Is Islam compatible with modern proclivity?
Modernism includes an emphasis on the individual, intellect and scientific enquiry, on freedom of/from belief, the separation of church with state and the consequence of adopting these features as starting points.
However, Islamic countries can not allow any of these.
1) The individual is a Muslim before anything else. To state otherwise could see one jailed or much worse - dead.
2) Intellect and Scientific enquiry are fine, until they inevitably bump up against the Qur’an. At which point, they must take a backseat and the Qur’an be given president [or more importantly the person interpreting the Qur’ans cryptic verse].
3) It is impossible to allow another proselytizing religion to convert Muslims [although I suppose via the internet they inadvertently have]. Islam can not allow a Muslim to make his/her personal choice in religious matters. Which is quite odd, really.
4) To enforce #3 and to ensure that Islamic countries remain exactly that, religion must be enforced via the State.
Two ways to look at these ideas are history and comparison
To see that the above is true is to look at the history of Islam.
There certainly is no denying history. One example is how the heinous institution of Slavery was keenly practiced by Muslims for over a millennia and the entire time Slavery was mindfully accepted by those interpting the Qur’an, which has set-rules for Slavery's practice – it was only after the Europeans conquored the Muslims and then banned Slavery was it at last abolished.
For comparison we can look to the East.
- See how quickly Japan modernized.
- Then there is the 1980s Korean example.
- Taiwan and Hong Kong quickly modernized as well, while China restricted the above and languished in the dust.
Summary
So, I really do not see how Islam is compatible with modern proclivity?
Really, it isn’t is it?
Modernism includes an emphasis on the individual, intellect and scientific enquiry, on freedom of/from belief, the separation of church with state and the consequence of adopting these features as starting points.
However, Islamic countries can not allow any of these.
1) The individual is a Muslim before anything else. To state otherwise could see one jailed or much worse - dead.
2) Intellect and Scientific enquiry are fine, until they inevitably bump up against the Qur’an. At which point, they must take a backseat and the Qur’an be given president [or more importantly the person interpreting the Qur’ans cryptic verse].
3) It is impossible to allow another proselytizing religion to convert Muslims [although I suppose via the internet they inadvertently have]. Islam can not allow a Muslim to make his/her personal choice in religious matters. Which is quite odd, really.
4) To enforce #3 and to ensure that Islamic countries remain exactly that, religion must be enforced via the State.
Two ways to look at these ideas are history and comparison
To see that the above is true is to look at the history of Islam.
There certainly is no denying history. One example is how the heinous institution of Slavery was keenly practiced by Muslims for over a millennia and the entire time Slavery was mindfully accepted by those interpting the Qur’an, which has set-rules for Slavery's practice – it was only after the Europeans conquored the Muslims and then banned Slavery was it at last abolished.
For comparison we can look to the East.
- See how quickly Japan modernized.
- Then there is the 1980s Korean example.
- Taiwan and Hong Kong quickly modernized as well, while China restricted the above and languished in the dust.
Summary
So, I really do not see how Islam is compatible with modern proclivity?
Really, it isn’t is it?