Post #283,276
4/27/07 11:05:41 PM
|
Hitchens on the Koran and Islam.
One shouldn't read it if one is easily offended, but it's an interesting read. [link|http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165038/|Slate]: [...]
The prophet died in the year 632 of our own approximate calendar. The first account of his life was set down a full hundred and twenty years later by Ibn Ishaq, whose original was lost and can only be consulted through its reworked form, authored by Ibn Hisham, who died in 834. Adding to this hearsay and obscurity, there is no agreed-upon account of how the Prophet's followers assembled the Koran, or of how his various sayings (some of them written down by secretaries) became codified. And this familiar problem is further complicated\ufffdeven more than in the Christian case\ufffdby the matter of succession. Unlike Jesus, who apparently undertook to return to earth very soon and who (pace the absurd Dan Brown) left no known descendants, Muhammad was a general and a politician and\ufffdthough unlike Alexander of Macedonia a prolific father\ufffdleft no instruction as to who was to take up his mantle. Quarrels over the leadership began almost as soon as he died, and so Islam had its first major schism\ufffdbetween the Sunni and the Shia\ufffdbefore it had even established itself as a system. We need take no side in the schism, except to point out that one at least of the schools of interpretation must be quite mistaken. And the initial identification of Islam with an earthly caliphate, made up of disputatious contenders for the said mantle, marked it from the very beginning as man-made.
[...] Thanks for the pointer, RC. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #283,279
4/28/07 3:41:54 AM
4/28/07 3:46:24 AM
|
I should be offended?
By a realistic description of the founding of a religion for which I have not one single shard of respect? Islam is a religion suitable for dogs, not for men or women, and I'm damned tired of the bleeding hearts making excuses for it.
Islam took the most serious mistake of Judaism1 and elevated it to being the central point of the religion.
In the garden of Eden mankind ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. "Behold he has become as we, knowing the difference between good and evil"2. In other words, man now had one foot still in the world of the animals, but the other placed firmly in the realm of the gods.
This represents the great triumph of humanity, being able to judge good from evil - this is what separates humans from the animals.
Judaism assigned this as a "bad thing" - for one compelling reason.
When you belong to the world of the animals, God (or at least lower levels of God) is completely responsible for you - an animal has no responsibility for its actions because it has no concept of good and evil. An animal is in a "state of grace" where nature (God) is responsible.
But when you are a human, part animal but part god as well, YOU HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS because you know good from evil. Shirk that responsibility and Karma's gonna come'n get ya - and she's a bitch! You knew better so you are responsible.
Assigning this transition as a "fall from grace" rather than an "ascent from grace" is the basic mistake of Judaism3.
Through total obeisance to God the Muslim seeks to be his dog, his property and at his whim in total obedience. This is in hopes of re-entering the "state of grace", to become an animal, to avoid personal responsibility.
And, of course, the reverent Muslim must obey without question those in authority who must speak for God, because God doesn't speak to lowly dogs such as yourself. Too bad God has given different stories to different authorities, each and every one the "infallible inerrant word of God".
This is why an apostate must be killed. A Muslim is the property of God, so leaving Islam is theft of the property of God, and that is a heinous crime that must be punished by death!
(1) This mistake is embraced by Christianity to the extent the Old Testament is accepted as part of Christianity - totally in some sects, and properly rejected in others.
(2) Judaism was a polytheistic religion until that was written out after the Babylonian captivity, using the excuse of "worshiping other gods" to explain why God kept sending Pagans to beat the crap out of the Jews. Some incompletely revised texts were then difficult to explain. To resolve a serious discrepancy Christians decided God refers to himself in the plural. Kings, by virtue of "divine right", adopted the same format, "Good enough for God, good enough for me".
(3) I suspect in Judaism this has all been explained away somewhere in the Talmud, but Islam permits no such revisionism.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #283,286
4/28/07 9:00:41 AM
|
not polytheist at all. The "Lords" who mated with women
were beings greater than man and lesser than G_d. The offspring were giants which gave rise to the tales of heracles et al. G_d was tired of these beings using his creation as a brothel and made human/non human sex off limits. Finally he drowned the whole pile except for noah and his crew of incestuous kids.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #283,287
4/28/07 9:41:59 AM
|
That only takes you so far.
The Jews had polythiestic tendancies right up until the Return. Right from when they were a nation (coming up out of Egypt), the Jews were always surrounded by polytheistic peoples. It is unclear how much that influenced their own worship, but all through the time of the Kings they often worshipped other gods.
It was during the Exile that they saw, possibly for the first time, another monotheistic religion: Zoroastrianism. It is debated as to whether the exiled priesthood co-opted that, but from the time of Ezra forwards, Judaism was determinedly monotheistic.
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
|
-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. | · my ·
· [link|http://staticsan.livejournal.com/|blog] ·
· [link|http://yceran.org/|website] · |
|
Post #283,288
4/28/07 9:48:19 AM
|
I was taking the mick
even during the return they were dueling over golden calves and after taking over Israel the peoples tendency was to intermarry and slyly practice their partners faith(s). It wasnt until the diaspora that monotheism finally sunk in,
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #283,289
4/28/07 10:15:52 AM
|
No, not you. :-)
I was thinking more along the lines of our friend systems. I don't think a little thing like a discussion of the problems of a religion and holy texts would offend you much. ;-) It's fairly clear that the old Jewish texts are based on several traditions and what we ended up with is an attempt to meld them as seamlessly as possible. E.g. compare [link|http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&version=31&context=chapter|Genesis Chapter 6] with [link|http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=7&version=31&context=chapter|Genesis Chapter 7] - did Noah take only single pairs of animals, or did he take 7 (or 7 pairs) of some and two of others? I also agree that it's hard to read [link|http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=3&version=31&context=chapter|Genesis 3] as something other than God talking to equals when he says: 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." In this account, God (while creator of the heavens and the Earth) does not seem to be an omnipotent being, but rather a smaller, more "natural" being rather like the Greek gods. He walks around and talks with people and makes his feelings (and he has many swings of mood) known in a straight-forward manner. It's only later that he seems to be an incomprehensible, all-(fill-in-the-blank) being that speaks in allegory and visions and mysteries and demands unwavering worship. In short, it does seem (from a simple, straight-forward reading of the Bible, even without reference to the mountain of scholarship about it) that the Jewish texts did borrow a lot from the polytheistic religions. Your observations on what Islam then did with that foundation is certainly thought-provoking. I think it might be a over-stated though. While tens or hundreds of thousands of men can turn out at various rallies led by religious leaders, I don't think that most reverent Muslims follow their mullahs without question. ... However, on reading things like [link|http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/islam/0000342.php|this], perhaps I've been naive about this (too): Imam Hussain (as) was, in his time, the proof of Allah (hujjat Allah) and the guide that Allah (swt) has sent us. The Imam plays a decisive and critical function in the life of any believer, for he is the medium by which the believer comes to know Allah (swt). The sermon indicates upon a fundamental aspect of reality: that it is through the Imam that Allah (swt) makes Himself visible to the hearts of the believers. True faith is not mere worship of a deity that is solely conceptual; true worship of Allah (swt) is to worship Him as if he was visible before you, and it is the Imam who makes such vision possible.
The vision of Allah (swt) with the heart is one of the most important aspects of faith. The Prophet (s) defined ihsan, righteousness, as
worshipping Allah as if you see Him in front of you. [2.]
Yet one cannot see Allah (swt), for He is infinitely exalted above our physical reality. Allah (swt) is, in His Essence, too infinite to ever be grasped by the human mind. And yet Allah (swt) created the universe in order that He would be known by His creation, as Imam Hussain (as) has said in his sermon. But in order for us to have any knowledge of Allah (swt), He must manifest Himself to us in a form that accords with our capacity. As such, for Allah (swt) to establish His hujjat, His proof, the being who fills this role must be of our own nature, which is perceptible to us and of which there is a fundamental kinship. This strikes me as rather like the (, or at least the common perception of the,) importance of saints and popes in Catholicism. If the Shia really believe that they cannot comprehend Allah without the intercession of an Imam, then there's little wonder that there's so much conflict over who the "true" Imams are, and such enmity between the various sects. And consequently the importance of the mullahs in instructing their flocks.... Thanks for a thought-provoking post. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #284,208
5/8/07 11:56:24 AM
|
God has **property**?!? How quaint!
Must not be much of a god, as most Gods I've ever heard of don't live by the rule "He who dies with the most toys, wins!"
Although most Repos currently holding what passes for power in this plane of existance would, by that definition, make excellent Muslims...
jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
|
Post #284,635
5/14/07 4:16:05 PM
|
Yes. And He's a landlord.
Ask the Zionists.
bcnu,
Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #284,639
5/14/07 4:57:31 PM
|
yup straight forward real estate deal, problem is the
tenants are always bitching about something and never pay the rent on time, they have been evicted twice so far.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #284,705
5/15/07 9:11:58 AM
|
:0)
bcnu,
Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #284,645
5/14/07 5:18:45 PM
|
Not here he doesn't!
The courts established quite a few years back that God has no property rights in the State of California.
That puts Muslims in a predicament - they're supposed to be property of God in a state in which God has no property rights - no wonder the one's we've got here are a bit more liberal than most.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #284,647
5/14/07 5:23:35 PM
|
churches pay property tax? cool
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #283,963
5/5/07 6:53:58 AM
|
Hitchens + Maher (!) on C. Rose this PM
I get to see Maher's HBO extravaganza a week or so late - IMO he's gotten more concise, with better timing (and just the right soup-mix of subordinate clauses.. when ~singing the list of Capitol offenses of the junta) .. maybe not quite as good as the least of Messrs. Gilbert & Sullivan's unmatchable patter songs.. Saw the HBO hour earlier, then the Charlie Rose interview.
Hitchens + Charlie obv have a many-years relationship, though that did not blunt a few pointed "some are saying ..." queries - regarding The Fiasco and, Hitchens' latest. The v.simple book cover looks ~like:
god
Is Not
GREAT
why religion poisons everything
He opens by pointing out that no 'secular' group would ever destroy a Shrine (inseparable from its artistic beauty, whatever the religious significance == my words, not a quote.) Points out that the bombing of such a shrine began the {current Official civil war == again, my summary.} Goes on to justify his characterization of the bombers in our newly-created Disneyland for the Scurrilous {mine / not his} - in a perfectly reasonable way, via this auditioner's def'n of reason-able.
Etc.
Hitchens' argument for NOT abandoning the fledgling democracy of the Kurd regions - the accomplishments of whom.. (in the face of the utter ineptness elsewhere South) he describes rapid-fire - is cogent; is a reasonable counterargument to the standard lazy Murican black/white casting of our next options -- the usual half-vast slogans standing-in for ... vast arrays of possibilities; options we/Muricans are too insouciant to be able to discuss, surely not from any informed knowledge of Their centuries-old tribal vendettas.
H. mentions someone's prepping Shrub - during. the. invasion! about "there being Sunnis and Shiites / what the words might mean," etc. The iggerant motherfucker had No Clue about W.T.F. the Tar Baby's form would soon take..
(H. did not offer an opinion re. if the term 'Tar Baby', itself would register? in the dry drunk's Jesus-besotted jelloware, amidst the excitement of fresh pretzels in front of the Tee Vee + Shock n'Awe, uninterrupted by truss ads. Either.)
He has a cute summing-up of the consequences of the scum-of-the-earth-God-Is-Great troglodytes: next to be expected. Pity that any effort to reduce a one hr. broadcast into ez-quips: would beg the issue of black/white simplicities already negatorily referenced.
Ah well, sorry y'all missed it .. dunno about C. Rose transcript$ either.
Ashton
|
Post #283,971
5/5/07 9:33:53 AM
|
I saw parts of it (for the first time in years).
I was surprised how much Rose interrupted them when they were trying to answer a question. I don't remember him being like that.
It was a good show, but would have been much, much better if he'd let them say more than a few words before he started talking again. I would have been pulling my hair out if I had been sitting at the table (and both of them seemed to me to be frustrated with the interruptions as well).
Flash 8 videos of the segments are at [link|http://charlierose.com/home|CharlieRose.com] "broadband required". Maher's is 23:41, Hitchens's is 28:26. I haven't seen any transcripts yet.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #283,978
5/5/07 10:29:02 AM
|
Thanks for the link, Scott!
Alex
When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
|
Post #284,336
5/9/07 8:45:21 PM
|
NY debate with Sharpton
at NY Public Library. Nothing much got settled; Pope didn't resign. Yet. There's always tomorrow.. Closing quip: [. . .]
For the most part, the audience seemed to be with Hitchens -- but there was some deviation from his side, most often when the subject of the Iraq war, of which Hitchens is a prominent and frequent supporter, came up. Sharpton scored some points by cracking, "You are a man of faith, because any man that still to this day believes that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has more faith than any religious person I know." A New York City audience couldn't help loving that one.
-- Alex Koppelman [link|http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/05/08/hitchens_sharpton/index.html?source=newsletter| Salon].
|
