Printable View
The crescent and star/sun predates the conception of Islam by centuries; It used to be the symbol of Mithraism, and has been seen in Iranic representation of the Chaldaean pantheon equivalent to Mêhr and Helios, Shamash. The Sûrên-Pahlavân clan's badge is that of a crescent and a sun in lapis lazuli.
So ? Any Scripture always requires interpretation, doubly so if you're going to start deriving practical stuff like legislation out of it (something not exactly confined to Muslims). The Muslims at least purported to base very considerable parts of their laws on it; which naturally necessitated a whole lot of de facto "active reading" of the holy texts to see if there was something there that could be used as a guideline in the first place, and then determine what the fig it meant in practice. They had a whole class of literati whose one main job was specifically this, although I understand the institution decayed somewhat at some point.
And of course two sages could come to completely different rulings from the exact same passages. That's people for you.
As a minor reminder, one would point out that the Catholic Church once fought tooth and nail against the Bible getting translated... There have also been attempts at basing state laws on literalist readings of the Bible, chiefly by hardline Protestants (Cromwell's Puritans tried something like that, as well as Carolus XI of Sweden) for that matter.
Scriptures are nothing more than texts, and nigh invariably rather cryptic in meaning at that. The meaning of their contents, and any practical policies based on such, are supplied by the readership - whatever they might like to think. The Church didn't fight to keep the Bible in Latin just for shit and giggles, after all; it had a bit of a monopoly to maintain.
Yes, your right, but the Koran was never meant to be written in the first place. As a certain person didn't want to share power, it was designed to always be an oral tradition.
This does not address the purported absolute divine representation of the Qur'an. You are comparing apples with oranges, put mildly. That muslims revolve their entire legislation, and jurisprudence upon Islamic principles does not negate the fundamental weaknesses of the Islamic literal corpus. It's not just "So?" as you so succinctly put it, it should rather trigger the reaction of "How the hell did those buggers justify overlooking this obvious blunder?". I can easily spot a thousand other ways of conveniently putting the more embarassing aspects of Islam under the rug. That people do have the natural distinction (At the individual level) of interpreting things differently is not exactly breaking any grounds in my perception of Islam. I'm pointing out the philosophical problem which arises whenever the divine representation of the Qur'an is mentioned. Do you think the Qur'an, touting itself clear as glass and the ultimate source of the truth would allow for the natural human breadth of interpretation in finding truth? Then what is then the purpose of a religious book that purports itself the moral roadmap and compass of ethics and morality? Now of course, I'm not stupid in basing my entire criticism of Islam on mere polemics of the religious literary core, but I take upon myself many facets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Like I said before, there are many ways of responding to your previous rhetorical answer; Perhaps the more powerful way is to address the conduct of Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah, as a far much more unique aspect of Islam, if the philosophical problems in the divine representation of the Qur'an does not convince you.
I'm under the impression the Prophet himself didn't much pay attention to the whole idea of writing the faith down in the first place (he was sort of busy with other stuff anyway). His successors had the book compiled and set in stone when they realised there were already something like three different takes on the whole faith afoot in their realm, and one look at their Christian neighbours and subjects (plus some Realpolitik commonsense) told them everything they needed to know about how potentially Bad Thing this was.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Well, they were succesful inasmuch that Islam then split along (originally) political lines... :dizzy2:
That's people for ya.
Er... is there a single Scripture that did not claim to posses some kind of Ultimate Truth ? Just take one look at how doggedly the Bible has been used to shore up conservative ideas and stall fresh ideas and progess, and how stubbornly the Vatican and diverse true-believers still drag their heels on assorted modern issues for a parallel example.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
My problem with your take on the issue is that it seems to tendentiously ignore the factors you mention being pretty much universal and inherent to any Scripture and organised/hegemonic religion, and instead regards them as somehow particularly characteristic to the Islamic faith itself (nevermind now failing to account for the influence of factors external to the religion itself on ideas and policies claimed, naturally enough, by adherents to be drawn from it).
I also find your take on the matter somewhat difficult to reconcile with the rather flexible and opportunistic manner Muslims have in practice handled the matters historically; they were no worse at circumventing inconvenient doctrines with often grossly transparently half-assed excuses and creative interpretations than anyone else. ("Thou shalt not kill", anyone...?)
Nevermind when put into perspective with the praxis of other faiths.
I'm not actually terribly interested in whatever issues you may have with the man. I've seen enough of that line of rhetoric in other contexts, and its gross similarities with the character assasination pamphlets of Medieval European clergy, to know a smear campaign when I see it.Quote:
Like I said before, there are many ways of responding to your previous rhetorical answer; Perhaps the more powerful way is to address the conduct of Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah, as a far much more unique aspect of Islam, if the philosophical problems in the divine representation of the Qur'an does not convince you.
(Besides, since Islam recognizes the earlier prophets of the Abrahamic lineage as legitimate and wholesome, it could be argued this merely gives the faith a moral high ground, on the basis of good manners already, in the issue... :beam: )
Right, that's it. I've had enough, and I already gave two warnings on this thread.
I'd like to thank everybody who contributed to the topic, especially Cmaq, Geoffrey S, and anyone else who suggested I look up names and places. I will check out the stuff you reccommended as soon as I can (which, given that my exams are now over, will be pretty soon).
Don't say I didn't give you all fair warning back on page 1, when Dayve and Foot had their debate.
If anyone wants to contribute to the thread in answering the questions I posed, please do so quickly, as I am now going to ask Teleklos Archelaou to lock this thread.
I was researching polytheistic religions in the Middle East, when I found this thread. I am delighted with some of the information, but horrified by some of the views. All together I found this enlightening enough to join this forum just to let all the participants I am grateful for your input, the information and opinion about various religious groups, stretched me. For those who participate in such forums with such honesty, I can relate with you even if I can't agree. Peace
Indeed, the ignorance and haughty attitude dispayed by some team members on this thread is shocking. To their defence I can only say that the discussion happened five years ago and we were all much younger and sillier back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roosterfire
Now back on topic, and perhaps you might find this interesting: There actually are neo-Pagan and non-Abrahamitic movements in the "Middle East", for example a kind of neo-Shamanism seems to be popular among Turkish nationalists (themselves mostly being a group of genocidal hypocrites, but that is another issue really). Also, Zoroastrianism seems to be gaining followers among young people in Iran, who were disappointed by Islam in general and the Islamic Republic in particular. Yazidis have already been mentioned, their faith is essentially a poor man's Zoroastrianism (their negative attitude towards intermarrying with Muslims and other non-Yazidis is a big problem, especially among those who have emigrated).
Some Islamic sects such as Alevis are also very likely strongly influenced by "pagan" customs.
what Athanaric said about modern traces of paganism in the near east.
I'd also add that the Arabs when they practiced polytheism had a religion that was centered on a few deities: The first place I'd recommend--not knowing any better, would be the book of idols, written by Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi al-kalbi. I'll tell you it's not the world's most objective book, but it's a start.
the religion itself is no longer practiced (AFAIK), but it has some imprint on Arab culture (superstitions particularly) and religious beliefs as well.