Just read your book which was fabulous and insightful. One of the things I really appreciated that you laid out was the meta structure of the three main monotheistic religions and how that makes them compatible/incompatible with modernity. Here is a summary of my understanding:
Judaism - lots of rules and commandments, but since God and man are separate, and man is fallible, there is lots of room (and in fact encouragement) for interpretation and adjustment. This can allow believers - particularly the modern orthodox - to whittle down/circumscribe/annul problematic passages to allow them to fully integrate in society.
Christianity - God and Jesus are inseparable and Christians are to live by Jesus’s example. But since Jesus is not problematic, and since his teachings are so universal, this is compatible with modernity and evolving human rights’ movements.
Islam - God and Mohammed are inseparable, and Mohammed’s life is the example all Muslims must seek to emulate in every aspect. But unlike Jesus, Mohammed was a warlord who did lots of unethical things, which creates an incompatibility with Western values.
My question for you is this: is it possible for Muslims to develop the modern orthodox equivalent of Judaism, where they can just say certain passages are just not relevant/applicable today? I know you don’t get to a universal morality this way (ie something being consistently bad across time) but is it possible to hope for this?
One area the book doesn’t cover is extremism in other religions, for example Judaism, which I think could have served as a useful contrast/comparison. The ultra-orthodox in Judaism basically try to stick to the literal word of the Torah and create parallel communities where they try to hoard the resources of the state for themselves. Lots of internal oppression goes on here, especially regarding the treatment of women. Granted, the negative societal impact here is less than Islam because the Torah doesn’t have jihad and Judaism doesn’t proselytize, but the logic underlying this group doesn’t seem that different than that around adherents to Islam as you describe it. Wouldn’t a reasonable goal be to encourage Islam to develop a modern orthodox approach - basically an ability to interpret the text to allow it to adapt to modernity without directly denouncing the prophet? I have to imagine there are some Muslims living in America who do something like this. Doesn’t the UAE do some version of this as well?
Some things can not be changed. The Caribes wouldn't stop. There are no more caribes 🤷🍽
The term “reformation” comes from the Latin reformare, meaning “to reform” or “to return to the original form.”
Let us call it The Deformation.
Just read your book which was fabulous and insightful. One of the things I really appreciated that you laid out was the meta structure of the three main monotheistic religions and how that makes them compatible/incompatible with modernity. Here is a summary of my understanding:
Judaism - lots of rules and commandments, but since God and man are separate, and man is fallible, there is lots of room (and in fact encouragement) for interpretation and adjustment. This can allow believers - particularly the modern orthodox - to whittle down/circumscribe/annul problematic passages to allow them to fully integrate in society.
Christianity - God and Jesus are inseparable and Christians are to live by Jesus’s example. But since Jesus is not problematic, and since his teachings are so universal, this is compatible with modernity and evolving human rights’ movements.
Islam - God and Mohammed are inseparable, and Mohammed’s life is the example all Muslims must seek to emulate in every aspect. But unlike Jesus, Mohammed was a warlord who did lots of unethical things, which creates an incompatibility with Western values.
My question for you is this: is it possible for Muslims to develop the modern orthodox equivalent of Judaism, where they can just say certain passages are just not relevant/applicable today? I know you don’t get to a universal morality this way (ie something being consistently bad across time) but is it possible to hope for this?
One area the book doesn’t cover is extremism in other religions, for example Judaism, which I think could have served as a useful contrast/comparison. The ultra-orthodox in Judaism basically try to stick to the literal word of the Torah and create parallel communities where they try to hoard the resources of the state for themselves. Lots of internal oppression goes on here, especially regarding the treatment of women. Granted, the negative societal impact here is less than Islam because the Torah doesn’t have jihad and Judaism doesn’t proselytize, but the logic underlying this group doesn’t seem that different than that around adherents to Islam as you describe it. Wouldn’t a reasonable goal be to encourage Islam to develop a modern orthodox approach - basically an ability to interpret the text to allow it to adapt to modernity without directly denouncing the prophet? I have to imagine there are some Muslims living in America who do something like this. Doesn’t the UAE do some version of this as well?