Karen Armstrong: Violent Islamic radicals know they are heretical

[muriel_volestrangler]

A few years ago at a conference in the US, a Christian fundamentalist erupted into the hall and launched a vitriolic attack on me and my fellow panellists. His words were tumbling over one another incoherently, but the note of pain was clear. We had obviously assaulted him at some profound level. For three days my colleagues and I had discussed complex and radical issues in theology, not once at a loss for words; but stunned by the impact of this attack, we could find nothing to say. Dumbfounded, we gazed bleakly at our assailant across an abyss of incomprehension, until he was hustled out.

This type of incident is now common. Increasingly, people find it difficult to communicate with their co-religionists. The divide is as great as that between religious and secular people. Many of the faithful feel threatened by those who interpret their tradition differently; it seems their sacred values are in jeopardy. An apparently impassable gulf yawns between liberal and fundamentalist Christians, reform and orthodox Jews, traditional and extremist Muslims. Because of our preoccupation with the so-called clash of civilisations, this internal tension is often overlooked.
...
It is disingenuous of Tony Blair to separate the rising tide of "Islamism" from his unpopular foreign policy, particularly when Palestinians are being subjected to new dangers in Gaza. He is also mistaken to imagine that law-abiding Muslims could bring the extremists to heel in the same way that he disciplines recalcitrant members of his cabinet. This is just not how religious groups operate.

During the 20th century, a militant piety erupted in almost every major world faith: in Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Confucianism, as well as in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is often called "fundamentalism". Its aim is to bring God and/or religion from the sidelines back to centre stage, though very few fundamentalists commit acts of violence. Coined by American Protestants who wanted a return to Christian "fundamentals", the term is unsatisfactory, not least because it suggests a conservative and backward-looking religiosity. In fact, fundamentalists are rebels who have separated themselves irrevocably and on principle from the main body of the faithful. Fundamentalist movements are nearly always the result of an internal dispute with traditional or liberal co-religionists; fundamentalists regard them as traitors who have made too many concessions to modernity. They withdraw from mainstream religious life to create separatist churches, colleges, study groups, madrasas, yeshivas and training camps. Only later, if at all, do fundamentalists turn their wrath against a foreign foe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1815604,00.html

Armstrong argues that biblical literalism and Islamic support for violent jihad are modern innovations - reactions to modern society. Interesting, though I don't think this means that the call for moderate Muslims (or moderate Christians, for that matter) to rein in the extremists is useless - it points out a possible way they could do it, by appealing to old tradition in their religions. This just means it won't be easy to persuade them.

[kwassa]

1. Read Armstrong's "The Battle for God"

an extremely thorough look at fundamentalism in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, starting in the mid-1800s as a backlash against the impact of scientific discoveries in other areas on religion.

muriel:
"Interesting, though I don't think this means that the call for moderate Muslims (or moderate Christians, for that matter) to rein in the extremists is useless - it points out a possible way they could do it, by appealing to old tradition in their religions."

The problem is that liberal religious types are tolerant of different interpretations of theology, and are loathe to call someone else's interpretation false, even if they believe it to be so. Old traditions can be part of the problem, too, as those traditions exclude women and gays in leadership roles. Fundamentalists often want the churches to revert to old traditions that were exclusionary and discriminatory.

[tocqueville]

2. they cannot be persuaded, they have to be neutralized.

The problem isn't really the Islamists, a minimum of reforms and democracy and increased welfare would send them into oblivion. The problem is the Christian ones because they are not perceived as a threat... yet. In Europe the few that exist are considered as lunatics and the American ones... well are far away...

The problem is WITHIN the US before it detoriates even more. The rise of the fundies in the US can be compared as the rise of the FIS in Algeria. It costed Algeria an horrible civil war after they won the elections and before secular forces could get rid of them. Morocco was more foreseeing and could contain them, but of course they had better premises with a King direct descendent of Mohammed.

And the problem in the US is that besides a fistful of "Godless libruls" a majority of the population thinks that things are in perfect order while a similar situation in France would bring back the guillotine.

Where is the new Jefferson when you need him ?

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. How do you 'neutralize' them without using persuasion?

What was good about Jefferson was that he did use persuasion rather than force. He argued for the separation of church and state, and persuaded the highly religious that this was better for their churches.

So what do you think the tactics in the US should be, to decrease the power and influence of fundamentalists?

[tocqueville]

6. things were different at that time (Jefferson's)

and clericalism in the US wasn't the threat it was in Europe at the end of 18th century.
But I am not advocating beheadings....

I am advocating legislation

the most extreme fundie groups are openly anti-democratic and must be considered as a threat against society.

Therefore legislation that more clearly statutes the separation of chuch and state must be passed. Which implies :

banning all religious implications in state affairs, like prayers, mottos, oaths, influence in public schools etc...
abolishing tax privileges for religious organisations
punishing open threats of violence towards individuals and groups because they are gay or otherwise don't "fit" in the fundie pattern etc... and of course acts of violence themselves
surveillance of groups that might turn violent
campaigns of explanation about why Church and State must be separated so that religious freedom can be preserved (fundies would be thee first to abolish it if they seized power)

if you mean by persuasion that a "new Jefferson" would relentless defend and apply such a program, I agree with you

[neebob]

7. I don't think it's possible to persuade them

These are people who believe that God will inevitably punish America for its wickedness, and it's supposed to happen, but for some reason have a huge problem with the wickedness and go around trying to stop it, even though it's part of the plan. That's what I don't get about fundamentalists.

[CJCRANE]

3. "It is disingenuous of Tony Blair

to separate the rising tide of "Islamism" from his unpopular foreign policy".

This is the neocon disconnect that annoys me the most. They seem to have no concept of human nature and emotions as being common to everyone.

For example on 9/11, 3,000 people died on American soil. Americans rightly felt angry, confused and many wanted revenge.

Then in March 2003 "shock and awe" began which has killed 30-100,000 Iraqi civilians, plus coalition casualities plus torture of detainess and other abuses. Why would Iraqis (and those sympathetic to them) not feel the very same emotions that Americans felt on 9/11?

That is the reality that Blair and the neocons ignore (on edit) at our peril.

[eallen]

4. Armstrong tries hard to paint "authentic" religion as moderate....

Now, there's nothing wrong with reading the Old Testament as allegory. That is now traditional in both Judaism and Christianity. But one has to ask: why would the ancient Israelites write down scriptures recording genocide ordered by their god, ordering draconian law, and based on pagan notions of blood sacrifice? Did they believe as Armstrong believed? I doubt it. Armstrong looks at that history and says, "well, we'll lift the good parts out of it, and focus on the direction and some of the theological ideas, the ones that aren't too outlandish." The fundamentalists look at that history and say, "we'll retroactively justify it and weave it into a baroque structure of different covenants." Neither is true to the what the ancient Israelites believed. Neither course is rational. They are just different ways of practicing religion.

If I had my druthers, I would rather my neighbors and fellow citizens were moderates like Armstrong. Of course!

But I don't think their arguments hold any more water than the fundamentalists. However much more pleasant it is to have them next door.