Are you suggesting Islam is 600 years behind Xianity? I’m not so sure there is a direct correlation. The foundation of Western civilization is not Xianity. It's the other way around. Xianity was founded on Western civilization.The numerous institutions - banking and arts, sculptors and playwrights and polytheistic mythos, philosophies etc…. Just a note on the the Enlightenment. It bloomed at a unique period in history. The great plague, the minor ice age and eventually the discovery of a new world… Well, it seems that the two religions share some similar intolerances, however, Xianity (I believe) evolved an intolerance (because the basic building blocks are prone to such attitudes). Whereas Islam on the other hand already had an intolerant 6th century Christianity as a model to be based on. Islam started out killing polytheists right from the get go. If we look at the histories we can see Xianity went from being a peaceful spiritual movement, to an intolerant militant movement and back again to a peaceful movement. (note: I say spiritual movement not because I believe there is a spirit or even a Jesus but because there isn’t and wasn’t. Does that make sense?) Islam started out as a cult of personality and then set about on a path of reformation - Mohammad often choose to resort to violence as a means of achieving his reformation. After Muslims had reformed everything in their path, they settled down and used Islam as a foundation to rule their new empire. During this time they were really no difference then most any other empire. It seems to me that Empires based on theology can lead to some negative consequences. For example Islam seems to have eradicated the art of the human form. The beautiful human sculptures that characterized cities of the eastern Mediterranean simply disappeared. I suppose my point is, I'd never say any theology's ideology can lead to scientific advancement, but it can eradicate such advancements. Sure peace found in Empire can promote advancement but this is peace not ideology. Am I rambling or making sense? Anyway, IMO Islam has a completely different history. It’s a history of armed struggle, reform and conquest. There was war from the beginning, during and end. After Mohammad died there was more war. Continued armed struggle in Arabia and then onwards to war against Persia, Byzantine, India, Spain, Sicily, Greece, etc… Christianity doesn’t enter a war phase until hundreds of years after it’s conception. That's a big difference in my mind. True. (IMO one foot in the wrong direction.) True (IMO another foot in the wrong direction BUT with the balance of “most accurate” ... this helps soften the step, but it's still a step in the wrong direction) Isn’t it?!?! Many Muslims have killed other Muslims (or even denied the are Muslims) simply because they had a new “last” Prophet or a new Prophet anyway. The same is true with Xianity. Most mainstream Xians do not consider Mormons Xians. BUT you also note that it [could] be couched in terms of "apostates" and "kufir," quite possibly even within the minds of the leaders spurring the violence. I agree that money, culture and power can and do motive people to kill. BUT so does religious belief. People will harm people of their own culture (as in the case I posted) for nothing more than because of a difference in belief. This is a great point Booko. That was really the main reason I opened this thread. To make that exact point. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Michael PS: What do you think of the Buddhists teachings in this respect?
What I meant by that last question is. If Buddhist take the approach of accepting other people's Gods (such as Hindu Gods, Chinese Gods, Japanese Gods, [they also accepted Greek Gods from Alexandre's army]) as well as being open to new philosophy (aka there is no "perfect end all to be all books) and remain open to new Buddhas here and there - isn't that a much better recipe for peace in our multicultural societies past and present?
No. Merely 600 years younger. Just as humans pass through certain stages in their lives, so it seems religions do. Some day for amusement value I should write an amusing piece on major religions and their eventual heat death. Oh, I did not mean to imply the connection was that simplistic. What in history is that simple? But still if you take a large view of the rise and fall of civilizations, they do not necessarily spring out of nowhere. The Romans stood on the backs of Greek civilization, for example. Yes, their focus ended up being different, as they were fine administrators but not such fine philosophers, and so that civilization takes a somewhat different form. Likewise, the Western Civilization we know now is built on the back of several ancient civilizations....Greek, Roman and yes, Muslim civilizations, to name a few. Do not underestimate the influence Islam had on the Western world. Those universities in Toledo were mighty busy churning out the great thinkers the Renaissance looked to. Everything from irrigation systems to the more well known algebra and chemistry, not to mention advances in medicine, lays at the feet of the advances made during the flower of Muslim civilization. Muhammad did tell his followers to seek after knowledge, even unto China, and there is much evidence that they did exactly that. Were it not for Muslim scholars, what would we have left of the Greek philsophers? The men of the Renaissance looked at ancient Greek philsophy and were able to do so...because those texts had been preserved by Muslims. We tend to think Western history began with the glorious Crusaders retaking the Holy Land from those evil infidels, but that is a problem created by poor history curricula and has some very unfortunate results, right down to current foreign policy gaffes. Well, that is another topic. No. The foundation for the Enlightenment was laid during the Ars Antiqua and Ars Nova. And those mini-Renaissances can be traced directly to the influence of Islam on the West through the contacts brought about by the Crusades. One, shall we say, "laws" of religions is that they are rarely intolerant until they reach a position of power. When they are the underdog, they cannot afford to piss off their neighbors, eh? [/QUOTE]Whereas Islam on the other hand already had an intolerant 6th century Christianity as a model to be based on. Islam started out killing polytheists right from the get go. [/quote] Early Islam (as in during the time of the Companions) was not influenced by Christianity other than for the short duration the early Muslims spent in Ethiopia, in exile. The Christians on the Arabian peninsula were considered heretical and by no means were in contact with the main body of Christians. The rest of the inhabitants were pagans of various varieties and also Jews. Yes, that would be the ebb and flow of religions that I mentioned earlier. Islam is currently somewhere near it's nadir, but they too shall get over it, if history is any guide (btw, we could see the similar pattern in Eastern religions as well, but I'm trying not to muddy the waters here and we're likely more acquainted with Western religions anyway.) It is true the Ummayad dynasty has much to answer for, but that has bears no resemblence whatsoever to the actions of nacent Islam or Islam in a larger sense. Also, not all Muslims were under the Ummayad dynasty, so at best it applies to only a segment. Your notion that Muhammad chose to resort to violence to as a means to achieve his reformation is seriously off. If you're really interested in an indepth study I would suggest Balyuzi's "Muhammad and the Course of Islam" though it may be a bit hard to find. It covers history from a "twelver" point of view, but as to the early history, particularly the way in which warfare occured, his scholarship is on target. Jesus did not have to wage even a defensive war because it was not necessary. Under Roman rule it would've been quite difficult for religious leaders in opposition to him to wipe out all of his followers. The Roman rulers would not have stood for the disruption of the pax romana. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The same cannot be said during the time of Muhammad. The inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula were anything but civilized. They were wild and warlike tribes who continually made war against each other. Had Muhammad not allowed defensive warfare, the nascent Muslim community would've been wiped out at the battle by the Quraysh. Offensive warfare was not allowed. In a case where the other parties sued for peace, the war ceased. This is not merely the "law of war" as set in the Qu'ran, scholarly examinations of the early history show that it was actually followed. However brief this article may be, en.wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Battle_of_Badr (sorry, no links yet) rightly describes Muhammad's army as having an defensive position. Also, it rightly decribes that when the Arabs noticed there was a power arising to rival the Quraysh, there were more converts. People like to be on the winning side I guess. :shrug: Or perhaps they merely took a closer look and liked what they saw. The end result? Instead of a bunch of warring tribes, the very same tribes sat down together as brothers, and through that greater unity were able to forge a civilization. I would argue that Islam, considering the background in which it arose, could brook no tolerance for images, because the danger of lapsing back into a disunified bunch of warring tribes was too great. In addition, it might be seen as something of a religious "course correction" -- getting away from the Christian practices of icons. Yes, in early Christianity the iconoclasts lost the argument, but the iconoclasts came back in Islam. Since the Baha'i Faith was mention, it is worth mentioning at this point that there is no such prohibition in the Baha'i Faith, other than not using images of the Founders. Ah, but you see, I would say that a theology can encourage education and the advancement of science. And Muhammad did exactly that. We see Islam as backwards today, but that is not remotely representative of the flowering of that religion's civilization. At the time when Europeans didn't bathe and sickness was rampant, when Charlemagne boasted 800 whole books in his library, the Muslim world had lighted streets, sanitation, and an average city would have a library with 10,000 volumes. Truly, in 1200 A.D. where would you rather live? I would pick Damascus hands down. Today? Ah, no...I'll stay here, thanks. Your doing both. I know I"m rambling too...hopefully making sense a bit as well. Yes, and I believe the difference is due to the different conditions and needs of the time, and that's all. Just as you see a change in other ordinances within a religion, like Jews can be polygamous, Christians cannot, Muslims can, Baha'is cannot. There are reasons for those changes and they are clear when you look at historical context. I do not see where monotheism => violence. Again, if you look at the formative periods of monotheistic religions, you see people coming together who formerly would not have associated with each other. They come together in peace. In early Christianity Jews and Greeks and Romans other "barbarians" all came together. It would've been unheard of outside of Christianity at the time. Just as in early Islam, Jews, Christians, and pagans came together in peace to forge a civilization. Yes, they do fall off the wagon eventually, but while the ride is fine...why walk? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (IMO another foot in the wrong direction BUT with the balance of “most accurate” ... this helps soften the step, but it's still a step in the wrong direction) That's true. The same is true of every religion of a sufficient age. Ever seen Theravadan and Mahayana Buddhists spat? You'd think it was another religion. I am not sure about the accuracy of this, because the attitude is changing. They are not consider mainline Christians, but then Mormons do not define themselves as mainline either. The problem is, religious belief, money and power can become so intertwined that it is well nigh impossible to find out which of them is the cause of violence. But a fair minded person will look to the ultimate definition of a religion and see if the acts of the adherents match the original directions. "Let there be no compulsion in religion." That's in the Qu'ran. Think the Taliban knows that? Their actions say they do not. Sure, by their lights they are acting by their religious belief. The problem is, it has nothing to do with the religion beliefs taught by the book that defines their religion.
You make some good points Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Really clear headed. I'd like to see the death by heat parody Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is hard to unwind religious belief, money, power, custom, culture perhaps even language itself. The concepts: One True God One True Book One Last Prophet Do these seem like ideology's that could be potentially ripe for abuse, war, violence, division and harm? I'm still wondering what modern Buddhist scholars think of such concepts? Divisive? Cohesive? Both? Lets take for example - polygamy. Jewish, Muslim, Native American, ... and all around common custom. I'm sure it is beneficial in some sense of the word. Presuming there is something of value in an alpha male then why not use his DNA for the next generation? If it's a tribe everyone will have some measure of relatedness to the next generation. Survival of the fittest. However, I still think that if a person were truely forward looking they'd (hopefully) see a day when women would be of equal standing. (Even Roman's gave women a break if they could produce 3 children [4 for a slave]). People do realize deep down that their female counterpart if more than a baby factory. So, with this in mind, it seems a more clever religion would be founded by a person who may allow polygamy but at the exact same time discourage it by not practicing it himself. If we compare populations of monogamists with polygamists which do you think will amass a critical number of men that have formed strong enough bonds with a woman to demand she be treated his equal because he thinking of her as his equal? One would think that both populations would have such men - but which is more likely to produce the most of such minded men? Now with this in mind do I think of One True God, One True Book, One Last Prophet. Sure there probably is a benefit for the community in such a beleif system. But how about their neighbors who believe in a different God, a different book a different prophet. We know humans war. It seems to me that such an ideology is only all too fitting for justifying war. Don't get me wrong. Everyone makes war. As I understand even the people of Easter Island made war with one another (although I think it was slavers that were really the ones responsible for their decimation) nevertheless I think people will find an excuse to make war one way or the other. So why give them one? I'm still curious as to you ideas on Buddhism and One True God, One True Book, One Last Prophet. Actually, likewise for the Baha'i faith. Cheers, Michael
Oh, I'm so glad you put this in a separate post. That last response was so long I didn't catch half a dozen typing mistakes as it is. I do think the idea that "our Founder is the last/only/is God" is a source of violence and can lead to the notion that others are wrong and thus should be killed or oppressed, yes. But again, look at Islam carefully...the Qu'ran specifically says that "People of the Book" are followers of God and are not to be messed with. And it specifically mentions which religions fall under that. Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, pretty much. In early Islam this tolerance was practiced. Now? Uh, clearly not. Again, I don't see monotheism as an issue that causes violence. It is intolerance that causes the violence, and monotheism does not imply violence. If it did, the Baha'is would not be known for their efforts to foster peace. Anything that creates an us vs. them mentality can lead to violence. You correctly point out that understandings that one's religion is superior, that one's book is perfect, and so forth, all have the potential to lead in that direction. I merely disagree that monotheism belongs in that list. If you are thinking that Eastern religions have no history of violence, I would suggest more reading in Eastern history would be beneficial. Certainly there was oppression and violence when Buddhism arose...that is why it moved largely out of India and went to the East -- to escape oppression. In the West we are largely unaware of anything in Asian history earlier than the 20th century, so not knowing there is violence and oppression and religious strife, we assume there was none. Assuming such a thing based on a lack of evidence doesn't strike me as a very wise way to go about things, though. The better assumption would be to simply state "we don't know" and get thee to a good university library. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for Buddhism, while Buddhists are open to the idea that there will be more Buddhas, do not think they are so open to the idea that another Buddha has actually appeared. There are conflicting claims over centuries, and ignoring the veracity of any such claims, we can see there is still strife created between those who do and do not accept such claims. Yes, you too can get kicked out of your sangha for being the Buddhist equivalent of a "heretic." (Ever run across a Nichiren Buddhist?) We could go on to examine whether religion or the cultural ability to look at the whole rather than the parts came first. There does seem to be a difference between east and west that goes, for all I know, back to the days when humanity split out in different directions from Central Asia. Then we get to the question...are Dharmic religions more tolerant because Asian cultures tend to be more holistic in their worldview? Or are Asian cultures more holistic in their worldview because Dharmic religions taught them that? Honestly I have no idea where I would even start to look to resolve such a question. Certainly in the West we look at the parts more than the whole. We think of the divine as immanent rather than transcendent. We look for "one" answer to medical illness, while Ayurveda and Chinese medicine have a holistic view. And so it goes. Let me end this once again with a comment on monotheism and the Baha'i Faith, so that I can further address the question of whether monotheism is intertwined with intolerance. Yes, Baha'is are monotheistic, but they view everyone else's "gods" as just different descriptions of the same thing, so what everyone else is worshipping is really no skin off their noses. If Hindus want to use multiple "gods" to represent what Baha'is would call "the attributes of God", well, what of it? It's all talking about the same thing. And there's still that Absolute Brahman lurking in the backround, that "uncreated, unformed" something or other that sounds vaguely...creatorlike. If Christians want to assert that Christ is God, no, Baha'is do not believe that, but they are quite happy to believe the claims of Christ and believe that He spoke for God, which is close enough for them, if not for the Christians. Even the pagans, for all we know, had their versions of input from God. The belief of Baha'is is that every religion except a very very few spring from God. There is no "list" of invalid religions, nor is there likely to be one anytime soon. Find some other Baha'is online and see if you can get them to cough up a list. You might get them to whisper quietly "Jim Jones" or "CoS"...maybe. This belief that everyone is really worshipping the same thing anyway makes it rather difficult for Baha'is to think they have some need to go pound on some heretics somewhere, despite the Baha'i monotheistic view. Even the atheists get a bye, as Baha'i texts clearly state that religion should be a cause of unity, and if it isn't, it is a religious act to stay away from it. And surely some of us here have been in a place where we looked around our immediate environs and saw religion causing more disunity, and went away from it. That certainly was my reason for staying away for many years.
Thanks for the post Booko. Very nice Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have a soft spot for Baha'i. They're like the underdog. You know what I mean? The few I have met are quite nice they also seem to integrate very well with the multicultural Sydney-Australian landscape. They bring their Iranian culture and food to enrich our wayward fare Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Although I don't know their exact beliefs it seems they take a more eastern oriented view. Or so it appears. That said, the Baha'i I knew remind me kind of like Christians for some reason? The thing I like the best is their propensity to promote female equality. Or so it seems. Michael
Booko, One thing else I am curious as to your opinion on. This concerning Islam and the European enlightenment and renaissance. You see, I sometimes hear these very convoluted statements from Muslims such as "Without Islam Europeans would... (even could)... never have entered the Renaissance. :bugeye: Then they usually go on to state that this was because the Muslims "saved" Greek texts. [talk about an odd pat-oneself on the back!] Firstly, I'll note this is an odd statement to make. "Islam" sparked the renaissance by preserving the polytheistic Greek Philosophies? Seems a sad attempt to me? No? I mean, if the Greeks and Romans were able to build their civilization from the ground up with out any help from “Islam” surely they could do so again. Especially considering they didn’t turn into backwards barbarians. They still had math, literature, art, wine etc… (I’m referring to Florence and Venice). Secondly, Byzantine Lands were conquered by Arabs. Egyptian and Syrian monasteries did contain many Greek and Roman texts. After conquering these territories Muslims did attain some of these texts. By attain I mean had access to these as spoils of war. Is this how "Islam" preserved Greek texts? As spoils of Holy war? See where I am coming from? Thirdly, any Greek texts would have been translated into Syriac and/or Hebrew and then into Arabic by Xian and Jewish not Islamic Muslim scholars. These guys would have been living under occupation. So, again, I fail to see how "Islam" has anything at all to do with anything other than it is the religion of the people who conquered many lands. Fourth, in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy Bernard Dod writes 'a tenacious legend that the West learnt its Aristotle via translations from the Arabic, but the fact is the West only turned to Arabic in default of the more intelligible Greek-Latin ones' Frederick Copleston writes in A History of Philosophy,) that 'it is a mistake to imagine that the Latin scholastics were entirely dependent upon translations from Arabic or even that translation from the Arabic always preceded translation from the Greek.' 'translation from the Greek generally preceded translation from the Arabic.' In A History of Twelfth—Century Western Philosophy Peter Dronke writes 'most of the works of Aristotle...were translated directly from the Greek, and only exceptionally by way of an Arabic intermediary.' In The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy: 'The Republic of Plato, though translated into Arabic, was not subsequently translated into Latin.' This should be noted that this is the only work of Plato translated directly into Arabic and that it did not make its way back to the West. You see for the most part Muslims used Xian and Jewish scribes to translate into Arabic. They for the most part translated from Syriac or Hebrew. As I understood they, for the most part, worked on Neo-Platonic texts. So, with this in mind, I’d like to revisit 14th -16th century in Florence, Siena, Venice. Lets think about art, dance and sculptor. 1) How did “Islam” or even the Muslims or even the Middle East influence Leonardo da Vinci? His painting style is nothing like that of even the Middle East. 2) How about Michelangelo Buonarroti? Take “David” for example. His work would have been heresy in the Middle East. How then was he influenced? 3) Ballet emerged in Italy during the 15th century. How is this a product of Islam? 4) Assuming there was a William Shakespeare in 15-1600s England. How was he influenced by Islam? Lastly, if one were to take that long view of the Middle East. The great advancements made from the times of the Egyptians through to the Romans on the Western part of the ME. Now compare this with the achievements made under their Theocracy. You’ll find the pace actually SLOWS. Actually the eastern Mediterranean cities saw a complete collapse of their economies and return to subsistence farming. Much known how in the arts (like sculptor) was lost - forever. The greatest advancements under Islamic rule were made the FURTHER away from the center of Islam one got – European SPAIN and during a time referred to as the Jewish Golden Age. We know that progress continued in Europe after Christendom and monotheocracy. But it was slow. It was hindered. I see no difference under Middle East theocratic Islam - especially by the 14th century. Islam (just like Xianity) in the end, retarded civil advancement. Oh advancement continued - just at a much slower pace until it is so slow we call it stagnate. And, I’d hardly credit the initial surge of productivity in the 700s to “Islam”. Why not credit the Chinese golden age to Shamanism – I mean, it occurred post-their crushing defeat (80 million dead) by the Mongolians. Shamanism was Mongolian religion. Mongolian ruled China. Heh, must be Shamanism sparked the Chinese Golden Age. Luckily it only cost the lives of 80 million Chinese. Do you see my point? Anyway, I’d like to hear your thoughts, Michael PS: Ever hear that Seasame Street song: Which one of these is not like the other, which one of these doesn't belong. Egyptian Golden Age Greek Golden Age Chinese Golden Age Roman Golden Age Persian Golden Age Islamic Golden Age Why "Islamic" Golden Age? Why a religious Golden Age? Islamic Golden Age is oxymoron. Yet Muslims repeat it so often they even have non-Muslims saying it! Haaaa talk about a nice peace of Orwellian propaganda!
That depends what you consider Protestantism. The creation of the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Reformation had completely different motivations (religious reform vs political power). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Anglican_Communion:
