That was brilliantly formulated with a robust sociohistorical
perspective. Enjoyable to read. In short: "back to basics" is
the problem when taken too far. When you "return solely to the
text" and allow the text to rule rather than guide the culture
that embraces it it becomes the straightjacket of law with
equivalent force to a police state enforcing secular laws with
minimal variance. Look back to the fall of constantniple. What
made it fall? What was different about the guy who led the
charge to reform? What was different about what he did once he
gained control? What did he keep? What did he destroy? To me,
that was the end of Islam, First Time. A new book-based religion
emerged under the same name. Then it mellowed over the course of
history and there was growth again. But the mellowing process
comes to an abrupt halt when someone decides "we've strayed too
far" and wants to strip away the culture that grew with the
texts as an integral part of natural life, with variations and
exceptions and a natural humanistic tendency among humans... and
wants to "return to the text alone". Of course then you have
problems again. Pick and choose. Same problem with Protestant
Reformation and splintering. Pick and choose. This is, to me,
the cause of the difference. Fundamentalist thinking. Return to
the text and the definition within the text with no straying
allowed. Of course it's impossible to stick to ANY text
completely as law, because even LAW requires interpretation.
Laws, like proverbs, are contradictory and one must choose what
to apply and when. When the humanistic goodness (my bias) leaves
the religious culture and is replaced with Text Only
Fundamentalism, it's bad news.
