NationStates Jolt Archive


Bin Laden and Martin Luther: Similarities?

Vegas-Rex
07-02-2006, 01:43
An article I found interesting:



The New Face Of Reformation: Will historians compare bin Laden to Christian revolutionaries?
By Reza Aslan
For the Los Angeles Times
Published: Sunday, February 5, 2006

Osama bin Laden's latest message caused pundits to comment on his evolution from an in-the-trenches jihadist leader to elder statesman - sidelined, but providing a soundtrack for terror.

But even ''elder statesman'' may not do him justice. In 100 years, after the memory of Sept. 11 has receded and the war on terror is a somber chapter in our nation's history, we may look back on bin Laden not only as a murderous criminal but as one of the principal figures of an era that scholars are increasingly referring to as the Islamic reformation. Indeed, historians may one day place bin Laden alongside 16th century Christian revolutionaries Thomas Muntzer, Hans Hut or even Martin Luther as a ''reformation radical'' who pushed the principle of religious individualism to terrifying limits.
advertisement

Of course, there are those who reject the very idea of an Islamic reformation, let alone any attempt to draw parallels between the histories of Islam and Christianity. But while such parallels can be strained, there are certain similarities between the Christian and Islamic reformations that should not be dismissed, not least because they reflect universal conflicts found in nearly every religious tradition. Chief among these is the question of who has the authority to define faith: the individual or the institution?

In Islam, this question is somewhat complicated by the fact that it has never had a centralized authority - there is no ''Muslim pope,'' no ''Muslim Vatican.'' Religious authority in Islam is the province of a host of small, competing, though exceedingly powerful, clerical institutions that have maintained a virtual monopoly over the meaning and message of Islam for 1,400 years.

Yet, during the last century, as Muslims have increasingly been forced to regard themselves less as members of a worldwide community than as citizens of individual nation-states, a sense of individualism has begun to infuse this essentially communal faith. Add to this dramatic increases in literacy and education, widespread access to new sources of knowledge and the rising tide of globalization, and it is easy to see why the authority of traditional clerical institutions over their Muslim communities has been eroding. After all, Muslims now have access through the Internet (an invention whose role in the Islamic reformation parallels that of the printing press in the Christian Reformation) to the religious opinions of myriad Islamic activists, academics, self-styled preachers, militants and cult leaders throughout the world who are, for better or worse, reshaping the faith.

Not surprisingly, as religious authority passes from traditional institutions to individuals, there may arise those whose reinterpretation of religion will be fueled by extreme social and political agendas. It is in this context that bin Laden's militantly individualistic, anti-institutional movement harks back to some of the most infamous aspects of the Christian Reformation. Martin Luther, for example, in pursuit of theological dominance over his fellow Protestants, justified their massacre during the German Peasants' Revolt in 1525.

''In such a war,'' Luther wrote, ''it is Christian and an act of love to strangle the enemies confidently, to rob, to burn and do all that is harmful until they are overcome.''

Like Luther, bin Laden is concerned above all else with ''purifying'' his own religious community. Indeed, contrary to perception in the West, bin Laden's primary target is neither Christians nor Jews (both of whom he refers to as ''the far enemy''), but rather those Muslims who do not share his puritanical view of Islam and who, as a consequence, make up the overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda's victims.

Bin Laden has also deliberately placed himself in direct opposition to the institutional authorities of his religion by repeatedly issuing fatwas and making judgments on Islamic law - things that, according to Islamic tradition, only a cleric affiliated with one of Islam's recognized schools of law has the authority to do.

Even more striking is his fundamental reinterpretation of jihad: What was once considered a collective duty to be carried out solely at the behest of a qualified cleric has become a radically individualistic obligation totally divorced from institutional authority. It is precisely this conscious recasting of religious authority that has made bin Laden so appealing to Muslims whose sense of social, economic or religious alienation from their own communities make them yearn for alternative sources of leadership.

Reformation, as we know from Christian history, can be a long, bloody affair, and the Islamic reformation has some distance to go before it resolves itself. Exactly what kind of Islam will emerge is unknown. But we can be sure that bin Laden's brand of radical individualism will leave an indelible mark on the faith.

I always though Bin Laden was opposing the Islamic Reformation, but this seems to indicate otherwise. The similarity between him and some of the crazier early protestants (the puritans, for example) is actually rather striking. It also explains why the disapproval of various mainstream Muslim clerics has done nothing to deter the extremists: it's like having the government tell anarchists to stop.
Tactical Grace
07-02-2006, 01:45
It also explains why the disapproval of various mainstream Muslim clerics has done nothing to deter the extremists: it's like having the government tell anarchists to stop.
Truth. The people they are daily being asked to condemn don't recognise their authority. It's not as though any of them have any influence.
Vegas-Rex
07-02-2006, 01:49
Truth. The people they are daily being asked to condemn don't recognise their authority. It's not as though any of them have any influence.

At least not over them. What we really need is some sort of Muslim reformer on the side of good, though I'm not sure how such a thing would come to pass.
Ashmoria
07-02-2006, 01:58
yeah he'd be just like martin luther

if luther had been a flaming asshole rich boy who
dedicated his life to killing nonchristian civilians in countries far far away form germany
Tactical Grace
07-02-2006, 02:04
At least not over them. What we really need is some sort of Muslim reformer on the side of good, though I'm not sure how such a thing would come to pass.
Problem is, reformers tend to be "power to the people" types who would be a grave economic threat to the West as the countries in question are home to most of the most valuable resource on Earth. No reformer on the side of good would be tolerated by our governments. The thing which we in the West would accept would be reform in the direction of secular right-wing authoritarianism, which is exactly how Saddam Hussein started out. Until 1990, he and his kind were regarded with great relief, and there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein Lite is America's and Europe's ideal outcome as far as the political future of the Middle East is concerned.
Kossackja
07-02-2006, 02:08
yeah he'd be just like martin luther

if luther had been a flaming asshole rich boy who
dedicated his life to killing nonchristian civilians in countries far far away form germanymaybe more like arnold schwarzenegger: a large guy, that goes to a foreign land, where he forgoes many of his hard earned riches to become the leader of a bunch of kooks, only to find, that he cannot kill all of the problems he wanted to kill.
Vegas-Rex
07-02-2006, 02:09
yeah he'd be just like martin luther

if luther had been a flaming asshole rich boy who
dedicated his life to killing nonchristian civilians in countries far far away form germany

Did you read the article? Osama actually focuses much more on imposing his ideas on fellow Muslims than on the U.S. The main reason he's attacking us is because we interfere in the Middle East. I'm sure that if someone from Arabia tried to intervene and stop Luther, he would have gone after Muslims with whatever resources he had at his disposal.

Also, while Luther may not have been rich, other Protestant revolutionaries were. How do you think they got armies? And many of them were flaming assholes.
Vegas-Rex
07-02-2006, 02:54
Hmm...I thought this thread would be a bit more interesting to people. I'll give it a second chance.

BUMP!
Syniks
07-02-2006, 05:32
yeah he'd be just like martin luther

if luther had been a flaming asshole rich boy who
dedicated his life to killing nonchristian civilians in countries far far away form germany
Actually, more like John Calvin - who ran his own Terrorist Theocratic Police State in Geneva. I don't recall Luther ever ordering the execution of anybody, but Calvin presided over the execution of one of the most brilliant minds of the era - Michael Servetus. Burned at the stake on the order of Calvin for having the audacity to not toe the Calvinist line.

Yay Religion. :rolleyes:
Letila
07-02-2006, 05:45
Wasn't Martin Luther an über-anti-semite?
Vegas-Rex
07-02-2006, 05:53
Wasn't Martin Luther an über-anti-semite?

Yet another similarity...though it could be just due to the fact that any moderately obsessive leader likes to stir up hatred against their societies' undesirables.
The Black Forrest
07-02-2006, 06:09
Similar?

So how many people did Martin Luthur order to die?
Syniks
07-02-2006, 06:12
Wasn't Martin Luther an über-anti-semite?
As was Calvin, the entire Inquisition, and most of the Clergy/Leadership of Europe.

No news there.

Read "Out of the Flames" (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/11/12/goldstone/)sometime. It is the history of the book "Christianismi Restitutio". There are only 4 extant copies - Calvin had them all burned (except for his private copy) along with Servetus.

Servetus is the intellectual founder of Unitarianisim/Socianisim, discovered Pulmonary Circulation a hundered or so years before Harvey, translated the bible and managed to get himself burned at the stake for being smarter and more tolerant than Calvin - and having the audacity to blog about it during the information revolution created by the printing press.

http://www.servetus.org/en/news-events/articulos/200209152.htm
Vegas-Rex
07-02-2006, 06:13
Similar?

So how many people did Martin Luthur order to die?

Maybe not directly, but he did support a variety of massacres. Read the post: he was a rather bloodthirsty fellow in some areas, and some of his contemporaries were much worse.
Linthiopia
07-02-2006, 06:16
I read this as "Martin Luther King Jr." for far too long in to the article before I realized it was the original Martin Luther. *rubs eyes* I need to be getting more hours of sleep than I can count on one hand.
Secret aj man
07-02-2006, 06:19
Did you read the article? Osama actually focuses much more on imposing his ideas on fellow Muslims than on the U.S. The main reason he's attacking us is because we interfere in the Middle East. I'm sure that if someone from Arabia tried to intervene and stop Luther, he would have gone after Muslims with whatever resources he had at his disposal.

Also, while Luther may not have been rich, other Protestant revolutionaries were. How do you think they got armies? And many of them were flaming assholes.

except...luther would not have murdered innocent people..no matter how "right" he thought he was.

big fricken difference

1 is a murderous scumbag..the other..paint your own picture.:gundge:
Jerusalas
07-02-2006, 06:22
except...luther would not have murdered innocent people..no matter how "right" he thought he was.

big fricken difference

1 is a murderous scumbag..the other..paint your own picture.:gundge:

Grunts: [chanting] Heretic! Heretic!
Vegas-Rex
07-02-2006, 06:25
except...luther would not have murdered innocent people..no matter how "right" he thought he was.

big fricken difference

1 is a murderous scumbag..the other..paint your own picture.:gundge:

Really? You didn't read the whole "These are people that it is ok to strangle, kill, etc." quote, did you? Luther was actually much more bloodthirsty than popular knowledge suggests, and as I said earlier, many other protestant revolutionaries were even more crazy.
Syniks
07-02-2006, 06:25
except...luther would not have murdered innocent people..no matter how "right" he thought he was.

big fricken difference

1 is a murderous scumbag..the other..paint your own picture.:gundge:
You mean, like this:

When an early version of the book was banned by religious authorities, Servetus fled Strasbourg, changed his name and reinvented himself as a successful physician and translator. But he couldn't let it rest. He revised and expanded the book, started an acrimonious correspondence with the vindictive Calvin and had his work printed secretly.
Beside himself with anger at Servetus' goading, Calvin the great reformer betrayed Servetus to the Catholic Inquisition. Then when Servetus inexplicably chose to stop in Geneva as he escaped from France, Calvin had him arrested, participated in his prosecution and refused his request for a less painful death
(less painful than being slow-roasted over green wood anyway... ) Calvin's little Theocratic Police State in Geneva is (was) of a piece with (current) Wahabi control in Saudi Arabia. :mad:
Syniks
07-02-2006, 06:30
Really? You didn't read the whole "These are people that it is ok to strangle, kill, etc." quote, did you? Luther was actually much more bloodthirsty than popular knowledge suggests, and as I said earlier, many other protestant revolutionariesAnd Dominicans (who liked to kill Jesuits), and other Inquisitors (including Jesuites), and Popes, and Kings, and just about everybody else were even more crazy.

There were very few people preaching tolerance of any kind during the 15th & 16th cent. Servetus was one. He got burned at the stake by Calvin. Go figure.
Mavatesh
07-02-2006, 06:55
I have heard the rationale that Islam will not or cannot reform because of it's lack of central authority many times before. Judaism has no central authority, it never has. It has always been up to the individual to learn what the texts have said and yet Judaism over the years has reformed itself. All the while, in complete absence of one central authority.
Although, in defense of your arguments, Bin Laden, his form of Islam and the medieval christianity of Luther, and to some extent, modern evangelicals all share one over-riding characteristic. Anti-semitism. Many evangelicals argue that their ardent support of Israel is evidence of them not being anti-semitic, but their frequent attempts to "save" Jews and proseltyzing is evidence they really are not accepting of Jews and have not learned from the past. Bin Laden has rhetoric that is wrought with anti-semitism as well as Luther's in the 16th century.
I doubt in the end, Bin Laden, will be looked at as a reformer. History will look at Bin Laden as someone who managed to do something that few people in any community can do which is mobilize millions. The question history will ask is, will those people look at the movement they are following? If they don't, if evangelicals don't, if fundamentalists of all religions don't moderate, modify, and question their own beliefs, this world will never see the peace that we all so righteously deserve.