|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam. A religion of peace?
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do any younger Muslims who are from countries where polygamy is legal get involved in the secular polygamy movement, or is it kept entirely separate? It surprises me that there's no attempt to present polygamy in a more modern light by the Muslims who believe in it.
In a Muslim country where polygamy is legal there'd be no need for young people to present polygamy in a secular light, would there? They might do so for foreign consumption, perhaps, but do Muslims in those countries really care what secular Westerners think of them?
[ 08. August 2014, 13:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The only way the Western Left will give a damn about the Iraqi Christians is if the Israelis start bombing them. Of course if that happens, Evangelical Christians in the US and all other Neoconservatives will stop supporting the Iraqi Christians. As Obama is now authorizing air strikes against ISIS, let's hope Israel doesn't find a reason to attack what is left of the Christians in Iraq.
Now, the OP asked if Islam is a religion of peace. Subsequent posts have established that Mohammed is the Islamic ideal man. Given what we know about Mohammed, Islam can't really be a religion of peace if Mohammed is the ideal man. Well, at least, Islam can't be a religion of peace as peace is generally defined. Islam can be a religion of peace if by religion of peace you mean, "we won't be violent if you let us make all the rules and force you to follow them." If that is your definition of a religion of peace, then, yes, Islam is a religion of peace.
Also, I'm still waiting for an apples to apples comparison of Islam and Christianity. The OP gave examples from the life of Mohammed and his immediate predecessors. In response, the tu quo que (Christians do it too) crowd can only come up with examples that happened a 1000+ years after Jesus and the apostles died and partially in response to a few centuries of attempts Islam to conquer Christians. For instance, the First Crusade began in 1099. The Ummayyads began their conquest of Spain in 711 and the Battle of Tours happened in 732.
While I'm at it, the argument about the age of Islam is also self defeating. If Islam needs to evolve before it is as good as other religions, what good is Islam in the first place? Comparing 16th Century Protestants to Muslim fundamentalists is unfair and has not basis in actual history.
Lastly, Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. McVeigh said he wasn't a Christian. McVeigh claimed, "science was his religion." Calling McVeigh a Christian is as silly as calling Obama a Muslim. After all, Obama's school records from Indonesia clearly list Islam as his religion.
Eric Rudolph is a Christian terrorist. Currently, Mr. Rudolph lives in a supermax prison administered by the supposedly Christian Theocracy that is the United States government. Neither he nor any other Christian terrorist controls large swathes of land in multiple countries.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
the argument about the age of Islam is also self defeating. If Islam needs to evolve before it is as good as other religions, what good is Islam in the first place?
And if Christianity had to evolve before it became as good as other religions, what good was it in the first place?
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
What is it about this topic that causes rational intelligent Christians to be so eager to deny the existence of truth?
Whose truth?
Sophomoric nonsense, which I am sure you do not believe.
You seem to be very sure about what I do and do not believe.
Why is it nonsense to ask about truth and to imply a relativist or pluralist view?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
What is it about this topic that causes rational intelligent Christians to be so eager to deny the existence of truth?
Whose truth?
Sophomoric nonsense, which I am sure you do not believe.
You seem to be very sure about what I do and do not believe.
Why is it nonsense to ask about truth and to imply a relativist or pluralist view?
Let’s recap the context here.
I gave references to two incidents where Jesus and Muhammad were each confronted with a woman caught in adultery.
Jesus, as we all know, refused to condemn her. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, he said, and when the shamefaced crowd disbursed he told her to go and sin no more.
In contrast, Muhammad ordered the woman brought before him to be stoned, because that is what the text of the Torah demanded. He privileged that bare text not only over the life of the woman but also over the wishes of the Jews to whom the Torah had been given.
My modest contention is that in this comparison Jesus displayed the more moral action; that in this comparison the morality taught by him is truly superior to the morality displayed by Muhammad.
Do you disagree?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jesus the Marcionite strikes again. Or not as the case may be.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
the argument about the age of Islam is also self defeating. If Islam needs to evolve before it is as good as other religions, what good is Islam in the first place?
And if Christianity had to evolve before it became as good as other religions, what good was it in the first place?
Christianity would be no good whatsoever if it had to evolve to be as good as other religions. I don't think Christianity had to evolve to be as good as other religions. I suspect most Muslims wouldn't make such a self refuting claim about Islam either.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do any younger Muslims who are from countries where polygamy is legal get involved in the secular polygamy movement, or is it kept entirely separate? It surprises me that there's no attempt to present polygamy in a more modern light by the Muslims who believe in it.
In a Muslim country where polygamy is legal there'd be no need for young people to present polygamy in a secular light, would there? They might do so for foreign consumption, perhaps, but do Muslims in those countries really care what secular Westerners think of them?
I said younger Muslims who are FROM countries where polygamy is legal - I meant those living in the UK and elsewhere in the West.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
BA - all those on the left that I know are deeply concerned for Iraqi Christians, myself included. It may be different in the US, but it's certainly a concern for myself and others I know.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
What is it about this topic that causes rational intelligent Christians to be so eager to deny the existence of truth?
Whose truth?
Sophomoric nonsense, which I am sure you do not believe.
You seem to be very sure about what I do and do not believe.
Why is it nonsense to ask about truth and to imply a relativist or pluralist view?
Let’s recap the context here.
I gave references to two incidents where Jesus and Muhammad were each confronted with a woman caught in adultery.
Jesus, as we all know, refused to condemn her. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, he said, and when the shamefaced crowd disbursed he told her to go and sin no more.
In contrast, Muhammad ordered the woman brought before him to be stoned, because that is what the text of the Torah demanded. He privileged that bare text not only over the life of the woman but also over the wishes of the Jews to whom the Torah had been given.
My modest contention is that in this comparison Jesus displayed the more moral action; that in this comparison the morality taught by him is truly superior to the morality displayed by Muhammad.
Do you disagree?
You are assuming that letting somebody off is more moral than doing what the law says.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
the argument about the age of Islam is also self defeating. If Islam needs to evolve before it is as good as other religions, what good is Islam in the first place?
And if Christianity had to evolve before it became as good as other religions, what good was it in the first place?
Christianity would be no good whatsoever if it had to evolve to be as good as other religions. I don't think Christianity had to evolve to be as good as other religions. I suspect most Muslims wouldn't make such a self refuting claim about Islam either.
Christianity evolved for 1700 years before trying to abolish slavery.
Judaism always forbade slavery.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No it didn't. Slavery is a part of the OT. Jews participated in the slave trade.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
And the Iraqi non-Christian victims. Just because they are some sort of weird offshoot of something or other doesn't make them any less worth protecting.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do any younger Muslims who are from countries where polygamy is legal get involved in the secular polygamy movement, or is it kept entirely separate? It surprises me that there's no attempt to present polygamy in a more modern light by the Muslims who believe in it.
In a Muslim country where polygamy is legal there'd be no need for young people to present polygamy in a secular light, would there? They might do so for foreign consumption, perhaps, but do Muslims in those countries really care what secular Westerners think of them?
I said younger Muslims who are FROM countries where polygamy is legal - I meant those living in the UK and elsewhere in the West.
I don't know to what extent young people from those countries really mix with young non-Muslims when they come to the West. My impression is that they'd mostly hang out with each other, just as the Chinese ones do. (It's a big temptation, because there are so many foreign students now anyway.) What this probably means is that, no, they probably don't really care what secular Westerners think.
Some overseas Muslim men who come to the West to study are open to having relationships with Western non-Muslim women, but they probably realise that it's not in their interests to promote the cause of polygamy if they want to have relationships with most of these women. Most Western women still like the idea of monogamy, even if they don't achieve it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Still not true
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
My modest contention is that in this comparison Jesus displayed the more moral action; that in this comparison the morality taught by him is truly superior to the morality displayed by Muhammad.
Do you disagree?
You are assuming that letting somebody off is more moral than doing what the law says.
Don't expand the question into a strawman just so you can duck it,
Which religious founder behaved in the most moral way and displayed the superior morality in this specific comparison? Jesus or Muhammad?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The only way the Western Left will give a damn about the Iraqi Christians is if the Israelis start bombing them.
My giving a damn about Iraqis is not dependent on their religion.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Judaism always forbade slavery.
Only if you redefine "slavery" to not include slavery.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If it's probably bollocks, why would you expect a serious academic debunking to even exist? I've seen no scholarly refutations of this ground-breaking book, either...
Because there is a considerable amount of historical and linguistic data being used in the argument against Muhammad's existence.
[...]
Again, as I have said, it's probably bunk. But I have not so far seen a direct refutation of the theories. The opponents are not saying things like "It is false to claim that there is no early documented mention of Muhammad". They are rather attacking the counter-suggestions as incompatible with other evidence. So it seems to me that at least there are some serious problems with the early history of Islam, which perhaps have not been discussed enough prior to this challenge.
Here's something direct: Ohlig's anthology "Early Islam" is reviewed here by Daniel Birnstiel (Institut für Studien der Kultur und Religion des Islam, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main), who calls out numerous detailed faults in the specific historical, linguistic, and numismatic aspects of the Persian-Christian-heresy-conspiracy theory of the origin of Islam. The reviewer agrees that traditional Islamic readings of contemporary sources have been problematic, but apparently concludes that these guys are pretty much full of crap.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The reviewer agrees that traditional Islamic readings of contemporary sources have been problematic, but apparently concludes that these guys are pretty much full of crap.
Looks like it... I think the linguistic issues are key. If the idea of Syriac roots of the qur'an and the interpretation of Muhammad as title rather than name can be conclusively rejected, then this theory of Muhammad's non-existence is pretty much dead. I would much like to see some response of the defenders of this theory to this.
However, it really seems to be the case that there is a lack of direct evidence from the time of Muhammad's activities, with clear evidence only appearing about 60 years after his death for the first time. I find that rather surprising, to be honest.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The reviewer agrees that traditional Islamic readings of contemporary sources have been problematic, but apparently concludes that these guys are pretty much full of crap.
Looks like it... I think the linguistic issues are key. If the idea of Syriac roots of the qur'an and the interpretation of Muhammad as title rather than name can be conclusively rejected, then this theory of Muhammad's non-existence is pretty much dead. I would much like to see some response of the defenders of this theory to this.
However, it really seems to be the case that there is a lack of direct evidence from the time of Muhammad's activities, with clear evidence only appearing about 60 years after his death for the first time. I find that rather surprising, to be honest.
I am not an expert on any of this but that review did seem to me to be rather nibbling round the edges. And I would love to know how a word on a coin can be "unambiguously" a proper name rather than a title.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Judaism always forbade slavery.
Only if you redefine "slavery" to not include slavery.
Or if you redefine, as leo has, 'Judaism' and 'always'. (We're back to that Scotsman again.)
[ 09. August 2014, 12:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The reviewer agrees that traditional Islamic readings of contemporary sources have been problematic, but apparently concludes that these guys are pretty much full of crap.
Looks like it... I think the linguistic issues are key. If the idea of Syriac roots of the qur'an and the interpretation of Muhammad as title rather than name can be conclusively rejected, then this theory of Muhammad's non-existence is pretty much dead. I would much like to see some response of the defenders of this theory to this.
However, it really seems to be the case that there is a lack of direct evidence from the time of Muhammad's activities, with clear evidence only appearing about 60 years after his death for the first time. I find that rather surprising, to be honest.
I am not an expert on any of this but that review did seem to me to be rather nibbling round the edges. And I would love to know how a word on a coin can be "unambiguously" a proper name rather than a title.
Based on IngoB's earlier description, I'd say the parts debunked in the review weren't "edges" - they were the foundation for this whole revisionist project.
I'm not at all sure how much weight to give to an alleged lack of direct evidence of Mohammed's activities; is present knowledge of that time and place sufficiently complete that we know of specific items of evidence that are suspiciously absent? That seems like an argument
In any case, this particular hypothesis seems pretty fantastic. For example (as noted in your Spiegel article) if early Muslims were really Persian Christians and Mohammed never existed, it seems very odd that they would make him up and simultaneously demote Christ to such a minor character in the Koran. I find this kind of objection fairly persuasive, if not necessarily conclusive.
Some kind of revision may be justified, but this particular revision seems more than a little wacky.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
I have just seen a picture of a beheaded girl of maybe 4 years of age, from Northern Iraq. So I looked into the ship to see what the shipmates were saying about the crisis in Northern Iraq, for Christians and other minorities. And I find them bickering about the relative merits of two religions. How about prayer and action to help those who need help? ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Based on IngoB's earlier description, I'd say the parts debunked in the review weren't "edges" - they were the foundation for this whole revisionist project.
Perhaps. But of course to say that the theory is debunked is to assign a lot of authority to that review and its arguments, which are rather limited in scope. For example, the argument about Syriac roots of the qur'an has book length, and thus is unlikely to be refuted as a whole simply by one or two errors, even if those in fact really are errors as claimed. The review attempts a rhetorical shortcut there by doubting the qualifications of the author over a few issues. Since I have quite literally no idea about any of this, I would have to see the response from the "revisionists" to this critique to start forming some kind of opinion which side has the better case.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'm not at all sure how much weight to give to an alleged lack of direct evidence of Mohammed's activities; is present knowledge of that time and place sufficiently complete that we know of specific items of evidence that are suspiciously absent?
Well, unlike Jesus Muhammad is supposed to have acquired massive status in a political, cultural and military sense during his lifetime. And this is also a over 600 years after Christ, so closer to us in time, and all this happened in what was a rather cultured part of the word (not is some "dark age slums" of Northern Europe). I find it quite amazing then that there doesn't seem to be any direct evidence for his existence until about 60 years after his death. No writings, no inscriptions, no coins, nothing.
I also would say that the story "Persian empire beats the snot out of the Byzantine empire" sounds inherently more likely than "charismatic leader rallies hitherto unimportant Arabian tribes into a veritable military force that then beats the snot out of the Byzantine empire."
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In any case, this particular hypothesis seems pretty fantastic. For example (as noted in your Spiegel article) if early Muslims were really Persian Christians and Mohammed never existed, it seems very odd that they would make him up and simultaneously demote Christ to such a minor character in the Koran. I find this kind of objection fairly persuasive, if not necessarily conclusive.
True, that seems a bit odd, to say the least. However, the theory seems to be less that it was Persian heretic Christians who did this (I may have contributed to this impression by loose writing), but rather that Islam arose in an eventual Arab take over of what the Persian heretic Christians did. Still, I guess one would expect at least some recorded pushback against the imposition of an Arab "reinterpretation" of a religion for political purposes.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The only way the Western Left will give a damn about the Iraqi Christians is if the Israelis start bombing them.
My giving a damn about Iraqis is not dependent on their religion.
Same here, which is why I also give a damn about the Shi'a and Yazidis which seem to be people the right doesn't give a damn about.
[ 09. August 2014, 13:34: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
My modest contention is that in this comparison Jesus displayed the more moral action; that in this comparison the morality taught by him is truly superior to the morality displayed by Muhammad.
Do you disagree?
You are assuming that letting somebody off is more moral than doing what the law says.
Don't expand the question into a strawman just so you can duck it,
Which religious founder behaved in the most moral way and displayed the superior morality in this specific comparison? Jesus or Muhammad?
You still fail to understand that there are differing views about what 'morality' means.
I'll give it one last try:
For some, morality is about upholding law.
Others regard the law as less than moral.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You still fail to understand that there are differing views about what 'morality' means.
I know there are differing views! In fact I have repeatedly given an example to you of differing views on what 'morality' means in one specific context - Jesus' view and Muhammad's view on whether a Jewish woman caught in adultery should be stoned. What I was trying to get you to answer, and I accept that you won't but I'm not sure why, is whether or not you agree that Jesus' view (viz, don't stone the adulteress) is the better view of what morality is and represents the superior moral teaching.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I also would say that the story "Persian empire beats the snot out of the Byzantine empire" sounds inherently more likely than "charismatic leader rallies hitherto unimportant Arabian tribes into a veritable military force that then beats the snot out of the Byzantine empire."
We know the Persian Empire had just beaten the snot out of the Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine Empire had just beaten the snot back. The Byzantines had just lost Egypt and then reclaimed it and pressed hard into the heart of the Persian Empire, as far as Iraq, prompting a series of coups in the Persian Empire. So it was rather a good time to be a charismatic leader rallying a bunch of hitherto unimportant Arabian tribes. Note also that the conquests largely happened under Umar after Muhammad's death.
Byzantine history itself is apparently short of contemporary accounts in this period.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No it didn't. Slavery is a part of the OT. Jews participated in the slave trade.
I said Jews - the OT is about 'hebrews', 'Israelites' etc.
Post 70 CE Judaism opposed slavery,
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Still not true
This says that any Jewish involvement was minuscule, marginal but that some pseudohistorians distorted the available research to write anti-Semitic polemics
Might they be your source for that assertion?
Do you even read your own links?
quote:
Thus, the Talmud (circa 200–500 CE) contains an extensive set of laws governing slavery, which is more detailed, and different from the original laws found in the Jewish Bible.
The major change found in the Talmud's slavery laws is that a single set of rules, with a few exceptions, governs both Jewish slaves and non-Jewish slaves. Another change was that the automatic release of Jewish slaves after 7 years is replaced by indefinite slavery, in conjunction with a process whereby the owner could — under certain situations — release the slave by a written document (a manumission). However, historian Josephus wrote that the seven year automatic release was still in effect if the slavery was a punishment for a crime the slave committed (as opposed to voluntary slavery due to poverty). In addition, the notion of Canaanite slaves from the Jewish Bible is expanded to all non-Jewish slaves.) contains an extensive set of laws governing slavery, which is more detailed, and different from the original laws found in the Jewish Bible.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is the only form of slavery that counts.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cathscats:
I have just seen a picture of a beheaded girl of maybe 4 years of age, from Northern Iraq. So I looked into the ship to see what the shipmates were saying about the crisis in Northern Iraq, for Christians and other minorities. And I find them bickering about the relative merits of two religions. How about prayer and action to help those who need help?
I've started a dedicated prayer thread in All Saints Cathscats.
For action, there are various options, but it would be a tangent to discuss them here. Purg. is a place for discussion and although it might come across as bickering sometimes in the face of tragedy, it's worthwhile to consider the questions raised by events imv.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Based on IngoB's earlier description, I'd say the parts debunked in the review weren't "edges" - they were the foundation for this whole revisionist project.
Perhaps. But of course to say that the theory is debunked is to assign a lot of authority to that review and its arguments, which are rather limited in scope. For example, the argument about Syriac roots of the qur'an has book length, and thus is unlikely to be refuted as a whole simply by one or two errors, even if those in fact really are errors as claimed. The review attempts a rhetorical shortcut there by doubting the qualifications of the author over a few issues. Since I have quite literally no idea about any of this, I would have to see the response from the "revisionists" to this critique to start forming some kind of opinion which side has the better case.
On the other hand, if the mainstream thinks the revisionists are easily-dismissed cranks, you're not likely to see a thorough debate, as mainstream scholars will probably think of better things to do with their time. quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'm not at all sure how much weight to give to an alleged lack of direct evidence of Mohammed's activities; is present knowledge of that time and place sufficiently complete that we know of specific items of evidence that are suspiciously absent?
Well, unlike Jesus Muhammad is supposed to have acquired massive status in a political, cultural and military sense during his lifetime. And this is also a over 600 years after Christ, so closer to us in time, and all this happened in what was a rather cultured part of the word (not is some "dark age slums" of Northern Europe). I find it quite amazing then that there doesn't seem to be any direct evidence for his existence until about 60 years after his death. No writings, no inscriptions, no coins, nothing.
Without any scholarly background in the field, I'd have a hard time deciding whether the evidentiary situation was "amazing" or not. It would be interesting to know if this is, in fact, seen as a problem of interest to mainstream historians. quote:
I also would say that the story "Persian empire beats the snot out of the Byzantine empire" sounds inherently more likely than "charismatic leader rallies hitherto unimportant Arabian tribes into a veritable military force that then beats the snot out of the Byzantine empire."
Except that then everybody has to totally forget that it was Persian Christians who done it for the next 1400 years - including the Persians themselves. Talk about the awkwardness of missing evidence.
By the way - you don't suppose the Byzantines happen to mention who exactly was beating the snot out of them? I'm imagining a bloody "Watch out for the ..." scrawled in blood on a mosaic somewhere, but trailing off into incomprehensibility...
[E.T.A - Didn't see Dafyd's post.]
[ 09. August 2014, 15:10: Message edited by: Dave W. ]
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Tu quo que crowd here. What, Christians didn't engage in wholesale mass murder until over a thousand years after Jesus? In which alternate universe was this?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You still fail to understand that there are differing views about what 'morality' means.
I know there are differing views! In fact I have repeatedly given an example to you of differing views on what 'morality' means in one specific context - Jesus' view and Muhammad's view on whether a Jewish woman caught in adultery should be stoned. What I was trying to get you to answer, and I accept that you won't but I'm not sure why, is whether or not you agree that Jesus' view (viz, don't stone the adulteress) is the better view of what morality is and represents the superior moral teaching.
Comparison is futile, different times, different norms.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Demas;
quote:
In fact I have repeatedly given an example to you of differing views on what 'morality' means in one specific context - Jesus' view and Muhammad's view on whether a Jewish woman caught in adultery should be stoned. What I was trying to get you to answer, and I accept that you won't but I'm not sure why, is whether or not you agree that Jesus' view (viz, don't stone the adulteress) is the better view of what morality is and represents the superior moral teaching.
Actually Jesus' and Muhammad's views on the basic moral issue would seem to be identical – that the woman guilty of adultery should be stoned as the law required. People quoting this passage (e.g., Rob Bell in one of his 'Nooma' DVDs) often overlook that Jesus' response implies precisely that. It's just that he says it in such a way as to give the accusers a serious difficulty in carrying out the sentence. It's not perhaps absolutely clear how 'official' this was – though as I understand it so far, as the accusers had effectively appointed Jesus as judge, and as the person who should have thrown that first stone (the wronged husband) seems to have been absent, Jesus possibly did have the power officially to make such a declaration. But even if it wasn't 'official', people who had clearly set out to make trouble for Jesus would look very much in the wrong if they then acted as if they believed themselves sinless...!
There is then a potential further problem; if the NT account of Jesus is right, he of course was without sin and could have thrown the stone....
The fact is that Jesus here arguably acted immorally,except that as God incarnate he was (a) able to forgive the woman, and (b) knew that he himself would be paying the penalty in her place on the cross. It is that ability to forgive, and by implication to authorise his followers to forgive, that makes the difference here, and gives Christianity the superiority over Islam; not a difference of actual moral rule, but that Islam doesn't have a coherent theology of sacrificial forgiveness. Muhammad did not have that choice of forgiveness according to his theology.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the Orthodox might take issue with your understanding of the atonement there, Steve Langton.
I've heard an imam speak on one occasion and he addressed the issue of whether there was 'grace' and forgiveness in Islam. He'd been challenged about it by a vicar friend.
His answer was that there was and he cited various 'midrash' type instances in popular Islamic teaching to illustrate as much.
He didn't proof text from the Quran, though.
I think that it's invidious to make these kind of comparisons ... in terms of peacefulness or otherwise, what we have to go on with any religion is the fruit shown by its adherents. That's pretty mixed in all cases.
I'm a Christian by conviction but my Christianity doesn't necessarily depend on the value, merits or otherwise of anyone else's faith.
Of course, I believe Christianity to be true and Jesus to be the Way, the Truth and the Life ... but that doesn't mean that I make a check-list and tick off which attributes other religious figures and leaders may or may not have.
The bottom line for me, as a Christian is that Jesus is God Incarnate.
The Muslims don't believe that and neither do the Jews. Consequently, I am not a Muslim nor a Jew but a Christian.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There is a Hell thread about Islamic State at the moment, Cathscats. Started by Demas.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I think the Orthodox might take issue with your understanding of the atonement there, Steve Langton.
I think you also know from other threads that what I said above is a pretty minimalist statement of my view of the atonement. And I'm not too worried about the Orthodox, more about the teaching of Jesus, Paul, Peter and the NT generally.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I've heard an imam speak on one occasion and he addressed the issue of whether there was 'grace' and forgiveness in Islam. He'd been challenged about it by a vicar friend.
I'm not disputing that Islam has some concept of 'grace' - otherwise it wouldn't have much hope to offer its adherents, would it? But it is a rather different concept to the Christian doctrine, and I would say precisely because it doesn't have the challenging Christian concept of atonement.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
in terms of peacefulness or otherwise, what we have to go on with any religion is the fruit shown by its adherents. That's pretty mixed in all cases.
I suspect you more than most might guess where I'd go in response to that one - but I'll hold back for now....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[QB] And I'm not too worried about the Orthodox, more about the teaching of Jesus, Paul, Peter and the NT generally.
[QUOTE]
So the Orthodox aren't interested in the teaching of Jesus, Paul, Peter and the NT generally?
That'll be news to them ...
I'm not suggesting that Islam's concept of grace is the same as the Christian one - or Christian ones (plural) ...
There is more than one Christian view of grace.
That's why I cited the Orthodox - as an example of a Christian tradition that certainly has a concept of grace and a concept of the atonement - but one which operates in a different way to the one you are using.
Oranges are not the only fruit.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
So the Orthodox aren't interested in the teaching of Jesus, Paul, Peter and the NT generally?
I don't think I quite said that.... Of course if the Orthodox "aren't interested in the teaching of Jesus, Paul, Peter and the NT generally" I wouldn't have much interest in them and they wouldn't be much use to Jesus either, would they?
I repeat, I don't have a single simple view of the 'atoning work' of Jesus - though I would probably give primary place to the concept of God forgiving our debts. But the 'whole thing' is way beyond our imaginings, surely; we need to use every biblical resource to illumine it for us - even the proverbial 'PSA'. - fruit salad, anybody?
Now can we get back to discussing what I actually did say...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Do you even read your own links?
quote:
Thus, the Talmud (circa 200–500 CE) contains an extensive set of laws governing slavery, which is more detailed, and different from the original laws found in the Jewish Bible.
Yes - and did you not read the context that the history of this was based on anti-Semitic slurs?
[oode]
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
He did not read that because it isn't there. The Talmud regulates slavery. Hard to say that after 70 CE, Judaism opposed slavery when the Talmud regulates ownership of slaves. The article also gives multiple examples of Jews participating in the slave trade after the Middle Ages. What the article says is that how much they participated in the slave trade might have been exaggerated. Saying their Jewish participation in the slave trade might have been exaggerated is not saying that Judaism always condemned slavery. As a matter of fact, you've yet to offer one shred of evidence for that assertion.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
I wonder what Jewish slavery was like.
Slavery in Roman times wasn't as bad as plantation slavery in the US. If you had a good master you could learn a trade and be housed while you did your apprenticeship, and then buy your freedom. That's why some in Rome didn't mind becoming slaves - which is worth bearing in mind when slavery is mentioned in the NT by Paul.
Today call ourselves free, but if you want to live somewhere and call it your own, you will need a mortgage and have to pay someone for most of your working life for a tiny plot of land. Are we really that much more liberated ?
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
I wonder what Jewish slavery was like.
Slavery in Roman times wasn't as bad as plantation slavery in the US. If you had a good master you could learn a trade and be housed while you did your apprenticeship, and then buy your freedom. That's why some in Rome didn't mind becoming slaves - which is worth bearing in mind when slavery is mentioned in the NT by Paul.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Agreed!
As for Jewish slavery, there are pretty detailed rules in the Old Testament...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Comparison is futile, different times, different norms.
Fair enough. Would you agree then that Muhammad ordering the stoning of the woman was a product of its time and place, and although we may not condemn or judge him for reflecting the world he lived in, we should most certainly not take his example in this particular matter as being a good example to follow here and now?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Much like Samuel's commanding the genocide of the Amalekites in good faith?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Much like Samuel's commanding the genocide of the Amalekites in good faith?
Well yes. I think that would be a terrible example for someone to follow nowdays.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
