The Truth About Islam

[sgtmac_46]

what is 'jihad' anyway?
everybody makes it sounds like it's plain killing.

I think i've explained Jihad already, at least to the extent that it's the duty of all Muslims to fight against those in the abode of War, and bring them in to the abode of Islam. They may not (necessarily) always mean killing...only if that's what it takes.

No matter how you try to spin some things as being "nuanced", they really don't get any better.

 

[heretic888]

The difference between buddhism and christianity is this....Buddhism is as much a philosophy as a literal religion. Many versions of Buddhism have eliminated the religion entirely. Zen Buddhism even has a saying "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha" meaning that it is entirely internal and there is no external religious source. Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.

Try telling that to Father Thomas Keating --- or any number of the monastic contemplatives in Christian history.

This dichotomy between "Christianity" and "mysticism" is by and large a historical fantasy that ecclesiastical leaders have invented to confirm their own authority. The reality is an altogether different matter.

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

No matter how you try to spin some things as being "nuanced", they really don't get any better.

at least you're being honest about not willing to open your mind
thank you

 

[heretic888]

To further elaborate on a point I made earlier...

Zen Buddhism even has a saying "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha" meaning that it is entirely internal and there is no external religious source. Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.

I am suddenly reminded of a few excerpts by St. Dionysius, an early Christian mystic, that might pertain to this discussion:

"If we want to truly understand God we have to go beyond all names and all attributes. He is both God and not-God." (The Divine Names)

"It is beyond every limitation and also beyond every denial." (Mystical Theology)

And, my personal favorite:

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent." (The Letters)

Sometimes, people forget that apples and oranges are both fruit.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Try telling that to Father Thomas Keating --- or any number of the monastic contemplatives in Christian history.

This dichotomy between "Christianity" and "mysticism" is by and large a historical fantasy that ecclesiastical leaders have invented to confirm their own authority. The reality is an altogether different matter.

Laterz.

Well, again, since i'm not a believe in anything, who's actually right is a moot question. I'm more concerned with the obvious and inevitable consquence of a given belief...in this case, the natual result of commanding followers that it is their duty to wage Jihad against others to bring them under Islamic law.

at least you're being honest about not willing to open your mind
thank you

It's obvious you miss the point. I don't need to open my mind, as all religion is based on the same root. As a non-believe, I feel my mind is far more open than any religious fundamentalist. When I refer to spinning, I refer to your attempt to alter the meanings, ever so subtly, so they appear less provocative, such as pointing out that violence isn't (necessarily) the only way to "wage Jihad". That's nice, but it avoids the core issue.

 

[sgtmac_46]

To further elaborate on a point I made earlier...



I am suddenly reminded of a few excerpts by St. Dionysius, an early Christian mystic, that might pertain to this discussion:

"If we want to truly understand God we have to go beyond all names and all attributes. He is both God and not-God." (The Divine Names)

"It is beyond every limitation and also beyond every denial." (Mystical Theology)

And, my personal favorite:

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent." (The Letters)

Sometimes, people forget that apples and oranges are both fruit.

Laterz.

Well, again, as someone who doesn't believe in either religion, i'm merely pointing out the obvious differences devoid of a passionate belief in either.

Again, if we want to make the point that Islam "could" be a very mystical, peaceful religion, and is viewed so by a large number of it's adherents then you can make that point.

But to make the point that at it's core, taken literally, it literally is fundamentally peaceful and does not incite violence as a core requirement of it's literal interpretation, is being a bit disingenuous. The reason for that disingenuous stance is obviously a cultural blindness in the west, self imposed for the purposes of appearing "open minded" and "tolerant". It blinds some to obvious realities that create huge problems

 

[heretic888]

I'm more concerned with the obvious and inevitable consquence of a given belief...in this case, the natual result of commanding followers that it is their duty to wage Jihad against others to bring them under Islamic law.

Sure. But, y'see, here's the thing...

Religious traditions don't exist in temporal and cultural vacuums, untouched by the trials and tribulations of the real world. Times change, people change, and religions change. Any given religion, including Islam, is inevitably a product of the time and place it finds itself in.

Therefore, like Christianity, we shouldn't rigidly hold Islam to any given injunction or teaching found in a millenia-old religious scripture. Christians don't subscribe to everything expounded in the Bible (reference the Pastoral Letters' excerpts on the treatment of women and slaves in the 'Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight' thread), nor do liberal Muslims subscribe to every single thing taught in the Koran.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Again, if we want to make the point that Islam "could" be a very mystical, peaceful religion, and is viewed so by a large number of it's adherents then you can make that point.

Islam does have its mystical component, as found in Sufism.

However, I am unsure as to how Sufism is viewed by a majority of Muslims, although its apparently quite popular in the West.

But to make the point that at it's core, taken literally, it literally is fundamentally peaceful and does not incite violence as a core requirement of it's literal interpretation, is being a bit disingenuous. The reason for that disingenuous stance is obviously a cultural blindness in the west, self imposed for the purposes of appearing "open minded" and "tolerant". It blinds some to obvious realities that create huge problems

I would agree with you here, except for the position that this somehow represents the "core" or "essence" of Islamic teachings. My feeling is that literalism (as St. Dionysius spoke about) always represents a shallower or "surface" understanding of a religion's teachings. I feel the mystical practices and experiences represented in Sufism are a much closer approximation to the "core" of Islam.

It is true, however, that many in the West are willfully ignorant of the full scope of Muslim teachings and history.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sure. But, y'see, here's the thing...

Religious traditions don't exist in temporal and cultural vacuums, untouched by the trials and tribulations of the real world. Times change, people change, and religions change. Any given religion, including Islam, is inevitably a product of the time and place it finds itself in.

Therefore, like Christianity, we shouldn't rigidly hold Islam to any given injunction or teaching found in a millenia-old religious scripture. Christians don't subscribe to everything expounded in the Bible (reference the Pastoral Letters' excerpts on the treatment of women and slaves in the 'Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight' thread), nor do liberal Muslims subscribe to every single thing taught in the Koran.

Laterz.

Y'see, here's also the thing... It isn't me that's holding Islam to given injunctions and teachings found in a millenia-old religious scripture...It's a large number of it's adherents. That's the PROBLEM.

Liberal muslims are like most Americans...They believe in Islam...mostly, but they don't buy it wholesale. The secularization of Islam is a good thing, just as has been the secularization of other religions.

Islam does have its mystical component, as found in Sufism.

However, I am unsure as to how Sufism is viewed by a majority of Muslims, although its apparently quite popular in the West.

So is Kabbalah and other envogue mysticism. A lot of "Religions of the week" clubs have popped up over America. However, to even insinuate it's even close to what the founders of Islam, and the majority of muslims believe is a stretch.

I would agree with you here, except for the position that this somehow represents the "core" or "essence" of Islamic teachings. My feeling is that literalism (as St. Dionysius spoke about) always represents a shallower or "surface" understanding of a religion's teachings. I feel the mystical practices and experiences represented in Sufism are a much closer approximation to the "core" of Islam.

It is true, however, that many in the West are willfully ignorant of the full scope of Muslim teachings and history.

Laterz.

Well, again, when we're talking about the "Core" we have to go with A) What the founder viewed as it's purpose B) What his followers viewed as the purpose and C) What has been viewed as it's purpose throughout most of it's history.

A few years of mystic reinterpretations does not alter a thousand years of history.

As for "spritualism" itself, i've always found it as much crap as organized religion...it's just designed to make those who consider themselves clever and trend setting...feel more clever and trend setting. That's why the Modanna's of the world spend large amounts of time and money studying things like Kabbalah. Just my view.

 

[heretic888]

To summarize:

1) How the adherents of Islam view their religion and the Koran will vary, often radically, from country to country. This is why I stated that any given religion is a product of the time and place it finds itself in, regardless of what its holy book states or what its founder(s) proclaimed way back when.

2) Religion, strictly speaking, cannot become "secularized" --- although it may become more welcoming to secular philosophy and science (which, again, depends on the historical and cultural climate it finds itself in). Rather, I would say it is nations themselves that "secularize", meaning that the institutions of State and Religion become formally separated (by law, anyway).

3) The modern accusation that mystical lineages like Islam's Sufism, Judaism's Kabbalah, Orthodox Christianity's Hesychasm, and Catholic Christianity's Desert Wisdom traditions are in any way "envogue", "religions of the week", "trendy", "spiritualism", or even historically recent owes completely to widescale ignorance of the totality of these traditions.

I would suggest perusing the following articles:

Wikipedia: Kabbalah

Wikipedia: Sufism

Wikipedia: Hesychasm

Wikipedia: The Philokalia

Wikipedia: Theosis

The Place of Tasawwuf
in Traditional Islam

The majority of these traditions are centuries old, with Kabbalah dating as far back as the intertestamental Talmudic period, Hesychasm dating as far back as the 4th century CE, and Sufism dating as far back as the 12th century CE.

"Spiritualism", by contrast, is a modern Western movement that dates back to the 19th century CE.

4) Claiming to know what the founder(s) of a given religion did or did not teach is extremely difficult, as many religious texts are based on second-hand or word-of-mouth information. In addition, many are subject to inadequate translations and/or intentional distortion and revision of earlier texts. In any event, I'd argue the core experiences and phenomenology that originated a given religion is more important than verbal proclamations by any one person.

5) Simply arguing the "core" or "essence" of a religion is what the majority of its adherents practice is nothing short of an Appeal To Popularity and Appeal To Common Practice.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

To summarize:

1) How the adherents of Islam view their religion and the Koran will vary, often radically, from country to country. This is why I stated that any given religion is a product of the time and place it finds itself in, regardless of what its holy book states or what its founder(s) proclaimed way back when.

2) Religion, strictly speaking, cannot become "secularized" --- although it may become more welcoming to secular philosophy and science (which, again, depends on the historical and cultural climate it finds itself in). Rather, I would say it is nations themselves that "secularize", meaning that the institutions of State and Religion become formally separated (by law, anyway).

3) The modern accusation that mystical lineages like Islam's Sufism, Judaism's Kabbalah, Orthodox Christianity's Hesychasm, and Catholic Christianity's Desert Wisdom traditions are in any way "envogue", "religions of the week", "trendy", "spiritualism", or even historically recent owes completely to widescale ignorance of the totality of these traditions.

I would suggest perusing the following articles:

Wikipedia: Kabbalah

Wikipedia: Sufism

Wikipedia: Hesychasm

Wikipedia: The Philokalia

Wikipedia: Theosis

The Place of Tasawwuf
in Traditional Islam

The majority of these traditions are centuries old, with Kabbalah dating as far back as the intertestamental Talmudic period, Hesychasm dating as far back as the 4th century CE, and Sufism dating as far back as the 12th century CE.

"Spiritualism", by contrast, is a modern Western movement that dates back to the 19th century CE.

4) Claiming to know what the founder(s) of a given religion did or did not teach is extremely difficult, as many religious texts are based on second-hand or word-of-mouth information. In addition, many are subject to inadequate translations and/or intentional distortion and revision of earlier texts. In any event, I'd argue the core experiences and phenomenology that originated a given religion is more important than verbal proclamations by any one person.

5) Simply arguing the "core" or "essence" of a religion is what the majority of its adherents practice is nothing short of an Appeal To Popularity and Appeal To Common Practice.

Laterz.

Dogmatic belief in superstition is dangerous...it's made even more so when the "Core stated" beliefs of that religion are designed to motivate to violent action when confronted with other cultures. Spin it how you like, it always ends up the same in action.