-
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!
Judging a Religion
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't agree with the OP.
Religions should be judged by its books, by its founders, and by its adherents.
Using your example of religions A & B, upon Islam for instance, you get conflicting messages, of what Muhammad was teaching, in the beginning.
At that stage (in 610), Muhammad's followers were very small, he offered love, peace and fellowship, and got mocked for it. But his messages got increasingly aggressive, perhaps because of growing resentment towards the polytheistic Meccans (not just because of the mocking, but their refusal to accept I'm as a prophet), as his group got increasingly larger, he began mixing his messages, on the one hand, more messages on fellowship and peace, but on the other hand, deliberately antagonising polytheists, telling Muslims should destroy other people's religion, starting with the idols at Kaaba. That's not peaceful.
This is the reason why polytheists felt threatened by Muhammad's words and ever-growing group, that eventually led to his own persecution and to him fleeing with his followers, to Medina in 622.
His exile made him resentful to any opposition of his position, which is made clear when began a year of raiding Meccan merchant caravans (623-624), that started the war between Muslims and Meccans, starting with the Battle of Badr (624).
And he caused strife here, at his new home in Medina, when he acted as mediator between feuding tribes (624).
As a mediator, a person should judge the feud without his personal agenda; Muhammad didn't do that.
One feuding group was more willing to accept Islam than the other group, so predictably Muhammad threw his favour to that group would accept him, thereby showing that he was never an impartial mediator.
The Banu Qaynupa who supported the losing his side, was punished for such alliance; because the Banu Qaynupa had refused to accept him as prophet, and not surprising, Muhammad took advantage of his judgment in the mediation, to have the Banu Qaynupa exiled from Medina, and confiscating their properties and wealth.
The Banu Nadir had sided with the winning tribe during that mediation, and was astonished and angry that the Banu Qaynupa was banished from Medina. That led to the Banu Nadir turning against Muhammad.
That same year, he either ordered assassinations or his assassins acted on their own accords, but which Muhammad condoned and praised, showed that Muhammad was anything but peaceful.
For Muhammad claiming to be a "religion of peace", he sure did go out his way to aggressively antagonise any group who oppose him. And 624 was a very busy year. And he used the Constitution of Medina to get his will done: political manoeuvrings and dividing and attacking his enemies, has all the hallmarks that would make Niccolò Machiavelli proud.
Not only did Muhammad win the war against Mecca, but he also followed Mecca with military campaign throughout the peninsula that intimidated most towns to surrender without a fight. A military campaign that would expand beyond the peninsula that led to the conquest of Egypt, Byzantine Syria and Sassanid Persia fall to his army after his death.
My point is that the scriptures, may say one thing, but if the founder himself do the opposite, then shouldn't the founder and his adherents be judged by their acts?
@gnostic
A religion should be judged by many factors if one is into judging.
Actions are the best gauge of a religion.
Again just google the Westboro Baptists and the snake handling Pentecostals.
The Catholic church smuggling Nazi war criminals out of Europe, smuggling guns into South America
to promote armed revolution and.....................................................
A religion should be judged by many factors if one is into judging.
Actions are the best gauge of a religion.
Again just google the Westboro Baptists and the snake handling Pentecostals.
The Catholic church smuggling Nazi war criminals out of Europe, smuggling guns into South America
to promote armed revolution and.....................................................
I ask again... what is the purpose of this judging?
I judge a religion based on its claims, and not on it being peaceful or not. If religion X is more violent than religion Y, but its claims are supported by more evidence, then it is to be preferred. Fortunately, this is not the case, since violent and non violent religions are based on the same evidence (zero).
After all, i am not aware of any meta religious rule that states that God must be good, whatever we mean with "good".
On the contrary, assuming that God must be good, for some reason, is evidence that this religion might contain a considerable amount of wishful thinking, in the form of a priori assumptions.
Ciao
- viole
I believe if a church tolerates those who unrepentantly commit evil, the church is evil. Jesus Christ said; "Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men." (Matthew 7:15-20) The rotten "fruits" or works of professed "Christian" churches clearly identify them as false, IMO.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't hear of too many people being excommunicated from any denomination nowadays. It's typically like "Well, let's just give them another chance, OK"?
Churches and synagogues are not for those who have never sinned or do not have any "issues", but instead it's for those who are sinners and may still have some "issues". If we were to go into any church or synagogue, we're going to find various people with "baggage" and "skeletons". To me, it's more the self-righteous, holier-than-Thou congregants that I get upset with, although there's been times I've slipped into that mold as well, truth be told.
Churches and synagogues are not for those who have never sinned or do not have any "issues", but instead it's for those who are sinners and may still have some "issues". If we were to go into any church or synagogue, we're going to find various people with "baggage" and "skeletons". To me, it's more the self-righteous, holier-than-Thou congregants that I get upset with, although there's been times I've slipped into that mold as well, truth be told.
Augustus
…
Do you consider the sirah to be in any way an accurate reflection of actual history?
Ana.J
Active Member
I agree that some teachings promote peace, but the priests tend to interpret the text in the way to serve their goals....
I think you misread my O.P.
Having "life" is important. Attaining to "eternal life" is paramount in my estimation. I am grateful to have the gift of Faith in Christ. I pray that others may receive Him too. ...the "road is narrow..." My $0.02. (Faith is "free".)
Catholic Scripture:
10 He that believeth in the Son of God hath the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son maketh him a liar: because he believeth not in the testimony which God hath testified of his Son.
11 And this is the testimony that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life.
The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate (Bellingham, WA 2009) 1 Jn 5:10-12.
11 And this is the testimony that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life.
The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate (Bellingham, WA 2009) 1 Jn 5:10-12.
An Approved, Catholic Commentary:
§ d 6–12 Threefold Witness to Christ’s Divinity—6. Jesus Christ ‘came by water and blood’. Water and blood are symbols and refer, the one to the baptism of Christ, the other to his death. At his baptism, the Father proclaimed him his beloved Son, Mt 3:17. At his death, ‘the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus … said: “This was indeed the Son of God” ’, Mt. 27:54. ‘Not by water alone’ may have been added to refute the error of Cerinthus, who taught that he who died on the cross was not the Son of God, but the man Jesus; for the teaching of Cerinthus, cf. § 955h. Here St John insists that, even amid the humiliations and sufferings of the passion, Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A third witness is added, namely, the Holy Spirit, who speaks through the Apostles and proclaims the divinity of Christ to the whole world.
§ e 7. According to the Clementine Vg, the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are the heavenly witnesses to Christ’s divinity, corresponding to the threefold witness on earth. The Father gave testimony at the baptism, and the transfiguration, Mt 17:5 and in the temple court, Jn 12:28; the Word repeatedly gave testimony to his divinity by his words and works during his public ministry; the Holy Spirit likewise testified at the baptism, on the day of Pentecost, and later through the Apostles. ‘And these three are one’, have one identical nature. Concerning the authenticity of this text, cf. § 955j. 8. The Jewish law required the agreement of two or three witnesses for satisfactory evidence, Deut 19:15. That is why St John produces the threefold witness, and adds: ‘and these three are one’, i.e. they all proclaim the divinity of Jesus Christ. 9. If a threefold human witness is accepted to confirm the truth of a matter, how can any one dare to set aside a threefold divine testimony, and practically make God a liar?
WILLMERING, H., “The Epistles of St John”, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. B. ORCHARD – E. F. SUTCLIFFE) (Toronto;New York;Edinburgh 1953) 1188.
§ e 7. According to the Clementine Vg, the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are the heavenly witnesses to Christ’s divinity, corresponding to the threefold witness on earth. The Father gave testimony at the baptism, and the transfiguration, Mt 17:5 and in the temple court, Jn 12:28; the Word repeatedly gave testimony to his divinity by his words and works during his public ministry; the Holy Spirit likewise testified at the baptism, on the day of Pentecost, and later through the Apostles. ‘And these three are one’, have one identical nature. Concerning the authenticity of this text, cf. § 955j. 8. The Jewish law required the agreement of two or three witnesses for satisfactory evidence, Deut 19:15. That is why St John produces the threefold witness, and adds: ‘and these three are one’, i.e. they all proclaim the divinity of Jesus Christ. 9. If a threefold human witness is accepted to confirm the truth of a matter, how can any one dare to set aside a threefold divine testimony, and practically make God a liar?
WILLMERING, H., “The Epistles of St John”, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. B. ORCHARD – E. F. SUTCLIFFE) (Toronto;New York;Edinburgh 1953) 1188.
Back to the OP, here's the beginning of wikipedia's definition of religion:
My experience here on RF is that apologists tacitly agree with the idea that a religion is a system. So when one aspect of a particular religious system is criticized, the apologist claims that "that aspect" isn't the religion. A sort of shell game.
To me, each component of the system should be subject to criticism. In fact it seems to me we're morally bound to criticize the scripture, the practices, the morals and ethics, the historical evidence, and the associated societies and cultures.
My experience here on RF is that apologists tacitly agree with the idea that a religion is a system. So when one aspect of a particular religious system is criticized, the apologist claims that "that aspect" isn't the religion. A sort of shell game.
To me, each component of the system should be subject to criticism. In fact it seems to me we're morally bound to criticize the scripture, the practices, the morals and ethics, the historical evidence, and the associated societies and cultures.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As long as the criticism is done fairly and not just reflecting the subjective bias of the critic.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
The catch is if the congregation thinks evil things are good (hatred, greed, etc), they will kick out the actual good people for being "evil".
You are just a nice person!
gnostic
The Lost One
On the whole (RE: sirah)? No.
...or no...maybe.
It is not a question that I can give you a straight answer, because it is dependent on what events the sirah have written down about Muhammad's life.
The problems with any biography (as well as history, and I am not talking just about any sirah) during ancient and medieval times, that they tends to use TRADITIONs as "sources", especially with political and religious figures.
And I have not found traditions to be reliable sources, as far as historicity is concern.
That "No" of mine, really depends on, if there are available external sources, other than the Islamic sources, where a person (with the "know-how") can compared various sources with the sirah, to sort out, which is "true", and which is "not true".
For example, if I read something that I can recognise to be an exaggeration, then it is more than likely to be not true.
A good historiographer should be able to compare and sort through any available sources to certain event, to discover or to know which event is history and which is distortion and which accounts are inventions of the authors.
When I wrote "On the whole?" at the beginning of my reply, my answers were "No" and the "maybe", because the sirah as a whole, is not entirely accurate or reliable biography. Certain events are clearly distorted, while other events may or may not be true. And the only way to determine that is, if there are other sources available that I can shift through and compare them against each other.
I am talking about historiography, not history.
Do you understand what I mean?
Using historiography, you would evaluate all the sources - histories, biographies, memoirs, legends, traditions, etc. Historiography involved a lot of time in reading and researching.
I have neither the time or resources to tell you which events in the sirah are historically reliable and which are not. But I would like to give one example what I mean by historiography.
Take the Battle of Mu'tah (629), for instance. A battle between Muslim army and that of the Eastern Roman Empire (or Byzantine); the first between these two.
Muhammad didn't lead in this battle (Khalid ibn al-Walid), but I want to talk to you about how to compare sources, because here, we can compare Muslim sources to the battle against the Byzantine sources.
In every cases, I see that the Islamic sources to greatly exaggerate this battle. For instance, Islamic sources indicated that the Byzantine army had a strength of anywhere between 100,000 and 200,000 soldiers, compare that of Muslim army of 3000.
Byzantine and Sassanid Persian empires have been at war with each other's for decades. The last battles against Persia, have been very costly, so it is very doubtful that Byzantine could muster such a large army against the Muslims. Byzantine sources indicated that the army of Theodore was between 5000, and 10,000.
Also both Byzantine sources and the earliest Muslim sources of this battle, indicated that Muslims lost this battle, but in later Muslim sources, the authors say Muslims won at the battle of Mu'tah, just show how unreliable some Muslim historians or biographers can be.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
My take on this question. In the context of Judging a religion by their texts. Some are the "purpose", of judgement and some are "reasons", for judgement.
1) To strengthen or bolster ones own prejudices regarding a religion, to then rationalize the prejudices in a reasonable manner, in order to denounce and degrade or even demolish the said religion. or
2) To confirm ones own religious experience and practices as being Universal therefore True. or
3) To remove ones own misconceptions & misunderstandings about a religion. or
4) To incorporate/digest/take some "Good", ideas and to denounce some "Bad", ideas of a different religion. or
5) To confirm that certain cultures/practices/beliefs and societies are incompatible with each other. or
6) To make the "Other", feel inferior while making oneself feel superior - Morally/Ethically/Economically/Culturally/Intellectually/Racially ect or
7) To find out the Truth about a Claim of a religion.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
One shouldn't judge any person or any religion and leave it to be Judged by G-d and He will sure judge everybody on the Judgement Day:
[1:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[1:2] All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds,
[1:3] The Gracious, the Merciful,
[1:4] Master of the Day of Judgment.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=1
From the points given by one, I like the last one very strongly:
7) To find out the Truth about a Claim of a religion.
Regards
Last edited:
Augustus
…
In the previous post you provided a pretty precise chronology of events, why do you consider this even loosely accurate though?
Early Sources didn't even know when Muhammad was born giving wildly varying answers and the Quran clearly doesn't reflect the pagan backwater of the traditions. The later the biography the more 'accurate' and the more detailed
Pretty major things seem to have been 'forgotten', like who the Sabeans were and what the 'mysterious letters' mean, yet we have a very precise detailed account of Muhammad's life.
Muhammad's biography often seems to be narrative to explain the parts of the Quran that early exegetes didn't understand. From the year of the Elephant, to splitting the moon, Abu Lahab, 'so they ask you about Dhul Qarnayan', Angels opening his chest washing Muhammad's heart, etc.
Rather than being exaggerations, I'm not really sure how much can even be given any degree of historicity outside the most basic ideas of a real person with a religious message of some kind who was involved in some kind of hijra and led a community of monotheistic believers of some sort.
If only religious people would keep their religions to themselves. But in so many cases they try to coerce others to agree with them. So, for example, I'm going to be VERY judgmental if anyone wants to impose their misogynistic religious ideas on my daughters. (That could be from Islam or Christianity and other religions as well.)
paarsurrey - Put another way, notice that you're judging that others shouldn't judge!
Last edited: