A conversation on TED.com: Can Islam (or any religion) really be malleable and adaptable?

Nick Desbarats
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

CEO, Founder, ChoiceBot Inc.

This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can Islam (or any religion) really be malleable and adaptable?

While democracy and Islam could both be considered to be "technologies", they are not both malleable and adaptable.

Islam (and Christianity) is based on a book that hasn't been revised in 1500+ years and that explicitly forbids any revision of its contents. Because any new idea must be passed through the filter of the ancient book before being accepted, this severely limits the changes that can be made. Calling Islam a "technology" doesn't change this fact, or make it malleable.

Democracy, by contrast, doesn't forbid the current version from being changed, or even replaced by a new and completely different version. National constitutions are regularly amended, new representation schemes are regularly introduced, etc. These kinds of fundamental changes are difficult or impossible for a major religion to make, because it is ham-stringed by the unchangeable book at its core.

While many passages in the Koran (and the Bible) are compatible with modern ideas like equality, universal human rights and democracy, many other passages reflect brutal 7th-century norms (slavery, severe repression of women, killing of non-believers, heresy by thought, etc.) that are fundamentally incompatible with the modern ideals to which Mr. Feldman refers.

Embracing certain 21st-century ideals would, therefore, require Muslims to reject entire sections of the Koran. Religious moderates (and Mr. Feldman) who gloss over the some parts of the Koran/Bible by "reinterpreting them in a modern context" are, as I see it, pretending that those parts don't exist, or burying them under so many layers of "reinterpretation" as to render the entire book meaningless. The nasty parts are there, however, and can't be changed or removed, which violates Mr. Feldman's underlying thesis.

Asserting that 7th-century ideals can be compatible with 21st-century ones is noble, but impossible, IMHO. The real challenge is to get people unhooked from the 7th-century ideas (i.e., any religion) in the first place...

Related Talks:

Sort By:

Derek Payne
- 0
Jun 15 2011: The atrocities that used to be looked upon as being right because they came from divine scriptures, is slowly losing it's hold. Where these punishments still go on, there is increasing pressure from countries where these barbaric practices are seen for what they are and have no place in a civilized society. That pressure will grow until it has all been confined to the past and buried there. Progress will eventually win, it always does.
Aschawir Ali
- 0
Jun 15 2011: It can be...as long as the speakers and the listeners malleable and adaptable also. How deepest (intelligent, spirituality, and emotional) are we to know something? How inclusive are we to accept something? How open-minded and open-heart are we about the goodness things?
Cole Barnshaw
- 0
Jun 14 2011: As long as emotional attachment factors into the equation, people will always find a way to justify theisms.
- Debra Smith 100+
  - 0
  Jun 14 2011: That is a very good point and I think the crux of the matter. As long as respected people can look loved ones -especially children -in the eyes and say with utter conviction that what the book says is true and maintain some semblance of integrity in their practice most brains are hardwired to believe. Add to this that Christianity has changed slowly over 2000 years but it does not have built into it the rigid reinforcements that Islam does such as watching fellow believers reinforce and publically declare belief 5 times a day. Every facet of life is directed by Islam including which hand to eat with and which never to eat with (actually bodily control by stigma). I think Islam is here to stay for some long time especially when it is prepared to vigliantly and sometimes violently prevent conversion or distilation or accomodation.
Mark Meyer 10+
- +3
Jun 14 2011: The malleable nature of religion is self evident to any student of history. The Christianity practiced today is nothing like that practiced in earlier eras. You can claim that the book hasn't changed, but unless you are reading Greek and Hebrew, you are reading an ever changing interpretation. Also, while the original book may be constant, the doctrine and practice surrounding the book has certainly changed.
- Christopher Scheidler 20+
  - 0
  Jun 14 2011: Good point, and well put.
- Ray Anon
  - 0
  Jun 14 2011: A quote that is attributed to another Mark - Mark Twain - reads:
  "If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian."
  
  Whoever said that was a witty person :) Apart from that, I want to point out that the "battle" for equal rights does not take place between Atheists and Theists, not even Religious and Non-Religious, but mainly between Christian/Muslim/Jewish organizations and others. So Different-Believers are not necessarily the "enemies" of Non-Believers. Just a thought regarding the "malleable nature of religion". There are even some very rare examples of Christians in Germany who oppose infant-baptism, reject authoritarian structures, engage in pacifism and are open to the separation of church and state...
- Nick Desbarats
  - 0
  Jun 15 2011: I do consider myself to be a student of history, and I agree that practices in most religions are different now than they were centuries ago. The problem is that they are not substantially different, since they always have to remain within the confines of the Bible/Koran, which can't be edited. For example, conducting sermons in English instead of Latin might feel like a big change to a believer, but to an external observer, such changes are superficial, and the basic, underlying ideas haven't changed in 1000+ years.
  
  This is in direct contrast to almost all other human activities, such as education, governance, scientific research, art, technology, economics, medicine, etc., all of which regularly undergo profound revolutions that reject fundamental assumptions of the previous paradigm in favor of new, more realistic/useful/compassionate models. Religion stands alone in this list as the one human activity where the *fundamental* ideas can never be updated by its practitioners.
  
  Re "reinterpreting" the 7th-century nastiness to make it more palatable in this century, I think this puts you on very thin ice philosophically. If you choose to reinterpret a direct, literal sentence such as "adulterers will be stoned until they die" to mean "adulterers should merely be frowned upon", then that's not reinterpreting, it's rewriting. If you allow yourself that degree of "reinterpretation", the whole book becomes meaningless, because you can apply whatever meaning you like to anything in the book, and pretty much ignore what it actually says. You aren't a believer in the Bible, you're a believer in what you personally think SHOULD be in the Bible, which is a pretty questionable way to live one's life...
Ray Anon
- +1
Jun 13 2011: It depends on how you define Islam, Christianity, Religion. For example, it is said that there are more than 2 billion Christians on the world. This count relies on *labels*. But what if we - as good scientists - based the numbers on *content* instead? What are necessary conditions in order to be "rightfully" considered a Christian?

Here is a rough range of possible criteria:
- I am a nice guy.
- I am convinced that Jesus was an actual person.
- I believe in a personal god.
- I take the bible literally and follow all rules.

The first example might include almost every being on this world, while the latter group can be considered to be extinct, assuming that it has ever existed at all. But what about all the positions in between? For example, can a person who views the Bible as a collection of man-written fairy tales still be a Christian? Does a person who views Jesus as a mere metaphor commit unforgivable heresy? What if someone rejects the idea of a hell, is this acceptable? However, my favorite question is the third one: Amazingly, many many people who call themselves Christians do not believe in a personal god. Do you know what an individual who doesn't believe in a personal god is? An Atheist!

The more we weaken the sharpness of the term, the more universal and arbitrary it becomes. And at the point were we have "atheist Christians", the term has lost pretty much any substantial meaning. It has become a shallow label, nothing more. So the answer to your question is: Of course religions can adapt, simply by disregarding their holiest scriptures and oldest convictions in exchange for social acceptance and convenience. Unless we use strict requirements for terms like "Religion", "Christianity" and "Islam".
atoui oussama
- 0
Jun 13 2011: Islam continues to be successful in the developed world, and elsewhere, because its call is in accordance with the fitrah or natural inclinations of mankind, and it advocates the best of human values, such as tolerance, love, mercy, truthfulness and sincerity.

Islam educates people and lifts them up to righteous conduct, good manners and virtue. Its call is distinguished from others by its realism, balance and moderation. Islam pays due attention to both the soul and the body. It neither suppresses physical desires nor allows extravagance in this regard; it makes a distinction between the natural inclination to enjoy the pleasures of this world and forbidden desires that come under the heading of depravity and perversion.

People embrace Islam because they find security, comfort and peace in it, they see a cure for their problems in it, and through it they are able to get rid of their feelings of confusion, anxiety and loss...........

*- all article in http://islamqa.com/en/ref/3143
- Tim blackburn 30+
  - 0
  Jun 13 2011: *quick look through a history book* eh, i dont buy it.
- Nick Desbarats
  - 0
  Jun 14 2011: Atoui, nothing in this article addresses any of the arguments in my original post. I agree that the Koran contains many benevolent passages (such as those in your article), but the problem I raised is that it ALSO contains many passages that violate basic human rights and principles of equality.