Is Islam getting on your nerves too?

[Aldebaran]

I don't think you're disagreeing with what I said.

I said you approach this from typical non-Muslim point of view. Immpossible for me - because being Muslim - to agree. Understanding a point of view is in my book something quite different then agreement with it.

Maybe this pictures it clearer :
When I read Al Qur'an I see what it means.
When you read it, you see what you read with your Western, non Muslim mind.

Prior to the Islamic conquest, much of North Africa, as well as Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, were christian. They didn't subscribe to tribal religions.

If you sicnerely believe that those regions were predominantly "Christian", you must look for other sources of information.

I can't place this remark of yours in context of our discussion about Al Qur'an, which was reveiled (I suppose you would call it "preached by") to Muhammed, not to his successors. So whatever happened after he died, the text existed.

salaam.

 

[muser]

Aldebaran, I would like to pose a question to you. What do you imagine a middle east free of the spectre of israel and western influence. How would the political landscape of the middle east change, or not as the case may be.
A muslim friend of mine sees wahbism and taliban ideals as being 'wrong' in the eyes of Islam, do you feel that way and would they rise to power in an elective system (i.e. iran, iraq).
What I'm really trying to garner is if the middle east were free of foreign interference what political\social trends would emerge.
I ask because i caught a programme on radio 4, a month or so ago, it was discussing the gradual change in saudi arabia, where women were allowed to work as shop assistant. Though it argued that society hadn't implimented those laws.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/EgyptHomepage.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Christianity

 

[Aldebaran]

Aldebaran, I would like to pose a question to you. What do you imagine a middle east free of the spectre of israel and western influence. How would the political landscape of the middle east change, or not as the case may be.

I'm afraid that can't be answered. The shared, intertwined history of the Middle East and "the West" (as it came to be known) goes much too far back in history to imagine a world where the other side would "not exist", so to speak.
The present political landscape you speak of is in fact the direct, contemporan result of this shared history.
To give you nevertheless some sort of "answer": If the question "Palestine" would be solved, much of the fertile soil on which todays Radicals can thrive and recrute would drop. It is however impossible to assess what change in their policies and arguments that would give and what the result would be.
In my view social and economical problems (always intertwined) in the whole of the MENA region can't be solved if first of all the problem of fertility rate isn't solved.
I would even say that at this stage the strong emphasis on accessibility of general education doesn't solve anything, on the contrary: it seems to create more problems then it was supposed to solve.
This makes it the more unpredicatable what would happen if ,say, the Western endorsed dictatorships are overthrown.
I forsee at first a greater influence of Radicals if they are able to run for governing positions freely and unlimited. Reason being that most of such groups, at least the significant ones, are engaged in social projects already. It is where their strenght and credibility lies. (Give the masses bread to win the popular vote was already well known in ancient Rome ) Secondly, existing underlying tensions and differences would surface, like you see it right under your eyes in Iraq, if central power structure and what keeps it in place is suddenly removed. It is difficult to assess what the final outcome would be.

In the end there is much to say about "democracy" but on condition that distinction is made between the type of government particular societies need. Many are so complex in structure and nature that a strong hand or other uniting force is needed to keep things together.
I shall give you a Western example: Belgium. The only force that really keeps this country together is the monarchy, even when the King has legally no direct or sole influence on law making or policies. It is the mere idea and feeling of an existing unity encompassing all the countries differencies that makes this institution important for its survival as a federal state.

The Wahhabi sect - if it still existed - would probably still be its obscure little sect at the fringe of the Arabian peninsula if "the West" would not have helped to gain power and shelter them up to this day.
The Taliban ideology is one of the results of the Western sheltered and endorsed propaganda machine of this sect.
I see their doctrine as a serious deviation of Islam, even a serious deviation of the school if ibn Hanbal (not my favourite either) on which this sect originally founded its general direction, ideas and doctrine.

salaam.

 

[Dissident Junk]

The Arabian peninsula is not confined to the region of the hidjaz. The very long and ancient history of the Arabian peninsula does not start with Islam and at no time of recorded history its population was confined to "a couple of relatively small tribes". (The history of the Arabian peninsula not being the subject of this thread you are free to make one if you are interested.)

It may not be the subject of this thread per se, but it does reveal much about your attitude, particularly when you refuted Johnny's comment about "much of North Africa, as well as Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, were christian". To which, you replied: "if you sincerely believe that those regions were predominantly 'Christian', you must look for other sources of information."

And this is obviously why when the armies of the Prophet besieged Damascus, they had to steal a ladder from a nearby monastery. And why the cty of Jerusalem would only surrender to the Caliph Omar himself. And that when Sophronius in 638 AD handed over the keys to the city he uttered "Behold the abomination of desolation".

Because that area wasn't largely Christian

I think, Aldebaran, that you have become victim to the belief that the Eastern Mediterrranean passed from a classical past to an Islamic present without a break, casually forgetting that from Constantine (4th century) to Islam (7th century) the Levant was almost entirely Christian. Indeed, Lebanon only exists as an multi-civic national identity because Maronites kickstarted a civil war that created the 'concept of the Lebanese'.

Which is a shame, because, in my eyes, Islam might have more of a hold amongst religious Christians if it explained itself as a continuity, as an extension of Monophysitism, as a belief system born out of irritation with Byzantine rule, but then that would compromise the idea of the Umma and Caliphate, I suppose (Palestine did better out of Byzantine rule, so there were less Islamic conversions there). After all, in the 7th century, Islam was a small step from certain Christian heresies - I'm sure you would argue that God can not become fully human without compromising his divinity, as did they, way back in the 7th century.

But Muslims do not choose to argue on a theological basis, well, with the exception of Zia Sardar, who fancies himself as a Islamic Magi and inheritor of the Islamic scientific mantle, to which I hope he succeeds. Instead, they argue on a righteous basis, which would put anyone's back up.

Surely, Aldebaran, you must concede to the idea that the worse thing to happen to Islam is the idiocies of your contemporary theologically-exocentric brethren, who do not realise that the way they pray derives from the older Syriac ancient Christian practice purely because the Western Christians they see now sit in pews.

And I will remember when I visit Nebi Uri to tell the Muslims there that they are wrong, and to tell the Christian monks that run the place that they do not exist . . . in the eyes of Aldebaran.

 

[Aldebaran]

It may not be the subject of this thread per se, but it does reveal much about your attitude

My general attitude is that I am not particularly keen on writing articles on the history of Islam in htis language, on a medium like this at that, the more so when libraries can give every information needed.
I didn't say there were "no Christians" (you can read even in Al Qur'an clearly that there most certainly were Christians, even on the Arabian peninsula). I said it was not a situation like the post of JC seems to indicate and that bringing up the subject of later conquered territories and their social/religious structures into a discussion about Al Qur'an has no connection with the discussed issue at all.

I am no victim of any "beliefs" about history or I would not be historian.

Which is a shame, because, in my eyes, Islam might have more of a hold amongst religious Christians if it explained itself as a continuity, as an extension of Monophysitism,

You really have absolutely no clue about Islam, do you. Al Qur'an does nothing else then declaring itself to be the repetition of the Message of God. The same God as the Christian and Jewish God.

But Muslims do not choose to argue on a theological basis

That is - again - one very weird statement.
Muhammed himself invited Christian scholars to discuss religion.
I argue theology with Christian scholars regularly, among them a Cardinal of the Catholic Church whom I know since I was a child.

I would be the last to deny that certain hadith and still existing popular beliefs could be considered as showing influence of Christian presence and/or contacts with Christians.
I'm afraid that is not exactly the same as declaring that Islam is "just an other form of Christianity"( but if believing so makes you happy, be my guest).

salaam.

 

[Dissident Junk]

You are shifting your position . . .

. . . unless English is not your first language.

What I discuss is important with regard to the thread subject, because it seems, to me, that you avoid saying anything at all.

First, there is this 'pre-islamic' concept, which you utilise in your argument, yet avoid clarifying.

Then there is this notion that if we 'sincerely believe' certain areas were predominantly Christian, then we should look to other sources of information. When I point out that these certain areas were predominantly Christian, and I can post a lot of references to this if you require, and Islamic armies did conquer this land for political gain, you then avoid answering my point.

I do have quite an extensive knowledge about early Christian writings and attitudes to the Islamic faith. I am also aware of the religious demographics of these areas at this time, and am fairly unbiased as to the faith itself, and the ideas it espouses.

When I say Muslims do not choose to argue on a theological basis, I refer to the fact they seemed more prepared to assert their rights as a righteous group above other communities. Let us not forget that when interfaith conferences have taken place, there are a fair few incidents where Imams and Mullahs have given copies of the Quran to Christian priests and bishops, but have refused to accept copies of the Bible in return (but I guess this is due to their 'non-western' notions, not due to their arrogance at all). I am also reminded that an Iranian cleric has told the press that the Pope should bend before an Islamic cleric, and learn about Islam. Is this what a discussion of theology with a Muslim entails? Debasement?

I never said Islam was just another form of Christianity either (though it was seen as a heretical form of Christianity by many Byzantine scholars at the time). I said that it was an extension of monophysitism, meaning that the creed did not represent a significant barrier to the acceptance of the new Islamic belief, and monophysitism allowed many people under Byzantine control to take the step towards Islam, as that step was relatively small.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You are shifting your position . . .

. . . unless English is not your first language.

.

Sometimes it's like there's two Aldebarans. One is erudite. The other, makes spelling mistakes and has a slightly less robust logic.

Last night, Mr. A's posts substituted 'then' for 'than'. Could simply be an english as second language issue, but there are many A. posts where the spelling is impeccable.

 

[ZAMB]

Sometimes it's like there's two Aldebarans. One is erudite. The other, makes spelling mistakes and has a slightly less robust logic.

Last night, Mr. A's posts substituted 'then' for 'than'. Could simply be an english as second language issue, but there are many A. posts where the spelling is impeccable.

Aldebaran has often pointed out in the past that english is not his first language and also that he is dyslexic. His posts are nevertheless more understandable and have fewer typos or spelling mistakes than some from people who do have English as their first language.

Are you just carping or are you trying to start your own mini conspiracy theory - that the poster known as aldebaran must be more than one person?

I have known him online for some years and he introduced me to this group, so I can vouch for him just being one person [if, in fact, that was what was bothering you]

 

[nino_savatte]

Sometimes it's like there's two Aldebarans. One is erudite. The other, makes spelling mistakes and has a slightly less robust logic.

Last night, Mr. A's posts substituted 'then' for 'than'. Could simply be an english as second language issue, but there are many A. posts where the spelling is impeccable.

This may surprise you but there are some who think the same thing of you.

 

[editor]

Can I just say that I am utterly bored to fucking death with hearing about all religion.

All of it.

Thank you.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ban it all, I say. But I tend to think that we, as a human race, should be past that sort of thing now. Religion really belongs in the dustbin of history. Are we primitives?

Spirituality, on the other hand, should be the responsibility of the individual.

 

[Boogie Boy]

Sometimes it's like there's two Aldebarans. One is erudite. The other, makes spelling mistakes and has a slightly less robust logic.

Last night, Mr. A's posts substituted 'then' for 'than'. Could simply be an english as second language issue, but there are many A. posts where the spelling is impeccable.

Indeed, a common stylistic occurence, normally followed by an apology along the lines of 'this isn't my first language'.

BB

 

[ZAMB]

I think this is more a case of wanting to have a go at Aldebaran, and using a pretty flimsy excuse to attack him. How many examples of incorrect grammar or typos appear here every day without a murmur from JC?

 

[Dissident Junk]

I did not mean to have 'a go' at Aldebaran. I apologise if it seemed that way; my point was that I might have perceived a shift in A's logic because his replies seemed to misconstrue what I was saying - which could be a second language problem.

 

[iROBOT]

I'm afraid that can't be answered. The shared, intertwined history of the Middle East and "the West" (as it came to be known)

And in India your all the "west"...mad Abrahamics' that cant grasp the concept that religion could be man made. And will kill and forcibly convert your "rivals"

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think this is more a case of wanting to have a go at Aldebaran, and using a pretty flimsy excuse to attack him. How many examples of incorrect grammar or typos appear here every day without a murmur from JC?

I couldn't care less about typos etc.

What I was observing, was that much of the time, his posts are flawless. Then, here and there, pop up these posts with simple spelling mistakes etc.

 

[cesare]

I couldn't care less about typos etc.

What I was observing, was that much of the time, his posts are flawless. Then, here and there, pop up these posts with simple spelling mistakes etc.

Do you bear in mind the time difference and tiredness? I always try to when replying to your posts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Do you bear in mind the time difference and tiredness? I always try to when replying to your posts.

That's very charitable of you.

 

[cesare]

That's very charitable of you.

 

[DarthSydodyas]

Are we primitives?

Would primitives fuck the planet up at this rate?

 

[nino_savatte]

Would primitives fuck the planet up at this rate?

I suppose what I mean by the word "primitive" is the way in which superstition, dressed up as spirituality, is linked to the notion of an omnipotent being that includes the binarist choice of afterlife: pain/pleasure etc. All of which is centrally controlled or led by an august body of 'learned' men of faith who determine doctrine and policy. In the case of Xtiany (Roman Catholicism in particular), the internal political structures have changed little since the time of Constantine.

Why should some mass organisation have a say in my spirituality or lack thereof? For me spirituality is a deeply personal matter that has nothing to do with doctrine or what some 'holy man' says it should be.

 

[Boogie Boy]

I think this is more a case of wanting to have a go at Aldebaran, and using a pretty flimsy excuse to attack him. How many examples of incorrect grammar or typos appear here every day without a murmur from JC?

That is complete and utter nonsense. Now can we get this thread back on course so that we can discuss this properly?

BB

 

[kyser_soze]

Would primitives fuck the planet up at this rate?

To the level of their technology, yeah. Globally, there was more deforestation under primitive societies than there is today, and while pollution obviously wasn't as widespread, localised ground poisoning by mercury and lead and other smelting/industrial processes often caused, problems, salting the earth as a military tactic was used etc etc.

This is what many of us mean when we get pissed off when some people seem to have the impression that our ancestors lived in peace and harmony with the planet, cos they didn't - they were just as willing, possibly more so in fact, to utilise a resource to non-existance, or hunt a species into extinction etc.

 

[hipipol]

Islam? Nerves?

How could a series of initially abstract thoughts- the later Suras as the Holy Qu'ran is now collated - and series of Laws designed to get a tirbal bunch of nomads "back" to the ways of Ibrahim get on my nerves?
Nah, its the halfwits who use it to provide excuses that piss me off
Surrender to Gods Law does not mean killing all who you disagree with
Equally the Rapture obsessed piss me off

I respect Sufi
I respect Simon Stylities
I respect Buddha
I repect Christ
I respect The Prophet


I have no respect for those who pervert their love to achieve material and political gain

 

[Dissident Junk]

I respect Simon Stylities

You do?

 

[Aldebaran]

You are shifting your position . . . . . . unless English is not your first language.

I write this language purely on “look and feel”. My vocabulary is limited and my education on syntax and grammar zero.
I am indeed, like ZAMB said, highly dyslexic (I refer to that precious birth gift as “Dyslex”). This interferes especially when I use a language written in Roman script. More in general Dyslex influences my ability to focus and to sustain concentration. Depending the language and the complexity of the text I can concentrate on reading between 10 to 30 minutes without getting dizzy. If I don’t take a pause in time I get nausea. If I don’t stop then for some time it ends in throwing up. (A really good method to keep your ideal body weight but I prefer to avoid such escalation.)
Reading from screen, tiredness etc… adds to the problem. For 90% of the time I read/post here late in the evening or in the early morning hours. Probably sometimes my writing style becomes less clear and coherent.
All the above reasons why I prefer to avoid to write longer posts in this language about what can easily be found in libraries. This counts even more when it comes to subjects touching my studyfields. When addressing that I want it to be clear and flawless.

First, there is this 'pre-islamic' concept, which you utilise in your argument, yet avoid clarifying.

No. The point under discussion being the factor “polygamy” in Al Qur’an, how or why it got there and where it could yes or no be explained/defended, pre-Islamic situations are additionally mentioned purely for the sake of historical correctness. If you take out that remark my argument stays exactly the same.
It is hardly my doing if you choose to switch the core argument to what is merely a footnote. It is also not my doing if JC switched the focus onto later periods, which were not under discussion since not relevant to the point discussed.

Studying theology of the Byzantine Empire period can indeed be interesting.
Reading your post I gain more or less the impression that you single out the attitudes of individuals to extrapolate them to every Islamic scholar or even every Muslim. I have copies of the Bible, I threat them with the same respect as I threat Al Qur’an.

I never said Islam was just another form of Christianity either (though it was seen as a heretical form of Christianity by many Byzantine scholars at the time).

You contradict this with the following

I said that it was an extension of monophysitism, meaning that the creed did not represent a significant barrier to the acceptance of the new Islamic belief, and monophysitism allowed many people under Byzantine control to take the step towards Islam, as that step was relatively small.

It is also in Muslim sources documented that Christian background of some groups probably made a conversion to Islam easier. Yet most historians agree that it was foremost it was the dissatisfaction with Byzantine rule that made such groups and others, living at the borders of the Byzantine Empire or within their direct influence and ruling, join forces with the Muslims. A main contributing factor, explaining the extraordinary speed by which Islam seemingly spread. Conversion was even long afterwards a rather slow process in most cases, a process not finished even up to now, even not in what is commonly called “Islamic nations”. (The Kurdish people for example still have a range of very specific religions.)

salaam.

 

[slaar]

To the level of their technology, yeah. Globally, there was more deforestation under primitive societies than there is today, and while pollution obviously wasn't as widespread, localised ground poisoning by mercury and lead and other smelting/industrial processes often caused, problems, salting the earth as a military tactic was used etc etc.

This is what many of us mean when we get pissed off when some people seem to have the impression that our ancestors lived in peace and harmony with the planet, cos they didn't - they were just as willing, possibly more so in fact, to utilise a resource to non-existance, or hunt a species into extinction etc.

Absolutely. Jared Diamond's latest book, Collapse, has many examples in wonderful detail of ancient civilisations fucking their environment and, ultimately, themselves.

 

[Aldebaran]

Sometimes it's like there's two Aldebarans. One is erudite. The other, makes spelling mistakes and has a slightly less robust logic.

I don’t think my logic shifts in any way. I was born with some abnormalities in the brain functioning section but multiple personality disorder is not among them.
For the rest: see post above. In addition: I’m most of the time too lazy to cut and paste in order to use spell control. In addition: even when I use that option it is by no means a certitude that I see what Dyslex does. Of course I developed methods to counter this but every language has - and keeps - its specific difficulties.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

That is complete and utter nonsense.

It isn't such a nonsense in context of my experiences on an other board (which ZAMB could witness developing to full- speed paranoia among a group of its members.)
I had also a flashback when reading JC's posts

salaam.