I am sorry, but I am left in the dark here.
Are you talking about real or hypothetical situations? Past, present or future?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Islam is unable to relate to the diverse contemporary cultures
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Are you talking about real or hypothetical situations? Past, present or future?
lukethethird
unknown member
Let me guess, you follow a religion that matters.
Fair enough.
This needs a lot of clarification.
If there is no Islaam, what are those billion plus people claiming allegiance to then? Why do they claim allegiance to Islaam if such does not exist?
In which sense is Islaam more individualistic than any other doctrine? It seems to me that it is not named "Submission" for no reason.
There is certainly a permanent tension between the call for obedience and the lack of a clear sense of what should be obeyed exactly.
I don't think it is fair to say that Islam is a scapegoat, though. If anything, it is the main cause of that state of affairs.
Has anyone ever been?
Do you expect anyone to ever be?
Would it be a good thing if such a people or government could ever be found or named?
It seems to me that Islaam is hardly a vague idea for the average Bahai. On the contrary, they are probably the best educated and most motivated defenders of Islaam's reputation.
It is very difficult to even imagine a history of Islaam post-Muhammad that developed in significantly different ways. The seeds of Islaam's inner conflict and misguidance are inherent to the doctrine itself.
In retrospect, even the Shia/Sunni split was all but unavoidable. There would necessarily be Muslims expecting something along the general lines of the Imams (living or promised spiritual leaders coming after the death of Muhammad), and just as naturally there would be those who would see such an expectation as dangerous heresy, since Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets.
By any honest measure, the failure of Islaam to deal constructively with that mismatch of expectations is a very significant flaw indeed. I for one reserve the right to conclude that a doctrine that fails to prepare to such a foreseeable situation was probably never particularly admirable in the first place.
There is perhaps no better testimonial as to how unavoidable the split was than the very fact that it has lasted so long and gives no sign of ever being resolvable, despite very clear directives in the Qur'an that Muslims should not turn against each other.
Last edited:
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
Augustus
…
That's a bit like saying the Reign of Terror was a product of the Enlightenment therefore nothing good could have come from it.
Ideas evolve over time, they don't magically appear fully formed out of a vacuum. Given that Christianity was obviously the single biggest influence on European culture, what makes you so confident that it had nothing to do with the culture that arose there?
How, for example, do you believe that European society came to prioritise the individual in its concept of rights which is the foundation stone of the modern West?
Altogether, the most distinctive thing about Greek and Roman antiquity is what might be called ‘moral enclosure’, in which the limits of personal identity were established by the limits of physical association and inherited, unequal social roles. This moral enclosure is illustrated by the Greek term describing anyone who sought to live outside such associations and such roles: such a person was called an ‘idiot’.
More than anything else, I think, Christianity changed the ground of human identity. It was able to do that because of the way it combined Jewish monotheism with an abstract universalism that had roots in later Greek philosophy. By emphasizing the moral equality of humans, quite apart from any social roles they might occupy, Christianity changed ‘the name of the game’. Social rules became secondary. They followed and, in a crucial sense, had to be understood as subor- dinate to a God-given human identity, something all humans share equally. Thus, humans were to live in ‘two cities’ at the same time.
We can see this breaking out of moral enclosure everywhere in the New Testament. In particular, we can glimpse the merger of Judaism and Greek philosophy in St Paul’s conception of the Christ, a conception remarkable for its universalism. For Paul, the love of God revealed in the Christ imposes opportunities and obligations on the individual as such, that is, on conscience. The Christ thus becomes the medium of a new and transformed humanity. In one sense, Paul’s conception of the Christ introduces the individual, by giving conscience a universal dimension. Was Paul the greatest revolutionary in human history? Larry Siedentop - Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism
Again, ideas don't emerge fully formed out of a vacuum and then get implemented in a perfect form. The point was that this led to a formal, legalistic distinction between Church and state power and began a process whereby these had separate functions in society. This had a major effect on medieval European governance.
The investiture controversy had shattered the early-medieval equilibrium and ended the interpenetration of ecclesia and mundus. Medieval kingship, which had been largely the creation of ecclesiastical ideals and personnel, was forced to develop new institutions and sanctions. The result, during the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, was the first instance of a secular bureaucratic state whose essential components appeared in the Anglo-Norman monarchy.
The intellectual expansion of Europe in the twelfth century, which was largely the work of churchmen, was in some ways more beneficial to the growth of secular power than to ecclesiastical leadership. The improvements in education, law, and even the increase in piety all came to serve the aims of monarchy. The rise of the universities produced a new kind of administrative personnel for royal government. The great increase in legal knowledge gave kings a way of implementing their control over society. It also gave them a juristic ideology to replace the early-medieval tradition of theocratic kingship, which had been divested of its effectiveness by the attacks of the Gregorian reformers.
The explosive effects of the new piety also contributed to the entrenchment of secular power. The widespread criticism of the clergy made it easier for royal government to assert its own leadership in society. The many problems arising from the new piety also distracted the hierarchy from paying close attention to what was happening in political life and gave kings greater freedom to pursue their own interests without ecclesiastical interference.N Cantor. - Civilization of the Middle Ages
Feel free to offer your own views of the development of such things rather than simply saying 'you're wrong. that's outrageously false, etc.'
Last edited:
There are references to 76 countries in the link provided and that's just in regards to the status of Sharia law today, not in the past.
Its worth quoting from the link what Sharia law involves:
Since the early Islamic states of the eighth and ninth centuries, Islamic law (known in Arabic as sharia) always existed alongside other normative systems.
Within sharia, some crimes are known as hudud, for which there are specific penalties specified by Islam. For example, according to some interpretations, adultery is punished by stoning, fornication and the consumption of alcohol by lashing, and theft by the amputation of limbs. Many predominately Muslim countries have not adopted hudud penalties in their criminal justice systems. The harshest penalties are enforced with varying levels of consistency, and although most Muslim-majority countries adopt various aspects of sharia, some countries may only adopt a few aspects, whereas others apply the entire sharia code. The use of flogging is more common compared to punishments like amputations.
Application of Islamic law by country - Wikipedia
Augustus
…
And you could do some academic research on the history of European thought over the past 2500 years. Seems awfully strange that modern liberalism developed in the heart of Christendom if it was such a great obstacle to such an idea.
First, we have to define what Islam is..
As with all religions, there are those who speak in the name of that religion while they are its main enemies..
Then those who really speak of Islam are not necessarily to be in the majority..
Then, You acknowledge that at some point Islam was a light to the world..But keep in mind that at that time - and at the beginning,- that world did not see Islam as light..this why Islam was initially rejected until it was able top prove itsself...
Currently the world is immersed in the dark culture of materiality, selfishness, vices, equality.. etc..
If this current misguided world is to see Islam as light..Then Surely Islam is darkness!
And that is such a pity. Their ancient buildings are outstanding, they used to make beautiful objects (if you ever go to the British Museum don't miss the Middle East section), and their cuisine is delicious. They have so much potential.
I’m talking about both the present and the future, an example of the present would be women not allowed on the Universal House of Justice, through liberalisation this could and should be allowed. Of course i’m only giving one example here, naturally there are other areas for liberalisation in the Baha’i Faith.
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
No, I explained it all two posts above you (the TLDR one on pg 3)
You first start with the definition of Islam, then you ask questions.
"Islam", like "Muslim" (and "Salaam") are related words dealing with the notion of the individual's subsumption, devotion, love towards the self-revealing active ultimate reality (God/Allah). These words in their immediate meaning are almost universally applicable among a large variety of religions.
The word "Islam" has then over time (actually more recently that you'd think) became associated with the "religion" propagated by prophet Muhammad. The "Muslim" being the follower of such "religion".
First we make this distinction.
Then we look at the nature of the two "sects", realizing that one was a philosophical religion and the other was a militant hijack that betrayed (and killed) family of the prophet himself. From there, we look deeper into the intellectual history of both "sects" and what their qualities and theological concerns where, which differ entirely.
The biggest point to emphasize here is that "Islam" (the collective "religion") is an abstraction, with such an idea based around two things:
1. The initial origins before the "split"
2. The notion of peacemaking that both have attempted to have together (not always succeeding) which comes from the sentiment of trying to say "lets just call us both Muslims, lets stop this feud", even though it doesn't cut any deeper than what I have mentioned in this and the post I referred you to.
I beg to differ. A government (or establishment) does as a government (or establishment) does, whatever fancy dress it clothes itself in. (irrespective of the consequences towards the average Joe)
If the reply above doesn't make it clear, no, I don't expect it to ever be representative of the religion/s themselves at all. As I said, religion is a political scapegoat and it's (the religion/s) followers are whipping boys for anyone who sees fit (as per natural consequence)
You didn't read my statement properly at all. What I said, was:
Like with the political landscape, for Baha'i's, we Shia (in particular) are their whipping boys. When it's convenient for them, they will go to specifics, or otherwise they will make these abstract generalizations if it helps their argument. But when it comes to them (under the same kind of interrogation), revisionism becomes their lord and savior.
To cap off, when it comes to Islam you have to look at it as it evolved. If Christianity can be considered a different religion to Judaism, and if Vaishnavism can be considered a different tradition to Saivism (as an analogy within Hinduism) - then it would be blatantly clear to any intellectually honest person who has looked it all over: that Sunnism is a different religion to Twelverism, Wahhabism is a different religion to Ismailism. Whether or not there is a form of historical point of origin is irrelevant.
Calling it "Islam" as a singular object is wrong and it's an outright lie to say that it is a collective "religion" that has stayed the same all throughout it's history. In truth, the "Islams" of the 1200's are more compatible with the 21st century than the political establishments mistaken as "Islams" of today, because they are modern inventions and not the Sunni or Shia of 500 years ago (at that!).
Last edited:
Ellen, have you read the discussion of the expectation for the Battle of the Camel in "After the Prophet"?
I did. It is somewhat stylized, as one would expect, but it does point out that there was (predictably) a lot of angst between the people present.
So much angst, in fact, that some decided that it would be a mistake to be a part of it, and left. To the best of my understanding, those people were the first significant apostasy from Islaam.
I can't help but think that those are also the true precursors of the current efforts at encouraging moderate Islaam.
islam abduallah
Active Member
hmm, good post even i see it's flawed in some points, but let me turn the question to you, as a Bah'ei i think you believe in Quran as A WORD OF GOD revealed to his servant prophet Mohamed as a guidance to mankind, do you? if yes then tell me what misses the word of god to fit this modern age?
Oh, right, thanks. Post #58:
Personally, I find those claims of divergence impressively overstated. Islaam's internal divergences are certainly real and often vicious, but they are also quite minor in their essence.
They are very consequential, certainly. But only because the core doctrine is so impossibly demanding and rigid. That becomes self-evident once one learns of other creeds and their own internal divergences.
I am truly curious about how you feel about the Bahai Faith. I am no Bahai (far too theistic a doctrine for me to want to adopt), but they have done an almost unbelievably good job at dealing with their Islaamic heritage.
That is unavoidable. It is also remarkably less true of Islaam than one would hope and expect. But then again, much of the core of Islaam is indeed the appeal against learning better along time, under peril of deviating from the presumed divine direction and facing despisal and worse from the presumed faithful.
Separating Islaam from its own political demands is essentially impossible. Even the Bahai Faith, impressive as it is in regenerating Islaamic doctrine, has not quite pulled it of.
That is a bit of an overgeneralization. You are using a very Abrahamic-centered view of religion. But ok, we are coming from a Islaamic perspective.
That is one way of describing the nature and origin of the Shia / Sunni split.
Still, one can't help but notice that some very significant and troubling questions stand unanswered by that analysis.
For instance, what are we to conclude from the fact that the split is so ancient and so well consolidated that there is essentially no hope for reconciliation? The Qur'an does not seem to be any less available nor less liked among the Sunnis than among the Shia. Nor is it very accurate to say that Shia Islaam is uninterested in political power.
There is no doubt that the split was a very unfortunate event. But it turned out to be a very lasting and consequential event, so maybe random fortune did not make too much of difference there.
It seems to me that the most certain lesson to learn from that split is that sincere devotion to the Qur'an does not help much in mutual acceptance of Muslims. To an extent that is surprising. But it also shows in a very solid way how lacking the doctrine is in that undeniably important aspect of spirituality. Christianity, one of the most similar creeds, did a lot better when faced with somewhat comparable situations.
That is why I point out that there is an inherent, unavoidable tension between that intent and the intent of being faithful to the Qur'an.
And as it turns out, Islaamic-inspired governments turn up often and have a record of accomplishments that does not make Islaam look very good. Particularly when contrasted to the alternatives.
Are you denying that Islaam demands political consequences from its adherents?
The very existence of a concept of Dhimmi is one of several clear indications to the contrary.
While I have some general opinions on this matter, I don't think that I am well informed enough to take a general stance. I will however point out that the Bahais attempt to learn better along time, to an extent that Islaam would do well to emulate... if its own doctrine did not forbid it to try.
Nevertheless, there is really no alternative for Islaam going forward that does not involve some form of internal contradiction. While I respect the internal grief that such a realization must cause Muslims, it is very literally a self-inflicted pain.
True enough. I just don't agree with you about the extent of the actual divergences, their doctrinary significance and their avoidability.
Perhaps most relevant to this thread is that I also don't think that Shia Islaam comes out looking particularly defensable, either.
It is fair to point out the flaws of Sunni Islaam and of the Bahai Faith. But that does not make the failure of Shia Islaam in correcting its own course any less relevant. And for any creed, course correction is a very urgent skill.
That may all well be true. On the other hand, I think that you are greatly overstating the significance of all that. Even if entirely true, that can only change so much of our perception and our hopes. The verifiable facts carry a lot more weight.
Last edited:
More foolishness.of generalizations. Actually Enlightenment contributed to the rebellion against the royal houses in Europe and the colonies, and of course, the rise of Democracy, and the separation of church and state. To realize this distinct influence one need only read the writings of the Founding Fathers of the USA.
Even though the Enlightenment contributed to the Rebellion in France the cause is more specific. There was a series of years of the little ice age where crops failed, and the government responded by hoarding food for the royalty and the elite. The historical abuse and corruption of Royal houses of Europe greatly contributed to the Rebellion and the Enlightenment gave grounds for the cause
No magic here, and yes ideas evolve,and you failed to acknowledge the true roots of the riseof democracy.
Christianity WAS, past tense, the most important influence in Christian Europe, and that was the problem resisting change, and not the primary source nor the origin in history for the rise of Democracy
Rise of Humanism, and the intellectual movements in Europe and the colonies as reflected in the writings of the Founding Fathers of the USA.
It was outrageous nonsense to propose that the power dispute between Henry IV and the Pope had anything to do with the rise of the separation of church and state.
Last edited:
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Nope not at all is Christianity of to day anything like Islam or can be compared to Islam.
If a person is not apart of Islam, then that person is considered an infidel is to be put to death.
As for Christianity, if a person is not apart of Christianity, Ho well that's, that person's prerogative of not wanting any part of Christianity.
So they live and not put to death by Christianity,
As that person would be put to death by Islam for not having any part of Islam.
So Atheists/homosexuality will be put to death by the Muslims Sharia law.
by Christianity Atheists/ homosexuality lives.
The Baha'i belief fits well with the actual history of religions. Revelation is an evolving process as clearly witnessed when you compare the OT, NT, Quran, and the Baha'i writings. Revelation, and Word of God is revealed for humanity in the context of the time and human condition at the time, and not intended to be the Word of God always. The best example is that the Revelation of Mohammed considers the Pentateuch the Word of God. By your logic Judaism is the guidance for humanity with no need for Christianity nor Islam. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges the reality of the role of religions in the whole history of humanity, and the obvious nature of human influence, and the cultural orientation of ancient religions like Islam that do not address the diverse changing world. Religions obviously become hardened in the paradigms of the past,and the only change is to divide and conflict to satisfy what the believers believe meets their beliefs.
The alternative to the Progressive Revelation from God as in the Baha'i is secular humanism like found in Unitarian Universalism without a belief in Revelation from God, which actually does address the changing evolving world,and the diversity of humanity. Ancient religions make vain attempts to reform and change to meet the needs of a changing world,but that results in more divisions and conflicts between the divisions. In the end the scripture remains, and the majority calls to scripture to not change. This is the condition of the rise in fundamentalism in both Christianity and Islam.
There are many problems with Islam for example: The role of women in society. An example is citation in the Quran may be used to justify physical abuse of the wife by the husband. Another example is there is no specific guidance in the Quran to forbid slavery.
Last edited:
You have expressed this naive fantasia view of Christianity by only selectively choosing what you see today, and it does not work.You are grossly neglected the history of Christianity, and actually the rise of fundamentalism today that hardens the view against atheists and homosexuality to the point of increased violence against homosexuals including the killing of homosexuals. In general most churches opposed giving equal rights in society to homosexuals.
You ignore the rise of the separation of church and state, and the rise of secular social views in throttling the dominance of Christianity as in the past.
I will respond more on this in another post.
Last edited: