Comments on Naut on Religion…XXVII (Islam)...Another partial response to Lindo

Go to Naut's View - Add a comment - Go to Naut on Religion…XXVII (Islam)...Another partial response to Lindo

Re: Naut I can't help but being drawn to responding becuase there is something

lindo, I am convinced there are many Christians who are opposed to Israel. I would be surprised if it were otherwise. But rarely, if ever, do you find opposition to or eradication of Israel formulated as a religious duty, as is the case with many Muslims...

Nor do you see Christians calling for the establishment of 'Christian' law  (whatever that might be) in Muslim lands, whereas Muslims demand the introduction of Sharia Law in countries with an essentially Christian culture, even if those countries have long ago stopped being 'Christian' in any kind of 'official' way, having long since codified the separation between church and state...

I agree completely that the question of Israel and her borders can only be settled by compromise on all sides. But the first step must be a clear and unequivocal statement on the part of all Muslim states that Israel has a right to exist. That has never happened. And frankly, with what I (and many others) see as the strengthening of Islamofascism, that possibility appears more remote than ever.

But, even more importantly, I think many moderate Muslims do not fully understand the nature of radical Islam, which is directed not just against Israel, but against what is seen as the secular, and hence 'Godless' and decadent West...

 

posted by Nautikos on January 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM | link to this | reply

Naut I can't help but being drawn to responding becuase there is something

that is "off". you claim that Islamist are  behind the call for the eradication of Israel, you are forgiven to think so especially with Ahmadinajad repeating this mantra over and over again making it sound like a holly call, but what few people know is that the most outspoken oponenets of Israeli occupation and its policies towards the Palestenians are Chrisitains like Azmi Bshara an Arab memeber of the Knesit who is under threat of being tried for treason becuase of his relentless support of Arabs rights (he has never preached violence, as far as I am aware, yet for many he has more respect and credibility than all the other Arab and Muslim politicians put together). One must also remember the Orthodox Church support of the "natives" right, there is a notable case of a promininat clergy man ( i think he was an archishop or something like that who was arrested for an extensive period by the Israelis for his support of the Palestinian rights).

Palestine was a land of Christians before it was conquered by Islam and the two have co-existed peacefully for centuries and they are just as effected by many of the Israeli measures that target Arabs not Muslims alone. Israel was never a land devoid of people, just as America were not a empty country when the Mayfower landed. I don't think any citizen of the Usa or Canada will be willing to give up his home and lands to the Native Americans even if they have only been in that country for a mere 500 years -at best- so how do you expect people who have lived in this part of the world for millenea to simply roll over and expect them not to be bitter!

The biggest problem about the Israeli-Arab conflict is that there are so many overlaps to split things neatly: Most Arabs are of Semetic origin making them cousins of the original Hebrews, yet most of the people of Israel are not Semetic but a melting pot of several ethnicitis who are untied by the Jewish faith. With three major religions sharing important holly sites on the same land it seems inevitable that this is not a conflict that can resolve itself without some compormise and yet understanding that this issus cannot be viewed in balck and white will go a long way into letting the intolerance on both sides subside and allow for the bigger picture to come to light. 

posted by lindo on January 24, 2008 at 2:35 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks, Wiley

As you know, your comments are always welcome...

posted by Nautikos on January 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

Sira, thanks for your lenghty comment, and I hope you'll forgive me for not responding earlier. I'm not sure that I'd agree with you that the Catholioc church is responsible for 90 per cent of AIDS - related deaths. I am aware of thr Catholic position on birth control, but I think that is a relatively small factor in this epidemic.

As far as Islam is concerned, we have the situation that the demand for jihad (war against the infidels in the name of Allah) is part and parcel of the faith, even if not all Muslims subscribe to it. It nonetheless can and does serve as a justification for, among other things, the call for the obliteration of Israel...

That this is painful to many Muslims is obvious! But it is up to Muslims to bring their faith into the 21st century, instead of allowing it to remain stuck in the 7th...

posted by Nautikos on January 22, 2008 at 11:40 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: Religion & language

Hagi, I didn’t get around to responding earlier, but better late than never. Again, thanks for your thoughtful response, and I want to do justice to it, even in examining what I consider the flaws in your argument. You state, “ I somehow get the feeling that you are referring to religions as if the religion was the cause - or support - for peoples' choices. ” And further: “ It is people that make the choice. The religion, nationality, science etc. just provide the means and justifications.” Well yes! In a sense, the religion etc. do provide ‘justifications’. But it isn’t as though people walked up to a buffet counter and simply picked their religion ‘objectively’, based on completely ‘rational’ choices.

All people are ‘acculturated’ in some way, that is to say, are inevitably part of a culture, and whatever they have internalized will affect the choices they make.

However, many people will not be able to make any ‘choices’ at all, simply because they have ‘cathected’ (which is still the best way of describing it; remember your Siggi Freud?) some parts of whatever myth (religion or other) that doesn’t permit them to chose something that would result in a crisis of identity and/or self.

To choose a religion ‘rationally’ the way you choose an item from a dessert menu (and how ‘rational’ is that really???) presupposes a degree of alienation (estrangement) which can certainly be found, but does typically not result in fanaticism. (The extreme zealotry of the ‘convert’ is a special case; but converts are usually driven by intense emotion!).

You say that religion is ‘innocent’. I am not entirely sure what that means. In the most general sense, the term religion covers the whole range of thinking and practices that make up a faith, which simply ‘exists’. In that sense, neither ‘innocence’ nor ‘guilt’ have any meaning. But that kind of objectivity does not get us very far.

Remember, this whole series is, among other things, a polemic against Dawkins, Dennet, Hitches and others, who regard religion as a ‘delusion’ and a ‘pathology’. My position is that religion is a form of myth, and myth, as I have defined it, is an inescapable and necessary fact of the human condition, and thus cannot be understood as delusional.

On the other hand, specific forms of myth can be pathological – the most obvious example from the pages of recent history being the one created by the Nazis. And if you accept my choice of Pico della Mirandola’ s words (quoted in XVII) as describing a desirable, healthy state of religious myth, then certain aspects of Islam can indeed be called pathological...

posted by Nautikos on January 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Naut I have just scrolled down the comments

lindo, I am very much interested in language, its nuances and intricacies, and I find this part of your comment really enlightening. It sharpens my understanding, which has always been that there is peace and 'tranquility' to be found in Islam for the believer, the faithful, the one who does submit. But, as my study of the Koran and the Hadith has convinced me, Allah's mercy does not extend to the nonbeliever...  

posted by Nautikos on January 18, 2008 at 5:56 PM | link to this | reply

My dear lindo

As I have said, I really do understand how this would trouble you deeply, and I do regret that, since I respect you highly, and also admire you as an artist. Nonetheless, I have to respond.

It is true that Christianity at various time attempted, and on occasion succeeded, in re-conquering the part of a ‘Holy Land’ that was holy to them because it had witnessed Jesus’ presence and work. Leaving aside the even prior claim of Judaism, the Christian claim simply arose from the fact of hundreds of years of a Christian presence there, before there was Islam, and before these lands were conquered by Islam.

But I did not want to invoke ancient history here, because that is not the issue. My point is this: today, in 2008 AD, I cannot conceive of Christians anywhere objecting to the presence of Muslims or other non-Christians (i.e.’ infidels’) on ‘sacred Christian soil’. There is no such thing as sacred Christian soil, unless, possibly, the ground on which you find the altars in Christian churches the world over.

In the most general sense, my argument is this: Christians act politically, often in contradiction to their faith. Muslims act politically, often in accordance with their faith. Muhammad’s God, though allegedly a transcendental God, is very much involved in the world and the life of the faithful. Islam is very much more a way of life than Christianity is for its believers. And I also concede that this does not hold true for all Muslims, possibly hundreds of millions of them. But what the world has come to see, is the radical Islam of Sayyed Qtub, Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! And need I mention the imams in Britain who want that country to adopt sharia law? Or the those in Islamabad wo are beating women not wearing the hijab? And they all refer to the Koran and the Hadith for their justification...

I think the last part of your comment is very apt: many of those radical Muslims indeed seem to be stuck in the Middle ages. But of course it suits their purpose to apply the rules of the Hadith selectively...

posted by Nautikos on January 18, 2008 at 5:45 PM | link to this | reply

Nautikos

Well, I read your post my friend, but you know I am not particulary scholastically inclined and my comments about Muslims or Islam wouldn't add anything to the post. So by saying nothing I am avoiding hypocrisy but reading my friend.

posted by WileyJohn on January 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM | link to this | reply

Naut, I think my favorite part of your blogs is the sheer amount of conversation that comes from them. In this day and age, everyone has an opinion, and they're not shy about voicing them. But very rarely do they get a chance to actually discuss their opinions in such a manner - openly, with honesty and thoughtful articulation.

It's here, in these pockets of discussion, that we usually find truth and understanding. Since everyone views a situation in their own unique way, it's really interesting to read all the comments, and absorb all the different points of view. In the end, I think you get a very tidy picture, with elements of each groups beliefs.

I, personally, think that all religions started out with the best of intentions. It's up to the followers to decide how they handle the teachings of their God.

Holy wars, whether started in the name of Christianity, Islam, or Paganism, are misinterpretations of the teaching. And, since all religions spawned from the same source, it's no wonder we see so many battles over things like holy land, and religious texts.

Religion has a violent and bloody history, regardless of which one you look at. In current society, Islam is the one lashing out most publicly.

But the Catholics aren't doing much better - look at the AIDS crisis going on in third world countries. Most of the population follows the Catholic religion. And the church is very active over there, bringing aid and comfort to those poor souls. They're also teaching them NOT to use condoms or any form of birth control, perpetuating the problems of over-population and disease. In my humble opinion, the Catholic church is directly responsible for 90% of the AIDS related deaths in those countries, and should be held accountable for them. Just as Muslims should be held responsible for bombings and terrorist acts, committed in the name of God.

I love the discussions of Islam and their beliefs, but I can understand how many good, honest Muslims would feel picked on and singled out - they're not the only ones misbehaving or misinterpreting, but they are the only ones being talked about, and having their flaws exposed to the world.

posted by Sira890 on January 16, 2008 at 9:44 AM | link to this | reply

Naut I have just scrolled down the comments

and i rememebered something that i have been meaning to tell you right from the beginning of the series. You keep refering to Islam as submission, it is the word that many muslims use as the closest translation of the word, however islam in Arabic is a more gentle word than submission. here is the "family" of Islam, i am not a linguist but i hope i can get you to understand my idea.

The root of Islam is : -Salim (to be safe), and from it come the words Silm (peace as opposed to war), Salaam (peace, tranquility, and from the phrase Assalaam Alaykum the word has come to mean saying hello).

                              -Aslam (the verb from which Islam is derived) means to give in to somone's care, hence Aslam arruh means to die because it means giving the soul into the hands of the Creator.

                              -Istaslam is to submit, or surrender.

 

  

     

posted by lindo on January 16, 2008 at 8:54 AM | link to this | reply

I give up Naut

this discussion has made me ill ( and this is not a figure of speach), you're right about the pain one feels about having something that is so central to our life be dissected and interpreted in such a fashion, it also pains me to know ther are people of our own faith who can be as brainless and cruel as Samina Malek (I had never heard of her before, but God knows she cannot be sane let alone  be a Muslim).

I just want to "correct" a couple of points and then I'll leave it there because although i feel a sense of responsibity to my faith I am too jaded and depressed to keep on fighting a losing battle. Yes i know that we Muslims are not supposed to turn our back in a fight or else we are cursed but I've reached breaking point on this problem.

First you say that Muslims objections to USA presence on holly land demonstrate how politics and religion are entwined in a way that is only found in Islam. Let me remind you that the crusades launched over 200 years to the Levant were motivated by the Christians desire to recover their holy land from the infidels.

Secondly, my arguments regrding the Koran and Arabic were not that understanding it was only the privilage of those who can read it in its origianl langauge, it was that you cannot full apppreciate its stylistic complexity unless you can speak Arabic. However, understanding the Koran is a different kettle of fish since it is my belief that not even Arabs understand it fully, the books of tafseer (explanation) are filled with the verse of "allah aalam"(God knows). to solve this problem an imam (I think it was Ibn Hanbal) came up with this fatwa : The Koran needs Hadith but Hadith does not need Koran, this was more convenient for the theologists as they could select or even fabricate the Hadiths to suit their agends when the cryptic Koran -preserved in its origianl text- and impossible to tamper with was deemed a secondary source of legistlation.

My final comment is not to you but to those who think that Mohammad's example is to be followed to the letter, if his way is to be followed in matters such as beheading then surely all te inventions and luxuries that have come into existence after his death should not be emraced: they must ride camels and horses not cars and trains (and yes plane hijaking is not Sunna since our prophet did not use them), fighting the infedils should not be done with rifles or bombs but limited to swords and spears. TVS, newspapers,internet are all off limits to those who wish to go to heaven. It's like what my mother used to say "those who want us to drag us back to the 7th century should be sent to the desert and live accordingly!". So give Mohammad a break and make up your mind what century you want to live in and stick to it.

p.s. Naut i leftu a little present at the Arabian writes blog. take care

posted by lindo on January 16, 2008 at 8:27 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Hello from your long lost friend/s

Thanks, muser. I wrote a reply by

posted by Nautikos on January 16, 2008 at 7:46 AM | link to this | reply

Hello from your long lost friend/s

Hi Naut,

I just wanted you to know how much I have missed reading your posts. I would like to print all the posts in this Blog, with your permission of course. I would like to read them aloud to Max so we can discuss them. I've perused a few, and as usual I am so impressed with your "fair and balanced" perspective on your subject, and as always your command of our language, and the clear and concise manner in which you are able to make your subject so easily read and understood.  Now, it may take awhile since I am so busy right now, but I will let you know what we think. Kudos!

I am seriously writing my book; whether it is publishable or not is no longer the point. I am determined to do this as an exercise in discipline.  It is important that I finish what I have begun. I apologize for not reading your posts, but I am writing on another website that is geared toward writers rather than Bloggers. There are are a select few here I really, really miss; their writing as well as the friendship and daily banter. Just wanted to let you know you are on that list!
 Muser

posted by muser on January 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: Religion & language

hagi, I can see that you and I are going to have very interesting discussions! I shall respond in some detail, but you gotta give me a few minutes, 'cause unfortunately 'real' life sometimes intrudes into my Blogitville existence...

posted by Nautikos on January 13, 2008 at 5:49 AM | link to this | reply

TAPS

You're absolutely right, you didn't use "bad". I substituted "bad" for "perverse" because in the context it seemed permissible - conveying the same sense and being quicker to type as well, always an important consideration for me. I probably simplified unduly a more complex idea. But you know what? In the end, 'when all is said and done', to use that old hackneyed phrase, when I get tired of analyzing things, I do allow myself to call sawing off someone's head and enjoying it "bad".

Some time ago here in Toronto a couple of guys in their early twenties tortured a little cat to death - literally skinned her alive, and video-taped the whole thing. It was perverse, sadistic, cruel, inhumane, and one could rummage around ad nauseam for 'why's' in the backgrounds of these bastards; some people do that and often end up feeling sorry for them. To do so, however, is in the end to deny the notion of 'free will'. In the end, I didn't give a s*** about these guys' experiences, as far as I'm concerned they're "bad"...

posted by Nautikos on January 13, 2008 at 4:57 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Religion & language

I was aware that words "good" and "bad" shouldn't be used even in quotation marks, I even thought of going back and adding a P.S.... Well, whatever, it was about my experience anyway - my sense of history, which plays a bigger role in this discussion than we imagine. I'd better not go too deep into this, because it doesn't matter in the context of your series (I flipped through them yesterday, and enjoyed the beginning immensely - can't say much about Islam part because I must admit I don't know anything about it. However, the series inspired me to do my homework - I actually have a book on Islam at home, and some other books that should mention Islam).

I thought a lot about these series, and I pinpointed what's disturbing me in them. I somehow get the feeling that you are referring to religions as if the religion was the cause - or support - for peoples' choices. Which actually might feel so - and I'd like to be true, because then we actually could make this world a better place by converting to a most peaceful and gentle religion we could find (just like I dreamed in my previous comment), but I actually don't think it's possible or true.

Because religions, just like sciences or sports or whatever else people may choose to pursue, are "innocent". You cannot claim that medicine is somehow better, less violent or more humane than chemistry because medicine saves lives, but chemistry kills wildlife. You cannot argue that rollerskating is more democratic than that arrogant and secluded surfing because rollerskating is possible virtually in every city but surfing requires ocean.

It is people that make the choice. The religion, nationality, science etc. just provide the means and justifications. There are millions of fathers who beat their daughters to death - and every single one of them has their excuses. From "she disturbed me when I was drunk" to "she doesn't dress properly". The cause for violence lies in the background and upbringing of people (and not the lessons we learn in school or in church, rather the ones we learn by observing and experiencing real life), and (if there is a free will) in the free will of people. If terrorists didn't have Islam at hand, they would use any other religion as a support.

For example, in our government, I am ashamed to admit, there recently was a Minister of Integration and Human rights (!) who openly offended homosexuals because they with their very existence and willingness to "come out of the closet" offended Christians (!) and also officially declared that, to his viewpoint, beating children is alright because Bible supports it (!). Well, the fact that he remained in his post after these (and more) incidents says a lot about our political standards... But he also was not kicked out from his party which associates themselves with Christian church and the Christian leaders didn't make a stand and didn't protest against the minister's statements, at least not as openly and boldly as he made his point. Of course, I know better than blame Christianity for the actions of that arrogant moron, but well, it just proves that if Islam is virtually non-existent in the country, the aggressive&religious people promptly find other religion to support their violence.

 

Oh yes, and just a short notice on Koran - it is currently being translated to Latvian. And, what's interesting, the translator is a poet Uldis Bērziņš - one of our very best, probably the best living poets of Latvia - as far as I have read, the translation is very poetic, rhythmical and lively. Of course, there is and will be dispute on the correctness of the translation (as it always should be) but I think this poetic approach makes sense. He has also translated some parts of Old Testament.

posted by hagi on January 13, 2008 at 3:48 AM | link to this | reply

Nautikos

In my comments, I don't find anywhere mentioning the "bad".  I did mention the "perverse" because sawing off someone's head and enjoying the discomfort that it causes the victim seems pretty perverse to me, especially when dones in the name of any religion.

posted by TAPS. on January 12, 2008 at 8:54 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Religion & language

hagi, thanks for your extensive comment. A couple of points: As far as this part is concerned, it really builds on what I tried to develop in the course of this series, starting at the beginning. Without that, it would be difficult to understand 'good' and 'bad' here. (Even though they're in quotation marks, and here are used in response to TAPS' comment; generally I try to avoid the use of those words.)

This whole business of translation is extremely interesting. George Steiner in After Babel discusses some of the issues at some length. His case is particularly interesting, since he grew up with three mother tongues: German, French and English, and cannot tell which predominates. I know a couple of other languages reasonably well, and have also done some translations. In my experience, the closer you move to poetry, the more difficult it gets. I write the occasional haiku, and would find it totally impossible to translate them. The translation of poetry requires a re-creation.

However, when it comes to prose, the world literature is awash in translations, and many are pretty damn good. Things may sometimes be expressed a little differently, but the central ideas can be transmitted very clearly. We  can talk to one another and understand one another, and in the course of having studied Islam for a couple of years now, in English of course, I have a pretty good grasp what it is all about. So much so, in fact, that a couple of Muslim friends of mine have expressed surprise, and concede that I have helped them understand things they had not been aware of. (Admittedly, they are very relaxed in their faith, we even drink together.)

In this series I have tried to construct, as it were, a plausible view of religion as seen from an agnostic or atheist position, and am also trying to explain in what way Islam is distinct from the N.T., and how we can explain the current rise of Islamofascism, where it is my contention that it cannot be explained simply in political (in the narrow sense) and/or economic terms, using a kind of Marxist model...

And that Christianity has also used 'fire and sword' in the past is clear. But when it did, it could not refer to scripture as justification. Islam can, has done so, and does to this day...

Anyway, I hope this helps. One more thing: these are 'posts', its not a 'book', and I am necessarily leaving a lot of things out...

posted by Nautikos on January 12, 2008 at 6:57 PM | link to this | reply

Religion & language

I haven't figured it all out about Islam being "bad" and Christianity being "good". Incidentally, in my country Islam is hardly present at all and is not violent at all, but we remember well the history when Christianity basically eliminated our original faith - with fire and sword, quite literally, almost eliminating our nation during the process - and so we Latvians (although many of us are Christians) still hold a grudge against this religion and still hold dear the old, much less violent gods of our ancestors. I'd say the world maybe would be a better place if everybody believed God is somebody that "rides so softly that not even grass and flowers are disturbed" (a loose quote of our folk song), but then again, we'd never force our traditional religion to others, we couldn't technically do it without losing the main idea of it.

But I have something to say in favor of being able to understand Koran only in Arabic (as, in fact, it is believed that Talmud can be understood only in Hebrew). As a writer and translator, I believe that there is no language that can be translated into other languages without significant loss. Our folk songs are an excellent example - although there are many attempts to translate them, the results are always miserable (and usually the translations sound so laughably stupid and childish that I feel sorry for ever reading them in any other language but Latvian) because the meaning of these songs is coded both into structure of the language and in the perfect rhythmical structure of a folk song, virtually impossible to replicate in other languages (haiku seems to be a peace of cake in comparison). Also, I have been working with I Ching, the Chinese ancient religious/mythical text, and at some point I understood that it is impossible to understand it without learning Chinese - or just the words used in the text of I Ching - because of the vast space of semiotic meanings behind each word.

And, moreover, I believe it is not "unfair" from a religion to demand to learn a language in order to understand it - as it is not unfair to demand understanding of basic Latin for medicine students. After all, religion is not a pastime, it does require serious study and practice - like Buddhism requires meditation or Christianity requires acknowledging one's sins. Learning a foreign language might be an easy feat compared to all hardships serious religious practice requires.

posted by hagi on January 12, 2008 at 1:46 PM | link to this | reply

Re: TAPS

Naut.....I understand what you are saying, though as a believer, I don't necessarily agree with every point....overall you are presenting a clear presentation of your points. 

Besides, I just wanted to see you have to write a long response......

 

posted by Corbin_Dallas on January 12, 2008 at 8:24 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: Nautikos

Weren't the early proponents of allowing  "editing" driven out of Islam?   Aren't those today regarded as " blasphemers???

posted by Corbin_Dallas on January 12, 2008 at 8:22 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Nautikos

I am definitely not condemning all Muslims! Although I would argue that the moderate element in Islam, which I think is in the majority, has to become far more active in dealing with the the radical element! I want to see Mulims in the street not protesting against Danish caricatures, but against that which gave rise to the Danish caricatures...

There are precedents in Islam for declaring certain things invalid. It's time for Muslims to seriously think about that...

posted by Nautikos on January 12, 2008 at 7:10 AM | link to this | reply

TAPS

Absolutely, "in every religion there are the kind and the good, and also the perverse claiming to have the same beliefs." But again, that really isn't the point here.

This whole series is sort of an answer to Hitchens, Dennet, Dawkins and others who view religion as a pathology, pure and simple. I do not share that view, for reasons I have tried to explain in the course of this series. But these writers are not madmen, they're rational thinkers, even if, in my view, they overlook certain things by concentrating to much on others. But I cannot totally dismiss their notion of 'pathology'. At the same time, and since I reject that all of religion is pathological, I need to be able to distinguish between that which is healthy and that which is not. I need to do that because I too am a rational thinker (and agnostic/atheist, take your pick, lol.)

I tried to show that religion is but one form of myth,  but stressing that we must not use the term in the which we colloquially do, which is really a distortion. (Maybe I should call it myth-as-religion). Then I tried to show, inadequately, I'm sure, that diffrent forms of religion have different characteristics.

And I tried to show (but again apparently not clearly enough) that it was Christianity that not only permitted but also aided (probably inadvertantly) in the emergence of the way we in the West think of the individual's worth, and the value of freedom of thought and action. That, then, becomes my measure for what I regard as 'healthy' myth-as-religion.

To value the individual and to subscribe to the values of freedom of thought and action necessarily entails the tolerance towards differing views of the world.

And when we inspect Islam, we find that it is pathological in the sense that it is in its very essence intolerant and does not permit opposing views of the world. Islam is about submission and dominance. That is not to say that there is nothing of value in it. But all the things of value can be found elsewhere, in various forms. That is not surprising, of course, because that's were they come from. Muhammad was quite familiar with the Christian and the Judaic traditions, as were the other authors.

There is beauty, poetry and much good to be found in the Koran, and even in the Hadith, which deals with the details of Muhammad's life, and which sheds an interesting light on his character. (It is comprised of the reports of witnesses to his life, and is extensive.) But the underlying theme, the leit-motif, is the need for submission, and the dire consequences following from a failure to submit.

You say that any religion has the kind and the good, as well as the perverse. Indeed! The difference here is that in Islam the 'good' can perform acts that in our eyes would be evil, and still remain 'good' in their own eyes, since their acts are sanctioned by God. And even the 'perverse' can view themselves as 'good'. For all practical purposes, the outcome is the same.

Of course there are those Muslims who do not really believe, but who use the power of the faith others have for their own agendas, whatever they are. But I am also completely convinced that many of the Islamist terrorists are true believers. A am quite certain that Osama bin Laden views himself as a good man who does God's work, as do countless others.

To sum up, then, the question is not one of 'good' or 'bad' people. It is one of identifying that which permits both 'good' and 'bad' people to do things which, in our eyes, are bad. And by 'bad' I am not speaking necessarily of really bad things, like beheadings, but also about attempts to curtail my freedom of speech...

posted by Nautikos on January 12, 2008 at 6:57 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Nautikos

Naut.....TAPS makes a couple of excellent points.....no one is applying their comments to all of Islam....but are focusing on the perverse elements that has in many ways kidnapped the control of Islam away from the moderates.  For me the difference seems to be that with Christianity, we know we have our perverse elements....but the overwhelming majority of Christians recognize them for what they are and would never let them hijack our religion.

Unfortunately, especially in the Arab countries, both the people and worse, the governments have allowed it to happen.......

posted by Corbin_Dallas on January 12, 2008 at 6:35 AM | link to this | reply

Nautikos

That sure gives me something to think about.  It is hard for me to reconcile the fact that our lindo and Samina Malik have anything at all to do with the same religion.  But, in every religion there are the kind and the good, and also the perverse claiming to have the same beliefs.  I'm very thankful that belief in God and in religion of any kind is personal and private, or should be at any rate.

posted by TAPS. on January 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM | link to this | reply

Oooops, I think it was yesterday's post I read.

Gotta go  back and check this one out.

posted by TAPS. on January 11, 2008 at 1:23 PM | link to this | reply

Nautikos

I like your pleasant Muslim interlocketer a lot.  You and she make a good pair.  I read this earlier and, as always, was spellbound by what both of you had to say.

posted by TAPS. on January 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM | link to this | reply

Thank you for your enlightening article

posted by Kayzzaman on January 11, 2008 at 10:36 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Naut on Religion...XXVII (Islam)...Another partial response to Lindo

Thanks, Wavy. You say "There is nothing wrong with religion in any of its forms but don't try to force on other people if they choose not to believe in it." I know what you mean, but I would re-phrase that and say there is something desperately wrong with a religion whose basic tenets demand that its believers 'force it on other people'...

Of course, there are many moderate Muslims who don't subscribe to that belief, but in eyes of the increasingly powerful orthodox Islamists they are simply 'bad' Muslims. I, on the other hand, like 'bad' Muslims, and wish there were more of them, and that they made their voices heard. But many of them are afraid, for good reason...

posted by Nautikos on January 11, 2008 at 10:28 AM | link to this | reply

Naut on Religion...XXVII (Islam)...Another partial response to Lindo

Nautikos: I don't know if Islam will ever change.  There is nothing wrong with religion in any of its forms but don't try to force on other people if they choose not to believe in it.  I have problems with religious fanatics of any stripe.  You have to be tolerant and respect other people's points of view.  Killing someone just because they don't share your religious belief is absolutely unfathomable to me. 

posted by WavyDavy on January 11, 2008 at 9:25 AM | link to this | reply