(Part 3) Best history of religion & politics books according to redditors
We found 455 Reddit comments discussing the best history of religion & politics books. We ranked the 154 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
> there aren't that many internal historical questions that need answering in the Koran.
To just expand on this a bit, if you're familiar with the Quran it is not, like most of the bible, a narrative. When it does refer to people and events it often does so obliquely. The result is that without the (much later, and much more dubious) exegetical literature (the tafsir) quite a lot of the content of the Quran is impenetrable. But there's really not much in the way of an alternative. We can refer to non-Muslim sources for some of the events referred to in the Qur'an, but not all. The result being that we either accept the exegesis as the most plausible answer (despite its demonstrable unreliability) or are simply left admitting that we have no idea what certain passages of the Quran are referring to. As a result the kind of "source criticism" thats been done with the bible is probably much more applicable to the hadith, the sira/maghazi, and exegetical literature than to the Quran itself.
That being said, I think there are quite a lot of very interesting historical and textual questions about the Quran that are in need of further study. So to give one example, there's quite a lot of debate over whether or not the Quran was written down in Muhammad's lifetime. Islamic sources suggest that it was not, but quite a lot of the working theories about the Quran depend on written transmission. So Richard Bell's suggestion that certain unusual lines in the Quran (e.g. lines which break otherwise contiguous rhyme schemes) might be glosses can only work with a written transmission.
I've been reading The Quran in its Historical Context lately which is a series of essays on this question, in which Donner tries to categorize these open questions about the Quran, and puts forward five questions:
And what was the relationship between the written text and that language? (i.e. was it written in dialect? a poetic high register? to what extent did it borrow foreign vocabulary and why? etc.)
------
Anyways, that's a bit of a digression from OP's question.
> The idea of studying Islam academically, without religious pretension, seem to be almost absent. Coincidentally, in where I live, people who are academicians studying Islam happen to also be devout Muslims
I think some of that is a difference in the relative approaches of the training of religious scholars in Muslim majority countries. So while I think you would be hard pressed to find a Catholic seminary in the world that doesn't engage with biblical source criticism, I'm not sure if a student at al-Azhar would spend much (or any) time engaging with, say, western academic source skepticism of the hadith. On the other hand I'd be quite surprised if that was not included in the curriculum at the American University in Cairo.
This is also of course very much a live political issue, and one which the Muslim world hasn't become comfortable with. The Satanic verses, for instance, is pretty non-controversial in academic study of the Quran. But when Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses he had a fatwa calling for his death issued by by the Ayatollah Khomeini and a bounty placed on his head which as far as I'm aware is still in place. "Christoph Luxenberg" referred to in this post and /u/yodatsracist's post is a pseudonym, taken up as I understand because the author was convinced that what he was saying about the Quran could put him at risk.
That being said, there is an incredible amount of "secular" academic work being done on Islam by Muslims, both in the Muslim world and in the West. Like, to the point that I don't want to list examples because it would almost be patronizing. The "Orientalist" era of Islamic studies is decidedly over.
I think there's also something to be said for Islamic conceptions of what "secular" means, namely that the concept is foreign to Islam. I don't know what country you're from, but in the Arab world in my experience to advocate "secularism" is basically tantamount to advocating atheism. In a part of the world where atheism as apostasy is punishable by death that's not an easy thing to overcome. My own assessment is that this lack of the secular actually is something distinct about Islam. Insofar as Islam, unusually among religions, is both universal and explicitly political (advocating as it does the construction of quite specific state institutions, legal codes, etc.) Islam does not have obvious spaces for secularity. Those countries that have pushed secularism have only done so through basically authoritarianism, as in the case of Turkey and Indonesia. As those countries have become more democratic, they have also become more open to Islamism/Political Islam. I haven't read it yet (it just came out) but having read his other work and seen discussions he's given on the topic I imagine Shadi Hamid's Islamic Exceptionalism will be quite good on this, in any event his views align quite well with my own and I suspect it would be of interest.
I just started reading this book, Islamic Exceptionalism, by Brookings' scholar Shadi Hamid about why Islam is exceptional (the author is not making a judgement call here, but is merely saying that Islam is unique for how it blends together politics and religion) compared to Judaism and Christianity and how that should guide our understanding of religion and politics in the Middle East. I would highly recommend it. It's 320 pages and can also be found for fairly cheap on Ebay.
It's more used in the context of groups who represent extreme, theocratic, repressive perversions of Islam. Or at least it used to be used that way. By some people. It's more of a racist dog-whistle these days.
Actually, years and years ago, Andrew Sullivan turned the term around by coining the term "Christianist" to describe the same sort of extremist theocrats representing perversions of Christianity:
> If we are to call John Muhammed a religiously inspired terrorist (and I think we should) then we have to call Rudolph a Christian terrorist. I propose a new term for those on the fringes of the religious right who have used the Gospels to perpetuate their own aspirations for power, control and oppression: Christianists. They are as anathema to true Christians as the Islamists are to true Islam. And they have to be fought just as vigilantly.
Andrew actually blogged about it a lot, and it was one of the major themes of his book The Conservative Soul. One of the core ironies of the term is that a Christianist is much more likely to use the word "Islamist" than the average person is.
Taylor est en train de détruire sa propre réputation à force de faire des exagération irrationnelles.
Bref, on se rend compte que ce n'est pas un philosophe "ordinaire", c'est un philosophe Catholique... Nuance, Taylor ne peut imaginer une société où Dieu n'est pas présent...
Allez lire ses bouquins:
Et des articles lui étant consacrés
​
Pour ceux qui ne s'en sont pas encore rendus compte, Charles Taylor c'est un militant religieux, un homme qui pense qu'on devrait tous se mettre à genoux devant Dieu et suivre les rites d'une religion ou d'une autre... C'est un intégriste religieux qui se cache sous la vertu de la philosophie... Mais ce n'est pas un penseur indépendant, c'es tun penseur qui utilise la philosophie pour faire passer et justifier son message THÉISTE.
https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Muslim-Omar-Ghobash-ebook/dp/B01DJ0Y0GW
Shameless plug I know lol, but this new book is very pertinent to what we're talking about.
Salam
I can't imagine this book is any good from a sociological standpoint. Bawer wrote a decidedly racist book on Islam a few years back.
Yes, Christ's authority does extend to the civil realm, but that doesn't mean the civil laws of the Torah are necessarily in force.
See Theocracy Without Theonomy? at The Calvinist International.
Also, for more good stuff on how Christ's authority relates to different aspects of life, see Brad Littlejohn's The Two Kingdoms: A Guide for the Perplexed.
Former politico Sean Faircloth has written a whole book on the topic: Attack of the Theocrats!
Don't be put off by the lurid cover art. Faircloth cites numerous examples of religion in government causing grievous harm.
Personally, I'm deeply worried at the creeping advance of Dominion Theology into the US government. This article explains that.
You may also enjoy award-winning journalist Chris Hedges' concerns about the Christian Right.
> Fourteen years.
And still not married? Curious.
> There is no such thing as "Western Civilization"
Western civilization is not a myth. If you live in US, you're living in the Western civilization. I’m not saying it’s perfect, just that it’s better than anyplace else on earth. The entire legal system that protects your rights as a citizen and guides our jurisprudence is based on Judeo-Christian values. And since you like to link things for further reading.
And just to put things in perspective for you – there was slavery and war and famine throughout most of human history in all countries, and yet most of them didn’t turn out as well as US.
> Socialism is prominent in multiple forms throughout the OECD world, including the US
Socialism is not present in many successful countries. Socialist policies are present in some successful capitalist countries. And most of those socialist policies are a drain on the success built by capitalism. Socialism as a form of government has done nothing but murder millions of people in the last hundred years or so. And not a single country that had a socialist form of government has been successful in long term. When your country is governed by socialism , it inevitably leads to tyranny and death.
Just out of curiosity – have you lived outside of US for any significant length of time?
> "creation = validation"
You said it, not me. I was simply pointing out that conservative women are generally speaking much happier than liberal women.
further reading
She wrote a book about it.
there are no wahhabis outside saudi arabia.
wahhabis are salafis in creed/aqeeda (athari) and methodology/manhaj (salafi)
the difference between wahhabis and salafis is in the legal sphere, Wahhabis/Saudi defer fiqh/law/jurisprudence to the orthodox hanbali school of law, the capital punishments in saudi are orthdox sunni islam, Sharia, whereas salafis prefer itjihad (they form their own religious rulings) even though salafism developed from the hanbali school of law it's part of a traditionalist movement that has always existed, the precursor of the salafis was the ahl al-hadith movement in india.
Salafism is a methodology for how to be a Muslim, how to eat, how to dress, how to go to the toilet, how to treat your wife/husband, manners and behaviour, it places a large focus on good Civic behaviour, salafis are meant to humble people who guide others and whose focus is spiritual, self purification, cleansing the soul of sins though repentance and supplications, its a very detailed guide on how to repair the soul from sinful acts and how to avoid sin. Salafis are an ascetic movement. They tend to be political quietists, they don't attend demonstrations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_quietism_in_Islam
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Salafism-Jordan-Political-Quietist-Community-x/dp/1107163668
https://www.academia.edu/27786496/Salafism_2016_
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Brookings-Analysis-Paper_Jacob-Olidort-Inside_Final_Web.pdf
where jihadis diverge is politics, as hassan hassan explains here ISIS is the merger of two strands within islam salafism and muslim brotherhood islamism
http://carnegieendowment.org/2016/06/13/sectarianism-of-islamic-state-ideological-roots-and-political-context-pub-63746
takfir or excommunication of others from the faith due to perceived acts of disbelief (major sins that typically include shirk, bowing to other gods for example, ISISs spiritual guide, al-maqdisi declared that supporting democracy is shirk as democracy replaces gods rule - hakimiyyah - on earth) is key to all this violence, takfir precedes all the violence you see in the middle east because takfir creates the justification for murder via jihad, they believe the cleanest way to excommunicate someone is to kill them and leave judgement to allah.
purist salafis believe an act of major disbelief requires that person to retake their shahada.
Shiraz Maher's talk on jihadism also covers this
https://youtu.be/tU90AaKsGm8
his book on salafi jihadism is brilliant
This one pager is a decent summary
https://jamestown.org/program/the-salafist-challenge-to-al-qaedas-jihad/
I have been reading this as a means of attempting to get at the nugget of pernicious belief we see in Islam...just in case that helps anyone.
http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Conservative-Barry-Goldwater/dp/0895265400
http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Soul-Fundamentalism-Freedom-Future/dp/0060934379/ref=ed_oe_p/102-6416517-9208928
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Best-Hope-Restoring-Conservatism/dp/0307463699/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261360380&sr=1-1
I just finished reading a pretty accessible book about natural law: http://www.amazon.com/What-We-Cant-Not-Know/dp/1586174819
I wouldn't say it's The Summa of natural law, but the author lays out some of the basic ideas in a way I think I understood.
these topics are interesting, and there are a lot of related subjects which would be beneficial to learn. I hope it's correct to assume you're in America.
i haven't actually read these linked books, just doing a little search for you because I miss my days studying politics
The American Political Party System: Continuity and Change Over Ten Presidential Elections
The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000
Political Scandal: Power and Visability in the Media Age
Mass Media and American Politics
Demographic Gaps in American Political Behavior
Religion and Politics in the United States
Words Like Loaded Pistols: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama
Soviet Society in the Era of Late Socialism, 1964-1985
How Russia Really Works: The Informal Practices That Shaped Post-Soviet Politics and Business (Culture and Society after Socialism)
The Party: The Secret World of China’s Communist Rulers
I think using the political scandals books would be really important. Because let's face it, yes politicians do lie but they don't always get off the hook. I think the book on rhetoric would also be super interesting. Learning about soviet / chinese society is interesting because they have it worse than us in terms of lying politicians (I'm a good patriot)
You should try and use historical-overview type texts for the bulk of citation. If you are quoting opinionated pieces, you can't just present their opinion as fact. You should reference the topic using the neutral sources as well.
By the way, an incredibly useful tool for constructing this kind of reading list is looking at the bibliographies of other books.
You'd do well to skim this.
"Attack of the Theocrats: How the Religious Right Harms Us All—and What We Can Do about It" http://amzn.com/0984493255
Whatever you think of Steyn's book, it's themes and arguments are widely held. They are basically identical to those of gay liberal Bruce Bauer:
http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/dp/0385514727
and esteamed author Christopher Caldwell
http://www.amazon.ca/Reflections-Revolution-Europe-Immigration-Islam/dp/0385518269
And Steyn has happily defended the arguments in his book against critics: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjhkOTVlZTBhNzQxMWE4MGYxODI4NGQ0NDE4M2U5NjA
I'll just leave my book recommendations here, because it took me years to track down books that explicitly engage politics and dharma:
> Every single one of their separatist movements is Islamist in nature.
not all but overwhelming majority of separatist movements are islamist in nature
i would highly recommend the compelling book , its an absolute must read if want to know the evolution and history of Islam
[Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic lllusion of an Islamic State by Tarek Fatah]
(http://www.amazon.in/Chasing-Mirage-Tragic-lllusion-Islamic/dp/0470841168)
he offers the book for free in pdf format , you can down load here
http://tarekfatah.com/chasing-a-mirage-the-tragic-illusion-of-an-islamic-state/
You're completely right about this. You know what would be an interesting read for you? Religion and Politics in the United States
You should vote :-)
Sure, politics and the associated suffering or relief from such are relative, but that does not make them unreal or unimportant. Just like how taking care of this ephemeral, nonself body is important. These conditioned things are not merely roadblocks on the path; they are tools.
We have a responsibility to engage with this world and its fabrications. Yes, this begins at home, moment to moment, but mindful engagement in politics is a great way to practice equanimity and compassion. To write off others' suffering because it is temporary is irresponsible, a lost opportunity to reduce suffering in the world while cultivating the heart. When you are hungry, you eat, no? When you are tired, you sleep. To disengage from politics is akin to ascetic practice, not the middle way.
Check out Mindful Politics: A Buddhist Guide to Making the World a Better Place, a collection of essays including ones by HHDL and Thich Nhat Hanh, for more.
I hope everyone on this sub, who has the ability, votes.
Fake News Feels Good (And Other Reasons Why Truth Is In Trouble) | Connecticut Public Radio
Guests:
You're conflating a bunch of issues together. I could go through and address each point, one at a time, which would probably be the only way to have a fruitful discussion. Or, perhaps I could give you some reading material from non-Muslim academic sources that examine the Muslim world and show that Muslim societies are not distinctive when it comes to political violence (such as: Are Muslims Distinctive?: A Look at the Evidence), which seems to be your main contention. We could also go through and study death tolls throughout the history of Islam (the last 1400 years) if you really think Islam is at the root of most/all the violence we see in the world. I wonder if we'd actually see a pattern where Islam is the common denominator in most cases, as you so claim. If we find that the issue of violence only arises in certain times and places (such as modernity), we might wonder why it's not more of a constant phenomenon where ever and whenever Islam and Muslims exist, as the Quran and hadith are taught pretty much the same everywhere (85% of Muslims are Sunni, 14% Shia, 1% other). Or would we find that it is a particular ideology that is responsible for most of the violence amongst Muslims today? If such a group exists, when did they start? How did they spread? Why do they continue to hold influence, and how is it possible that their message isn't localized and exists beyond the borders of any one country?
If you're interested in continuing this discussion, pick your issue, but pick one. That way I'm not playing whack-a-mole on a million different topics. I'd be happy to address one issue at a time.
One Player.. because there are no good players in the entire country currently.. basically aren't you demanding quota?? Give us your bowlers and we'll put them all in.. Lol.. There's no discrimination I assure you, the media being as PC and liberal as they are they would pounce on any such news and you would immediately see it. I am glad our liberals vastly outnumber the nationalists and fundamentalists..
About politics The key point is people disregarded their call for boycott to SRK or Amir and their wealth has only grown and so has their fan base.. nawazuddin Siddique, Irfan Khan and hordes of other muslims doing so well.. Don't you see any of that or do you just blindly watch your propagandistic/ jingoistic television anchors and build up an image of India. what part do you not understand.. and don't show me a video which your news media plays for you.. do you want me to pull up some videos for you.. We have a really strong media here.. will pull up several .. These are all exercises in futility.. Look up google for news about Muslims in India economically.. don't read propaganda articles..
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B015P6AZBC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
BTW I am not saying there aren't any tensions.. with politics being as free as they are here in India unlike Pakistan there are stupid elements like you will always see anywhere, Look at Trump, Europe etc.. and you will latch on to those..
Anyways you can live in the world your media creates for you.. hold on these videos of people taking "class".. of Indians.. what an anchor BTW.. condescending and crassly.. Eye to eye I doubt he would have the balls to raise those eye brows and talk like he did, obviously for the camera!! Anyways we have hit a roadblock this conversation is becoming youtubely
That would be a faulty understanding of conscience. Even to those not catechized by the Church, mortal sin is not only possible, but overwhelmingly probable.
Here is a good book.
Again we arrive at different conceptions of what is permissible evidence. Unknowns should not be claimed as evidence but as starting points for further investigation, that further investigation I would describe as an act of faith by the way. The task of that investigation can be taken up in different ways however. Here's an interesting book that touches on the subject if you're interested
On one hand, the fact that there's no universal, trans-historical, trans-cultural definition of religion doesn't mean that particular, local definitions of religion cannot have well-defined criteria. We could, for a particular discussion or a particular issue, have extremely precise definitions of religion. We just have to acknowledge that such definitions won't be universal–in practice a lot of definitions are circulating.
On the other hand, I absolutely agree with you that it does pose a serious problem. My main area of focus in religious studies is precisely on the legal problem this creates, and lots of scholars have done some great (if slightly terrifying) work on it. The Impossibility of Religious Freedom is a particularly-good and accessible survey of the problem if you're interested in it.
I think that problem is being addressed somewhat, but it's not going to go away because it's fundamentally irresolvable.
One of the books in their montage, was apparently written by boobs.
http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Our-Religion-Liberal-Christianity/dp/1439173168
Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic lllusion of an Islamic State
And I should take your political opinions seriously? why?
You'd be wrong there, too. Burma and Sri Lanka have had long, bloody civil violence perpetrated by Buddhist populations. And Hindus [Tamil Tigers] are among the first group known to use suicide bombing as a tactic, as in the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi back in 1991. Here's a good book on it:
http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Religion-Fundamentalisms-Fundamentalism-Project/dp/0226014983
I highly recommend a book titled "The Impossibility of Religious Freedom." I read it in a Religious Studies graduate class. Check it out! http://www.amazon.com/Impossibility-Religious-Freedom-Winnifred-Sullivan/dp/0691130582
There is a book on Amazon on this topic for free right now 4 days left
Donald Trump and America's Apocalypse
There is a physical copy as well but its not free. And the electronic copy i think is free only 5 days total.