reformation

[Avi]

Hi,

I am new to this forum and it seems like a lot of fun so far No one has thrown a pie in my face yet

My understanding is that reformation has taken on a very different sense in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Can you please give your thoughts to what degree reformation has been experience in each religion ?

I have been told that Islam has not experienced a reformation in the same sense that Christianity and Judaism have. But I will not assert that as fact (as I am not sure), so please explain if you disagree.

Thanks.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Avi1223

No one has thrown a pie in my face yet

Well in that case ... do you like blueberry?


... welcome to da forums!

I have been told that Islam has not experienced a reformation in the same sense that Christianity and Judaism have. But I will not assert that as fact (as I am not sure), so please explain if you disagree.

That is debatable. Islam did experience some philosophic shifts
during its 1400 year history. Today, just like Judaism, there are those
Muslims who take a sort of adaptationist approach, there are those who
are assimiliationists, and then there are the so called "orthodox".
The problem is that the real Islam (in my opinion) lies at the heart of
the Quran. And all of these parties include extra-Quranic material in their
beliefs (except the assimiliationists who could care less). IMO, a proper
reading of the Quran makes it perfectly compatible with living a good life
in any society, in any time.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Avi1223

I have been told that Islam has not experienced a reformation in the same sense that Christianity and Judaism have.

The silent assumption here is that a reformation is a good thing. That assumption warrants exploring.

One of the byproducts of the Protestant reformation is that polygamy was instituted because so many men had been killed in the conflict. It was apparently ok to kill a woman who wouldn't be your wife. Is that the kind of Reformation "progress" you're looking for?

[Avi]

Hi c0de,

Originally Posted by Avi1223
No one has thrown a pie in my face yet

Well in that case ... do you like blueberry?


... welcome to da forums!

That is a great one !! Very funny !!

Quote Avi - I have been told that Islam has not experienced a reformation in the same sense that Christianity and Judaism have. But I will not assert that as fact (as I am not sure), so please explain if you disagree.

That is debatable. Islam did experience some philosophic shifts
during its 1400 year history. Today, just like Judaism, there are those
Muslims who take a sort of adaptationist approach, there are those who
are assimiliationists, and then there are the so called "orthodox".

I am actually quite encouraged to hear this and would like to learn more about it. I have been participating in “real live” interfaith dialogue for the last few months and was not aware of the “adaptationist” approach in Islam. Also, are you using "adaptationist" and “assimilationist” in a positive, negative or neutral connotation ?

The problem is that the real Islam (in my opinion) lies at the heart of
the Quran. And all of these parties include extra-Quranic material in their
beliefs (except the assimiliationists who could care less). IMO, a proper
reading of the Quran makes it perfectly compatible with living a good life
in any society, in any time.

Very nice sentiment. I believe this is true of Judaism as well, and I think Christianity too.

[Avi]

Netti – Netti,

Originally Posted by Avi1223
I have been told that Islam has not experienced a reformation in the same sense that Christianity and Judaism have.

The silent assumption here is that a reformation is a good thing. That assumption warrants exploring.

Yes, my belief is that reformation is a good thing.

One of the byproducts of the Protestant reformation is that polygamy was instituted because so many men had been killed in the conflict. It was apparently ok to kill a woman who wouldn't be your wife. Is that the kind of Reformation "progress" you're looking for?

No, killing women prisoners who would not be the victor's wife is a bad thing.

The kind of reformation I am looking for is where orthodoxy or fundamentalism evolves to the next stage in mankinds development. This means that people find a way to put governments in place which will not kill civilians. It also means that people let go of false ideas such as the age of the earth being 6,000 years old and the occurance of ancient miracles which divide us to this day.

Incidentally, I believe this sort of evolution cross-cuts all religions.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Avi1223

The kind of reformation I am looking for is where orthodoxy or fundamentalism evolves to the next stage in mankinds development.

This is a theological development.

This means that people find a way to put governments in place which will not kill civilians.

This is a political and socioeconomic development that may be completely unrelated to theological modernization. The Protestants killed people for not going along with their progressive theological ideas. Obviously their theological update didn't make them better people.

I wonder if your question assumed a correlation between theology and politics that doesn't necessarily exist?....

[c0de]

Hey Avi

Originally Posted by Avi1223

I am actually quite encouraged to hear this and would like to learn more about it. I have been participating in “real live” interfaith dialogue for the last few months and was not aware of the “adaptationist” approach in Islam. Also, are you using "adaptationist" and “assimilationist” in a positive, negative or neutral connotation?

The philosophic shifts in Islamic thought began when Muslims were introduced to the Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle. You might have heard names like Averos and Avicenna, these guys came during this period. They were followed by the Mutazillite movement, which did not last long and was finally put to rest by al-Ghazali and the foundation of Occasionalism, which in turn influenced European philosophy, before Europe rejected its principles (tried to refute it but failed, as far as I am concerned). I am still an Occasionalist today.

As for the question about the terms, I am using the terms in a neutral sense, but still the issue gets complicated. These labels can seem relative (even though they are not) for example: I may consider myself an orthodox Muslim. But someone else who also thinks he is orthodox, can hold views which are very different then mine. For example, I believe in evolution through natural selection, most "orthodox" Muslim, however; believe in intelligent design or creationism. But all I am doing is reading and analyzing the words of the Quran which does not contradict natural selection. And neither does natural selection contradict the Quran, since it only provides a mechanical description of pattern formation. See how it gets complicated yea?

Also, by the way, I would like to emphasize the point Netti makes above that there isn't really a connection between the theology of a religion and the religious institutions which are in power. This is really important. The start of all the Abrahamic religions began as a rejection of the same types of institutions which hold these labels today. Refer to Max Weber and his work on the evolution of religion. All the Abrahamic religions began as revolutionary movements by Prophets who rejected the rigid, scholastic and man-made intellectual institututional establishments... but then eventually the followers of those Prophets always end up creating new institutions and become the personification of everything the Prophets came to warn against.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by c0de

All the Abrahamic religions began as revolutionary movements by Prophets who rejected the rigid, scholastic and man-made intellectual institututional establishments... but then eventually the followers of those Prophets always end up creating new institutions and become the personification of everything the Prophets came to warn against.

Hi c0de,

I can see why you underlined that part.

One of the things I'm getting from your post is this: Why look to a historical movement - i.e., a "reformation" or religious movement of any kind - as an indicator of a religion's value and status as compared to other religions?

It seems to me that the real reformation takes place at an individual level. It's a personal spiritual revolution, not a man-made historical/doctrinal update of some kind.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

It seems to me that the real reformation takes place at an individual level. It's a personal spiritual revolution, not a man-made historical/doctrinal update of some kind.

He shoots... He scores!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by c0de

All the Abrahamic religions began as revolutionary movements by Prophets who rejected the rigid, scholastic and man-made intellectual institututional establishments... but then eventually the followers of those Prophets always end up creating new institutions and become the personification of everything the Prophets came to warn against.

This is a good point, but I might tweak it just a bit. There is almost always a tension that builds up as any prophet or religion gains a following. More people means more potential for disagreement on the finer points, or even figuring out somehow what the important things are. Large groups require organization, and it is in that organizing event that the potential for stagnation and abuse comes in.

Just as when Israel demanded a King. It has its pro and its cons.

The question for most of us is how to surf that tension.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

This is a good point, but I might tweak it just a bit. There is almost always a tension that builds up as any prophet or religion gains a following. More people means more potential for disagreement on the finer points, or even figuring out somehow what the important things are. Large groups require organization, and it is in that organizing event that the potential for stagnation and abuse comes in.

Just as when Israel demanded a King. It has its pro and its cons.

The question for most of us is how to surf that tension.

You might be interested in the work of Rodney Stark and the "free-rider" thesis: as a new religion becomes politically powerful new adherents attach themselves to it who might just join because of the material benefits their membership provides and this undermines the faith of the truly committed. Stark argues that Christianity for example, was actually weakened by the conversion of Constantine. The same concept applies to all other religions as well, in fact to all movements of any kind.

[Avi]

c0de and Netti-Netti,

These are very interesting ideas:

The philosophic shifts in Islamic thought began when Muslims were introduced to the Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle. You might have heard names like Averos and Avicenna, these guys came during this period. They were followed by the Mutazillite movement, which did not last long and was finally put to rest by al-Ghazali and the foundation of Occasionalism, which in turn influenced European philosophy, before Europe rejected its principles (tried to refute it but failed, as far as I am concerned). I am still an Occasionalist today.

In my reading about Maimonides, the philosophers that you mentioned are listed as foundational in his thinking. It seems to me that the ancient Greek and Islamic philosophers were leaders at logic with respect to philosophy. Maimonides was a brilliant medieval Jewish philosopher best known for his Mishah Torah, which was a codification of Talmud. He is also known for the 13 Principles of Faith.

Occasionalism sounds very interesting, is it a movement in Islam that is consistent with current scientific findings ?

As for the question about the terms, I am using the terms in a neutral sense, but still the issue gets complicated. These labels can seem relative (even though they are not) for example: I may consider myself an orthodox Muslim. But someone else who also thinks he is orthodox, can hold views which are very different then mine. For example, I believe in evolution through natural selection, most "orthodox" Muslim, however; believe in intelligent design or creationism. But all I am doing is reading and analyzing the words of the Quran which does not contradict natural selection. And neither does natural selection contradict the Quran, since it only provides a mechanical description of pattern formation. See how it gets complicated yea?

This is consistent with what I have observed at our interfaith meetings. It seems like there is a spectrum of observance and beliefs in the Muslim group that we are meeting with.

Also, by the way, I would like to emphasize the point Netti makes above that there isn't really a connection between the theology of a religion and the religious institutions which are in power. This is really important. The start of all the Abrahamic religions began as a rejection of the same types of institutions which hold these labels today. Refer to Max Weber and his work on the evolution of religion. All the Abrahamic religions began as revolutionary movements by Prophets who rejected the rigid, scholastic and man-made intellectual institututional establishments... but then eventually the followers of those Prophets always end up creating new institutions and become the personification of everything the Prophets came to warn against.

The issue of theology vs. religion seems to correspond to the idea of “separation of church and state”. This ideal seems to work well in the USA but I am not sure how prevalent it is in the rest of the world ?

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Avi1223

Occasionalism sounds very interesting, is it a movement in Islam that is consistent with current scientific findings ?

For me it is. But many disagree.

The issue of theology vs. religion seems to correspond to the idea of “separation of church and state”. This ideal seems to work well in the USA but I am not sure how prevalent it is in the rest of the world ?

Well, lately, I don't think its working much in the US either eh

[Avi]

The issue of theology vs. religion seems to correspond to the idea of “separation of church and state”. This ideal seems to work well in the USA but I am not sure how prevalent it is in the rest of the world ?

Well, lately, I don't think its working much in the US either eh

Why do you say that ? Of course the fundamentalist right is always trying to bring religion to the state but there are safeguards to protect against this separation.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Avi1223

Why do you say that ? Of course the fundamentalist right is always trying to bring religion to the state but there are safeguards to protect against this separation.

lol, wuz just kiddin