instead of defining themselves in terms of their own ideas.

"We just assume that all cultures and societies will follow a certain trajectory: from reformation, to enlightenment, to secularization, then on to the end of history. There this almost patronizing tone I often hear, which is, well, you know, Muslims will get there."

Then where is a Muslim plan for getting out of this current quagmire and into a 'there' that's appropriate for Muslims? The reason most thinking western people assume that is because they look at the current state of affairs, see its unmanageable, and assume that the smart will triumph over the stupid: in other words, religion will be relegated to the realm of myth like it has in the west. Many of us do indeed assume that a modern nation state cannot be run by religion and its illusions. So far, Islam has not proven us wrong. Quite the opposite, the many Islamic nation states currently existing have shown us that Islam, and also based on previous experience, religion in general cannot be combined with a successful nation state.

> "So my hope, as I lay out in my book, is a fairly modest one. I think people will continue to hate each other for the foreseeable future in the Middle East, and for understandable reasons. But my hope is that they can learn to hate each other through peaceful, political processes, without resorting to violence. From the standpoint of American or Western observers, part of what we need to do is to come to terms with the fact that Islam is going to continue to play a prominent - even central - role in public life in much of the Middle East and beyond. And that entails challenging our own assumptions."

This will never happen, here on Earth. You'll never have hate without violence.

"For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother.... Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."

-- 1 John 3:11-15

Our only hope is that people will turn to the truth and love thy brothers.

You'll never have hate without violence.

What about America, with its commitment to the rights of the individual (including the right to worship any deities or none at all)? In this era, Protestants hated Catholics (and vice versa) all the same, but for the most part, they didn't kill each other over it. Compared to the sectarian violence in England in the century preceding the founding of the United States, how can you look at it as anything less than an unqualified success at solving the problem of warring religious factions?

People can hate without violence, just like you can think about a girl sexually without later jerking off. However, it's a sin either way, with obvious potential consequences (i.e. violence) that will occur more often than zero percent.

As such, there is violence in America, it's greater than zero. There's less hate, more wisdom, and more love here, I think, which is why there's less violence here.

Anyways, do Protestants really hate Catholics? Or do they just think they're idiots? They just dislike their ideas, traditions, etc., rather then them as individuals? I'm actually not too aware of this relationship, but this would be my guess.

> In this era, Protestants hated Catholics (and vice versa) all the same, but for the most part, they didn't kill each other over it

It is because both pointed their hatred and violence against a common "enemy". And today we have Black Lives Matter, and the same hatred and violence against them. I would not call this prospectoprospect a success.

> > In this era, Protestants hated Catholics (and vice versa) all the same, but for the most part, they didn't kill each other over it

> It is because both pointed their hatred and violence against a common "enemy".

I think its more because America had strong cultural traditions about avoiding that drawn from fairly recent experience of several centuries of Protestants and Catholics killing each other all the time over religion. The religious test clause in the base Constitution and the free exercise and establishment clauses in the First Amendment were not added based on abstract concern for freedom of religion, they were there because the wars of religion within Christian Europe weren't as distant and fuzzy a memory then as they are to Americans now.

No, no, no. It's just that the level of hate between Protestants and Catholics is obviously much less than it is from crazy Muslims onto "infidels". The crazy Muslims hate "infidels" and don't repent.

Repenting is another important factor. Repenting stops hate from overflowing. When Muslims start killing, is when they're convicted in their hatred and stop repenting.

When Americans or someone goes too far, yeah, maybe they throw a fist or something, but then they realize they're out of line and repent.

"One of the main arguments I make in the book - and perhaps the most controversial argument, which has gotten me attacked from both left and right - is that Islam is, in fact, exceptional in how it relates to politics, law and governance. In both theory and practice, Islam has been, is and will continue to be resistant to secularization. In other words, Islam is different. It is fundamentally different than other major religions."

I 100% agree with this, and I think it is for the same reasons that Islam was such a tremendously empowering force for its followers prosperity in the Middle Ages.

I think it is for the same reasons that Islam was such a tremendously empowering force for its followers prosperity in the Middle Ages.

But what about Avicenna and others who translated and propagated Aristotelian and other Greek ideas? This was done in a period before a religious consolidation of sorts, wherein these ideas faded in the Islamic world. (Incidentally, Avicenna's work was the route through which Thomas Aquinas was exposed to Aristotle, which set off a chain of philosophical progress that spanned several centuries, eventually culminating in the Enlightenment.)

It doesn't seem like a "tremendously empowering force for its followers prosperity" today.

> it's possible to like sandwiches and still believe in the implementation of Islamic law

If that implementation of Islamic law disrespects human rights, then excuse me if I choose not to sit and share sandwiches with you. I'll sit somewhere else.

Good article and a point I often make myself. Islam isn't just a religion. It's a political ideology and political system as well.

Can someone explain why this story should be in a flagged state? The story and most of the comments so far look reasonable to me.

It looks like it was previously flag-killed, and then someone revived it by "vouching" for it. This story is clearly alive at this point, since it can be upvoted and new comments can be added. I don't know why the HN software keeps the "[flagged]" indication after it's been reversed - it could be a bug.

at the beginning, religions were developed to solve problems, then they became the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com