Religions Evolve, Part 2: Islam
In “Religions Evolve, Part 1,” I offered up 10 random truths about Christianity. In that post, I listed 10 well-accepted conclusions about Christianity that have emerged from the past two centuries of scholarship. Now I’ll try to do the same for Islam — except I’ve got 17 random truths, and the scholarship is more controversial.
Modern critical study of Islam is in its infancy. The techniques scholars have used to analyze the Hebrew and Christian bibles are only now being brought to bear on the Koran, with extreme resistance from Muslims. Modern historical analysis of the origins of Islam is equally new, and equally resisted. Islam is basically where Christianity was in the 19th century – critical scholarship is beginning, but the work is fiercely opposed by the Islamic establishment and virtually unknown to the faithful masses.
Since my readers are unlikely to be as familiar with Islam as they are with Christianity or Judaism, here’s a brief reminder of the traditional version: Mohammed was a trader in Mecca in the early 7th century. God spoke to him and revealed the Koran, verse by verse. Mohammed recited these verses to his listeners, who memorized them or wrote them down. After Mohammed’s death, his followers gathered up the scribbled and memorized verses into the Koran. Inspired by their new religion, the Arabs burst out of their environs and began conquering the world. A detailed account of all these events is preserved in the hadith, oral traditions that were passed down intact for generations until eventually being committed to writing. (And if you know anything about how religions evolve and texts develop, your bunkum antennae should be grazing the ceiling by now.)
Now, for the 17 random truths:
-
Mohammed:
1. There are no records of Mohammed dating from his life. The first written record of his life appears 200 years after he died.
2. The earliest commenters on Mohammed couldn’t even agree on the century when he was born – estimates varied by 85 years.
3. The oral traditions about Mohammed are mutually contradictory.
4. While Muslims traditionally believe that the hadith explain the Koran, it has long been demonstrated that actually the Koran gave rise to the hadith. Most of the traditional stories are fabrications, legends that evolved to explain a single word or verse (for example, a verse in the Koran about honey has given rise to countless tales of Mohammed’s alleged fondness for sweets).
5. The oral traditions about Mohammed, far from being passed down intact through the generations, actually burgeoned over time. One example: in the year 800, a total of 9 or 10 traditions about Mohammed were being attributed to Ibn Abbas (a particular companion of the prophet). By the year 850, over 1,700 traditions were being attributed to Ibn Abbas.
6. All we really know about Mohammed is that he existed (probably) and was some kind of military leader or king.
The Koran:
7. The Koran didn’t reach its final form until the 800s – two centuries after Mohammed lived.
8. The language of the Koran has always been a mystery. It was labeled “classical Arabic” by the faithful because it was certainly nothing like the Arabic they knew. Even the earliest scholars admitted that one fourth of the Koran was incomprehensible.
9. A recent theory has argued (powerfully) that the Koran started life as a Syrian or northwest Arabian lectionary for use in a Christian or neo-Christian sect. Its language was probably a dialect of Arabic heavily influenced by Syriac and Aramaic.
10. Some of the most famous verses in the Koran are actually glosses devised by scholars to explain unintelligible phrases — occasionally with absurd results.
11. The verse about “white virgins” in Paradise is almost certainly a mistranslation; it probably referred to the “white raisins or grapes” that the faithful could expect in Paradise (a common motif in Christian iconography in that era).
12. The verse about putting on veils is another mistranslation; the verse was probably intended to read, “they should fasten their belts around their waists.”
Arabs and Islam:
13. There is no archaeological or written evidence that Mecca as traditionally described even existed at the time of Mohammed. It may have been a small village, but it was not a trading post or settlement of any size.
14. For the first century or so of the “Islamic” era, the conquered peoples were unaware that the Arabs had any special book or any special religion at all. Islam as we know it did not exist.
15. Close analysis of the Koran and the hadith strongly suggests that Islam did not emerge out of Peninsular Arabia, but was originally a form of Judaism or Christianity in northwest Arabia or even in Palestine.
16. Instead of Islam inspiring Arabs to conquer, it’s much more likely that the Arabs started conquering, and then developed Islam in response to the Christian and Jewish civilizations they encountered.
Bottom line:
17. Mohammed was probably some kind of military leader who was vaguely remembered as a great warlord. In the middle of the 7th century, Arabs (maybe led by Mohammed) burst out of Arabia and began conquering the Near East. Once they were in charge of places like Palestine, they were naturally influenced by the Christianity and Judaism they encountered. (Some Arabs in the northwest may have already begun converting to monotheism before this time, through contact with Jews and Christians.) Gradually a concept of a special “Arab” monotheism developed. A collection of Judeo-Christian prophecies and liturgies in Arabic coalesced to form the Koran. The dimly remembered figure of Mohammed was eventually attached to the origins of this book. The traditional story of how it all happened was a massive mythologizing of history, developed in the 9th century by Arabs to explain to themselves how their civilization had come about.
Next stop, Judaism!
The series:
Religions Evolve, Part 1: Christianity
Religions Evolve, Part 2: Islam
Religions Evolve, Part 3: Judaism
50 Responses to “Religions Evolve, Part 2: Islam”
-
Dr Marco says:
Again, enlightening. I wish there could be Muslim commentators to read their thoughts about this.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:35 am EST -
Violet Socks says:
Ay yi yi yi yi — if any Muslims do read this — thank God I’m anonymous!
-
Fatwa-inducing Facts at wongaBlog says:
[...] I admit to not knowing all that much about Islam beyond what I was taught in R.E. lessons at school. So I knew about Mohammed and some of the traditions, and that’s pretty much it. So this Reclusive Leftist post on facts about Islam is most enlightening: There is no archaeological or written evidence that Mecca as traditionally described even existed at the time of Mohammed. It may have been a small village, but it was not a trading post or settlement of any size. [...]
-
Ben says:
I’d just like to point out that some of these ‘facts’ are very dubious. Where did you get them from? As in any area of academia, there is some degree of consensus amongst those who study the historical details of this period professionally and your claims fall far from the mark.
I’m not religious myself but I don’t particularly like this kind of thinly veiled attack at those who are. Needless to say no ones faith will be challenged by what you’ve written.
-
Violet Socks says:
Ben, as I noted at the top of the post, modern critical analysis of Islam is relatively new and is still vastly more controversial than the work that’s been done on Christianity and Judaism. In Islamic countries it’s very dangerous or even illegal to question tradition. In the West, scholars are divided roughly into two camps: the traditional school, which maintains a sort of romantic, uncritical love affair with Islam and takes the tradition pretty much at face value; and what is called the “revisionist” school, which focuses on applying the same modern techniques that were developed in the study of Judaism and Christianity. In my opinion — and I’m coming from a long apprenticeship in Biblical studies — the so-called revisionists are the only people doing real history as opposed to apologetics.
Some of the things I’ve written are the conclusions of the revisionist school, but quite frankly, some of them are simply facts that have been known but unexploited for centuries. Islamic scholars, for example, know that the earliest written biography of Mohammed dates from the ninth century. They just refuse to pursue the implications of that, and insist on believing that the oral tradition is pristine.
And please: This is not a “thinly veiled” attack on religion. I’m a historian. I’m interested in what really happened. My goal isn’t to challenge anyone’s faith, just to sort out the past.
If you are genuinely interested in pursuing the scholarship, read Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, and John Wansbrough for starters. Also read Christophe Luxenberg (still available only in German) for the Syrian lectionary theory of the Koran. I’m happy to provide more detailed citations if you like, but I was trying to keep the post itself fairly simple.
-
Alon Levy says:
Needless to say no ones faith will be challenged by what you’ve written.
That’s mostly because there aren’t many Muslims on the American blogospheres, and most feel under attack by Islam-haters anyway. I estimate that 95% of people on the Internet who attack Islam’s record on human rights or religious veracity don’t give a damn about either of the two except as hatchets against the brown hordes; Violet seems to be one of the 5%.
-
Violet Socks says:
Alon, I am definitely one of the 5%.
I have no particular brief against Islam; in this series of posts I’m trying to illustrate that all three Abrahamic religions rest on shaky grounds.
-
will says:
Very interesting topic. It is my unscientic opinion that those people whose faith is based on a certain text being 100 percent historically accurate are fools. Certainly those people have never attempted to translate a now dead language into modern English and therefore do not have any idea how difficult that is.
-
ananymous says:
fuck u and fuck ur thinkings. any of you who thinks potraying the holy prophets is a good thing to do shuld try to potrate his father fucking a pig or his mother romancing with a striped animal. for gowssake cant u ever think of what will happen to u if u die
-
Violet Socks says:
Okay, thanks!
-
Aguilito says:
ananymous
Surely someone who is fucking a pig and romancing with a striped animal qualifies as a non believer.
Just to safeguard against what happens if you die (better safe than sorry), would it help imagining your father fucking a sheep and your mother romancing with a camel? -
John Smith says:
There by the wall, there is a special enclave like holder that holds an item that people(Muslims) bow to the East. Fact: Did you know that item is a meteorite?
-
bujang says:
4. Ben says:
I’d just like to point out that some of these ‘facts’ are very dubious. Where did you get them from? As in any area of academia, there is some degree of consensus amongst those who study the historical details of this period professionally and your claims fall far from the mark.
I’m not religious myself but I don’t particularly like this kind of thinly veiled attack at those who are. Needless to say no ones faith will be challenged by what you’ve written.
At least there is someone who has something in his head. I’m talking about you Ben not her.
All of “the fact” that Violet’s write above are dubious and inaccurate. Some of them are even worst, falsehood. It presumably originated from the people who’ve tried hard to search for any shortcoming of Islam.
However, I don’t think that those are a”thinly veiled” attack on religion.Al-Quran as the source of Islam have reached it’s completed form before the Prophet’s dead and remain the same as it is today. Allah himself who preserve it. No worry on that. It is not like any others which is being corrupted by many dirty hands.
You can not make a comparation or study the Islam books through the Christians since its genuine form does not exist anymore or at least “hidden”. Christian teologist have admited that it’s only between 10 to 20 percent of the recent holy bible are the truth. It is because of your scholar’s fact manipulating habit that ruin it. Thank god you are the historian so you don’t take any responsible. :-D
But still the habit is rest in you and you do take responsible for telling lies based on your “modern critical analysis” of Islam.
Just keep proud on your “good job” while it last.
-
bujang says:
12. John Smith says:
There by the wall, there is a special enclave like holder that holds an item that people(Muslims) bow to the East. Fact: Did you know that item is a meteorite?
:D How smart are you John.
We called that meteorite “Hajar Aswad” (arab : black stone). Actually we do not worship it. We are not like you people who worship pictures and statues.
-
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Mormons Don’t Want To Be Misunderstood says:
[...] (Which reminds me — I never did finish my series on “Religions Evolve.” I posted Part 1 and Part 2, and then The Deluge came (here and here) and my little blog was overrun. After the storm subsided it’s not entirely clear what kept me from posting Part 3, but one theory that’s been gaining traction lately is that I forgot. Sigh. I’ll try to fix that this week.) [...]
-
John Smith says:
I do not worship people or idols, sorry. But, I also do not worship anything but my God. Just like the Muslims worship their Allah, we all have one thing in common: we all love life , maybe not as one, but we all love life. Maybe some people don’t love Life the same way, but Life is appreciated in a same sort of way. (If you get my drift) Do you kind of understand that? That was meant to be two separate understandings, with parallel meanings.
P.S. I didn’t say you “worshipped it, nor even bowed to it.” I said if you read it carefully, ” There by the wall, there is a special enclave like holder that holds an item that people(Muslims)bow to the East.” Where does it say you worship the item?
In my statement, I simply made an observation, and you jumped to conclusions by making assumptions. I am not getting on you, simply correcting you.
Thank you for the info, bujang. I had forgot what it was called. -
John Smith says:
13. bujang, As far as you trying to tell everyone else what truth is and isn;t about the Christian Bible, if your not Christian, don’t even go there. Your wasting your time, and everyone knows your trying to convert some one and it isn’t working, or maybe it is.
But, to give you some truths as far as what you told Ben, you said Islam is not corrupted like many other religions. Well, I believe ALL religions are corrupted at one point or another, at one time, somehow.
As far as the Christian form not existing anymore, you got another surprise there too. It’s not “hidden” either.I don’t know where your getting your facts that “Christian teologists are admitting that only 10-20% of the Bible is true,” that must be a fact that you have dreamt up in your internet mind.
As a matter of fact, there are Biblical Books missing from the Bible called the Apocrypha. As far as the Bible being Truth, well, there are things that could be said also.
Why would the Al Quran say it’s okay to kill innocent women, children and elderly men of the Muslim faith? It has happened many times, including right here on 9/11. (If you tell me that sometimes things like that can’t be helped,
I will tell you war is Hell! I know, been there, done that!) -
John Smith says:
I see no one has left a decent debating response to anything that anyone has posted since March 17th, 2006.
Did you stop allowing posting, Violet?
-
Alon Levy says:
What? One post in every thread has to be the last…
-
John Smith says:
19. What? One post in every thread has to be the last…
Sorry Alon old chap, if I offended you, just checking to see if anyone was still alive in here. Good to see a good debater such as yourself still alive and posting. (My sense of humor, is all)
-
BujanG says:
This topic is still open?
-
Alon Levy says:
The last post before yours was two weeks ago. Draw your own conclusions.
-
BujanG says:
17. John Smith says:
bujang, As far as you trying to tell everyone else what truth is and isn;t about the Christian Bible, if your not Christian, don’t even go there. Your wasting your time, and everyone knows your trying to convert some one and it isn’t working, or maybe it is.
and
In my statement, I simply made an observation, and you jumped to conclusions by making assumptions. I am not getting on you, simply correcting you.
——————————————-
Me trying to convert you people here? You just jump to conclusions by making assumptions.
(Thanks anyway if you were trying to correcting me since I think that I did missunderstand your comment about the meteorite.)
Quranic principle on this is “There’s no forcing in believing the religion”. Anyway, converting people is what missionaries do to others, not me. (In my country they are now using the new methode - colaborate with the Jeen (demon) to do such thing since the conventional ways are not working anymore)What I was trying to do is to make corrections on some point listed above by Dr.Socks. What she listed as the facts are dubious. For example :
point 7. about the complete form of Koran.
The real Fact is (Actually these are just some part of Quran history I found in Internet and are wellknown among the muslims) :During the life of the Prophet (saas) (570-632 CE)
-The Prophet (saas) used to recite the Qur’an before angel Jibreel (Gabriel) once every Ramadan, but he recited it twice (in the same order we have today) in the last Ramadan before his death. Jibreel also taught the Prophet (saas) the seven modes of recitation.
-Each verse received was recited by the Prophet, and its location relative to other verses and surahs was identified by him.
-The verses were written by scribes, selected by the Prophet, on any suitable object - the leaves of trees, pieces of wood, parchment or leather, flat stones, and shoulder blades. Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu’awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka’ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.
-Some of the companions wrote the Qur’an for their own use.
-Several hundred companions memorized the Qur’an by heart.During the caliphate of Abu Bakr (632-634 CE)
-Umar Ibn Al-Khattab urged Abu Bakr to preserve and compile the Qur’an. This was prompted after the battle of Yamamah, where heavy casualties were suffered among the reciters who memorized the Qur’an.
-Abu Bakr entrusted Zayed Ibn Thabit with the task of collecting the Qur’an. Zayed had been present during the last recitation of the Qur’an by the Prophet to Angel Jibreel (Gabriel).
-Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur’an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur’an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet.During the caliphate of Uthman (644-656 CE)
-Uthman ordered Zayed Ibn Thabit, Abdullah Ibn Al Zubayr, Saeed Ibn Al-Aas, and Abdur-Rahman Ibn Harith Ibn Hisham to make perfect copies of the authenticated copy kept with Hafsa. This was due to the rapid expansion of the Islamic state and concern about differences in recitation.
-Copies were sent to various places in the Muslim world. The original copy was returned to Hafsa, and a copy was kept in Madinah.The prove :
The Qur’an is memorized today by over 9,000,000 living human beings, in the original text and in the original language. There are more than a billion distributed around the world in written form - and each is exactly like the other. There no versions of Quran.Every single Muslim has memorized at least some portion of the Qur’an in the original Arabic language. Come let us compare these statements to any other religious book - or any book at allfor that matter and tell us what you find. We are waiting.——————–
The thing that makes me compared Islam (Quran) with the Bible is came from this(Dr.Socks) statement :
I have no particular brief against Islam; in this series of posts I’m trying to illustrate that all three Abrahamic religions rest on shaky grounds.
He/She seems to accuse Islam is the same as the other two. She/He might even know nothing about none of them.and about :
17.John Smith says:
……
I don’t know where your getting your facts that “Christian teologists are admitting that only 10-20% of the Bible is true,” that must be a fact that you have dreamt up in your internet mind.—————————————————-
Actually, I get this information from a book which I can’t remember the title and from the convesion of some of the ex-christians. However, it needs no teologist nor PhD to “see” the fact. Go read it yourself and make sure your mind is clear before you do that.(So your heart is cleaned from biases and prejudices) :)Quran (Allah swt) said :
“Have not the unbelievers considered, if it (Qur’an) were from other than Allah, they would find therein many contradictions?”So go read your Bible from the first page until the last. I suggest you also try to memorize it. 6 years old muslims can recite one surrah of Quran consisting 7 verses in arabic by the heart. Why can’t you do the same. Your Bible is written in english, isn’t it?
The truth must have come only from God, your God. Since He must be and is free from any mistake, there will be no contradiction in His own word in the Bible. What Quran said above is a challenge to the others and simply a logical way to do the test.
Then make your own calculation on how much are the percentage of the truth in the Bible.
What about the role of Constantine and his Council of Nicea on the “reconstruction” of modern Christianity. How can you explain this, regarding his version of the Bible. Don’t ask me where I get this fact.
-
Infidel says:
BujanG,
Thank you for the enlightenment. Let me apologize for the cartoons. Would I have to learn Arabic to read the Qur’an? I mean as an ignorant monolingual ludite- I still have a desire to know. Could my motivation for reading the Qur’an be curiosity? Would that be an offense? Would that be disrespect? Mere curiosity rather than reverence? Would an English translation be less than the Qur’an? Would an English translation be a cartoon? -
John Smith says:
23. bujang-Trying to correct himself or me about saying 10-20% of the Bible is true? That is a good question that I can debate.
You see, I think you got what people actually follow in the Bible and what is true mixed up. People only follow about 10-20% of the Bible(Christians, that is), and about 90% of it is true, whether it be actual events, or on a metaphyasical level. It can also mean metaphoric
meanings, riddles which have actual meanings to them, as do some in the Qu’ran also, and the Torah.They’re in all Books of all different religions,different meanings, different events, for each and every religion their is, I’m sure. I’m not going to knock any religion that has a history, because I’m sure the believers of those religions have their reasons for believing them.
Myself, I just stick to what I know, and enjoy it. People who knock what I enjoy, must be having a hard time with their own religion, so they look to another religion to put down until they figure their own religion out.
-
Infidel says:
100% of the bible is hearsay. Even with a perfect God writing a perfect book- When I read it, I will read it imperfectly. God didn’t write the book, men did. Inspired men. Imperfect men. Moses was a murderer, David an adulterer, Saul(Paul) a persecuter. Faith makes the hearsay truth. Technically it is second hand-from God though men. Especially those books of the New Testament written long after by authors other than Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, attributed to Matthew, Luke, Mark, John. 10%-20% True?? What on earth does that mean? Where would 90% truth be on a scale of truth. Are some truths weighted, more important than other truths? Is there a seperate calculation to be made for a metaphor vs a riddle?? Since a parable is clearly not an actual truth but some sort of example, a hypothetical, what percent of truth would it be. To me it is quite simple- a parable is one hundred per cent untrue- truth can be gleaned from a parable but the parable itself is inherently fiction and so untrue. Maybe 1.16% of new testament is parables, in English, in King James version, 1984.
-
CR says:
Hi,
I don’t mean invovled. I just don’t know where else to ask. My freind, who is a staunch atheist is looking for some good blogs for atheists and also blogs where atheists and theists talk together. I thought maybe you guys would be able to point me to some good places. -
Infidel says:
There are other blogs?
-
CR says:
My freind is a mad atheist (either that- or he’s just mad at God for not being real or being a S.O.B.- I can’t tell)- very logical and very smart person- a bit snarky but still polite and fair and doesn’t use bad language. I told him about this blog- but we use the same work computer and he nor I doesn’t want to confuse Miss Violet with the same IP address. His personality and mental level is very, very different from mine- and it could shock people with some of the things he would write. So I said maybe there are some aitheist/thiesist type blogs that he can go on and have a field day and talk with like minded persons. I do not know any other blogs because I only just recently found out, sort of, what a blog is in the first place. And I like Miss Violet and you guys here and would feel uncomfortable going to a strange new place. It’s all too new to me. So I thought it wouldn’t hurt to ask you guys for my friend on the religion thread.
-
John Smith says:
Well, CR, I’m sure if Miss Violet doesn’t mind him coming in here and if she has some rules to follow as far as debates and all, she would be the one to ask since this is her blog…You might be better off asking her.
-
John Smith says:
26. Infidel- Well, Infidel, if that’s the case about the Bible, then that must be the case also for the Qu’ran and the Torah. That would also go for any religious text that goes along with any religioun anywhere in the world.
Oh, for that matter, that also includes beliefs of any kind concerning atheism, paganism, Wicca, etc. It must be all as you said hearsay. if it’s all hearsay, then it must not be true, right? If it’s not true, then your existence here on Earth is nothing more than a mere joke, because it’s not true. Why? Because you and Alon cannot figure out how to discuss about peoples’ beliefs without putting them down. That puts your thought process in a negative manner.
Infidel, everyone is a murderer at one point in their life, whether they actually do it, or just think about doing it, it’s all the same thing.
Everyone is an adulterer also, every time you look at a man’s wife and look at her and want her, that’s a form of adultery…you are commiting adultery in your heart and mind whether you want to admit it or not.
We live in a world of persecution, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, USA, Great Britain, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Africa, Germany…I could go on and on, the list is endless.Do you know what makes Mankind keep on going, Infidel? Hope, Faith, the fact that we have FAITH that the sun will rise the next day so we can go to work. Having the Hopes and FAITH that we won’t get too sick so we can keep paying our bills and house payment, and so on. If you have no hope nor faith, what have you got? You have despair, absolute despair.
-
CR says:
Hi John, I’ll debate with you a little. You’ll probably kick my butt though. Atheisism is not hearsay. It is a belief in the absense of evidence of there being a Deity. As I understand atheism.
“If something is hearsay, it must be true, right”???? I dont’ understand that statement you made. but I don’t think it came out the way you wanted it to.
“If it’s not true, then your existance is a joke”. I say whether it’s true or not anyones existance is a beautiful miracle God or no God. And THAT will be about the smartest thing you’ll be hearing coming out of me.
“Everyone is a murderer” whether if they think it or do it. I understand the concept. But murder, in my opinion, is a very unnatural thing for humans. Contrary to what it looks like. I think it is uncommon for people to go around thinking about killing someone. Even when they are mad at them. Even when they have been destroyed by them. So to say that everyone goes around thinking that doesn’t sound too cheery to me. Same goes for everyone being an adulterer. Not everyone has those thoughts. Those are too sweeping of generalizations about humans.
That other stuff about hope and faith, (I’ll add love and self dillusion ( in a happy way). I could agree on that. I think people die from broken hearts and grief a good deal of the time. It makes them sick on the inside and it starts to manifest itself physically after a while.If I made a blogging faux paux about asking about other blogs. I’m sorry. I meant no disrespect. I was just asking for my athiest freind. I won’t do that anymore. Now I’m starting to think maybe that’s concidered bad internet manners.
To BujanG, thanks for writing all that. I found it very interesting and educational. As all the other postings here and Miss Violets essay too.
-
CR says:
“If something is hearsay, it must be true, right”???? I dont’ understand that statement you made. but I don’t think it came out the way you wanted it to
Sorry John, got it now. Missed a key word. Duh.
-
John Smith says:
32. Cr- No, CR, I said if Infidel said the Bible was all hearsay and-
13.-bujang said only 10-20 % of it may only be true, I replied to bujang by saying it was written by different men at different times. To me it sounded like he was putting down the Christian text, even though all of it isn’t in there. Yes, in 385 A.D. in Constantinople, the Council of Nicea had barely voted Jesus in as the Messiah by maybe 2 or 3 votes. That made Christianity the ruling religion and replaced the Roman “Gods” that were used in Rome. But, that was over 380 years after Jesus was crucified.
As far as hearsay, yes men wrote the Bible, I never said they didn’t. Some books were guided by divine help in some way or other in their writings. Just like the Qu’ran was, I’m sure, and the Torah also, and other texts out there of other religions.
Myself, I believe in a deity I call God. I have been actually dead for several minutes three times in my life. One time I woke up on a gurney in the basement VA morgue in Portland, OR. The other two times I was rescusitated once in an ambulance, and once on the floor of my home. All three times I wasn’t married, never knew anyone essential except my parents who were back in Iowa.
So if you don’t believe in any Deity, then you must not believe in any Devil either. That’s good according to him, because he sure believes in you and everyone else in here and everwhere else who doesn’t believe in God. That’s what he’s been hoping for, and wanting all this time is for people like you. Whether you believe or not, that’s your business. I’d like to see you believe, but I’m not going to force anyone. You have to want that for yourself.
Trust me, I have seen the Devil’s work as much as I have seen God’s work. You don’t want to go there or anywhere near there. But, if you don’t believe, it’s your choice. If you have seen half the things I have seen, your body and the rest of the people on this blog’s bodies would cry tears and bleed blood from every inch of their bodies. Everyone would not know which way to turn, yet, their body would end up turning in every direction except the one their supposed to go.
As far as books are concerned, I’m comfortable with what I know and believe in. I know what is going to happen after I die, I have seen the afterlife 3 separate times. Each time I didn’t want to come back, and it seemed like I was gone a little longer the time after the first time. -
Infidel says:
Faith makes the hearsay truth. I look and listen for God in my life. I read. I just sit and think. To no end. I know more about Islam through the Reclusive Leftist then I ever did. I truly wonder, reading the Qur’an, must I learn Arabic? I truly wonder, men wrote the Bible, the New Testament, who were anonomous and they credited the writings to Apostles long dead. Even if they were first hand, their writings would have been recollections of witnessing Christ. I don’t dispute the not authentic recollections because I don’t care about authorship. Through faith I am saying through some anonymous author through an Apostle through Christ God made known to me truth. The truth is good. I didn’t catch it all but “do unto others…”,”love God with all heart, mind, strength…”,”love your neighbor…”, you know- the stuff the preacher can’t go wrong with in a sermon.
Hearsay may have been a bad choice of words, and I apologize. I just can’t get quantifying in percentages the truth of any religious text.
Furthermore it would be ludicrous to debate religion on the grounds of text, because it is so inherently groundless. Words are not God’s medium. We are the work of God if we choose to be, then we can be the medium through which God communicates to humanity. We can be like Christ. -
Infidel says:
If it’s not true, then your existence here on Earth is nothing more than a mere joke, because it’s not true.
-
John Smith says:
I totally understand what your saying Infidel, sometimes I’ll say or misuse the wrong words out of context and someone will misunderstand me and I’ll have to re-explain myself thoroughly using the correct semantics.
As far as knowing my existence here on Earth and otherwise, I have seen both sides firsthand. I know what people are to expect, and not to expect.
Don’t get me wrong, the last thing I want to do is convert anyone here. That’s not my goal, that’s not my job in here. But, I get the distinct feeling that a lot of people in here are trying to convert others to their beliefs of atheism or otherwise.
But, to re-inform you I have seen more horrors of what is to come firsthand, and the good things to those who wish it also.
Okay, I have seen what people will receive firsthand if they believe in God, by accepting Christ as their Savior and repenting all their sins to Him. I have seen the rewards he offers, and they are for an Eternity.
But, if you are given the chance to do the same still, and turn it down, regardless of what you believe, I have also seen the horrors that the people will be put through for all Eternity also. It is not good. The soul you have in your body is on loan to you until your husk dies. Then, depending on what you did with your life and your beliefs are included, that soul will change into either a higher form of energy or a lower form of energy. That’s on the next level of life(higher form). The lower form of life is right here, right now. Hell as we know it, is partly Gehenna, in Israel. If you don’t believe me, look up that name in the dictionary.
It all depends on how people in general want to believe themselves. Professionally, I believe they each want their own independent beliefs as we are guaranteed right here in the USA. That’s what Freedom of Religion is all about. -
Infidel says:
John,
Maybe I should envy your experience. I sure as heck don’t. Let someone else go through that stuff, thank you very much, I’ll just wait here. I appreciate, even cherish being given a clue and I sincerly thank you.
I live near a major cities dump site. I commute by it each day. It is “the smelly place” I don’t think they use sulfer but it burns 24×7x365. Of courxe its controlled with pipes sunk into it and constant grooming by big earth movers. Part of it is now a top notch golf course. I’ve heard its a golfer’s heaven when the wind is blowing right. -
CR says:
Wow John, I have also had two death experiences. A person asphixiated me when I was being raped once and another time it was an accident. and it’s impossible to tell anyone I know personally becuase I don’t like for people I know personally to know my private things. My experience was like yours only without the hellish part. All the questions were answered. There was a feeling of total love. Love like we don’t have on earth. I also did not want to come back. It didn’t hurt. And there was no fear. There was joy and peace and it was depressing to have to return. There was sense of feeling sorry for people who were still alive- slogging it out on earth with all their trials and tribulations. There was a tunnel but no light. Yet I had a sense of moving toward- how can I put it- total, pure Love. There was no pain, only relief and answers- lots of answers. There was a sense of an unseen guide. Could feel the Presence. Not God’s presense- but another benevolent presense that seemed to be guiding me toward this Total Love.
My experience was also differnt because I came away with the idea that it didn’t matter what people did or did not do here on earth. That somehow we were all so misguided and full of worries and if we only new the Truth we won’t be so afraid. Not only of Death, but of Life too. We wouldn’t fuss so much. That we were to be pitied while we were alive because of all the troubles we make for ourselves and others. And that all is, will be and forever forgiven instantly after we die. and we hurt ourselves while we are alive.
the problem I have is that it could also all be soemthing that happens in the brain. A biological response to dieing rather than a mystical one. And I don’t know what happens as it moves further along because I lived. When My Mother was dieing she also said, “I keep feeing like I’m leaving my body.” I knew what she meant.
Somtimes I think if there is a Hell it’s right here on Earth. But it is also a beautiful gift to be alive. It’s such a shame when people make trouble for themselves and others. it doesn’t have to go that way.
I am not an athiest. Nor a believer. I am just a confused person. But comfortable with the not knowing. It’s okay not to know. I wish there was a God.
-
Infidel says:
CR,
Maybe I should envy your experience. I sure as heck don’t. Let someone else go through that stuff, thank you very much, I’ll just wait here. I appreciate, even cherish being given a clue and I sincerely thank you. I appreciate, even cherish being given a clue and I sincerely thank you.
How selfish, “let someone else…”, I’m sorry, and scared, and apparently lucky not to have had so intense trials and tribulations. My mother would say,”If it doesn’t kill you, it makes you stronger.” I hope so, I’ll need it to come through something terrible, more terrible than I could even imagine. Bless you, and/or God bless you both. And if I knew good tidings in Arabic tapping into Qur’anic verse that means the same as bless you….that too. -
CR says:
You’re a special person Infidel. I read your posts with no trepidation and great interest. Thank you for your kindness and patience.
-
CR says:
And since I’m here and on a filibuster, about athiests. As it is explained to me, thiests are folks who value logic, reasoning, critical thinking, science and measurable proof. They don’t like to beleive in things that have not shown yet to be proven. And since, as it stands right now, there is no discernable scientific proof that there is a God- they can’t bring them selves to believe in one.
-
Violet says:
If I made a blogging faux paux about asking about other blogs. I’m sorry. I meant no disrespect. I was just asking for my athiest freind. I won’t do that anymore. Now I’m starting to think maybe that’s concidered bad internet manners.
No, it’s not; I just haven’t been paying attention to this thread. Bloggers link to each other’s blogs all the time. It’s part of the blogosphere.
See the left sidebar under “Blogroll”? Those are blogs that I like and link to, though the list isn’t exhaustive. I’m overdue to update it. Anyway, good atheist blogs on that list are Pharyngula, Multae Sententiae, and Unscrewing the Inscrutable (which is Alon’s blog).
-
CR says:
Thank you Violet!! I just told my friend. he’s going to have a look. He’s never been on a blog either. He likes to talk about athiesm with other athiests and also with thiests. He’s can be wise guy and a bit of a comedian, but he never acts bad or hurtful. I surely do appreciate it very much. My pal says thank you too.
-
John Smith says:
Well, CR, when I had passed onto the next level(actually dead for minutes each incident(3 times)), I actually did see and was in the presence of angels and people I had known including family. There was a great hallway leading in several different directions to different Universities, and great scholars were in the what I call the Main Lobby discussing things. But, in order to see the Good, you also have to see the Bad.
I went from seeing the Good that was beautiful all over, and not wanting to leave, to going to a Hellish place where people spend Eternity for their for their non-repentive crimes. I thought I was gone for what I thought must have been at least a couple of days…come to find out I was only dead for 5 minutes and 37 seconds. That was the last death experience I had.
Yes, I believe, because I have seen both sides and what will happen. -
Infidel says:
John & CR:
“Radiya ‘Llahu ‘anhu”
and
“Radiya ‘Llahu ‘anha”or “Radiya ‘Llahu ‘anhuma” to you both.
-
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Religions Evolve, Part 3: Judaism says:
[...] Religions Evolve, Part 1: Christianity Religions Evolve, Part 2: Islam [...]
-
CONVERT PICTURE » Convert islam picture - Islam says:
[...] Reclusive Leftist ” Blog Archive ” Religions Evolve, Part 2: Islam … to What does this picture mean? at 8:45 am … around their waists.” Arabs and Islam: 13. There is no … last thing I want to do is convert anyone here … [...]
-
Natasha says:
“Ben, as I noted at the top of the post, modern critical analysis of Islam is relatively new and is still vastly more controversial than the work that’s been done on Christianity and Judaism”
Actually, no, critical analysis of Islam is not new, you just don’t Hear about it because those, including ex-Muslims or secular scholars or religious scholars who have done so,
HAVE ALL BEEN KILLED.
OR are currently hiding out, and if you want a break down of the critical analysis of Islam I can post the links to sites for you, there are numerous ones, one in particular, a man who grew up in Islam. But there are several,
but the best critical analysis of Islam is going to be from those apostates or moderate [true moderates, not the Taqiyya practicing ones here in the west] and they will tell it like it is, they not only break down the history but the contradictions, including many of the stories that were taken from both Judaism and Christianity and then twisted/or distorted,
[their words, not mine], not only that but its important I think to understand Islam in itself, that means,
having knowledge of the Quran, the Hadiths, the Sharia, and the divisions between Sunnis/Shites, because there is differences in interpretation by the two, particularly on the Hadiths.
Jihad Watch, which is frequented by many in right wing granted, but not Only right wing, its also frequented by atheists, leftists, humanists, etc., but there is a section at top, two in fact,
Islam 101 and then the Islam or Quran blog, which goes into the Hadiths, etc.,
and if you take it from there, and then follow up on various critics from both the minority ‘reformists’ who risk their very lives or the apostates, who know very well the ins and outs of not only Islam but the historical development of, you’ll find not only is much on Jihad Watch accurate but you’ll see common threads,
I’m currently doing a lot of reading on the reformist movement in Islam which compared to the reformist movement in Christianity, has and will take far longer, the one main thing I see is that in the Bible there was ample room for dialectic and evolving, where as in the Quran, there isn’t, so taking that and the Hadiths, they have their work cut out for them BECAUSE of how Islam is not just a Religion, and I think thats something that Westerners don’t get,
its far more than a religion so just critiquing Islam isn’t enough…there is a debate as to whether [and this is in the former Muslim group] Islam can even be reformed,
some say it can, most say it cannot because the basis is in the Quran and the Hadiths [Muhammed's teachings/life] and to do so one would literally have to change those–which, the Clergy won’t stand for.
Because regardless of how one feels about Judaism or Christianity, or the institutionalize religion that came out of those, there is One huge difference between Christianity and Judaism, and that of Islam,
Islam is the Only religion that the prophet says, more than once, to kill any unbeliever, that women are majority going to hell [his vision of hell was mostly women], and to not befriend any Jew, Christian or unbeliever, only to lead them if necessary [two houses of war] and then slaughter them, or force jizya, tax, high tax to force submission,
Islam means submission btw,
and so, if you are going to critique Islam like we do in the west of Christianity and Judaism, keep in mind, you’re looking at an entirely different belief system that isn’t even Close to either Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or even Paganism,
and yes, do KNOW, if you were to do what you are doing in ANY ISLAMIC STATE,
THEY WOULD KILL YOU.
no ands, ifs, ors, buts about it.
That is Why, those scholars who Have done what you are doing, have fled and are in the west or they’ve been killed. Since day one of Islam,
doesn’t matter. Thats what it is, and If you are going to compare Islam to Judaism or Christianity, then I suggest you pull up 6th century Christianity to do so, because thats about the closest you’d get to any similarities, 6th century to 12th century [Medieval period] when the Roman Catholic church was in power, way before the Enlightenment period or Reformation age. Way way way before,
comparing Islam to Christianity and Judaism today, is apples and oranges,
night and day
they aren’t EVEN close.
And I say this, from a SECULAR point of view AND having been intimate with all three religions.
Not even close…not even.
let me suggest a good site for you, ex-Muslims, who know very much, Islam and the history of, including those debates of which you have brought uphttp://www.islam-watch.org/
Natasha -
Natasha says:
Muslims Against Sharia is also a really good site for critique, with links to the side of the blog, there are several linked to them,
whats Good about Muslims Against Sharia is that they have listed, the moderates who truly are not moderates and then the legit ones,
however, that aside,
can I just be frank, there are Too many people being slaughtered because of Islam that I don’t think we can ‘wait for it to be reformed’ –just in Afghanistan alone, the population is in drastic numbers is exploding and not by choice, by force, girls as young as 10 forced to bear children from 60 year old men, but if That isn’t the most horrid, the AIDS epidemic is GOING TO EXPLODE there, with the prostitution due to absolutely no choice that women/girls are literally forced into to just survive, see RAWA, really read through that site, its APPALLING, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT FOR ALL OF US, REMEMBER THAT, and on that, I’ll leave you with this,
here is Muslims Against Sharia link
http://www.reformislam.org/and I think, well, she is a woman I admire and I think she says it quite exceptional,
Maryam Namazie
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/ FROM HER BLOG, A WOMAN WHOM I ADMIRE, A TRUE HEROINE
Freedom of Expression and Political Islam
Freedom of expression matters. It is not a luxury, a western value and it’s certainly not up for sale (though obviously governments and the UN mistakenly think it to be so).
Sometimes - actually more often than not - it is all we have.
But like many other rights and freedoms, it becomes most significant and finds real meaning when it comes to criticising that which is taboo, forbidden, sacred.
Freedom of expression matters most, therefore, when it comes to criticising religion.
I think this criticism has always been an important vehicle for progress and the betterment of humanity’s lot in centuries past. This is also true today in the 21st century and particularly with regard to Islam.
Of course Islam is no different from other religions. You can find just as much misogyny, cruelty and inhumanity in the Bible or other religious books as you can in the Koran. And I don’t think Islam, Christianity, Judaism or what have you are fundamentally any different from Scientology or Moon’s Unification Church, which are deemed to be cults endangering social and personal development. After all, isn’t that what religion is?
But even so, today - as we speak - there is still a distinction to be made between religion in general and Islam in particular but for no other reason than that it is the ideology behind a movement that is, in many places, part and parcel of the state, the law, criminal so-called ‘justice’ or injustice system or sharia law and educational system.
I think this point is key for a principled criticism of Islam and more importantly a progressive and humane response to the outrage of our era.
This means, firstly, that we have a duty to criticise Islam; this goes beyond the mere right to and freedom of speech and expression.
I am always taken aback by complaints about how reports on Islam often concentrate on the subject of violence and rarely focus on the reality of Islam in everyday life. In fact, though, the reality of Islam in everyday life is far more violent than anything that can be fathomed. Entire generations slaughtered over decades - long before 9/11 - and buried in mass graves in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The human cost of Islam in power is enough of a reason - the only necessary reason - to make criticism a task and duty.
After all, it is impossible - let me repeat impossible - to challenge a political movement that has wreaked havoc primarily for the people of the Middle East and North Africa if you are not allowed to fully and unequivocally criticise its ideology and banner.
I know some say that the problem is not Islam but the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. But in my opinion, you can’t have Islamic feminism, Islamic reformism, Islamic democracy, Islamic human rights, and moderate interpretations of Islam when it is in power.
Of course there are innumerable Muslims or those labelled as such who have humanist, secularist, moderate, egalitarian, atheist, communist and other progressive viewpoints but this is not one and the same with Islam in power being as such.
In my opinion, a ‘moderate’ or ‘reformed’ religion is one that has been pushed back and reigned in by an enlightenment. And not before.
But criticism of Islam alone is not enough if it does not also come with a criticism of the political Islamic movement and religion industry. The right wing’s criticism of Islam and its sudden championing of women’s rights in the Middle East - whilst legislating religious morality and misogyny here at home - self-servingly ignores the main issue at hand, which is religion and political power.
If we are going to win this battle again - as in centuries past - we have to push Islam and religion out of the public sphere. Full stop.
And for this, freedom of expression and freedom to criticise religion are key.
I don’t think we can compromise on this because too many lives are at stake. And in my opinion compromise includes the misguided liberal attempts at building interfaith coalitions or deeming all religions and beliefs as equally valid. It also includes the more reactionary sorts of appeasement such as that of the recently launched Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which aims to ‘to promote respect and understanding about the world’s major religions and show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world.’
Religion wouldn’t need one public relations campaign after another if it was so good, now would it? Even calling it ‘faith’ and avoiding the term religion won’t get around the fact that it is the genocidaire of our age.
Either way - misguided or purely out of economic and political interests - these endeavours only serve to increase, justify and consolidate the role of religion in society - and are part of the problem rather than any solution.
In my opinion, you have to choose.
You must either defend the human being or you must defend Islam and religion. You can’t defend both because they are incompatible with and antithetical to each other.
Of course this doesn’t mean that people don’t have a right to religion or atheism. Of course they do but as a private affair. Having the right to a religion or belief does not include the right not to be offended or the right to have your belief or religion respected, tolerated, and deemed equal and equally valid. Concepts such as rights, equality, and respect raised vis-à-vis individuals are nowadays more and more applicable to religion at the expense of people and their rights and freedoms. And that’s why a criticism of religion is deemed racism, defamatory, libellous - again concepts originally raised regarding people not religion and beliefs!
Islamists and their apologists have succeeded in blurring the distinction between individuals and beliefs. Their use of rights and anti-racist language - at least in the west - are devious ways of silencing criticism and opposition.
Of course the human being is sacred and worthy of the highest respect, rights and equality but not religions, beliefs, cultures.
Clearly, criticism of Islam and Mohammad are not racist or an attack on Muslims anymore than Christ in a nappy in ‘Jerry Springer the opera’ is an attack or racism against Christians.
Actually it is racist to see Islam and Muslims as one and the same and Islamists and Muslims as one and the same. It is racist to imply that this is the belief of all those deemed to be Muslim when in fact it is the belief system of a ruling class and its parasitical imams, organisations and states. It is racist to imply that people choose to live the way they are forced to. That they actually deserve no better and that their rights are culturally relative. Not that they do but even if everyone believed that women were subhuman and gays perverts, criticism of a belief is not one and the same as attacking the person who holds the belief. Female genital mutilation is a good example. You can criticise and condemn the belief in and practice of FGM, but this does not amount to an attack on women and girls who are mutilated or who support the practice.This type of politics - knowingly or unwittingly - attempts to make criticism of Islam and religion more difficult. Defining certain beliefs as sacred is a tool for the suppression of society. Saying expression offends is an attempt to restrict it.
I still find it astonishing how religion in power hangs the likes of sweet 16 Atefeh Rajabi and stones Maryam Ayoubi to death - even specifying by law the size of the stone to be used - in Iran or sentences Parwiz Kambakhsh to death in Afghanistan for downloading materials critical of women and Islam from the internet and it is criticism of Islam that is offensive!
In the face of this onslaught, a defence of freedom of expression and a criticism of religion, Islam and political Islam is an historical duty and task but it has to be based within a politics that puts people first, that holds the human being - and nothing else - sacred, if it is to have real meaning and affect real change.
It has to be done in conjunction with a defence of secularism - as the strict separation of religion from the state - rather than mere neutrality. It has to be done alongside a defence of universal rights, citizenship rights, and a humanity without labels other than human.
And it has to be done alongside a criticism of US led militarism - particularly important to say as we are here in Washington, DC. This is not a clash between western and Islamic values. Progressive values were fought for and gained by the working class and progressive social movements and so belong to all of humanity. If we don’t look at it in this way we will make friends with false allies and also fail to make links and show real solidarity with a vast majority fighting on the frontlines against Islam in power and US led militarism in places like Iran.
Also, this is not a clash of civilisations but actually the clash of the uncivilised. Human civilisation exists despite political Islam and US-led militarism and is very much at odds with it. After all, political Islam was brought to centre stage during the Cold War as a green belt around the then Soviet Union and as a response to the rise of the left and working class movement in the Iranian revolution.
Western governments have never had a problem with Islam in power - their only problem was that it had moved out of its sphere of influence since 9/11. In fact, their ‘interventions’ in Iraq for example has only strengthened this movement. In the New World Order, in fact, US-led militarism needs and feeds off political Islam. They are two sides of one coin, with the same capacity for infinite violence and brutality, the same reliance on religion and the same bleak message for the people of the world.
Freedom of expression is one of the only means we have at our disposal to resist both camps of reaction and to protect humanity.
We have to defend it unequivocally and unconditionally.
The above is Maryam Namazie’s speech at a plenary session at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, DC on June 6, 2008
