Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Naut on Religion…XXV (Islam)
Fascinating and educational, listening to the two of you debate...
I see valid points on both sides, and also what seems to me the opposite, on both sides.
Naut, I fear it is naught but an intellectual argument to say that Christian atrocities occurred counter to Christian teaching. It is the nature of the Old and New Testaments that just about any position can find phrasing to validate itself. Jesus did not preach only peace and love-thy-neighbor, he also acknowldeged that his teaching would set brother against brother, child against parent. He got pissed at a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season just because he was hungry after tearing up the temple, and he cursed it to death!
In any case, the atrocities of the Inquisition, for instance, and the quieter on-going atrocities against spiritual free-will and even against physical well-being, that occur today in some of those pathologically "Christian" families that lean towards the patriarchal/pater familias model of family dynamics, though they may represent extremes of corrupted interpretation, also represent a stupendous body of pain and suffering that is an element of historic Christianity. Of course, Jesus would be appalled at what has been done in his name, but he did give over the task of creating a church to his followers, who were products of their times and cultures, not particularly sophisticated thinkers, or especially comprehending of what Jesus had offered them. There is mysogyny in the first generation of the church that was never part of the Jesus teachings, but there it is at the foundation of the Catholic ecclesiastic empire.
Lindo, there is much that is beautiful in Islam, and there was a time when Moslem scholars and teachers and rulers were the greatest in the world. But the high-minded and mature in any tradition are and were always more rare than the ignorant, short-sighted, noisy, greedy masses of people who live without deep thinking, who are driven by survival and fear-based reactions to the world. Today's most visible leaders of Islam--I suggest that every one of them would have dismayed and disgusted the Islamic leaders of the past.
In short, Christian teaching began with the teachings of Jesus, but then the apostles, a group of perhaps-not-entirely-stable and certainly fanatically focussed men, added in their teachings, and their interpretations of Jesus' teachings...
Add in all the cultural influence--which as you point out in these posts is considerable--of the Romans, including the standard of domination and conversion by force--and sooner or later, any atrocious behavior towards other humans becomes okay... excuseable... commendable!
Every religion, I suggest, has begun with a simple precept. Then creative thinkers get hold of it, complicate it with their own ideas, the lessons they think everyone needs besides that initial simple precept, decorate it, build shrines to it and decorate those, and declare them part of the faith... Create positions of authority, and fill them with fanatics ranging from the mildly benignly narrow-viewed to the pathologically destructive messiah-wannabe... Institute positions of power and fill them with cynical, faithless, megalomaniacs (also ranging from the amusingly benighted to the utterly, vastly, homicidally insane)...
And before we start talking fundamentals, do keep in mind that one definition of 'fundament' has little to do with philosophy... And be amused how well that applies to the aforementioned topic of fundamentals and fundamentalists!
What was the simplest, most basic truth of Islam, when it was just the vision of Mohammed?
What was the basic teaching of Jesus, distilled to what he said, before the others 'fixed it up?'
What was the central statement Luther was making, when he protested Catholicism?
What was the simplest primary message of the Old Testament, when it was just about spirit, before all the stuff about bringing bodies, families and nations to heel?
If God is in any of the sacred traditions, it will be there, in the first stone more than anywhere else, more than in anything else that has accreted to it: the core, the little pure speck to which everthing else gathered... In that first stone will be the highest percentage of the truth of the tradition; after-additions obscure and diminish it.
The rest is persuasion, the evidence for the 'prove-it' game, the justification, apologia, rationale... decoration: Packaging. And there will always be those who worship and love all that glamour, the glitz, the regalia and acoutrements, who don't need the center to feel they are getting full value. And those who will make themselves slave to the packaging, and kill for it, die for it--because they never knew there was anything more to it.
posted by
Ciel
on January 28, 2008 at 12:00 PM
| link to this | reply
I was aware of your view of religion as myth
but what bothered me was that as soon as Islam became the subject the tone of the argument became less objective than it was with Christianity for example. You have reiteriated several times that you believe that whatever attrocities were commited by Christians was despite their religion and not becuase of it, and that whatever progress and contributions to humanity made by Muslims were despite Islam and not becuase of it. This may make sense to many people today when fundamentalists seem to have become the poster boys of Islam but let's imagine that a Naut lived in the 15th century, i think that he would have seen things the other way round, he might not have been able to view Christianity as a peaceful faith when so much suffering and ignorance was inflicted in its name. That was a period when Muslims were active in the field of science and arts and had a society that was far more developed and humanitarian than that of Europe. The bottom line is that the last decade has effectively erased all the good that was done in Islam's name from the memory and awareness of Westerners. It has taken Chrsitianity 6 centuries to be disassociated with the dark ages, how long do you think it will take before Islam is given the chance to clear its name?
posted by
lindo
on January 10, 2008 at 12:47 AM
| link to this | reply
lindo
This series is not just about Islam, it is about myth and religion, of which Islam is a specific case. I think it might be best if you began reading this series from the beginning, then you would see that my basic premise is that 'God' never talked to anyone, neither Moses, nor Jesus or Muhammad. Moses did not 'part' the Red See, nor did Muhammad ever take the trip to Heaven, as is alleged...
Man created 'God' in and through the tales and myths that believers treat as 'revelation'. There are no divine revelations, but only tales written by men...
And that billions believe otherwise, is no proof that they are correct in their belief. There is far more evidence in favor of my position...
But again, it might be best if you started at the beginning...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 9, 2008 at 5:46 PM
| link to this | reply
I don’t understand how your argument works Naut
If God can speak to Moses and Jesus why is it inconceivable that he could have spoken to Mohammad? ( unless you think that an Arab is not worthy of such a claim).
Billions do not question the OT when it speaks of God splitting the Red Sea for the Israelites to escape, Christianity is based on the “myth”(your fave word) of the Virgin Mary bearing the son of God who spoke in the cradle, raised the dead and walked on water, claims that contradict with science and reason, and yet we call them miracles and do not question them or accuse the people who have reported them of being delusional or frauds.
If you believe that such thing as a Bible or a Torah exists then you are obliged to make room for the possibility that God’s word may manifest itself in yet another book, and that Mohammad could have indeed been a messenger like many before him and not a man that spun a faith out of the sayings of those before him.
Mohammad was illiterate, he could not read nor write, unlike the majority of Arabs he had no command of poetry, yet the Koran is a phenomenal book in terms of linguistic complexity and eloquence, with a scope that exceeds the limited knowledge and perception of a Bedouin. It is also a comprehensive guide to every aspect of the individual’s life as well as being the law book for the state which is why it has such a different “feel” to it from the OT and the NT. The “minutiae of worldly punishment” are part of the penal code that is found in the laws of any land, they are no where as detailed or indiscriminate as the Babylonian laws of Hamurabi, the practices “recommended” were implemented by different cultures centuries before Mohammad and that had remained in use centuries after him (Europe included), and yet you single out Mohammad as a sadist, a description that contradicts with his general conduct with followers and enemies alike.
After the battle of Badr with Quraish, Mohammad was faced with a number of war prisoners whose families could not afford to pay their ransom, his companions offered two options: Omar recommended executing them, while Abu Bakr suggested that each of those who could read and write would teach 10 illiterate Muslims in exchange for their freedom. Mohammad followed Abu Bakr’s advice and he was later reprimanded in the Koran because his forces were outnumbered and could not afford to keep a large group of hostiles among their midst. If Mohammad were indeed a sadist then the fate of the prisoners would not require any deliberation or hesitation, and he would certainly not have scolded himself so publicly in the Koran if he was indeed its author -unless he was schizophrenic!
Before Mohammad, vendettas were the norm, Arab tribes warred for decades over matters as trivial as a single camel’s transgression over grazing lands or a dispute over the winner of a horse race, the Koran replaced that state of lawlessness with a rule of the law where all people were equally accountable, and the state was the only authority with the power to punish the wrongdoers and set the compensation for the victims. For 7th century Arabia, Mohammad’s message was a major leap forward, a move that insured peace and stability, prevented unnecessary bloodshed and brought the Arabs as a whole out of their Jahiliyya (the epoch of ignorance).
posted by
lindo
on January 9, 2008 at 9:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: I know that second verse well and it DOESN’T read like that!
lindo, as always, thanks for your extensive comment. I began writing a lengthy reponse, but realized it was becoming too lengthy, and decided to respond in form of a post. (Though I need to find the time for it, lol). For now let me just say that I indeed quoted correctly, though I left out the parts that were irrelevant for my purpose at that moment. That is to say, Muhammad's specifying the conditions under which such punishments should be inflicted is incidental to the fact that he fashions a God who is concerned with minutiae of wordly punishment to a degree not found either in the O.T. or the N.T.
Furthermore, since this is, of course, Muhammad speaking, not God, (you will remember my basic premise that God never spoke to Muhammad or anyone else), we must conclude that he had certain sadistic tendencies...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 8, 2008 at 1:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Re:
Sira, thanks for your comment. Actually, there isn't all that much in the NT about Hell (which doesn't exist, of course, lol). Christian notions of Hell date mainly from the Middle Ages, Dante's Inferno being a fine example. And I know Christians have behaved very badly indeed, often in the name of their religion - but they have done so
in spite of their faith, not
because of it, which is my point.
posted by
Nautikos
on January 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM
| link to this | reply
I know that second verse well and it DOESN’T read like that!
This is a dangerous game you're playing, Naut! if you want to quote the Koran quote it correctly and fully, you have left out a bit of verse 5:34 which you might have found inconvenient as well as the verse right after it:
33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
34. Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
I could see from the comments that the Islamophobes had a field day, assuming that it means that Islam sanctioned butchery, when it fact it states two conditions for this severe punishment: a. An attack on Muslims or a Muslim state where the transgressor(s) “wage war”. And b. when the actions entail a disruption of normal life on a large scale since the original word in Arabic is far stronger than mischief that is used here and means corruption or ruin.
In layman terms, this is the punishment for who we call today terrorists. It would apply to the people who perpetuate crimes that go beyond mere killings into spreading fear across the population, it would have been the punishment for the Ben Ladens of the world intended to stump out lawlessness and not to enforce Islamic faith since the rule is well known: anyone who believes in the one God be he Christian, Jew or Sabi'a is fully entitled to practice his faith in the land of Muslims as long as pays a nominal levy in exchange of their protection since they are not required to fight.
Millions of Non-Muslims have lived under Islamic rule for 1300 years, and I can assure you that they hung on not only to their limbs but to their churches, synagogues, bars and even brothels! With your take on the Koran, that well-documented history of peaceful coexistence under the Islamic state could mean one of two things : either that Muslims ignored the teachings of their book and their prophet (highly unlikely) or that they understood them in different way, a way that did not use brutality as a mean of spreading the faith or ruling the world.
I’ll leave you with the orders of Abu Bakr , mohammad’s closest companion, father-in-law and successor to Usama bin Zaid the leader of his campaign to the Levant: "Do not betray, do not exceed (in force), do not mutilate bodies, nor kill a small child or an old man or a woman, do not chop off a date plam or burn it, nor cut a fruitful tree, nor slaughter an ewe or cow or camel except for food."
And here are just a few verses that may have escaped your attention:
49:13. O mankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know one another…
109: 1 Say: O ye that reject Faith
109:2 I worship not that which ye worship
109:3 Nor will ye worship that which I worship
109:4 And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship
109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship
109: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
10:25 But God doth call to the home of peace: he doth guide whom he pleaseth to a way that is straight.
And my favorite:
39: 53 Say: O my servants who have transgressed against their souls: Despair not of the mercy of God for God forgives all sins, for he is Oft forgiving, Most Merciful.
P.s I see those misinformed quotes about the authorship of Koran have crept into your post again, I could not find my reply to them on your blog but this is the link to my detailed analysis of this particular author's view from the NMD inspired by tha discussion if you remember, not that it matters, hate seems to speak louder than reason!
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/lindo/464006
Best Regards.
posted by
lindo
on January 8, 2008 at 2:11 AM
| link to this | reply
I studied religion quite extensively in school. We looked at the Islamic faith, as well as about a dozen others. When compared side to side, I was shocked at the similarities, especially in the area of punishment for non-followers.
The Bible teaches us that non-christian's will be sent to hell, where they will be forced to suffer and burn for eternity. My personal fave comes from the Catholics - purgatory, where you are sent to sit and think about the sins you committed. It's like religion's version of a time-out!
It's not just Islam that threatens violence and pain for non-belief. They're just more upfront about it than most other faiths. Ireland has been torn apart on more than one occasion, all in the name of Christianity. The bible might not have a book dedicated to war, but it's spawned more than it's fair share of them over the years.
posted by
Sira890
on January 7, 2008 at 10:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Gee whiz, Charlie Brown...
b2008, yes, some of it is not pretty, and there will be more...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 6, 2008 at 11:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Wiley
Well, welcome to the club...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 6, 2008 at 11:46 AM
| link to this | reply
rich
You're quite welcome...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 6, 2008 at 11:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Sam
Thanks! I'm not immune to applause...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 6, 2008 at 11:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Very interesting, Nautikos
Thanks, TAPS. You gotta give me a few days...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Gee whiz, Charlie Brown...
...that is too sad. No wonder they love sadistic and terroristic war. Those people who wrote the Qu'ran were so misguided that it's hard to believe a normal person could believe that stuff. Since I don't want a terrorist at my back door, I think I'm going to leave this alone for now. But I will look forward to reading more. Please continue...
posted by
b2008
on January 4, 2008 at 2:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I swear with your writing you are making me an atheist for sure. lol What a freakin' downer, and this kind of history displays the insanity of religions.
posted by
WileyJohn
on January 4, 2008 at 1:10 PM
| link to this | reply
naut
thanks for sharing
posted by
richinstore
on January 3, 2008 at 11:11 PM
| link to this | reply
I appreciate your blog so much. I am receiving a wonderful education. Your writing is so easy to understand. I feel you are bridging a gap for me. I have always enjoyed parallelism, My understanding of the old testament makes everything you have presented plausible. I look forward to learning much more. sam
posted by
sam444
on January 3, 2008 at 7:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Very interesting, Nautikos
Now I will have to read the next part to find out why.
posted by
TAPS.
on January 3, 2008 at 7:16 PM
| link to this | reply