atouchof wrote:Fazlur Rahman taught at UCLA and the U of Chicago (among other places in the US and Pakistan), and is considered a founder of Islamic scholarship in the United States. Here's his take on the Islamic conquests:The real explanation lies in the very structure of Islam as a religious and political complex. Whereas the Muslims did not spread their faith through the sword, it is, nevertheless, true that Islam insisted on the assumption of political power since it regarded itself as the repository of the Will of god which had to be worked on earth through a political order. From this point of view, Islam resembles the communist structure which, even if it does not oblige people to accept its creed, nevertheless insists on the assumption of the political order. To deny this fact would be both to violate history and to deny justice to Islam itself. Islam, p. 2
So Muslims regard political authority as their private prerogative, it seems. Certainly it once did, and how does Islam amend itself? There don't appear to be any mechanisms for this.
Are you saying Muslims think Islam is perfect?
Given the quality of leadership in Muslim countries, I find this assumption both ludicrous and distressing. Does your smiling Muslim neighbor in his hear of hearts think you really shouldn't deserve a say politically, if things were as they should be?
Well, at least they aren't wishing you were dead... well... maybe they are?
My sense is that something like this (disappointed) sense of entitlement lies behind the adversarial tone that even (or sometimes especially) Muslims in the West seem so naturally to assume towards things Western, even towards its best ideals ("democracy," "freedom," and the like). Even in liberal-tending Islamic sites populated mostly by converts (like Talk Islam, for example http://talkislam.information ) you find this.
It's hard to get too excited about Islam's "Journey into America."
That sense of entitlement rears it's ugly head again.