Pope angers muslims

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Arrian: Fundamentalism is generally scary, because fundamentalists are inflexible, or so it seems to me. They are also often rather excitable at times.

As Jon said, fundamentalism isn't the problem, as long as people do not force their believes on others.

The problem I have with Islam is that the political-fundamentalists (which is imho believing that others should be as fundamentalistic as you and you do everything to establish that) can base their ideas on the Quran. Read the quotes I posted above.

As can people with the OT.. or even the NT.

The history of the Christian church (persecution/etc) shows this.

JM

[Heresson]

let me reiterate my post: christianity, unlike islam, has no legal system that christians believe is inspired by God. It has a couple of general, pretty obvious rules, some of which no-one is demanding as instituting as law (like: "respect your mother"). Unlike in islam, christianity accepted distinction between sin and crime.
Islam has a full, totalitarian legal system depicting the life of a muslim to the very detail and shaping the political system. This legal and gouvermental system is given by God, so it can not be changed by any democratic voting or wish of a dictator. Unlike occasional christian theories, created ad hoc and temporary, shari'ah will last, little changed, as long as islam will last.

I am fricking orientalist, I have some knowledge in this subject

[Arrian]

Silly question. Isn't the founder of a religion and its holy scripture the most obvious "core"?

Note the reasonable discussion we then had about the meaning of core w/regard to Christianity. Obviously Jesus + NT is core, but you also have stuff like the OT (core, but at least partly superceded by NT), Popes...

It's a question of where you draw the line between "core" and not core, and I don't think it's a silly question at all.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Islam has a full, totalitarian legal system depicting the life of a muslim to the very detail and shaping the political system. This legal and gouvermental system is given by God, so it can not be changed by any democratic voting or wish of a dictator.

One could say this about the Torah too, couldn't they? But the Jews seem to have gotten past that, for the most part anyway.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
let me reiterate my post: christianity, unlike islam, has no legal system that christians believe is inspired by God. It has a couple of general, pretty obvious rules, some of which no-one is demanding as instituting as law (like: "respect your mother"). Unlike in islam, christianity accepted distinction between sin and crime.
Islam has a full, totalitarian legal system depicting the life of a muslim to the very detail and shaping the political system. This legal and gouvermental system is given by God, so it can not be changed by any democratic voting or wish of a dictator. Unlike occasional christian theories, created ad hoc and temporary, shari'ah will last, little changed, as long as islam will last.

I am fricking orientalist, I have some knowledge in this subject

If youre a good orientalist, Id think youd be familiar with Itjihad, the process whereby shariah is interpretated. It is through systems of interpretation that legal systems considered to be of divine origin adapt to changing conditions.

Calling such a legal system "totalitarian" is pretty loaded, as that refers to certain kinds of political systems. In fact in many predominantly muslim societies the governmental system has changed in ways having nothing to do with Sharia, and the legal system relies on Sharia only in part (esp in family law). Now SOME muslims arent happy with that, and want to overthrow those govts, but not all do. and IIUC, shariah practice HAS changed over time, and varies in different places and of course among the four main legal schools of Sunni Islam, and in the various Shiite groups.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


One could say this about the Torah too, couldn't they? But the Jews seem to have gotten past that, for the most part anyway.

-Arrian

Arrian, I dont think you want to get Herreson started on the Jews.

[Arrian]

I had that thought as I hit "post" LotM. The point is valid, no matter what he tries to do with it.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I had that thought as I hit "post" LotM. The point is valid, no matter what he tries to do with it.

-Arrian

The interesting thing would be to see how J, even Orth J, got past it, and to see whether that was due to the experience of exile, or to approaches to interpretation that may be just as possible in Sharia as they are in Halacha. In fact, IIUC there are many parallels in interpretative technique between the two, not surprising given not only the Jewish roots of Islam, but the influences back on rabbinic Judaism during the period when the greatest rabbis lived in the Islamic world. In fact I think there are already some uses of creative interpretave techniques by moderate muslims - but then im not an "orientalist" so whatever I say can be trumped by appeal to authority.

But if, say, someone turns around and says yeah, rabbinic J is totalitarian and much inferior to Christianity also, that discussion wont take place.

Such a discussion would have to involved first dispensing with a general hostlity to such systems of religious law, a hostility that exists in Christianity going back to its roots, and that SOME Christians have gone beyone. One needs to ask if discussants are capable of moving past that.

[Robert]

The problem I have with Islam is that the political-fundamentalists (which is imho believing that others should be as fundamentalistic as you and you do everything to establish that) can base their ideas on the Quran. Read the quotes I posted above.

Originally posted by Jon Miller


As can people with the OT.. or even the NT.

The history of the Christian church (persecution/etc) shows this.

JM

The OT is a different story indeed. But a christian can't take the OT without the NT. And I disagree with you that you can base violence on the NT. Well, you can try and it has been tried but I think no sane person agrees that there's foundation for violence to be found in the NT.

The Quran does have this though, see the quotes I posted above.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If youre a good orientalist, Id think youd be familiar with Itjihad,

first of all, not Itjihad, but Ijtihad (igtihad), secondly, if You read my posts You'd see me mention it

the process whereby shariah is interpretated. It is through systems of interpretation that legal systems considered to be of divine origin adapt to changing conditions.

I know everything about it, deary. The problem is, that, as I've mentioned, the gates of igtihad are closed. And even if they were not, it'd take a lot of hypocrisy to temper some obviousities in sunnah. If Muhammad told You should kill someone who's leaving islam, how can You change that? I know. He also said no-one's ever leaving islam. So if You can not leave it, You can not be executed, right?

Calling such a legal system "totalitarian" is pretty loaded

It controls all the life of a believer in an uncomparable to any other one, that's what I have in mind

In fact in many predominantly muslim societies the governmental system has changed in ways having nothing to do with Sharia, and the legal system relies on Sharia only in part (esp in family law). Now SOME muslims arent happy with that, and want to overthrow those govts, but not all do. and IIUC, shariah practice HAS changed over time, and varies in different places and of course among the four main legal schools of Sunni Islam, and in the various Shiite groups.

Shari'ah didn't change radically. What was changing was the level of implementing it. Of course, f.e. mongol conquests reduced the strenght of it, f.e..
On the other hand, there USED to be another institution that, in my opinion, was limiting per se extremism - the caliphate. Now it is gone, so political systems have no divine sanction.

Originally posted by Arrian


One could say this about the Torah too, couldn't they? But the Jews seem to have gotten past that, for the most part anyway.

-Arrian

Perhaps because most of Jews are either little religious, or are a minority.

Originally posted by Arrian

Note the reasonable discussion we then had about the meaning of core w/regard to Christianity. Obviously Jesus + NT is core, but you also have stuff like the OT (core, but at least partly superceded by NT), Popes...

It's a question of where you draw the line between "core" and not core, and I don't think it's a silly question at all.

-Arrian

Of course, You can add different stuff, additionally, but You do agree that the founder and the writings are part of the core. The question is what's there, not what's outside. Muhammad and hadiths are enough.

lord, I find your post offensive.

[Barnabas]

I think the reason for more flexibility when interpreting the torah, is the status of jews as a minority fighting for survival, muslims are not a minority fighting for survival.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson


"first of all, not Itjihad, but Ijtihad (igtihad), secondly, if You read my posts You'd see me mention it "

Threads too long. sorry.



"I know everything about it, deary. The problem is, that, as I've mentioned, the gates of igtihad are closed."

Cite for that? I thought the interpretation of Sharia is an ongoing process today.


" And even if they were not, it'd take a lot of hypocrisy to temper some obviousities in sunnah. If Muhammad told You should kill someone who's leaving islam, how can You change that? I know. He also said no-one's ever leaving islam. So if You can not leave it, You can not be executed, right? "

Hypocrisy? Why? Depends on your approach. There are folks who would claim that much of what the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud did was "hypocrisy" and went against the plain meaning of the bible. But they had a philisophy that did not limit them to plain meanings. I dont know enough about Islamic techniques, but leading Islamic scholars must have certainly been aware of rabbinic midrash, and its approach to texts.


"Why? It controls all the life of a believer in an uncomparable to any other one."

Because its the believers choice to live under that system, not the state's.

"Shari'ah didn't change radically. What was changing was the level of implementing it. Of course, f.e. mongol conquests reduced the strenght of it, f.e..
On the other hand, there USED to be another institution that, in my opinion, was limiting per se extremism - the caliphate. Now it is gone, so political systems have no divine sanction."

Yet MOST muslims seem to accept that, and have for decades. As for the amoutn of change inSharia, I need to learn more - the circumstances may not have called for as much change.


"Perhaps because most of Jews are either little religious, or are a minority. "


The changes that were important happened while most Jews were religious, but yes, they took place in exile. But many muslims live as minorities now. Indeed the largest muslim community in the world is a minority. So they may face the same need to adapt.



"lord, I find your post offensive. "

[lord of the mark]

some googling reveals that some self proclaimed liberal muslims do NOT accept that Ijtihad can no longer take place. I dont know how marginal they are, but clearly this leads us toward the things that will be necessary for Islam to evolve, using its own internal resources.

There seems to be some dispute about the degree of learnedness required to engage in Itjihad, and whether that is present today. IIUC there are some parallel disputes between O and C judaism, but they mainly relate to whether C rabbis are learned enough, not to whether any rabbis in modern times are. Though I recall seeing something about whether any modern rabbis are learned enough to deal with certain particular issues.

As a sociological question, the real q is not whats available within the religion, but the necessity for change. On issues relating to gender, family structure, etc, UltraO Judaism has changed little - it HAS taken a much more positive approach to the religious education of women, which was VERY much a change made to insure group survival. Other groups changed (in various degrees) because of their commitment to integration in the West.

On the state, even UltraO J has not really had to change - Jewish law has generally accepted the rule by gentiles (esp outside the Land of Israel) as a given. Not only have Jews lived long as minorities in exile, but the Mishnah was written in a Land of Israel where Rome ruled, and rebellions had failed. Earlier halachic developments that took place when the Hasmoneans were still ruling, did so in the face of a Jewish regime that the rabbis often opposed, as it favored their Sadducean adversaries. Thus Jewish law has never had the same relationship to the state that much of Muslim law takes for granted. However it does seem that many muslims now face the necessity of adapting to life under non-muslim regimes, and many muslims living in muslim majority countries want Sharia to play at most a limited role in the state (though few want absolute seperation of religion and state) It seems likely that Islam will have to develop to remain relevant to those people. Whether the liberal muslim project of renewed Ijtihad is the path that will work, or some other, is a question of the social evolution of those societies.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


I think Molly's point, Jon, is that Cyber's throwing stones from a glass house.

He's asserting that Christianity is, at its "core" a religion of peace and that Islam is violent at its "core." How you define core, and how much you care about events in the past, of course, may alter your opinion rather drastically.

Damnit. Now I've gotten involved.

-Arrian

I never thought I'd end up defending Christianity , but here goes :

You define the core by two things , both equally important :

a) What the foundational texts say
b) What the all the unbroken orthodox traditions say about the texts ( and the principles they are in agreement about , even if they might differ on the details )

In such a case , the orthodox traditions of Christianity all agree that the NT supercedes the OT , so criticisms applied to the OT can no longer stick to the wider Christian tradition . There is also the fact to consider that the only violent act in the life of Christ ( the temple episode ) was a typical human reaction of somebody seeing his deepest ideals violated , and the violation taking the most concrete of forms . This is something which can be ignored as an aberration considering the larger backdrop of his message and his life and the way he lived it . Even if Christ was , according to orthodoxy , the son of God , he was also equally a human , which is what makes his sacrifice worthwhile in the first place .

Or do you expect from him the inhuman ideal ? When the Devil tempted him , the temptation had meaning precisely because he was human and subject to the same human urges and desires all of us have . Had he been above humanity , and not subject to temptation , his renounciation of the deals of the Devil would have lost all meaning , because there is no greatness in giving up what you never felt attached to in the first place .

I have another parallel to give here , a similar one , of Nachiketa ( this is my own translation of the text , by the way ) :

It is known ( famous ) that , desirous of the fruits of yagna* , the son of Vajashrava donated away all his wealth ( in the Vishwajeet** yagna ) . He had a renowned son by the name of Nachiketa .[1]

* Fire Sacrifice
** World-winning ( a yagna to literally win the whole world )

At the time the dakshinas* ( in the form of cows ) were being taken , in him ( Nachiketa ) - he was only a child yet – entered the feeling of faith** . He started thinking : [2]

* Gifts to be given away on the occasion ( of the yagna )
** More accurately , the aastikbuddhi

Those who have finished drinking water , those whose eating of grass has ceased , those whose milk has been sucked dry and those whose reproductive power has waned , when such cows are given away as gifts , the giver goes to the joyless worlds . [3]

Then he said to his father , “O father ! To whom shall you give me ?” . In the same manner , he asked a second and a third time . Then his father said to him , “I give you to death” . [4]

( Nachiketa said : ) Among many ( sons or students ) I am the foremost , and among many I am middlemost . What work of yama* is it which my father will fulfill through me ? [5]

* The god of death

( Nachiketa said : ) Think of the way those before us acted , and look at the ones who are with us now . Like a field a man ripens ( and dies ) , and like a field springs up again . [6]

The Brahmin guest enters a house like fire . The householder calms him with water . Thus , O king of death , bring him water ! [7]

In the house of one in which a Brahmin guest stays without partaking of food , that dim-witted man's wishes of acquisition of things known and unknown , the fruits of his intercourse with pious men , the fruits of his pious utterances , and the fruits of his good deeds , sacrifices , as well as his sons and cattle , all are destroyed by him . [8]

( Yama said : ) O Brahmin ! I bow to thee; may I be blessed* . You , worthy of bowing to , have yet stayed for three nights in my house without partaking of food; therefore , for each night , ask of me one boon . [9]

* More literally , may all be well with me

( Nachiketa said : ) O Yama ! For the first of the three boons I ask that my father be calm , cheerful of mind , free of anger , and that he recognise me and talk with me when you send me back . [10]

( Yama said : ) By my intercession , the son of Arun , Audyalaka , shall recognise you . In the night he shall sleep happily , for having seen you return from the jaws of death . [11]

( Nachiketa said : ) O god of death ! There is no fear in the Heavenly Realm . There even your power does not reach . There none are afraid of old age . In the Heavenly Realm , men , beyond hunger or thirst , experience bliss and are above sorrow . [12]

( Nachiketa said : ) O Death ! You know the fire of sacrifice which leads to heaven , so describe it to my faith-filled self , through which the men ascended to heaven achieve immortality . This I ask for my second boon . [13]

( Yama said : ) O Nachiketa ! I , knowing the heaven-giving fire , shall explain it to you . Understand it well from me . It exists in the comprehension of the wise , it is the support of worlds . [14]

It is then said that Yama explained to Nachiketa the fire and the number and nature of the bricks for it and its kindling . Then Nachiketa repeated to him what he had been told . Pleased by this , Yama again spoke : [15]

( Yama said : ) Now I grant you another ( a fourth ) boon . This fire shall gain fame by your name . Also take this many-coloured chain* . [16]

* More literally , a maala , either a necklace or a string of prayer beads

( Yama said : ) He who performs thrice this Nachiketa sacrifice , being instructed by the three ( the mother , the father , and the teacher ) goes beyond birth and death . He knows and experiences this , born of Brahma(n) , knowledgeable and worthy of praise , and attains to supreme peace . [17]

( Yama said : ) That knower of the three ( that is , what/who the bricks are , how many in number , and how the fire-sacrifice is performed ) who performs the Nachiketa sacrifice three times , even before the death of the body , attains heavenly bliss , breaks the bonds of death , and goes beyond sorrow . [18]

( Yama said : ) O Nachiketa ! The fire through which one attains heaven , for which you asked for with the second boon has been told to you . People shall call this fire yours . Ask now for the third boon . [19]

( Nachiketa said : ) About men who have passed away ( died ) there is doubt; some people say that they remain ( that they exist ) and some say that they do not . For the third of my boons I ask of you knowledge of this . [20]

( Yama said : ) In older times even the gods had their doubts about this , for this is not easy knowledge to know . O Nachiketa ! Ask for some other boon , do not press me . From this boon please free me . [21]

( Nachiketa said : ) O Death ! Surely , in this regard even the gods had their doubts , and you yourself say it is not easy to know . Thus there can be no better teacher of this subject that you , nor can any other boon be like this . [22]

( Yama said : ) O Nachiketa ! Ask for sons and grandsons who live a hundred years , ask for a wealth of animals , for elephants , for gold and horses , ask for the entire Earth , ask for a life as long as you want . [23]

( Yama said : ) If you consider any boon equal to this , ask for it , ask for wealth , ask for an empire over the Earth . May you attain old age on this Earth . I can make you the enjoyer of your desires . [24]

( Yama said : ) Ask for the desires which are difficult to satisfy in the world of mortals . Here you have these maidens with instruments and chariots . They are not obtainable by men . They shall serve you . But O Nachiketa ! Do not ask me questions concerning death . [25]

( Nachiketa said : ) O Lord Yama ! These experiences are of the type of which one is uncertain of their remaining the next day , and they dim the lustre of the senses . This entire lifetime is very small . Keep your vehicles and your songs and dances ( for I have no interest in them ) . [26]

( Nachiketa said : ) Man cannot be satiated with wealth . Now that I have seen you , I shall obtain wealth as it is . As long as you rule I shall live , yet my requested boon remains unchanged . [27]

( Nachiketa said : ) Which mortal , who undergoes decay , shall consider the pleasures of song and dance , having approached the undecaying immortals ? [28]

( Nachiketa said : ) O Death ! Concerning that of which it is doubted “it is or it is not” and that sure knowledge of the other world is that which I want to know . Nachiketa asks for no other boon . [29]

The fact that Nachiketa was a human is what gives his renounciation the strength and drama it possesses .

Failing to realise that means that you are rendered incapable of even understanding the other side .

[Arrian]

I never thought I'd end up defending Christianity , but here goes

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, eh?

-Arrian