Are the Abrahamic Religions Inherently Authoritarian?

[Aupmanyav]

Ah, yes, peace and no compulsion. Great.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What Samuel said in 1.8 (with God's approval), was certainly not edifying. He was trying to frighten the people. For what purpose? To retain the kingship with his sons?

<ignore-list>

I really should have more patience, but ...​

</ignore-list>

 

[epronovost]

I believe Islam supported the progressive reform of the institution of slavery (recognising it as a fact of life at the time) with the goal of its ultimate abolishment. So both the Qur'an and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) emphasised improving the conditions of slaves through humane and kind treatment of them and strongly encouraged setting them free.

Muslim countries abolished slavery pretty much at the same time than the rest of the world (around the half of the 19th century, except for Turkey which made in 1933 and Egypt in 1904) and for the same reason. Note that slavery is still practiced in several muslim country today most notoriously in Qatar and Saudi Arabia The early Muslim Empire of the 7th and 8th century was a glutting itself on slaves. Vikings made a small fortune trading slaves they captured on raids to the Arabs who needed them to work in silver mines. The treatment of slaves in the Qur'an is actually comparable to the treatment of slaves in the Middle-East. It's almost identical to the rules surrounding slavery in Ancient Egypt 2000 prior to the Qu'ran. Rules in the Middle-East were more supple and less tyrannical than in Greece and Rome which were themselves not as bad as those during the infamous black slavery.

I don't believe that Islam is necessarily misogynistic. It all comes down to interpretation. The Wikipedia page on the subject of Women in Islam Women in Islam - Wikipedia gives a useful overview of the subject.

Looking down at history and even up to today in, it seems that, if it all comes down to interpretation, the universally understood interpretation was that yes, Islam should be misogynistic.

It is my personal view that not everything in the Qur'an and sayings and traditions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is applicable at all times and in all places. I believe that some of it is universal and some of it was only applicable in that time and place, and that that is how it was meant to be.

That seems a good idea in my opinion.

 

[Heyo]

@The_Fisher_King

The challenge of trying to harmonize abrahamic religions with humanist and democratic values is that all their scriptures make an apology of slavery and misogyny amongst other things. One of those two things alone is enough to make a society authoritarian. Any harmonization would require to abandon completely certain parts of the scriptures or to be very "creative" when it comes to interpretation.

Christianity, or at least part of it, has managed exactly that. The humanist movement had a big Christian participation in the beginning. Humanism evolved into secular humanism not before the 1920s. It took the west and Christianity centuries and it is still a work in progress but Islam can do it, maybe even faster than in centuries.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Muslim countries abolished slavery pretty much at the same time than the rest of the world (around the half of the 19th century, except for Turkey which made in 1933 and Egypt in 1904) and for the same reason. Note that slavery is still practiced in several muslim country today most notoriously in Qatar and Saudi Arabia The early Muslim Empire of the 7th and 8th century was a glutting itself on slaves. Vikings made a small fortune trading slaves they captured on raids to the Arabs who needed them to work in silver mines. The treatment of slaves in the Qur'an is actually comparable to the treatment of slaves in the Middle-East. It's almost identical to the rules surrounding slavery in Ancient Egypt 2000 prior to the Qu'ran. Rules in the Middle-East were more supple and less tyrannical than in Greece and Rome which were themselves not as bad as those during the infamous black slavery.



Looking down at history and even up to today in, it seems that, if it all comes down to interpretation, the universally understood interpretation was that yes, Islam should be misogynistic.



That seems a good idea in my opinion.

The problem is the gulf between what the Qur'an and the Prophet (pbuh) taught/teaches and the way that the majority of Muslims have interpreted those teachings.

 

[iam1me]

The first sin, according to the Bible, was disobedience. Jesus' "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" can be interpreted as submitting to authority. Paul's command that women should follow their husbands is definitely authoritarian. And, without knowing, I'm pretty sure that the Qur'an is also, at least in part, authoritarian.
History also reflects that view. Most Islamic countries are monarchies, theocracies or failed or failing democracies. Christianity has been in bed with the powers that be for the most part of history and democracy has developed in the west in spite of Christianity more than because of it.
But was that inevitable? In 1 Samuel 8 YHVH objects to the idea of monarchy (though only because he didn't want to share his authority, not because of some liberal values). Can liberalism and/or democracy be found in scripture or in the interpretations of famous religious leaders? Are all religions of the book really authoritarian?

Sounds to me like you are skipping over major and obvious counter examples in scripture. The scriptures certainly teach respect for those in authority - and sees the government as a necessary part of society. However, that does not translate to "follow whatever the authorities say." Rather, the scriptures teach over and over again to do what you know is right over what the authorities say. One of the major stories in the Torah is of Moses - a man who was to afraid to speak for himself - confronting Pharaoh to free his people. Or look at David and how King Saul sought to kill him. David fled. Even when he had the opportunity to kill Saul he did not take it - and he punished the person who ultimately did. Look at Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the book of Daniel - who were sentenced to death by being thrown in the furnace because they refused to bow down to King Nebuchadnezzar's image. Jesus himself was constantly in conflict with the authorities of his day, especially of the Synagogue, who ultimately had him crucified.

Don't confuse encouraging respect for those in authority as the same as teaching people to blindly follow those authorities.

 

[1213]

...Can liberalism and/or democracy be found in scripture or in the interpretations of famous religious leaders? ...

By what the Bible tells, people were created free and I think it should be so also today (1 Sam. 8:6-20). I think all earthly governments are against what was the original situation. But obviously God has the authority, because He is the creator and has given life and can also end it.

 

[epronovost]

God has the authority, because He is the creator and has given life and can also end it.

Your parents have given you life and they can also kill you, should they? Does might make right.

 

[MJFlores]

The first sin, according to the Bible, was disobedience. Jesus' "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" can be interpreted as submitting to authority. Paul's command that women should follow their husbands is definitely authoritarian. And, without knowing, I'm pretty sure that the Qur'an is also, at least in part, authoritarian.
History also reflects that view. Most Islamic countries are monarchies, theocracies or failed or failing democracies. Christianity has been in bed with the powers that be for the most part of history and democracy has developed in the west in spite of Christianity more than because of it.
But was that inevitable? In 1 Samuel 8 YHVH objects to the idea of monarchy (though only because he didn't want to share his authority, not because of some liberal values). Can liberalism and/or democracy be found in scripture or in the interpretations of famous religious leaders? Are all religions of the book really authoritarian?

Have you experienced living in an authoritarian government?
If not, then you have to experience one to properly judge how life is like under a despot.

In an authoritarian government, you have no choice.
If a person violate a law, he can be detained for days and even months without any charges filed.
The detainee is tortured, intimidated and interrogated until he pass out.
If the detainee is female, it would be worse gender to be.

The dictatorship of Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos in the 1970s and 80s is historically remembered for its record of human rights abuses,[1][2] particularly targeting political opponents, student activists,[3] journalists, religious workers, farmers, and others who fought against the Marcos dictatorship. Based on the documentation of Amnesty International, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, and similar human rights monitoring entities,[4] historians believe that the Marcos dictatorship was marked by 3,257 known extrajudicial killings,[4] 35,000 documented tortures, 77 'disappeared', and 70,000 incarcerations.[5][6]

Some 2,520 of the 3,257 murder victims were tortured and mutilated before their bodies were dumped in various places for the public to discover - a tactic meant to sow fear among the public,[5][7] which came to be known as "salvaging."[8] Some bodies were even cannibalized.[9]

Human rights abuses of the Marcos dictatorship - Wikipedia

I was in my primary years in school when Martial Law was declared in my country and it ended when I was about to graduate from college. It is unfair to compare God with a human despot. Because God is good to everybody.

Matthew 5:45 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

If you do this, you will be children who are truly like your Father in heaven. He lets the sun rise for all people, whether they are good or bad. He sends rain to those who do right and to those who do wrong.

 

[epronovost]

Because God is good to everybody.

You might want to run that by women, homosexual, transexuals, slaves, Native Americans and several others. Abrahamic religious doctrine was central in to the oppression and suffering of these people.

 

[1213]

Your parents have given you life and they can also kill you, should they? Does might make right.

Humans don’t give life, humans reproduce. Humans have life in their cells and in right conditions cells can become a new human. In no part of that humans give life, they can only let it continue. If humans could give life, many childless couples would be happy.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The example is nothing else but an apology for authority.

"We do it for your own good." - Let me do what is good for me myself.

The welbeing of humanity is founded on such Authority, that is of knowledgeable wise, loving and just parents.

It starts with Parents and a child. A child submits to the parents out of love and respect. Firstly the child is given life, nurtured while it is helpless, guided in wisdom and life and when mature, a child then has the foundation of making wise choices.

That is also God's way and it is naught but Love for what was created.

When that foundation breaks down, so does humanity as a whole.

Regards Tony

 

[epronovost]

Humans don’t give life, humans reproduce. Humans have life in their cells and in right conditions cells can become a new human. In no part of that humans give life, they can only let it continue. If humans could give life, many childless couples would be happy.

So you agree that might makes right; that God is your God because he is strong.

PS: what makes you say that God didn't "reproduce life". He did made stuff in his own image. And sterile couples can have children thanks to in vitro fertilisation or even cloning if someone ever wanted to sell that service.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The challenge of trying to harmonize abrahamic religions with humanist and democratic values is that all their scriptures make an apology of slavery and misogyny amongst other things. One of those two things alone is enough to make a society authoritarian. Any harmonization would require to abandon completely certain parts of the scriptures or to be very "creative" when it comes to interpretation.

There is no Abrahamic religion. Its like you are referring to the LiberalConservativeDemocraticAutocratic policy. Its like blaming China for forks and Russia for hot sauce.

Muslim countries abolished slavery pretty much at the same time than the rest of the world (around the half of the 19th century, except for Turkey which made in 1933 and Egypt in 1904) and for the same reason. Note that slavery is still practiced in several muslim country today most notoriously in Qatar and Saudi Arabia The early Muslim Empire of the 7th and 8th century was a glutting itself on slaves. Vikings made a small fortune trading slaves they captured on raids to the Arabs who needed them to work in silver mines. The treatment of slaves in the Qur'an is actually comparable to the treatment of slaves in the Middle-East. It's almost identical to the rules surrounding slavery in Ancient Egypt 2000 prior to the Qu'ran. Rules in the Middle-East were more supple and less tyrannical than in Greece and Rome which were themselves not as bad as those during the infamous black slavery.

After England it was the USA which lobbied (and continues to lobby) other governments to eradicate slavery. With the decline of US influence may come a resurgence in slavery.

Islamic states did not get there about the same time as everyone else. England was the leader. William Wilberforce the preacher in England believed that God was against slavery, so he fought against legal slavery. By means of his Christian upbringing he valued his conscience above the status quo of what people said was right. He went against society, because he was taught conscience was a channel to God and to virtue. That would not have happened in many other societies where conscience was considered to be something that should be suppressed. He along with some co-conspirators got a bill through Parliament making slavery illegal. After England realized slavery was evil the USA eventually followed suit, and then the USA upon becoming influential began to lobby other countries to do the same.

It was the Christian idea of following conscience which was the key. This has also been the key to easing blue laws. Its why Christian countries can let people alone. Its why humanism can exist in a world where religion is as natural as itching. Its why we now have a world where slavery is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[epronovost]

There is no Abrahamic religion. Its like you are referring to the LiberalConservativeDemocraticAutocratic policy. Its like blaming China for forks and Russia for hot sauce.

Read again, I mentionned abrahamic religions. That's called a mark of plural which implies several religions which all share scriptures in common as well as several founding myths. There is such a thing as "abrahamic religions" and those abrahamic religions all supported slavery, misogyny and a variety of other repressive and cruel dogma for a long portion of their history.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Read again, I mentionned abrahamic religions. That's called a mark of plural which implies several religions which all share scriptures in common as well as several founding myths. There is such a thing as "abrahamic religions" and those abrahamic religions all supported slavery, misogyny and a variety of other repressive and cruel dogma for a long portion of their history.

Its a pack of 4 religions, really or five or more. Throwing Muslims, Christians and Jews together is arbitrary if you leave out the Vedics. You've left at the Vedics who also have Abraham, but they use the term 'Brahman'. They have different view of Abraham, very different but the difference is not greater than that between Jews and Muslims or Christians and Jews or Muslims and Jews. They're so similar and have so many story elements in common and have such common repressive and misogynistic elements, common wisdom, common common. But no, to you everything bad comes from 3 religions. Those are the cause of all human problems? It doesn't follow. They aren't why people pick on homosexuals. They aren't why people repress and enslave. I think you've got that wrong.

Most people in history have homophobic periods or periods in which they persecute homosexuals. The Mayans did. The Japanese did. Neither had any even remote connection to anything Jewish whatsoever. Society continually picks on someone, and homosexuals get their turn in rounds. People use whatever excuse to draw attention away from themselves and towards some group that has something they can persecute. The use of religion should be to relieve that persecution.

 

[epronovost]

Its a pack of 4 religions, really or five or more. Throwing Muslims, Christians and Jews together is arbitrary if you leave out the Vedics.

Chrisitan use the Old Testament, so do the Jews and the Muslims. The Vedic are thousands of years older than all those religions and no part of the Old Testament are used within Vedic texts. That they have superficial resemblence doesn't mean the belong to the same familly.

Most people in history have homophobic periods or periods in which they persecute homosexuals. The Mayans did. The Japanese did. Neither had any even remote connection to anything Jewish whatsoever. Society continually picks on someone, and homosexuals get their turn in rounds. People use whatever excuse to draw attention away from themselves and towards some group that has something they can persecute. The use of religion should be to relieve that persecution.

That doesn't excuse or diminish the fact that Abrahamic Religion have supported and made the apology of slavery, homophobia, misogyny and a variety of other crapulous beliefs.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. I'm an anarchist, myself.

 

[Heyo]

The welbeing of humanity is founded on such Authority, that is of knowledgeable wise, loving and just parents.

It starts with Parents and a child. A child submits to the parents out of love and respect. Firstly the child is given life, nurtured while it is helpless, guided in wisdom and life and when mature, a child then has the foundation of making wise choices.

That is also God's way and it is naught but Love for what was created.

When that foundation breaks down, so does humanity as a whole.

Regards Tony

That's an interesting position. Allow me to exaggerate it in order to make clear what it really implies.
The people are immature (like children) and the authorities (parents) are nurturing and guiding them for their own good.
So, as a goal in growing up, it is important to become an authoritarian leader. Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin are among the most mature people on earth.
Really?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's an interesting position. Allow me to exaggerate it in order to make clear what it really implies.
The people are immature (like children) and the authorities (parents) are nurturing and guiding them for their own good.
So, as a goal in growing up, it is important to become an authoritarian leader. Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin are among the most mature people on earth.
Really?

That is your thought as to what was offered, what you offered is not how I see a good parent.

The Bible says, by their fruits you will know them.

So why concentrate on bad apples?

Regards Tony