Yes, there is wishful thinking in it, in the sense of a strong desire not merely for it to be so, but to make it so. For entirely practical reasons - it makes the task ahead of us easier. Asking where there are such seeds is perfectly reasonable.
The particular example I was thinking of when I made the comment and related it to your screen name was Averroes. Who provided (or transmitted, in some other cases) many of the arguments used by Acquinas, such as the famous principle that "truth does not contradict truth", to make revelation accord with reason. He is not the only philosopher; Avicenna is in some respects closer to western theological views.
Which is only one aspect of a more general fact - that medieval Islam was heir to elements of the Hellenist tradition that also influenced the Church fathers in the west. Doctrines learned from Aristotle and Plato, the Stoa, neo-Platonism, Gnostics, eastern Christian churches, and Christian fathers all influenced Islamic philosophy and theology.
On the side of practical moral piety, there is al-Ghazzali and the Sufi tradition more generally. Moral intention weighing more than outward act has obvious relevance for curbing the excesses of fanatics. Humility and self-criticism can accomplish some things on its own.
On numerous theological questions (free will, the problem of evil, etc), there are the Mutazilites, the rationalist theological school associated with the Abassid dynasty.
There are also principles of legal precedent giving greatest weight to the most recent ruling, which allows development. Consensus is recognized by most as a source of legal and theological legitimacy, based on the tradition "the community of the faithful will not agree on an error".
There are various modern Islamic thinkers who have tried to use various portions of the above to formulate positions compatible with the modern west. Examples are the Pakistani philosopher Muhammad Iqbal (who adds aspects of modern idealism), Fazlur Rahman (who is more traditional, borrowing from Avicenna on key questions), and Mushin Mahdi (political philosophy).
"two fundamental reasons why Mohammedanism cannot be reconciled with non-authoritarian government."
I note first off that what we most require is religious tolerance, not absent of authoritarianism. Republican government certainly has its strengths and benefits, but it also makes high demands on the virtue of the populace. Limited monarchy is a legitimate alternative with lower demands. Enlightened despotism, where actual, may be only a third best, but is compatible with practical justice (think say of Salazar's Portugal). So, I simply note that perfection is not the standard. But I turn next to your substantive points.
"The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him."
So did Luther. He taught passive obediance in principle to whatever was the government of the day, and cited the practice of Jesus toward the Romans as evidence. In practice, of course, things look rather different. Similarly in Islam, there have been any number of historical movements against the rulers, typically alleging an absence of religious legitimacy. Only Shia fully acknowledge the principle of obediance to a designated Imam, and they disagree over who that is. The Umayyad dynasty in Islam gave passive obediance a bad name, and provoked the Mutazilites to formulate theories of legitimate rebellion when the caliph violates the law. At most one can say this has been a practical issue in Islam, as is was in the west.
"God wills both good and evil."
So does the God of Calvin. I agree it is bad theology. But it has hardly made all Calvinists enemies of popular or limited government in practice. It may have once, with Cromwell. But later they became the backbone of the Whigs, who formulated the versions of limited government most widely accepted today.
In addition, the Mutazilites recognized the problem and tried to address it, placing Good higher. The issue goes back to the Euthyphro, or some would say to the book of Job or the story of Isaac. It is a familiar chesnut of the relation between God and morality.
"Mohammedanism cannot be reconciled with the natural law"
First I note a logical point. Reconciliation with the natural law is in principle possible without placing natural law above God theoretically. One can instead regard the content of natural law as God's free moral legislation. There can be harmony in outcome with either scheme. That some theologians emphasize God's goodness, and others His omnipotence, need not prevent such reconciliation, if one is seen to imply the other. They may become independent possible premises from which the same conclusions are reached. I am not saying that -has- to happen. One can of course get bad theology out of the principle of a God "beyond good and evil". But "can" is not "must" on this question. (Of course, something akin to Mutazilite theology might allow a deeper reform on the question).
"Our form of government is based on the natural law"
Historically that is quite correct. However, few of our own contemporaries believe in natural law in the strict sense. Recall the controversy connected with Judge Thomas's views on the question in his hearings. The reigning legal doctrine he was asked to bow to instead, was legal positivism. Even Thomas said he put on his "natural law" hat to see how the founders (and Lincoln) may have viewed something, and regarded it as a perspective appropriate to a legislator rather than a judge. One can lament this, and argue that we would be better off if all our citizens believed in natural law. But they do not, in practice, and our government nevertheless continues to function.
My verdict on the objections is therefore a Scottish "not proven." You highlight issues that do indeed need to be addressed. But it is entirely conceivable they could be addressed successfully.
Unfortunately, what I've read from second hand sources is that Aristotle's thought came to a dead end in the Mohammedan world with Averroes and Avicenna, perhaps because the principle that "truth does not contradict truth" cannot be reconciled with Mohammedan revelation (in contrast to Christian revelation). I've read that the medieval scholastics removed some of the Mohammedan accretions to Aristotle's texts before they performed the great synthesis of pagan philosophy and Christian revelation and dogma.
On the side of practical moral piety, there is al-Ghazzali and the Sufi tradition more generally. Moral intention weighing more than outward act has obvious relevance for curbing the excesses of fanatics. Humility and self-criticism can accomplish some things on its own.
On numerous theological questions (free will, the problem of evil, etc), there are the Mutazilites, the rationalist theological school associated with the Abassid dynasty.
The Koran will be a dead letter without an authoritative interpretive body. While logically any interpretation is possible, in practice a traditional consensus will develop around the text (not unlike Protestantism). A consensus certainly seems to have arisen regarding the idea of God willing both good and evil. Other opinions seem to be a decided minority. In consideration of past history a thorough reinterpretation of the Koran appears doubtful for the foreseeable future.
"The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him."
So did Luther.
Did he command absolute submission to a bishop or cleric?
imam
1.
a. In law and theology, the caliph who is successor to Muhammad as the lawful temporal leader of the Islamic community.
He taught passive obediance in principle to whatever was the government of the day, and cited the practice of Jesus toward the Romans as evidence.
Totally different teaching.
...Similarly in Islam, there have been any number of historical movements against the rulers, typically alleging an absence of religious legitimacy. Only Shia fully acknowledge the principle of obediance to a designated Imam, and they disagree over who that is. The Umayyad dynasty in Islam gave passive obediance a bad name, and provoked the Mutazilites to formulate theories of legitimate rebellion when the caliph violates the law. At most one can say this has been a practical issue in Islam, as is was in the west.
No sign of tolerance of religious minorities here though whether in theory or practice.
"God wills both good and evil."
So does the God of Calvin. I agree it is bad theology.
It's a very dangerous idea for obvious reasons.
But it has hardly made all Calvinists enemies of popular or limited government in practice. It may have once, with Cromwell. But later they became the backbone of the Whigs, who formulated the versions of limited government most widely accepted today.
Nevertheless, the idea had to be tamed. Moreover, all of this occurred within a Christian milieu.
"Mohammedanism cannot be reconciled with the natural law"
...One can of course get bad theology out of the principle of a God "beyond good and evil". But "can" is not "must" on this question. (Of course, something akin to Mutazilite theology might allow a deeper reform on the question).
I'm not as optimistic.
"Our form of government is based on the natural law"
Historically that is quite correct. However, few of our own contemporaries believe in natural law in the strict sense. Recall the controversy connected with Judge Thomas... One can lament this, and argue that we would be better off if all our citizens believed in natural law. But they do not, in practice, and our government nevertheless continues to function.
But the train has jumped the rails, so all bets are off at this point.
My verdict on the objections is therefore a Scottish "not proven." You highlight issues that do indeed need to be addressed. But it is entirely conceivable they could be addressed successfully.
Great post, but ultimately I disagree with you based on my own limited understanding of Mohammedanism. Personally, I think the best policy is to treat Mohammedanism like a tumor: contain it and then treat it. I think Mohammedanism can be contained. I'm less sanguine regarding treatment. My two dim hopes are that Mohammedans in Mohammedan lands can be secretly evangelized through the internet (I know some people doing this) and that Mohammedan abuse of women will result in women leaving the religion.