Jump to content

Islam


bligyn

Recommended Posts

Guest member31022

But not all atheists are like that either. Unfortunately/fortunately, I have a personal thing against all religion like Mr Dawkins. I will speak my mind if asked and if people are offended they'll have to tell me to stop...but I'd never try and force anything on anyone, just argue my case veraciously. A lot of the time religionists tend to say scientists are arrogant, but unlike religion, science is based on the continuing finding of fact through theory etc. A respectable scientist will never say anything for definite without knowing for a fact it is true, unlike religionists. But never mind, as long as all muslims aren't like that then I can sleep a bit easier at night.

What irritates me most about this is the assumption that scientists are not religionists.

And that's what annoys me most about Dawkins - he seems to act as though clearly, all religious people are idiots who don't agree with science. Which is bollocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What irritates me most about this is the assumption that scientists are not religionists.

And that's what annoys me most about Dawkins - he seems to act as though clearly, all religious people are idiots who don't agree with science. Which is bollocks.

Getting back to my earlier comment that it's quite unfair to claim that Dawkins' program "The Root of All Evil?" was unfairly biased against religion, when there are so many other programs, which present religion favorably...

Perhaps you may have seen "The Story of God", which was one such program. Dawkins was featured in it, for a bit, but it was presented by Lord Winston, with a decidedly pro-God perspective.

In that program, Dawkins said "If you want to believe in God then you'd better not do it because of looking at design. You'd better be believing in God because God speaks to you inside your head or something of that sort."

Quite apart from the matter of whether belief in deities is good or bad for people (Dawkins, obviously, has argued that it is bad), there is the separate question of whether belief in deities is actually true. And what Dawkins proposes is that there is no scientific reason for believing that it is. But, even he is obliged to admit that if God speaks to you, inside your head, that could be a valid reason for belief, for you.

And, naturally, his beef isn't with individuals who believe in God for just such a reason, for that reason alone, and believe in science in every other respect. How many such people are there? I don't know. Surely they aren't proselytizing, if they know that their own, personal, experience of God cannot be demonstrated to anyone else, under any circumstance (which, if they are truly rational in all other respects, they must know). All they could possibly say is, "I have no evidence of God which I can share, I have no justification for believing in him beside my own experience, but all that I ask is that you take my word for it." Frankly, what kind of argument is that? If that's all you have, why on earth would you bother?

No, Dawkins criticisms are of people who claim to have arguments for God other than their own experience, and of their specious arguments to that effect. And, let's face it, they are specious arguments. And, let's face it, people fall for them, routinely. With 80% or so of Americans calling themselves Christian, and 90% or so claiming to believe in God, I find it awfully hard to believe that most of them, or even very many, would admit to having heard God talking to them, as the reason for their belief in Him. On the contrary, they tend to propose a multitude of other excuses, which do not stand up to scrutiny. That being the case, I think, those excuses should be scrutinized.

But, apparently, this hurts people's feelings. And, we oughtn't to hurt people's feelings; after all, feelings are what matter, surely more than truth. Hey, if you believe that something is true, then it's true to you. And that's cool, that's cool. Right on. Who needs facts, when you have feelings, man? Facts are just "the man's" way of keeping you down. Power to the people; don't stop believin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct in that there is no objective evidence to support the existence of a god. However, I suspect that the subjective faith experience is FAR more common than you'd be comfortable to accept. Perhaps at some point someone will do a few good surveys about that point.

However, as you've said, and is demonstrated in that clip, Dawkins has a very dim view of the effects of religion, especially as a source of conflict. I argue it's not the religion, but the entire cultural experience. As I've explained in earlier posts, cultures can use the very same tenets of belief to support contradictory positions. So, clearly, it is NOT the religion which breeds the conflict. The question that needs to be examined is WHY a particular culture decides to choose a path of conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theonion.com/articles/there-was-definitely-a-point-during-that-stoning-w,18165/?utm_souce=popbox

There Was Definitely A Point During That Stoning Where We All Thought, 'Is This Weird?'

BY DANUSH ZANJANI

EXECUTIONER, IRANIAN SUPREME COURT

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 | ISSUE 46•39

Well, that settles that! It was hard work, but we have righteously meted out the punishment this woman brought upon herself, and her days of disgracing the republic are over. Another adulteress has learned, stone by stone, that crimes against God will not go unanswered.

Yes, sir, another job well done.

Funny thing, though: There was actually this one point, after we'd been pelting her in the head with stones for a few minutes, when I could almost swear we all sort of paused, considered the whole situation for a moment, and thought, "Wait—is this a little weird?"

You know, what we were doing to this woman. Kind of odd?

It started out routinely enough. We bound her hands, swaddled her in white sackcloth, buried her in a pit up to her breasts, the usual deal. I picked out a stone about the size of a kiwi, which was perfect, because Iranian law duly requires us to hurl stones that are large enough to inflict damage, but not so large they kill the condemned too quickly.

But then, all of a sudden—and I can't exactly put my finger on why—I wondered if it wasn't maybe a teensy bit strange to be throwing a rock with all my might at the head of a woman who couldn't defend herself, even if she clearly deserved it.

It wasn't just me, either. Javed, who's always one of the most gung-ho guys out there, made eye contact with me for a second, as if to say, "Are we actually doing this? Like, to a person?"

Come to think of it, quite a few of the guys were acting just a little, I don't know, weirded out or something. Behrouz seemed to be stalling—he mumbled something about needing another minute and bent down to pantomime retying his boots, which were clearly already laced up. And at the same moment, Farzad was patting the pockets of his uniform, pretending to search for his keys or whatever, but you could tell he was thinking the same thing the rest of us were.

Bizarre, huh?

I'd actually be willing to bet that if we all could have stepped outside our bodies and watched ourselves, we would have said something like, "So, why are these people using blunt-force trauma to slowly kill a woman accused of adultery? I wonder what that's all about!"

It's almost as if, for those few seconds, we all believed that if we distracted ourselves long enough, they'd have to cancel the execution, and maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world? Does that make sense?

Don't get me wrong, the case was solid: Four male witnesses attested to having viewed the woman's heinous infidelity. While she claimed the four witnesses were actually her rapists, it was certain, either way, that she had engaged in sexual contact outside her marriage.

Still, I have to admit, the whole thing felt a bit off. It had to be done, unquestionably, but it just felt…off.

In accordance with Iranian law, the four witnesses to the crime threw the first stones. The adulteress had been quite stoic up until that point, but when the first stone hit her in the shoulder, she started to scream, and as blood seeped into the white cloth around her, I began to suspect all this might actually be sort of—well, I'm not sure how to put this, but, backward?

Which is weird because we've had civilization here for thousands of years. Iran today is a modern, educated country, I'm a member of an elite security force, and here I am holding a rock—a rock—in my hand. Like, that's just sort of peculiar in a way when you think about it, right?

I mean, right?

So anyway, after a stone hit the woman squarely on the bridge of her nose, I suddenly, out of nowhere—and this is the oddest thing—I actually found myself imagining how that would feel. What would it feel like to know other stones were coming but never know from where, and to realize the impact of one of those stones would be the last thing you felt before you finally slumped to the dirt in your sackcloth cocoon?

She still had a pulse after 45 minutes of stoning, and we had to pelt her for another 20 before she was dead. I looked around at the other men, but now we were all avoiding eye contact. It was almost as if we had done something wrong and didn't want to acknowledge it. Everyone seemed kind of dazed. Like maybe we had all just died a little, too.

Anyway, it was just one of those weird things! Pretty crazy, huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reliable news source should know the difference between 'Formally' and 'Formerly (one of the headlines is 'Formally Evil Wrestler Recognizes the Error of His Ways.' So I would question the reliability of the site. Come on, how can anyone take this publication seriously - just look at the 'Home' page... http://www.theonion.com/

The style of writing is more that of a teen than a seasoned 'Executioner' but I suppose that's just my point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reliable news source should know the difference between 'Formally' and 'Formerly (one of the headlines is 'Formally Evil Wrestler Recognizes the Error of His Ways.' So I would question the reliability of the site. Come on, how can anyone take this publication seriously - just look at the 'Home' page... http://www.theonion.com/

The style of writing is more that of a teen than a seasoned 'Executioner' but I suppose that's just my point of view.

The Onion is a humour site that satirizes news media. I had assumed Gatto had posted that as some form of joke related to the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing about this being an international board is that some of us may not know that :ph34r:

*And call me an old fuddy duddy - which I am of course - I don't think that stoning is a suitable topic for humour. Again just my opinion*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing about this being an international board is that some of us may not know that :ph34r:

*And call me an old fuddy duddy - which I am of course - I don't think that stoning is a suitable topic for humour. Again just my opinion*

I understand that not everybody might know that; hence why I simply stated that fact.

I also will agree that stoning is a poor subject for humour, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*And call me an old fuddy duddy - which I am of course - I don't think that stoning is a suitable topic for humour. Again just my opinion*

Well They'll stone you when you are all alone

They'll stone you when you are walking home

They'll stone you and then say they're all brave

They'll stone you when you're send down in your grave

But I would not feel so all alone

Everybody must get stoned

Link to post
Share on other sites

*And call me an old fuddy duddy - which I am of course -

Hmm. I think my dad is a bit older than you. He fits the "grumpy old man" stereotype in most respects. He likes The Onion, and often when I see him, he will tell me of something or other he's read there.

I hope that if I live so long, I never lose my sense of irreverence.

I don't think that stoning is a suitable topic for humour. Again just my opinion*

I also will agree that stoning is a poor subject for humour, in my opinion.

I wonder what, then, would be an appropriate subject for humor. Slipping on banana peels? That wasn't even funny 80 years ago.

Time was, when people routinely prosecuted disagreements by sticking a knife in someone's heart, or bashing him over the head with a rock. Nowadays, in polite society, this is considered in poor taste. I'm inclined to agree, that it isn't very civilized. I prefer taking up words, over arms; I've yet to lose an argument, yet my victories in swordplay could be counted on one hand. I suppose if I had a gift for bowling, I'd prefer the bowling alley, for settling scores, instead. That would be my field of honor, and it's only natural; people prefer contests in which the decks are stacked, in their favor, or at least when they feel that they are. Therefore, individuals respond to such grievous injury as scorn, with violence, when they are flush with rage and short on wits. It seems reasonable to them, but that's not saying much. Usually, they lose that contest, as well, as combat is no different from argument, in one respect, in that righteous indignation, inevitably, is trumped by discipline.

(See Cartoons Controversy, Danish.)

What I see as the real problem between Western and Arab (and to a lesser extent, Muslim) cultures isn't so much a matter of Christianity versus Islam; it's just that they can't have a good laugh. From time to time, they elicit one, but at such times, the joke's on them. It's really a shame, I must say, but maybe one day they will learn to relax, kick back and have a few beers, and enjoy some Monty Python.

Speaking of:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Life of Brain clip has nothing to do with Islam; it's a slam against Judaism. The word "Jehovah" means nothing; it's a Christian mischaracterization of the letters which represent Yahweh, which name is not used by Jews either.

So it was neither funny nor accurate nor thread-appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I see as the real problem between Western and Arab (and to a lesser extent, Muslim) cultures isn't so much a matter of Christianity versus Islam; it's just that they can't have a good laugh. From time to time, they elicit one, but at such times, the joke's on them. It's really a shame, I must say, but maybe one day they will learn to relax, kick back and have a few beers, and enjoy some Monty Python.

Or Tim Minchin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T4Wk9M2ObE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Humour is an individual thing and to some extent depends on where you live. :)

It is also off topic ;)

I happen to think it is on topic, but whatever. I was going to explain, but then I thought to myself, "why bother?" So I really won't, except to say, in brief, that I reserve my right to scorn stoning, and those who stone. It doesn't deserve dignifaction, and isn't above reproach. I will continue to ridicule it, privately. It is ridiculous, to me, and ridicule its just desert.

But, hey, that's just my opinion.

The Life of Brain clip has nothing to do with Islam; it's a slam against Judaism. The word "Jehovah" means nothing; it's a Christian mischaracterization of the letters which represent Yahweh, which name is not used by Jews either.

Eh, I never suggested it was about Islam. The clip is about stoning. Until you mentioned it, I never thought of it as slamming Judaism. Having done some internet research, it appears that you are not the first to make that claim. But if you want to be offended by it, you are in company of many Christians; the film's purpose, its raison d'être, was to poke fun at them, or at least at their silly Jesus movies (there is a whole genre, and they all feature stoning).

Personally, it's the same sort of humor I could imagine Mel Brooks using.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread's TMC (Token Muslim Chick) speaking up.

The prohibition against depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him) is a prohibition for Muslims only, and also extends to the other prophets and their families (peace be with them); just like Christianity and Judaism both prohibit graven images, for those who may be thinking it's just the silly Arabs & Muslims (what, they aren't interchangeable?) who can't depict images of prophets.

Note: I know that not everyone thinks that.

The prohibition was put into place in order to prevent the violence that we see erupting because of non-Muslims (and possibly some Muslims) depicting the Prophet (peace be with him). Muslims shouldn't freak out because someone who's not prohibited from depicting our Prophet depicts him; we should disagree, especially when the pictures are heinous and an outright lie, but we should never resort to violence. The Danish cartoonist and Molly Norris shouldn't have to fear for their lives; it's despicable that so-called "Muslims" would try to, or succeed in, killing people over this.

That said, my beef with the images is that a lot of them depict Muhammad (peace be with him) with a bomb for a turban, or as a bloodthirsty barbarian, thus promoting the idea that Islam is violent at it's core, when history bears out that Muhammad (peace be with him) was one of the most peaceful, trusted men of his community, even amongst his enemies. He didn't marry a 6- or 9-year old girl (her older sister, Asma, was 10 years older & died 73 years after the migration to Medina, which took place 1-2 years before A'isha married Muhammad (peace), which put Asma at 27/28 at the time of the migration, making A'isha 17/18, and 1-2 years later puts her at 18/20; the "6 years old" reports are from ONE man, at a time of advanced age and senility, and aren't found anywhere else). Yes, he participated in raids, but that was the custom of the time; the vast majority of his military exploits were self-defense. He didn't order women to be locked up and kept out of sight, never thought them anything but equal to men. His wives were required to cover head-to-foot (including the face) and to be secluded, but they were an exception, as wives of the freaking last Prophet of God.

Therefor, the pictures insulting Muhammad (peace) are the ones I have an issue with, but I do understand that people are free to depict whatever and whomever they want (provided it's legal in their country). Which brings me to another point: in a lot of countries, the Danish cartoons (including the neutral or positive ones) ARE illegal.

So. There's my post, on-topic and everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not Islam that was the first of Western religions to actually grant women some form of inheritance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not Islam that was the first of Western religions to actually grant women some form of inheritance?

Ask Sally about Judaism, but I do know that Islam granted women inheritance and the right to keep their money, and not have to give it up to their husbands, before Christianity did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judaism did also.

Neither Islam nor Judaism are technically Western religions. There really are no "Western" religions except for native religions in North, Middle, and South America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judaism did also.

Neither Islam nor Judaism are technically Western religions. There really are no "Western" religions except for native religions in North, Middle, and South America.

Western, in reference to Western culture, civilization, religion etc., doesn't mean American, but refers to anywhere heavily influenced by Greco-Roman civilization (mostly Europe + ex colonies). The Americas were not known when the concept originated. One could argue that Judaism is not technically Western, but because it existed before the Roman Empire took over the Mediterranean, not because of its original location. It certainly exists now primarily within the Western world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Western, in reference to Western culture, civilization, religion etc., doesn't mean American, but refers to anywhere heavily influenced by Greco-Roman civilization (mostly Europe + ex colonies). The Americas were not known when the concept originated. One could argue that Judaism is not technically Western, but because it existed before the Roman Empire took over the Mediterranean, not because of its original location. It certainly exists now primarily within the Western world.

I didn't mean American culture. Neither Judaism nor Islam were influenced by Greco-Roman civilization. They were religions born in the desert tribal culture, and although they have spread to other areas (Judaism especially because various groups of Jews traveled to other countries at various periods), they have remained specifically monotheistic. Religions which were born in more populous, civilized areas were generally not monotheistic. Christianity could be considered a "Western" religion because the religion itself was exported deliberately by early Christian fathers to Western populated regions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Western, in reference to Western culture, civilization, religion etc., doesn't mean American, but refers to anywhere heavily influenced by Greco-Roman civilization (mostly Europe + ex colonies). The Americas were not known when the concept originated. One could argue that Judaism is not technically Western, but because it existed before the Roman Empire took over the Mediterranean, not because of its original location. It certainly exists now primarily within the Western world.

I didn't mean American culture. Neither Judaism nor Islam were influenced by Greco-Roman civilization. They were religions born in the desert tribal culture, and although they have spread to other areas (Judaism especially because various groups of Jews traveled to other countries at various periods), they have remained specifically monotheistic. Religions which were born in more populous, civilized areas were generally not monotheistic. Christianity could be considered a "Western" religion because the religion itself was exported deliberately by early Christian fathers to Western populated regions.

Sally, I am not a Jew, but wouldn't it be fair to say that Rabbinic Judaism has much of its origins in Hellenism, along with the Torah? I mean, Jerusalem and Palestine were heavily influenced by Hellenism, even more so than the Roman Empire, probably (even during the Empire, the east was always the predominantly Greek-speaking half), along with Persia, Syria, Alexandria, Anatolia. That's not do say that Judaism branched off from Hellenism, just that there was a lot of lateral conversation and exchange of culture and ideas. I guess what I mean is that it would be fair to say Judaism has a place in western culture and is a part of western culture, at times. Just the same as Buddhism and Kung Fu movies are really fully assimilated into western culture and Levi's jeans in the far east. Only the relationship between Judaism and the west goes back a heck of a lot further than Buddhism. It goes back to Alexander, at least. Buddhism only goes back in a serious way to maybe D.T. Suzuki and Allen Ginsberg.

It's not that Judaism is Greco-Roman civilization, but your contention is that it (and Islam) were uninfluenced. That's going a bit far, when you think about it. Both were heavily influenced, to say the least. That's like saying Yiddish was uninfluenced by German. It's just not accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, much of the science of the Greeks was preserved and used by (Muslim) Arabs when Western Europe was in the Dark Ages. Medicine, astronomy, mathematics and so on. The Arabs didn't seem to care as much for the rest of Greek literature, nor did the Roman Christians. Western Europe had to wait for the large scale emigration of Greek speakers around the collapse of Byzantium, before that was widely disseminated in Europe. So it isn't exactly fair to say that the Muslim Arabs alone preserved classical Greek knowledge prior to the Renaissance. They played a part, of course. But so did Christians and Jews. It's just that it only gained traction in Florence in the 1300's, for various reasons. Anyway, the dark ages were never entirely dark, and there were scholars of all religions and in various places. Only some cultures were a lot more scholarly inclined than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean American culture.

If you knew "Western" didn't refer to the (pre-colonial) Americas, why did you say:

There really are no "Western" religions except for native religions in North, Middle, and South America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally, I am not a Jew, but wouldn't it be fair to say that Rabbinic Judaism has much of its origins in Hellenism, along with the Torah? I mean, Jerusalem and Palestine were heavily influenced by Hellenism, even more so than the Roman Empire, probably (even during the Empire, the east was always the predominantly Greek-speaking half), along with Persia, Syria, Alexandria, Anatolia. That's not do say that Judaism branched off from Hellenism, just that there was a lot of lateral conversation and exchange of culture and ideas. I guess what I mean is that it would be fair to say Judaism has a place in western culture and is a part of western culture, at times. Just the same as Buddhism and Kung Fu movies are really fully assimilated into western culture and Levi's jeans in the far east. Only the relationship between Judaism and the west goes back a heck of a lot further than Buddhism. It goes back to Alexander, at least. Buddhism only goes back in a serious way to maybe D.T. Suzuki and Allen Ginsberg.

It's not that Judaism is Greco-Roman civilization, but your contention is that it (and Islam) were uninfluenced. That's going a bit far, when you think about it. Both were heavily influenced, to say the least. That's like saying Yiddish was uninfluenced by German. It's just not accurate.

First, the analogy to Yiddish is not really apposite: Yiddish is a language composed of German, Hebrew, and a bit of Russian and Polish. It was a manufactured language, not a system of thought or belief.

You're talking about two separate things: what the original influences were that brought forth Judaism, and whether Judaism now is a part of Western civilization. The latter is true because Jews live all over the world. However, Judaism as a religion can't be called Western in our sense of the word, and it wasn't influenced by the Greeks.

The Greek Syrians ruled Palestine a little more than a century BCE; the Torah was first conveyed orally and then written down many centuries before that. Rabbinical Judaism didn't arise until after the Greeks no longer ruled Palestine -- when the Romans destroyed the Second Temple. Once Christianity was firmly planted in that part of the world, had been accepted as a state religion by Constantine, and spread over the world (in the 300s CE), Jewish scholars (rabbis) decided they needed to "build a fence around the Torah" to preserve Judaism in the lands that Jews would have to live in the future. Over a period of several centuries, they produced the Talmud, and rabbis in different countries began to issue dicta about religious topics. The rabbis who wrote the Talmud not only were not influenced by the Greeks, but they also remembered the Greeks' attempt to force them to worship Greek gods. They wanted specifically to keep Judaism as a pure faith alive during the Diaspora. During the time that Jews were allowed to live in Turk-ruled Muslim areas (who had preserved Greek writings), hundreds of years after the Talmud was written, some cosmopolitan Jewish scholars incorporated some Greek thought into their writings. But neither original nor rabbinical Judaism have Greek origins or influence. Remember that Jews becoming part of the Diaspora in many different countries, not only the Islamic lands. The "Socratic" method of argument--attempting to test what are regarded as truths--was a parallel development to the arguments of Talmudic scholars. That's been a hallmark of Judaism since it's beginning. Jews argue.

I kind of doubt if Islam was influenced by the Greeks, but that's for Larissa to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could end this tangent by agreeing to use the term Abrahamic religion, since that is what Qutenkuddly probably meant by Western.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could end this tangent by agreeing to use the term Abrahamic religion, since that is what Qutenkuddly probably meant by Western.

We could indeed, if he did.

I'd never thought of it before, but the terms Western and Eastern probably pertain to a Near-Eastern point of view (literally): if you stand in Israel facing south, everything to your right is Western and everything to your left is Eastern. Of course someone standing in Japan would have a different point of view, so the terms aren't really helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...