Point adam? And why are you repeating yourself now, when I have already addressed that above? Please do feel free to read the whole thread again, if you are having issues with comprehension and remembering already covered territory.
Islamic Creationism: A Short History
Sat, 2008-02-23 12:35
#102
remind
Sat, 2008-02-23 12:38
#103
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]
If you have knowledge about Islam having shifted doctrine, please pass it on. [/b]
Religion was developed by humanity when nature, humanity, and society are mysterious and unknowable. Even then, it became a tool of some to be used against others.
As the world becomes knowable, humanity proportionally discards religion. If religion resists the trash can, it fights back and becomes ugly.
Religion didn't shift. Humanity marched onwards. But vested feudal interests weren't pleased.
quote:
[b]Another possibility is that for the last 600 years -and for whatever reason- Muslims themselves have strayed from the doctrine and become forces of darkness. But you stated that that is not the case.[/b]
Sure, fine. Muhammad and Jesus and Moses were wonderful and perfect, and people are evil. I'll stick to my interpretation, thanks very much.
quote:
[b]Do you have an argument or is this just some version of speaking in tongues ?[/b]
Both.
ETA: Holy Mary Mother of God, I just read sanizadeh's account after penning my riposte, and he put it far better and more knowledgeably than I could have done... Thank you for that.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 12:54
#104
Isn't this the same reasoning used for any system which promises a utopia on earth - Religions, Democracy, Communism, Capitalism - the system is always perfect - it's just imperfect humans who mess it up. Hence the totalitarian impulse is a self-fufilling prophesy - I must protect the system from these humans trying to screw it up, and then it becomes what it was supposed to be the solution to.
round and round we go.
Sat, 2008-02-23 12:58
#105
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Holy Mary Mother of God, I just read sanizadeh's account after penning my riposte, and he put it far better and more knowledgeably than I could have done... Thank you for that.
Agreed.
Sat, 2008-02-23 13:39
#106
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
[b]round and round we go.[/b]
Yes, and no, it is more like a progressive spiral onwards, we have not yet gone back to the dark ages, or even to pre 1929, nor will we. Though the regressive Conservatives would like to try so much so they are trying..
Sat, 2008-02-23 14:00
#107
quote:
So in a way, a doctorinal change did happen in Islamic teachings around 11-12th century that continues to this day. -sanizadeh
1)You are mixing Islamic philosophy with Islamic doctrine (core tenet). I have written that the fundamental core of Islam is Tawhid. Show me that Al Ghazali has performed a "shift" in the doctrine. Your implication, if I understand well, is that with his anti-rationalism and his determinism (cause-and-effect determined by Allah or intermediate angels), he shifted the doctrine. This is not the case at all.
2) If by you mentioning Al Ghazali you wanted to show that the "forces of darkness" reside in Muslims themselves and not the religion, you did succeed in refuting unionist's contention.
3) At least two centuries after Al Ghazali, Islam was still living its "golden age".
4) The causes of the decline of the Islamic civilization are very complex and still a matter of debates. Yet, you summarized it in one name: Al Ghazali.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 14:02
#108
A little off topic, but why haven't I heard of this guy before? Marcus Brigstocke - 7 minute comedy [url=http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6390269492696516962&q=Marcus+Bri... the abrahamic religions.[/url] Pretty much sums up my position.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 14:44
#109
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]1)You are mixing Islamic philosophy with Islamic doctrine (core tenet). I have written that the fundamental core of Islam is Tawhid. Show me that Al Ghazali has performed a "shift" in the doctrine. Your implication, if I understand well, is that with his anti-rationalism and his determinism (cause-and-effect determined by Allah or intermediate angels), he shifted the doctrine. This is not the case at all.
...
4) The causes of the decline of the Islamic civilization are very complex and still a matter of debates. Yet, you summarized it in one name: Al Ghazali.
[/b]
I disagree. "Tawhid" (Or belief in one supreme God) is one of the core tenets, but not the only one. And a doctorin shift does not require a change in a core tenet. Ghazali's influence created a major shift in the way Islamic scholars created religious rules, in particular by shutting the door to "ijtihad", which had allowed previous muslim scholars to rely on reason and judgment (in addition to Quran and prophet's words) in determining religious rules. Ghazali essentially froze Islamic sharia in time, not allowing any revision in it as time progressed. This became a major reason for backwardness of Islamic teachings later on.
Iranian scholar Motahhari (who tilted toward the rationalist thinking) called the battle between rationalists and scriptists "the battle for Islam's soul", which according to him, was won by scriptists only because of Ghazali. So I am not the one creating a "dark force". Others have noted it too.
Here is a summary from wiki's page on Ghazali:
quote:
"Ijtihad is the process through which Islamic scholars can generate new rules for Muslims. Ijtihad was one of the recognized sources of Islamic knowledge by early Islamic scholars - that is, in addition to Quran, Sunnah and Qiyas. While it is not widely agreed that Al-Ghazali himself intended to "shut the door of ijtihad" completely and permanently, such an interpretation of Al-Ghazali's work led the Islamic societies to be "frozen in time". Works of critics of Al-Ghazali (such as Ibn-Rushd, a rationalist), as well as the works of any ancient philosopher, were practically forbidden in these "frozen societies" through the centuries. As a result, all chances were lost to gradually revitalize religion - which may have been less painful had it been spread over a period of centuries.Whether the actual outcome of "freezing Islamic thinking in time" was the goal of Al-Ghazali is highly debatable. While he himself was a critic of the philosophers, Al-Ghazili was a master in the art of philosophy and had an immense education in the field. After such a long education in philosophy, as well as a long process of reflection. But only taking Al-Ghazali's final conclusions, while lacking a comparable education (and a reflection process) in the area, and as a result being unable to trace Al-Ghazali in his thought process, only exacerbates the probability of the misuse of Al-Ghazali's conclusions."
That's why I consider it a doctorin shift, because it changed the main sources for developing Sharia rules.
However, I am just an ordinary muslim, not an Islamic scholar. So don't take my word as authoritative on this subject. Someone else with a deeper knowledge of Islamic theology could correct any errors in what I said, and provide better insights on this topic.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 15:07
#110
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]
Perhaps I should help you out by saying that the only perfect and central dogma in Islam is "tawheed" (also written Tawhid, tavhid etc). It means the affirmation that God is one and unique.Does that hinder or discourage sientific endeavour, knowledge seeking and flourishing of science and discovery? How? Does that run counter evolution ?
[/b]
Tawhid is not the only tenet or core belief in Islam. There are several more, as following:
1) Tawhid, or belief in uniqueness of God, as you mentioned.
2) Prophethood of Mohammad, i.e. he was a true prophet from God and brought to us God's words in Quran.
3) Afterlife: There is an afterlife, and people will be judged and punished or rewarded after death.
4) Just God: That God is just and fair, and anything he does or orders people to do is based on justice.
5) For Shia muslims, Imamat is also a core tenet, the belief that at any time, there is one individual who is God's representative on earth.
Rejection of any of the above principles is sufficient ground for apostasy in Islam.
I'll let you decide whether these core tenets hinder science or seeking of knowledge.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 15:16
#111
Sanizadeh,
Here is the issue. Unionist claimed that the forces of darkness is in the religion itself (its doctrine), not its followers.
What you are demonstrating is that there was a shift -not in the doctrine of Islam- but in Islamic philosophy, operated by a follower, Al Ghazali.
So it is the Muslim Al Ghazali -and followers- who incarnate the forces of darkness, not the faith, the doctrine itself.
Hence my comment that your arguments come as a refutation of what unionist is contending.
Sat, 2008-02-23 15:29
#112
quote:
Le terme tawhоd (تَوْحيد [tawḥīd], monothйisme) est le principal enseignement du Coran et le dogme central de l’islam qui se proclame la religion du monothйisme strict. Il est indispensable afin d'accйder au paradis.Translation: Tawhid is the core teaching and the main dogma of Islam that proclaims itself as strictly monotheist, it is indisoensable as to enter paradise..
[url=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawhid]http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawhid[...
Shia may have others, but this is the common pivotal tenet for Shia and Sunnis.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 15:30
#113
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]Sanizadeh,Here is the issue. Unionist claimed that the forces of darkness is in the religion itself (its doctrine), not its followers.[/b]
Whoa, wait a minute. I said religion is evil, not religious people.
As in: "I hate Islam, but not Muslims."
Did you think I was blessing [b]all[/b] religious people??
Take Benedict Rat-singer, for example. The man is Evil Incarnate.
So please grasp the subtlety of my thesis before trying to refute it, or you'll miss the mark.
Sat, 2008-02-23 15:42
#114
Yes, unionist. I stand corrected. But that does not change anything in your thesis.
Sat, 2008-02-23 19:01
#115
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b] Take Benedict Rat-singer, for example. The man is Evil Incarnate.[/b]
So atheists do believe in evil?
Sat, 2008-02-23 19:28
#116
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]So atheists do believe in evil?[/b]
I never used to, but Benedict converted me.
Sat, 2008-02-23 19:35
#117
remind
I acknowledge evil as being in existence only because of the the reality of opposites. If there is good there must be evil.
Sat, 2008-02-23 22:48
#118
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Well, well, well done trevormkidd![/b]
Not really. Not only is a straw-primate for the most part, it in an example of what I am talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:Patriarchal and matriarchal structures can and have evolved through natural selection and are therefore “natural” in those situations. So what? Doesn’t mean that it is natural for us, and I don’t really understand the appeal of “natural” anyways. Cannibalism is quite natural (and indeed anthropologists say it was common and widespread). Just because that appears to be natural for early humans doesn’t mean that it should be accepted in modern society. Evolution doesn’t mean that we must behave the exact same way as our last common ancestor did – in fact evolution means that we evolve – and not just physically, but in every way. But of course if you look at our closest living relatives – Chimpanzee’s, Bonobo’s, Gorilla’s and Baboon’s you will see completely different social structures. Furthermore most of the evolutionary changes that have occurred in humans since splitting with our closest common ancestors indicate (to me anyways, but through study on these issues) that those evolutionary changes were towards a social structure that is more equal between men and women, more equal between those of the same sex, and more monogamous. For instance the difference in size in between men and women is smaller than patriarchal species such as baboons and gorillas.
This is a nice summary of some themes in sociobiological anthropolgy, but it is not addressed to the point.
The fact that I put "natural" in quotes is indicative of the fact that I am not enthused with the conceptualization. The "naturalist" arguement is one used to authorize types of behaviour, as unavoidable inate charachteristics. Read this in the context of much of the sociobiological anthropological work of the 60's and 70's that I directly referred to prior in this thread, such as Lionel Tiger, whose work was used to assert the "natural" (and therefore innate) social order among primates to justify patriarchy.
We agree, yes, that anthropolgists assert their own culturally imbued understanding upon that which they study and that the "object" of study is never free of the "objectifiers" world view. But simply reframing this by saying that partiarchal and matriarchal social structures can be the naturally evolved "norm" is not to confront the issue that the applied norm is most often one set in the partiarchal frame.
The idea that "natural" can be any existing social norm that flows from any set of biological factors, is reductionist and misses the point that "natural" as it is framed by people like Lionel Tiger, is meant as jusxtoposition against the what we might call the socially constructed reality. Anything can be construed as natural. So what? The distinction is being made between what is an innate, and therefore unchangeable social or biological proccess, against those that have conscious human intervention: the unatural.
If you are simply saying that any socially constructed realities are just a natural outcome of any given set of biological factors, you have deflected the point not met it, [i]because that is not what Lionel Tiger is about.[/i] He is about reifying the "natural," as a reflection of the partriarchal norm.
You may see different social structures in primate societies, he sees his own. This was the point. I suggest that your assertion that size is functional in determining a "natural" partriarchal state in Baboon society, is likely an assertion of exactly that kind of projection of patriarchal ideology upon a primate society, because, of course, "size" is really only functional as a tool in violent assertion of power in intraspecies social discourse. What other conclusion can we come to other than the implication that intraspecies violence is the norm, and that patriarchy "naturally" flows from that "biological" trait, as an outcome of the concept that the advantage goes to the bigger parties ability to use superior force.
The idea that body mass and strength are key to determining social superiority, are key concepts that justify patriarchal relations in human society, and you have just repeated them in a defence of sociolbiology wherein you claim it is "credited" not "discredited." I should say your arguement is an example of why sociobiology is in my mind, largely discredited because you have just imposed a human patriarchal conceptual mode, as a common sense deduction based on what you see.
I ask, if it is the case that it is "natural" for Baboon society to be extremely patriarchal because male Baboons are substantially larger than female Baboons, would you also say that it is "natural" for human society to be [i]somewhat[/i] patriarchal, even if much less patriarchal than Baboon society, because human females are slightly smaller than human males?
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2008-02-24 03:16
#119
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]I acknowledge evil as being in existence only because of the the reality of opposites. If there is good there must be evil.[/b]
Just plain bad works too.
Sun, 2008-02-24 03:51
#120
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]Just plain bad works too.[/b]
Not always. When "bad" is presented as being mandated by some supreme infallible force, it metamorphoses into [b][i]Evil[/i][/b]. That's my definition, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.
Sun, 2008-02-24 03:59
#121
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Not always. When "bad" is presented as being mandated by some supreme infallible force, it metamorphoses into [b][i]Evil[/i][/b]. That's my definition, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.[/b]
So this chant they do about 'deliver me from evil' suggests a desire for an out of body experience. Very spiritual.
Sun, 2008-02-24 04:07
#122
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]So this chant they do about 'deliver me from evil' suggests a desire for an out of body experience. Very spiritual.[/b]
The chant they do is very accurate and supports my definition:
[i]Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, [b]sed libera nos a malo[/b].[/i]
Both in Latin and English, they are pleading to be released, or freed, or delivered from Evil - meaning that they are already within its clutches. The Church might say that's talking about Original Sin. But I maintain it's referring to the Church.
Bad words and deeds, backed up by an Authority which forgives you in advance of even committing them and in fact blesses your rifle, leads to Evil Incarnate.
Sun, 2008-02-24 04:19
#123
Whoa, dudes. Long thread. Feel free to start a new one.
Sun, 2008-02-24 06:02
#124
New rule on babble! Infinite thread lengths! There could be theological significance to this. Babbling forever and ever, to the end of time and beyond.
What do the experts on Islam have to say about this?
Sun, 2008-02-24 06:09
#125
quote:
Originally posted by marzo:
[b]New rule on babble! Infinite thread lengths! There could be theological significance to this. Babbling forever and ever, to the end of time and beyond.
What do the experts on Islam have to say about this?[/b]
[i]It is Our will that the dialogue continue [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001872]h...
This thread is now locked.
[img]http://www.rabble.ca/babble/close_topic.gif[/img]
![http://www.rabble.ca/babble/close_topic.gif[/img]](http://www.rabble.ca/babble/close_topic.gif[/img]){kind=link}
[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sun, 2008-02-24 12:38
#126
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b][i]It is Our will that the dialogue continue [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001872]h...
This thread is now locked.
[img]http://www.rabble.ca/babble/close_topic.gif[/img]
No it wont.
[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ][/b]
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3