Are you suggesting Islam is 600 years behind Xianity?
No. Merely 600 years younger. Just as humans pass through certain stages in their lives, so it seems religions do. Some day for amusement value I should write an amusing piece on major religions and their eventual heat death.
I’m not so sure there is a direct correlation. The foundation of Western civilization is not Xianity. It's the other way around. Xianity was founded on Western civilization.The numerous institutions - banking and arts, sculptors and playwrights and polytheistic mythos, philosophies etc….
Oh, I did not mean to imply the connection was that simplistic. What in history is that simple? But still if you take a large view of the rise and fall of civilizations, they do not necessarily spring out of nowhere. The Romans stood on the backs of Greek civilization, for example. Yes, their focus ended up being different, as they were fine administrators but not such fine philosophers, and so that civilization takes a somewhat different form.
Likewise, the Western Civilization we know now is built on the back of several ancient civilizations....Greek, Roman and yes, Muslim civilizations, to name a few.
Do not underestimate the influence Islam had on the Western world. Those universities in Toledo were mighty busy churning out the great thinkers the Renaissance looked to. Everything from irrigation systems to the more well known algebra and chemistry, not to mention advances in medicine, lays at the feet of the advances made during the flower of Muslim civilization. Muhammad did tell his followers to seek after knowledge, even unto China, and there is much evidence that they did exactly that. Were it not for Muslim scholars, what would we have left of the Greek philsophers? The men of the Renaissance looked at ancient Greek philsophy and were able to do so...because those texts had been preserved by Muslims.
We tend to think Western history began with the glorious Crusaders retaking the Holy Land from those evil infidels, but that is a problem created by poor history curricula and has some very unfortunate results, right down to current foreign policy gaffes. Well, that is another topic.
Just a note on the the Enlightenment. It bloomed at a unique period in history. The great plague, the minor ice age and eventually the discovery of a new world…
No. The foundation for the Enlightenment was laid during the Ars Antiqua and Ars Nova. And those mini-Renaissances can be traced directly to the influence of Islam on the West through the contacts brought about by the Crusades.
Well, it seems that the two religions share some similar intolerances, however, Xianity (I believe) evolved an intolerance (because the basic building blocks are prone to such attitudes).
One, shall we say, "laws" of religions is that they are rarely intolerant until they reach a position of power. When they are the underdog, they cannot afford to piss off their neighbors, eh?
[/QUOTE]Whereas Islam on the other hand already had an intolerant 6th century Christianity as a model to be based on. Islam started out killing polytheists right from the get go. [/quote]
Early Islam (as in during the time of the Companions) was not influenced by Christianity other than for the short duration the early Muslims spent in Ethiopia, in exile. The Christians on the Arabian peninsula were considered heretical and by no means were in contact with the main body of Christians. The rest of the inhabitants were pagans of various varieties and also Jews.
If we look at the histories we can see Xianity went from being a peaceful spiritual movement, to an intolerant militant movement and back again to a peaceful movement.
Yes, that would be the ebb and flow of religions that I mentioned earlier. Islam is currently somewhere near it's nadir, but they too shall get over it, if history is any guide (btw, we could see the similar pattern in Eastern religions as well, but I'm trying not to muddy the waters here and we're likely more acquainted with Western religions anyway.)
Islam started out as a cult of personality and then set about on a path of reformation - Mohammad often choose to resort to violence as a means of achieving his reformation. After Muslims had reformed everything in their path, they settled down and used Islam as a foundation to rule their new empire. During this time they were really no difference then most any other empire.
It is true the Ummayad dynasty has much to answer for, but that has bears no resemblence whatsoever to the actions of nacent Islam or Islam in a larger sense. Also, not all Muslims were under the Ummayad dynasty, so at best it applies to only a segment.
Your notion that Muhammad chose to resort to violence to as a means to achieve his reformation is seriously off. If you're really interested in an indepth study I would suggest Balyuzi's "Muhammad and the Course of Islam" though it may be a bit hard to find. It covers history from a "twelver" point of view, but as to the early history, particularly the way in which warfare occured, his scholarship is on target.
Jesus did not have to wage even a defensive war because it was not necessary. Under Roman rule it would've been quite difficult for religious leaders in opposition to him to wipe out all of his followers. The Roman rulers would not have stood for the disruption of the pax romana.
The same cannot be said during the time of Muhammad. The inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula were anything but civilized. They were wild and warlike tribes who continually made war against each other. Had Muhammad not allowed defensive warfare, the nascent Muslim community would've been wiped out at the battle by the Quraysh. Offensive warfare was not allowed. In a case where the other parties sued for peace, the war ceased. This is not merely the "law of war" as set in the Qu'ran, scholarly examinations of the early history show that it was actually followed.
However brief this article may be, en.wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Battle_of_Badr (sorry, no links yet) rightly describes Muhammad's army as having an defensive position. Also, it rightly decribes that when the Arabs noticed there was a power arising to rival the Quraysh, there were more converts. People like to be on the winning side I guess. :shrug: Or perhaps they merely took a closer look and liked what they saw.
The end result? Instead of a bunch of warring tribes, the very same tribes sat down together as brothers, and through that greater unity were able to forge a civilization.
It seems to me that Empires based on theology can lead to some negative consequences. For example Islam seems to have eradicated the art of the human form.
I would argue that Islam, considering the background in which it arose, could brook no tolerance for images, because the danger of lapsing back into a disunified bunch of warring tribes was too great. In addition, it might be seen as something of a religious "course correction" -- getting away from the Christian practices of icons. Yes, in early Christianity the iconoclasts lost the argument, but the iconoclasts came back in Islam.
Since the Baha'i Faith was mention, it is worth mentioning at this point that there is no such prohibition in the Baha'i Faith, other than not using images of the Founders.
The beautiful human sculptures that characterized cities of the eastern Mediterranean simply disappeared. I suppose my point is, I'd never say any theology's ideology can lead to scientific advancement, but it can eradicate such advancements. Sure peace found in Empire can promote advancement but this is peace not ideology.
Ah, but you see, I would say that a theology can encourage education and the advancement of science. And Muhammad did exactly that. We see Islam as backwards today, but that is not remotely representative of the flowering of that religion's civilization.
At the time when Europeans didn't bathe and sickness was rampant, when Charlemagne boasted 800 whole books in his library, the Muslim world had lighted streets, sanitation, and an average city would have a library with 10,000 volumes.
Truly, in 1200 A.D. where would you rather live? I would pick Damascus hands down.
Today? Ah, no...I'll stay here, thanks.
Am I rambling or making sense?
Your doing both. I know I"m rambling too...hopefully making sense a bit as well.
Anyway, IMO Islam has a completely different history. It’s a history of armed struggle, reform and conquest. There was war from the beginning, during and end. After Mohammad died there was more war. Continued armed struggle in Arabia and then onwards to war against Persia, Byzantine, India, Spain, Sicily, Greece, etc…
Christianity doesn’t enter a war phase until hundreds of years after it’s conception. That's a big difference in my mind.
Yes, and I believe the difference is due to the different conditions and needs of the time, and that's all. Just as you see a change in other ordinances within a religion, like Jews can be polygamous, Christians cannot, Muslims can, Baha'is cannot. There are reasons for those changes and they are clear when you look at historical context.
(IMO one foot in the wrong direction.)
I do not see where monotheism => violence. Again, if you look at the formative periods of monotheistic religions, you see people coming together who formerly would not have associated with each other. They come together in peace. In early Christianity Jews and Greeks and Romans other "barbarians" all came together. It would've been unheard of outside of Christianity at the time.
Just as in early Islam, Jews, Christians, and pagans came together in peace to forge a civilization.
Yes, they do fall off the wagon eventually, but while the ride is fine...why walk?
(IMO another foot in the wrong direction BUT with the balance of “most accurate” ... this helps soften the step, but it's still a step in the wrong direction)
Isn’t it?!?! Many Muslims have killed other Muslims (or even denied the are Muslims) simply because they had a new “last” Prophet or a new Prophet anyway.
That's true. The same is true of every religion of a sufficient age. Ever seen Theravadan and Mahayana Buddhists spat? You'd think it was another religion.
The same is true with Xianity. Most mainstream Xians do not consider Mormons Xians.
I am not sure about the accuracy of this, because the attitude is changing. They are not consider mainline Christians, but then Mormons do not define themselves as mainline either.
BUT you also note that it [could] be couched in terms of "apostates" and "kufir," quite possibly even within the minds of the leaders spurring the violence.
I agree that money, culture and power can and do motive people to kill. BUT so does religious belief. People will harm people of their own culture (as in the case I posted) for nothing more than because of a difference in belief.
The problem is, religious belief, money and power can become so intertwined that it is well nigh impossible to find out which of them is the cause of violence.
But a fair minded person will look to the ultimate definition of a religion and see if the acts of the adherents match the original directions.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion." That's in the Qu'ran. Think the Taliban knows that? Their actions say they do not. Sure, by their lights they are acting by their religious belief. The problem is, it has nothing to do with the religion beliefs taught by the book that defines their religion.
