A little bit of credit to Mohammad.

[Blackmail!]

You're not asking because you want to learn something.

And you, do you you really want to learn something or are you just here to prozelytize?

---

Anyway.

If ever Mohammad would have lived in our modern world, he would have been considered as a vengeful, macho psychopath, who ordered the beheading of countless people "just because they offended him". Such was the price of his own pride.

Whether they existed or not, we are far, very far away of the morality preached by Zoroaster, Bouddha or Jesus. Islam is incredibly violent, compared to its rivals, and what is really frightening is the fact that this violence is deeply embedded within the Quran and the immutable shariah. Islam is the only major religion that fully legitimize the use of violence, slavery and lies, if circumstances ask it.

For instance, this debate on slavery within the Islamic world is simply surreal. The Islamic world and civilization has been entirely BASED on slavery, on an almost industrial and societal scale, much more than the Western World have ever been. For Africa only, the Arab slave trade drained almost twice the number of human beings than the West did. And those slaves were treated even more cruelly than in the Caribbean plantations (a lot less survived). And of course, you have to add dozens of million of slaves abducted in Europe and India as well.
As a matter of fact, historians can follow the progress of slavery through early middle age thanks to Islam, which introduced this practice once again in countries where it just had been abolished.

---

As a liberal atheist, I do not like religions or ideologies, but some are definitely worse than the others, especially when their values are unable to evolve during millenias. While there is a faint hope of redemption with Shia Islam (because it allows Itjihad), there is NONE so far with Sunni schools like malekism and hanbalism.

 

[Sniffles]

I'd just be cautious of many of the mideval horror stories about Christendom, they frequently are propaganda from successive efforts by groups which see themselves as supplanting or eradicating Christendom, ie the rennaisance, enlightenment, liberal revolutions.

Much of the mideval horrors have been exaggerated or attributed to Christendom and official sanction when they were not, for instance Witch Panics and widespread murder of innocents associated with that are akin to the south sea bubble, frequently it is not Christendom that is at fault but the madness of crowds and popular dillusions.

Much of the social criticism which considers the crimes of inquisitors and others reprehensible were Christian in their origin anyway.

+1. The Papacy actually outlawed torture in the 9th century. And how about this:

Labeling idleness a crime may have been a bit strict, but the justice system in medieval England should never be considered backwards.

Punishments for offenses in those days were perhaps even more sensible and humane than they are now, say some historians. [Medieval Torture's 10 Biggest Myths]

"The common view of the medieval justice system as cruel and based around torture and execution is often unfair and inaccurate," said University of Cambridge historian Helen Mary Carrel. Most criminals received gentle sentences merely meant to shame them, Carrel said, with the punishments often carried out in the open so townspeople could bring them charity.

Carrel presented her views recently during the International Medieval Congress, hosted by the University of Leeds.

Medieval Justice Not So Medieval

 

[compulsiverambler]

Mohammed wasn't a bad person, nor was what he preached bad. It's how others interpret(ed) it and enforce(d) it that made it bad.

Having read some of the Koran, and other Muslim sacred texts about Mohammad's life, and having met or known seven Muslims, I think it's the other way round. Just as with the Bible, the texts themselves are monstrous and it's the religion's followers who choose to interpret them as humanely as they can (or very often, simply don't know most of what's written within them). Religious fundamentalists are the ones who see the texts for what they are. Unfortunately they still believe that they're true and that God will punish them if they don't live by them.

 

[Andy]

+1. The Papacy actually outlawed torture in the 9th century. And how about this:

It's worth remembering that the English legal system as atypical of Europe, though, as it was mostly administered by the local people rather than a noble of some sort. That's probably why the which hunts weren't as bad here. THe people in Europe were used to having someone impose justice on them from the outside, so when a which hunter came along and told them that an old women was guilty of being a witch, they went with it. When they tride the same thing in Egland, the commoners turned round and said "Hang on, we haven't desided yet."

The witch hunts in England only got really bad while Athew Hopkins was at work, which was during the English civil war. During that period people were scared and the normal legal system brock down, allowing him to do what he did.

 

[Sniffles]

Witch hunts were rare even on the Continent during the Medieval period.

 

[Gerbah]

And you, do you you really want to learn something or are you just here to prozelytize?

No, I'm not here to proselytize, which would be clear to anyone who has read the posts I've put up.

 

[Blackmail!]

Having read some of the Koran, and other Muslim sacred texts about Mohammad's life, and having met or known seven Muslims, I think it's the other way round. Just as with the Bible, the texts themselves are monstrous and it's the religion's followers who choose to interpret them as humanely as they can (or very often, simply don't know most of what's written within them). Religious fundamentalists are the ones who see the texts for what they are. Unfortunately they still believe that they're true and that God will punish them if they don't live by them.

+1

 

[lowtech redneck]

Maybe you know already but I will just say for general information that there is a whole science in Islam (science of hadith) which focuses on sorting out the chain of people who transmitted information/stories and that evaluates how reliable that chain is, thus how reliable the information is and if it's used now or not. There are thousands of random stories about Mohammad and all things Islam-related. They can't be taken as true just because they are old and from that time. Some are really weird and just don't make sense. The thing you mention about how your wife's illegitimate children can be your slaves sounds rather like that to me.

That's a nice start, but it doesn't mean much until a majority of religiously observant Muslims attend Mosques which only allow Imams that explicitly uphold freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality under the law, and the effective separation of religion and state as universal values.

 

[Mole]

there is a whole science in Islam (science of hadith)

This is a misuse of the word, 'science'.

I find it hard to understand why. Is it that the writer doesn't know what science is? Or is the writer simply trying to add the kudos of science to their political religion? Or is the writer so deluded as to think there is, "a science of hadith".

To say there is a science of hadith is akin to talking about the science of creationism. They are both a contradiction in terms.

But when you consider we are talking about a political religion, it becomes plain that the writer is simply repeating their propaganda to us. The word, 'science', is simply being used for propaganda purposes.

But what is brilliant about this propaganda is that when challenged, the writer denies this is propaganda or that they are propagating their political religion here.

The writer not only gives us plausible propaganda but plausible denial as well.

This is truly an effective and practised piece of propaganda. Almost perfect, except it is believed by the propagandist - the propagandist is perfectly sincere.

 

[Blackmail!]

Whoever master the meaning of words, master the way we are prone to think.

---

But as a matter of fact, it's simply the same word in Arab (علم), hence the confusion. Despite the claim often made by Muslim propagandists who glorify and make the Arab language sacred, it lacks a wide, rich and deep vocabulary, hence the vagueness of the words they use.
Every semitic langage has the same issue compared to most of the other linguistic families (and that includes Hebrew as well), because they only use triliteral roots to construct words and verbs. And of course, the total number of combinations is very limited.

 

[Gerbah]

This is a misuse of the word, 'science'.

I find it hard to understand why. Is it that the writer doesn't know what science is? Or is the writer simply trying to add the kudos of science to their political religion? Or is the writer so deluded as to think there is, "a science of hadith".

To say there is a science of hadith is akin to talking about the science of creationism. They are both a contradiction in terms.

But when you consider we are talking about a political religion, it becomes plain that the writer is simply repeating their propaganda to us. The word, 'science', is simply being used for propaganda purposes.

But what is brilliant about this propaganda is that when challenged, the writer denies this is propaganda or that they are propagating their political religion here.

The writer not only gives us plausible propaganda but plausible denial as well.

This is truly an effective and practised piece of propaganda. Almost perfect, except it is believed by the propagandist - the propagandist is perfectly sincere.

What is going on here? Why am I being called a “proselytizer” and “the propagandist”? What is my propaganda? All I've said is a point about slavery and a point about hadith which was specifically in response to Berberella. I've never said anywhere on this entire forum that I think anyone should be Muslim or not, or even anything to do with God. The Christians over in the Bible fundamentalist thread are saying way more than that, so you should be over there as well telling them not to spread their “propaganda”. You don't even know what I believe or why. I haven't put it out there precisely because I don't like to get into arguments, especially about religion. If Berberella has any problem with what I said to him/her I'm sure she/he is capable of letting me know.

If you have an issue with the use of the word “science”, fair enough. I can also understand why you might. I also should have clarified that what I meant by “science of hadith” is specific to Shia Islam and doesn't exist so much in Sunni Islam. It's a very rigorous system of evaluation of historical sources. There are Shia jurisprudents who specialise only in hadith. I meant it scientific in the sense of its rigour. Whether or not you accept that is up to you. That's also not the point. Everybody takes whatever is written on this forum in their own way. But if you have an issue with what I or anyone else says, it's only decency and good manners to bring it up in a proper way and not just as an excuse to insult. You even refer to me in the third person as "the propagandist". What's the deal with that?

 

[Blackmail!]

It's exactly what Victor said. Apparently, Gerbah doesn't even understand or realise why he is in fact proselytizing and spreading stereotyped religious propaganda.

I'm sure he's sincere, but, well... Muslims often make no difference between religious jurisprudence and epistemology, just like they don't make any between religion and politics (with a few exceptions: Alevi for instance).

 

[Gerbah]

I think the ones who are accusing me of spreading "propaganda" as if I'm the agent of some agenda based on a few random comments and who don't even have the guts to talk to me to my face, even via anonymous internet, and have to refer to me in the third person should question what it is they're really so sensitive about.

 

[BlackCat]

Having read some of the Koran, and other Muslim sacred texts about Mohammad's life, and having met or known seven Muslims, I think it's the other way round. Just as with the Bible, the texts themselves are monstrous and it's the religion's followers who choose to interpret them as humanely as they can (or very often, simply don't know most of what's written within them). Religious fundamentalists are the ones who see the texts for what they are. Unfortunately they still believe that they're true and that God will punish them if they don't live by them.

Haha, I was honestly just going by what I learned in HIS 111. Excuse me... since I've never actually read the Koran.

 

[Sniffles]

Having read some of the Koran, and other Muslim sacred texts about Mohammad's life, and having met or known seven Muslims, I think it's the other way round. Just as with the Bible, the texts themselves are monstrous and it's the religion's followers who choose to interpret them as humanely as they can (or very often, simply don't know most of what's written within them). Religious fundamentalists are the ones who see the texts for what they are. Unfortunately they still believe that they're true and that God will punish them if they don't live by them.

Are you suggesting fundamentalism is the more authentic version of religion?

 

[compulsiverambler]

Are you suggesting fundamentalism is the more authentic version of religion?

Depends on how you're defining several words in that sentence, and I'm only talking about Judaism, Christianity and Islam as I don't know the texts of other religions well enough to have an opinion. Fundamentalism in these three religions comes from reading the sacred texts and/or other divinely inspired sources without interpreting them through the lens of your own conscience or pre-existing beliefs about the world.

When this lens is applied, you might find genuinely reasonable ways of interpreting them in ways that are consistent with your own beliefs (e.g. there is an argument that anti-homosexual sentiments in the Bible were added later as wilful mistranslations or through misleading absences of relevant context such as the distinction between ceremonial law and universal law, which have since stuck and become thought of as standard and correct translations) but more often, non-fundamentalists just dismiss certain passages as not being divinely revealed because they reason that God wouldn't say that because God is good and all-knowing, and don't give much thought to the issue that raises about why any of it should be believed and how we are to decide with any objectivity which bits really are from God.

When it comes to interpretation of the texts, fundamentalists usually are fundamentalists because after the decision to believe the texts, they applied more intellectual honesty or intellectual follow-through to their treatment of them than most people (with a few very erudite exceptions) with more liberal interpretations do. Still, I tend to like the former group much more.

 

[Sniffles]

There's several problems with your assestment, namely for the fact that historically fundamentalism as we know it is a product of modern thinking(18th century to be exact - both Christian and Islamic) not earlier. Medieval theology was well known for its laxed interpretation of scriptures. Even the Church Fathers like St. Augustine rejected a literalist interpretation of scriptures. Spiritual truth by its very nature is metaphoric and paradoxical; and trying to read such texts literally means ignoring that simple fact. To read such texts literally is more a result of the influence of rationalist thinking - namely through Calvinism(at least where Christianity is concerned).

 

[compulsiverambler]

There's several problems with your assestment, namely for the fact that historically fundamentalism as we know it is a product of modern thinking(18th century to be exact - both Christian and Islamic) not earlier. Medieval theology was well known for its laxed interpretation of scriptures. Even the Church Fathers like St. Augustine rejected a literalist interpretation of scriptures. Spiritual truth by its very nature is metaphoric and paradoxical; and trying to read such texts literally means ignoring that simple fact. To read such texts literally is more a result of the influence of rationalist thinking - namely through Calvinism(at least where Christianity is concerned).

I don't see that as making my assessment false. Being a modern phenomenon doesn't stop it from being more intellectually honest, in the case of most people.

 

[Mole]

1440 and 1840

In 1440 the printing press was invented and gave rise to the dream of universal literacy.

And literacy gave rise to literalism and a literal interpretation of the Bible.

But while we weren't listening, the electric telegraph was invented in 1840, and gave rise to the dream of the Romantics.

And the Romantics are giving rise to the New Age and the Age of Aquarius.

In the Age of Aquarius we will all become one with a shared central nervous system. Only this time our central nervous system would be electrical and on the outside. And so we would be exquisitely sensitive to the vibe, the vibrations of our shared central nervous system.

And while literacy gave us the literate individual and the literal interpretation of the Bible, the electronic media are giving us tribalism in the global village.

And the conflict between the literate individual and New Age tribalism is reflected in these pages as the conflict between my good self and MBTI.

For MBTI is an avatar of the New Age.

And look how successful MBTI has been. It has burst onto the stage during WW II under the wing of the Military of the USA. And after WW II the Military shared MBTI with USA Business.

So is it any wonder that a literate individual such as myself would look askance at MBTI? For I was born in 1440 whereas the New Age and MBTI are new guys on the block, only arriving in 1840.

 

[Andy]

There's several problems with your assestment, namely for the fact that historically fundamentalism as we know it is a product of modern thinking(18th century to be exact - both Christian and Islamic) not earlier. Medieval theology was well known for its laxed interpretation of scriptures. Even the Church Fathers like St. Augustine rejected a literalist interpretation of scriptures. Spiritual truth by its very nature is metaphoric and paradoxical; and trying to read such texts literally means ignoring that simple fact. To read such texts literally is more a result of the influence of rationalist thinking - namely through Calvinism(at least where Christianity is concerned).

Not so for Islam. The Hanbolite school pf jurisponce believes that Allah made no attempt to confuse muslims in the Quran, therefore in any situation where a litteral or metaphorical interpretation can be made, it is the simpler, literal one that is correct. That school has its roots in the 9th century, so its hardly new.