A world Without Islam pdfdrive com

Reconstructionism
The Reconstructionists, another branch of radical Christian thought, get right
down to the heart of it: how much coercion is appropriate in establishing
morality within the social order? The very existence of the state, by definition,
acknowledges the necessity of coercion to maintain society and order and to
prevent anarchy; the only unknowns are the degree of coercion required, the
methods to be used, and who is to sanction it. We have here a sociopolitical
question as well as religious one, because all states legislate on certain elements
of morality in society, such as murder, crime, vandalism, theft, and sex with
minors.
The state is an attractive target for any reformer of society, religious or
secular, for its capture provides the means—persuasive or coercive—to impose
and implement religious values within society. Indeed, the values need not be
solely religious: Leninists saw the capture of the state as the indispensable
prerequisite for implementing a system of political, economic, and social
communism. Some Islamists, too, particularly in earlier eras, were enthusiastic
about the prospect of using the powers of an Islamic state to impose a truly
Islamic society. Over time this idea has come to lose favor with many Islamists,
some of whom, through experience, are now more inclined to let God, and not
the state, punish the sinful. “The state is not responsible for keeping the gates of
hell closed; they should be free and open to all,” as one Turkish Islamist put it to
me.
Some elements of Christianity, even in the West, present clear parallels. Over
the past hundred years, a “reconstructionist” movement has emerged that again
theorizes about the actual creation of a state based on Christian values. Just as
the Qur’an is seen by many Muslims as the source of legislation, so, too, the
Bible—not the US Constitution—for Christian reconstructionists is the
document that should guide the future of the United States. Moral principles are
to be derived from the Bible to serve as the basis of law for the family,
community, and civil government—shades of Calvin in Geneva. Some
reconstructionists argue that Christian clerics should be in charge of government,
similar to Iran’s theocracy, or rule by clerics. Government itself would be subject
to the moral principles of the Old and New Testaments. Some reconstructionists
support the recriminalization of abortion and homosexuality, and, while not
necessarily advocating the death penalty for it today, note that there were some
twenty offenses in the Old Testament punishable by death, including incest,
prostitution, adultery, blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, and worshiping gods other

---

than the One God. Progress cannot be made through compromise with those who
deny the Christian faith, they argue, because we share no common ground.
Pluralistic political organizations are not acceptable because they imply
cooperation with those whose ethical and moral principles are not based on the
Bible.
Just as many Muslims believe that one day—simply due to its innate
doctrinal superiority—Islam may ultimately become the religion of all mankind,
so do reconstructionists believe that one day Christianity will be acknowledged
by all and will thus come to dominate the world. Imposition by force is
undesirable, unnecessary, and counterproductive to the longer goal; it will
simply come.
For reconstructionists, tolerance is not a neutral concept that acknowledges
equal validity of all religious belief before the law; instead, they speak of a
“Christian tolerance” that permits equal treatment but not equal acceptance of all
doctrine. Reconstructionists would not seek to regulate personal beliefs, but
would regulate public actions and behavior. This view is remarkably similar to
some Islamists who advocate Shari’a law under nearly identical terms. In this
view, tolerance within an Islamic state means just that—the state will tolerate
other beliefs, but that does not imply acceptance of equal doctrinal validity.
The number of self-acknowledged reconstructionists represents a small
segment of Christians, but their overall influence on the political views of the
Christian Right has been major, creating a much broader trend known as
“Dominionism.”
According to the sociologist Sara Diamond, the defining concept of
Dominionism is “that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all
secular institutions until Christ returns.” This version of Christianity transcends
the realm of religion and enters into the secular realms of politics and even
nationalism. Researcher Frederick Clarkson has characterized Dominionism as
promoting a celebration of “Christian nationalism,” urging that the United States
return to its status as a “Christian nation” in which the Ten Commandments play
a central role in the legal system and governance. Books abound on “Christian
patriotism.”
Debate swirls around these Christian movements in the United States, and
many of their critics accuse them of seeking to impose a Christian
totalitarianism, a charge the Dominionists stoutly deny. The debate is
reminiscent of some elements within the Islamist movement that argue about the
place of compulsion in reforming, or “Islamizing,” Muslim—not Christian—
countries.

---

The Qur’an, of course, is quite explicit and unambiguous in its statement that
“there is no compulsion in religion” (La ikrah fi’l-din—Qur’an, Sura 2:256). At
the same time, critics of Islam rightly point out that what the Qur’an says is one
thing, and the social practice or state institutions from place to place another.
There are many competing texts in the Qur’an, each of which reflects revelation
from different periods and under varying conditions, addressed to varying issues.
All who seek to impose rigid or intolerant interpretations of scripture upon
others can always find ample theological grounds to do so. Or, as Luther
famously said, “The Devil can quote scripture to his own ends.”
Even during the Reformation, the question of religious orthodoxy and
Christian relations with Islam came up in one dramatic case involving Michael
Servetus, the prominent physician, theologian, and scientist. He took sharp issue
with Calvin over the nature of the Trinity: Servetus argued that Jesus and the
Holy Spirit were just manifestations of God with no independent existence—old
stuff. But Servetus went on to proclaim that the concept of the Trinity in
Christian theology had been a consistent barrier to Christian relations with
Muslims and Jews. A Catholic prosecutor charged him with favoring “Jews and
Turks,” and he was accused of reading the Qur’an. In 1553, Calvin had Servetus
burned at the stake in Geneva. Today, Servetus is viewed as the first Unitarian
martyr.

---