Christianity doesn’t try to expand to fill law-making in the same way that Islam does.
The existence of the Vatican state today, and that of the Holy Roman Empire in Medieval times, I think proves you wrong. Christianity has always attempted to impose itself in law-making and state politics, and was very good at doing so for almost two millennia. It just has lost (arguably) in Europe and in America in the last century, although it’s still fighting for power whenever and however it can.
The existence of the Vatican state today, and that of the Holy Roman Empire in Medieval times, I think proves you wrong.
No, I don’t think they do. Vatican is a state only in the name, and as the famous quip about the Holy Roman Empire goes, it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire :-)
The relationship between Christianity and state power is a complicated one and not reducible to a yes/no question.
I also think that if you replace the wiggly “impose itself in law-making and state politics” with much more direct “seek to rule, that is, solely control the state power”, you’ll find that Islam and Christianity are quite different in that respect. The notion that Islam and Christianity have essentially same attitude towards state is nonsense.
The existence of the Vatican state today, and that of the Holy Roman Empire in Medieval times, I think proves you wrong.
The Holy Roman Empire had a deal whereby you have worldly rulers on the one hand and the pope being the spiritual leader on the other hand.
Popes supported the concept of the devine right of kings that was supposed to be given out by God to King David and passed down from David via inherentance to the present kings.
Islam on the other hand considers only God a valid source of laws and doesn’t think that God has given human kings the right to make laws the way Christianity thinks with the devine right of kings.
If you think that the devine right of kings wasn’t important in Medieval times I think you are massively misreading history.
Disclosure: I haven’t read the full string of comments
I’m pretty sure you’re a bit off on the Islamic side of things though.
a valid source of laws and doesn’t think that God has given human kings the right to make laws the way Christianity thinks with the devine right of kings.
Kings’ claim to rule seems to be fairly similar to that of an Islamic caliph, who are supposed to be prophets selected by God himself, and are able to create laws/etc. as he would want basically.
Kings’ claim to rule seems to be fairly similar to that of an Islamic caliph, who are supposed to be prophets selected by God himself, and are able to create laws/etc. as he would want basically.
No. The core idea of Islam is that a caliph is not a person who can create laws and if he tries to do so his followers have an obligation to fight him over it. God gave humanity the sharia and the caliph can’t simply deviate from it because he thinks that it would be better if man and woman have the same right as far as inheritance goes.
The caliph can make rulings that interpret the koran (fatwa’s) but he can’t make laws.
Worldly issues such as alimony rules and inheritance rules are hardlocked in the sharia. In our cities with sizable Muslim populations you have Muslims running parallel legal system. In Berlin we have problems that arise from German law considering alimony to be a regular payment while sharia law considers it to be made in a large one time payment.
That conflict of alimony payments is something that leftish Muslims in Berlin worry about because their religion dictates them to live differently than German law.
Christianity doesn’t work that way. If you take the Western idea of what religion happens to be, that not the cluster filled by Islam. Islam adds the sharia with doesn’t have an equivalent. While not every Muslim believes in cutting of hands, the civil rules for alimony and inheritance are a core part of Islam as practiced by liberal Western Muslims.
Apart from the issue of lawmaking the caliph is the religious leader of his nation while a king isn’t.
I think this is correct, but there is a difference even so. Islam was something like a state religion from a very early point in its history, and there is much in the Qur’an and hadith that reflects this. Christianity got started among mostly-poor mostly-powerless subjects of the Roman Empire, and the New Testament reflects this. It’s only hundreds of years later that it became a state religion.
I suspect (but don’t know) that this makes it easier to be a reasonably conventional Christian without feeling that your religion should be in control of the state, than to be a reasonably conventional Muslim without feeling that your religion should be in control of the state.
Islam was something like a state religion from a very early point in its history
Not “something like”, but “a classical full-blown dialed-to-eleven” state religion. Note, for example, that early Islam knows no distinction between religious laws and state laws. The idea that they could be different would be treated as an idiocy.
The existence of the Vatican state today, and that of the Holy Roman Empire in Medieval times, I think proves you wrong.
Christianity has always attempted to impose itself in law-making and state politics, and was very good at doing so for almost two millennia. It just has lost (arguably) in Europe and in America in the last century, although it’s still fighting for power whenever and however it can.
No, I don’t think they do. Vatican is a state only in the name, and as the famous quip about the Holy Roman Empire goes, it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire :-)
The relationship between Christianity and state power is a complicated one and not reducible to a yes/no question.
I also think that if you replace the wiggly “impose itself in law-making and state politics” with much more direct “seek to rule, that is, solely control the state power”, you’ll find that Islam and Christianity are quite different in that respect. The notion that Islam and Christianity have essentially same attitude towards state is nonsense.
The Holy Roman Empire had a deal whereby you have worldly rulers on the one hand and the pope being the spiritual leader on the other hand. Popes supported the concept of the devine right of kings that was supposed to be given out by God to King David and passed down from David via inherentance to the present kings.
Islam on the other hand considers only God a valid source of laws and doesn’t think that God has given human kings the right to make laws the way Christianity thinks with the devine right of kings.
If you think that the devine right of kings wasn’t important in Medieval times I think you are massively misreading history.
Disclosure: I haven’t read the full string of comments
I’m pretty sure you’re a bit off on the Islamic side of things though.
Kings’ claim to rule seems to be fairly similar to that of an Islamic caliph, who are supposed to be prophets selected by God himself, and are able to create laws/etc. as he would want basically.
No. The core idea of Islam is that a caliph is not a person who can create laws and if he tries to do so his followers have an obligation to fight him over it. God gave humanity the sharia and the caliph can’t simply deviate from it because he thinks that it would be better if man and woman have the same right as far as inheritance goes.
The caliph can make rulings that interpret the koran (fatwa’s) but he can’t make laws.
Worldly issues such as alimony rules and inheritance rules are hardlocked in the sharia. In our cities with sizable Muslim populations you have Muslims running parallel legal system. In Berlin we have problems that arise from German law considering alimony to be a regular payment while sharia law considers it to be made in a large one time payment.
That conflict of alimony payments is something that leftish Muslims in Berlin worry about because their religion dictates them to live differently than German law.
Christianity doesn’t work that way. If you take the Western idea of what religion happens to be, that not the cluster filled by Islam. Islam adds the sharia with doesn’t have an equivalent. While not every Muslim believes in cutting of hands, the civil rules for alimony and inheritance are a core part of Islam as practiced by liberal Western Muslims.
Apart from the issue of lawmaking the caliph is the religious leader of his nation while a king isn’t.
I think this is correct, but there is a difference even so. Islam was something like a state religion from a very early point in its history, and there is much in the Qur’an and hadith that reflects this. Christianity got started among mostly-poor mostly-powerless subjects of the Roman Empire, and the New Testament reflects this. It’s only hundreds of years later that it became a state religion.
I suspect (but don’t know) that this makes it easier to be a reasonably conventional Christian without feeling that your religion should be in control of the state, than to be a reasonably conventional Muslim without feeling that your religion should be in control of the state.
Not “something like”, but “a classical full-blown dialed-to-eleven” state religion. Note, for example, that early Islam knows no distinction between religious laws and state laws. The idea that they could be different would be treated as an idiocy.