Becoming an apostate in an Islamic country is punishable by death so to declare yourself "out" would be foolhardy. If a teacher in Paris dies because of a drawing of the prophet, speaking against Islam is definitely to be avoided if you value your life. Salman Rushdie still has a Fatwa against him for a book he wrote a few decades ago. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is also under 24 hour protection.

Maybe i should have used modernisation or less militant perhaps. I was thinking something along the lines of the Christian reformation back in the middle ages.

@maxmaccc I get what you're after, and I agree. The Christian Reformation was an effort to restore the Christian faith to its original, unadulterated form by returning to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority and remaining faithful to the true intentions of Jesus' teaching, which, had they been correctly followed, would have prevented terrible things such as the Crusades. God help us if the majority of Muslims around the word actually decide to do the same with regard to the Quran.

@KeithThroop I'm not sure I would agree with the premise that following Jesus teaching would prevent military campaign like Crusades, but I do agree that it would not be done by those types of Christians. Or maybe not even Christians at all, but some other religion under another name. I agree with that. More to the point. It reminded me of few things.

On the side of pacifism., there were Christians who went to China and Africa and were not conquerors but traders and translators. However without a powerful empire and friends to protect them, they could not survive other religions that had die, like in China were Emperor supported Confucianism and in Africa where Islam started to spread.

Interesting overview I found on Quora.

Why did Christianity not spread through the Middle East even though Jesus was born there?
Ming Markos Uteram, B.A. History of Christianity & History of Asia, University of Toronto (2022)
Updated Oct 24, 2018

[quora.com]

And off course The Thirty Years’ War was a 17th-century religious conflict fought primarily in central Europe. It remains one of the longest and most brutal wars in human history, with more than 8 million casualties resulting from military battles as well as from the famine and disease caused by the conflict.

It resulted in more deaths than Crusades caused. So its hard to say that Crusades are isolated case in worn torn Eurasia, where wars were fought for one reason or another, under one ideology or religion or another almost non stop for a very very long time. What I mean is that quest for power by ambitious individuals is universal in human history, and religion is very useful tool to get people mobilized.

The war lasted from 1618 to 1648, starting as a battle among the Catholic and Protestant states that formed the Holy Roman Empire. However, as the Thirty Years’ War evolved, it became less about religion and more about which group would ultimately govern Europe. In the end, the conflict changed the geopolitical face of Europe and the role of religion and nation-states in society.

So its hard to say that if people followed Jesus teachings they would have survived as a religion, perhaps they would, but they certainly would not be powerful enough to spread it as far and wide as they did and probably today you would not be Christian. On the other hand to become a powerful religion politicians have to get involved. Its hard to separate military campaigns from some kind of ideology or religion or another.

I think in the case of Islam is similar. When Islam was not under threat it behaved very benevolently and progressively, when it feels under pressure it resorts to more ugly side. that is the inherent problem of Holy Books, they are left to interpretation and can be interpreted in many ways. For example in case of Quran I think in a passage it says suicide is not allowed, but in another says you can use any means necessary to defeat enemies.

If you take the first passage, suicide bombers would not be used, but if you add the second passage you can justify it. Its all about interpenetration. And that is the inherent weakness of Holy Books in my opinion.

Mass Suicide at Jonestown for example. A way to use the Bible but interpret it differently. We can debate that its not what Jesus would have though, and I would agree, but its hard to deny that if book is left to interpretation it can be used for good and bad deeds. So I suppose the real issue is the way politicians and cult leaders use scripture for their own goals. It has been done with Bible and Quran. And there are many examples where both books were used by compassionate and courage individuals to do good, and noble things. It is not like a science theory that many can try and get same results. Holy Books are left to individual interpretation open to use and misuse. But since science does not provide meaningful world view for many humans, religion steps in to take that role. For better and for worse.

The Mass Suicide at Jonestown was for wrose.

On November 18, 1978, Peoples Temple founder Jim Jones leads hundreds of his followers in a mass murder-suicide at their agricultural commune in a remote part of the South American nation of Guyana. Many of Jones’ followers willingly ingested a poison-laced punch while others were forced to do so at gunpoint. The final death toll at Jonestown that day was 909; a third of those who perished were children.

Jim Jones was a charismatic churchman who established the Peoples Temple, a Christian sect, in Indianapolis in the 1950s. He preached against racism, and his integrated congregation attracted many African Americans. In 1965, he moved the group to Northern California, settling in Ukiah and after 1971 in San Francisco. In the 1970s, his church was accused by the media of financial fraud, physical abuse of its members and mistreatment of children. In response to the mounting criticism, the increasingly paranoid Jones invited his congregation to move with him to Guyana, where he promised they would build a socialist utopia. Three years earlier, a small group of his followers had traveled to the tiny nation to set up what would become Jonestown on a tract of jungle.

P.S.
I don't think Islam needs reformation per se, because you can find many Muslims that much like many Christians are very nice, compassionate, generous people. And you can find those that are not.

I think people who politicize Islam are more responsible for its ugly side. Much like Christians were in the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, or Thirty Years’ War. I suppose one might ask, how much role did the various occupying forces played in the Middle East.

Just in recent times, The British, the Russians, The Americans. They call middle east the birthplace of civilizations, the crucible of conflict, and the graveyard of empires. Islam and especially militant Jihadists are just one by product in the long long history of conflict in that region. It is strategically important to many empires because it sits at the cross roads of Europe, Africa and Asia. And ever since ancient world it has been hot bed of conflicts. In the end in produced three major religions.

Over time they all split in various denominations because people are meant to be in smaller tribes and soon as the tribe gets big enough, inner tensions rise and eventually it splits. Its the nature of the beast , I guess. Human nature. If its not one ideology or religion its another, at the end human nature always has the final word.

BTW. another interesting article I found: Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians by Missy Sullivan

[history.com]

You're correct in the sense that religion reformists argue that religion is originally good and that the problem is with men of religion and wrong interpretations and stuff.

@Krunoslav You often write such long comments that I rarely have time to fully respond. That is the case now, so I will just take up a few points.

First, I think you have a point when implying that Jesus' teachings would not necessarily require pacifism. For example, I do not think He would require that Christians refuse to serve in the military in defense of their country. To the extent that the Crusades were such defensive wars, I don't think there would have been an issue. But the Crusades were not simply that. They were also attempts to force conversion on other people, with many atrocities committed that faithfulness to Jesus' teaching would definitely have prevented.

So its hard to say that if people followed Jesus teachings they would have survived as a religion, perhaps they would, but they certainly would not be powerful enough to spread it as far and wide as they did and probably today you would not be Christian.

I don't think it is hard to say that at all. The history of the early Church proves, for example, that it thrived and expanded throughout the Roman Empire despite a couple of centuries of almost constant persecution, at times Empire-wide at the behest of a particular emperor, but most often in various localities by local leaders. During this period there was no Christian army going forth to defend the Church or a particular region on behalf of the Church. This actually led Tertullian to famously say, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." It seemed that the more the governing authorities tried to stamp it out, the more it grew. Even in modern times there are parts of the world where Christianity has been illegal but where it has thrived anyway, just as in those early centuries. As for how many Christians have survived in the Middle East, I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that. Numbers are hard to find or to assess where the Church has gone underground. We do know, however, that there were many more Evangelical Christians in the former Soviet Union than anyone ever expected and which were discovered only after the Iron Curtain fell. There is strong evidence of a similar phenomenon in China. Only time will tell with regard to the Middle Eastern countries.

that is the inherent problem of Holy Books, they are left to interpretation and can be interpreted in many ways.

Yes, a book or a person's words may be rightly interpreted or wrongly interpreted. Once in a while, there may even be some statements that are deliberately vague and about which we must be careful not to be dogmatic in stating our interpretations. And you are right in seeing that most misinterpretations are motivated by people who seek to use a particular religion for their own ends. So, as you seem to understand correctly, the real problem isn't necessarily with the holy books, although it could be in some cases. Some holy books, rightly understood, are more conducive to freedom and peace in a society that other holy books rightly understood.

@KeithThroop You are correct that Christianity would spread across the Roman Empire despite and maybe even in spite the prosecutions and even if Constantine did not converted it would probably spread. And you are also correct about underground movements.

But I do wonder what would happen if Christianity was not adopted as it was, because Islam was on the rise and maybe they would have made Europe Muslim if Constantine did not build Constantinople and Byzantine Empire didn't defend Western Europe until Western Europe didn't became strong enough to defend itself. During the first Muslim invasion into Europe, it was Byzantine Empire that prevented it from success, and at the time Western Roman Empire already fell and was weak to defend itself. I wonder if Europe would be Muslim today, but we will never know hehe

And as I've mentioned the Christians that did move in China had to go underground because Confucianism and even today Christianity in China plays only a minor role. Although interesting enough later, Hong Xiuquan (1814–1864): The charismatic founder and delusional leader
of the Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864) believed himself to be the
brother of Jesus Christ and ruled the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom until his
death in 1864.

Imagine that.

@Krunoslav There is no question that the Byzantine Empire played such a crucial role in preventing Islam from moving into Europe. We just need to remember, however, that genuine Christianity has always been at its best when not wedded to the state. In fact, it has actually flourished and been more faithful when the state has left it alone or opposed it rather than having professed to adopt it. The wedding of Church and state as institutions inevitably corrupts both.

As for the role that Christianity plays in China today, I don't think we can really say. There are parts of rural China, perhaps, where it plays a very significant role amongst the population. We just don't know enough about what is happening with the Church there. What we do know, however, as we find out more and more, is that it is much stronger in China that many people think.

As for your mention of yet another crackpot heretic, I don't view guys like him (or the aforementioned Jim Jones) as Christians at all. They do not represent the faith because they do not truly believe its tenets, and the vast majority of Christians would denounce them and refuse to acknowledge them as one of our number. But this does bring up an important point, namely that, when assessing the history of Christianity, we must be careful in assessing what people or movements are seen as proper examples of it. Thus, my reading of the history of Christianity would be quite different from, for example, some secular historians who are on the outside looking in and who may not make the same distinctions I would make as one on the inside looking out, as it were.

@KeithThroop "Thus, my reading of the history of Christianity would be quite different from, for example, some secular historians who are on the outside looking in and who may not make the same distinctions I would make as one on the inside looking out, as it were."

True.

As for separating Church from State, I do agree with that, however what worries me is what takes its place. As you know , in the West now with Church being away from state , the lefty Woke religion has rushed in. Of the two , I prefer the Church. I'm just not sure if its possible to have a state with no religion. Off course I do consider Marxism as a religion , not the same as Church, but it has the same role of providing dogmatic worldview to economy, politics, social customs, and even human nature as is the case with the contemporary Marxist inspired ideologies in the West. Without the counter from another religion how does one defend against it?

Liberalism can't do it.

Prof Sandel gave a good insight: “I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the most narrow and intolerant moralisms.”

And while most liberals were not fanatics , the problem is that soft left always protects the hard left. Until they come for them too. And that is why now we see exactly that the most narrow and intolerant moralisms coming from extreme left.

“In the end, the actions of such liberals have the effect---again unwittingly---of continuing to cover for the goals of the extreme Left. Yet again, the soft Left is helping to conceal the hard Left, whether it realizes it or not.” ― Paul Kengor, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century

@Krunoslav I have similar concerns. Note, however, that I said, "The wedding of Church and state as institutions inevitably corrupts both." I was not advocating the idea that there should be no place at all for the Church in politics. In fact, at least here in the U.S. where I live, our Constitution imagines a role for the Church in politics. The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Most of the Constitution's framers were professing Christians, and their intent was to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. They imagined a situation in which the Church could speak freely on all issues, including political issues, even if some today want to curtail that right. But the Christian Church, nor any other religion, was to become a state religion, in which the two became institutionally intertwined, with the one doing the bidding of the other. Neither was to have authority over the other, but the Church does have the right to criticize the government and to try to influence the thinking of the population, just as the press does, or any other citizens do, whether religious or not.

@KeithThroop So at the end it is a battle of ideologies for the supremacy of one ideology. I hope its not the lefty one.

@Krunoslav Me Too!

[slug.com]