i tend to agree in broad sketches with t …
i tend to agree in broad sketches with what abnoor says. before 1800 judaism was orthodox judaism (hasidism, karaite sectarians aside). liberty changed this. reform emerged in germany as a way for jews to be german and jews. reform originally rejected the idea of a jewish ethnicity, an affirmed a jewish religion. reform shares the broad outlines of christian confessionalism on purpose.
the big difference between reform and orthodox isn’t belief, it’s practice. reform rejected the centrality of halakah, jewish law, as the gold standard for judaism. like christianity reform focused on a particular set of beliefs as well as a communal fellowship. it even mimicked christian practices such as the usage of organs.
reform addressed the fact that it is very difficult to be a jew who follows halakah and is integrated into gentile life. this was not a problem before 1800; jews were viewed as corporate entities, and rabbis ran their communities segregated from everyone else. the only way jews could leave was convert to christianity. after 1800 this changed, and so the orthodox monopoly which was enabled through christian collusion broke up. jewish individualism resulted in experimentation with various practices, beliefs and organizational styles.
orthodox do not consider non-orthodox jews religious jews. rather, they consider them ethnic jews who practice another religion. so when the orthodox say “he’s become religious” in regards to another jew, he means that they’ve become orthodox.
i think the position of islam as a minority religion in the west means that some of the same issues apply. the main difference is that jews were a small community who didn’t identify with a powerful and robust civilization.
razib, and 
abunoor are discussing.
abunoor 1:24 pm on November 12, 2008 Permalink |
Razib,
As far as I know you are right about Orthodox Judaism emphasizing practice more than belief. An Orthodox Jew is one who “observes the commandments”.
I would make a few observations about that:
first, Islam puts more of an emphasis on correct belief than Judaism does.
second, an ‘Orthodox Islam’ would probably be similar in placing most of its emphasis on practicing the five pillars, which would include basic orthodoxy in belief in the kalimatayn. However, certainly there would be some voices which would put more emphasis on true orhodoxy consisting of Sunni Islamic belief of either the Hanbali or Ash’ari/Maturidi variety or allowing for either depending on who’s defining orthodoxy. At the political level there would be a broad desire to include Shi’a as well but in terms of theology I think this would become quite problematic.
Razib, do you claim that Islam or Muslims today constitute a ‘powerful and robust civilization’? Or that Jews today don’t? I like what you’re getting at in that Jews during the 19th century when these responses were developing did not have or really even aspire to a political powerbase, while Muslims have to confront these realities to some extent. However, I think one thing some Muslim Americans seem to be moving towards is basically to try to act as if they are not tied to the reality of overseas Muslims and Islam and carve out a completely separate identity.
abunoor 1:34 pm on November 12, 2008 Permalink |
The only other very important point I wanted to make was to complicate the belief/practice dichotomy. Leaving Orthodox practice is closely associated with modified understandings of belief. Reform Jews changed their understandings of the dual revelations at Sinai in order to justify their leaving of Jewish practice (or vice versa, I’m not making a causal claim, just establishing the relationship.)
Similarly, the emergence of a true Reform Islam would be dependent on breaking with traditional Orthodox Islamic beliefs which have proven remarkably resilient in the Modern world such as the Qur’an as literal revelation, the Prophet’s sunnah constituting a type of revelation and the religious authority given to the practices of the first three generations of the Muslim community especially the Khulafaa Rashidun, and the consensus on the uprightness and special nature of the Companions as a whole.
After these basic foundations then there is the question of what authority to give the Rabbinic tradition in general and what authority to give the Islamic scholarly tradition which also involves questions of belief, as I understand the term.
Thus, to make clear by example what I am saying by combining some of the above, one cannot say I’m an Orthodox Muslim but the what the Prophet (saw) is reported to have said in a hadith collected by Imam Bukhari has no value as an authority for me.
Such a person has left the realm of Orthodox Islam.
razib 1:55 pm on November 12, 2008 Permalink |
However, I think one thing some Muslim Americans seem to be moving towards is basically to try to act as if they are not tied to the reality of overseas Muslims and Islam and carve out a completely separate identity.
yes, this is the key. i think this is true for muslim americans. not sure if it is for british muslims, who are more ethnically homogenous (pakistanis + bangladeshis + a few others).
After these basic foundations then there is the question of what authority to give the Rabbinic tradition in general and what authority to give the Islamic scholarly tradition which also involves questions of belief, as I understand the term.
i think an analogy of halakah = sharia is apropos. yes, 614 commandments, but really that’s mediated by the talmud.
abunoor 2:26 pm on November 12, 2008 Permalink |
i think an analogy of halakah = sharia is apropos. yes, 614 commandments, but really that’s mediated by the talmud.
You mean 613, right? If there’s ever a time to be a hair-splitter, it’s when talking rabbinic law.
razib 2:30 am on November 13, 2008 Permalink |
…error bars
Matt 10:32 pm on November 13, 2008 Permalink |
If I may, it’s important to recognize the context in which Orthodox and Reform movements came about. In the Pale of Settlement, looking to Western Europe and trying to decide on the model of emancipation most desirable. Orthodox Judaism envisioned a sort of multiculturalism that would preserve the Jewish community as a corporate entity. (I think that’s where you were headed?) They hoped more religious governments would be better able to understand faith and therefore be more tolerant toward their desire for autonomy. Reform fit in better with the Englightenment, but as you can see with the issue of headscarves in France today, it’s a actually a much more limited sense of integration than was envisioned. In fact, the Enlightenment often sought explicitly to deprive Jews of the chance to be Jewish in any way that Jews found meaningful, establishing a secular-Christian dominance.
It’s true that Reform places far less emphasis on Jewish law or Jewish practice and that Reform Jews tend to be much less religious (even believing that man wrote The Torah), but I think it would be a mistake to characterize the difference in that way.