Interesting Observations

[Michael]

Sam,

Yes self-flagellation is not only relegated to those who are monotheists – it is even practiced during sex. I suppose one would need to consider why the self-flagellation is being done. Certainly Native Americans as well as Indians and many others have used the practice to force the mind into disassociating with the self. Thereby achieving a trance like state without the use of drugs.

What I was referring to was the use of self-flagellation, the act of ripping flesh from bone, to either emulate the death of a Man-God or to celebrate a religious festival. I think it is a fair call to suggest that the religion has some bearing on the act of mutilating one’s body? Especially if it is done in celebration of a blood thirsty God - whom itself has killed or demanded blood sacrifice! There is a connection - no?
[It should also be noted there were children having their own flesh torn. Sadly.]

Wouldn’t you agree?
Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam,

Yes self-flagellation is not only relegated to those who are monotheists – it is even practiced during sex. I suppose one would need to consider why the self-flagellation is being done. Certainly Native Americans as well as Indians and many others have used the practice to force the mind into disassociating with the self. Thereby achieving a trance like state without the use of drugs.

What I was referring to was the use of self-flagellation, the act of ripping flesh from bone, to either emulate the death of a Man-God or to celebrate a religious festival. I think it is a fair call to suggest that the religion has some bearing on the act of mutilating one’s body? Especially if it is done in celebration of a blood thirsty God - whom itself has killed or demanded blood sacrifice! There is a connection - no?
[It should also be noted there were children having their own flesh torn. Sadly.]

Wouldn’t you agree?
Michael

Now you're in fantasyland.

Whats the religious connotation to Shiite self flagellation?

They do it to commemorate a martyr who died in a battle. It is a historical event, not a religious one.

 

[Michael]

So your position is it is a purly secular tradition and has no religious connotation or significance at all.

None?

If so why?

 

[S.A.M.]

So your position is it is a purly secular tradition and has no religious connotation or significance at all.

None?

If so why?

Nope. It originated in Karbala and is an important event in Shiite history.

Karbala's prominence in Shīˤī is the result of the Battle of Karbala, fought on the site of the modern city on the Tenth of Muħarram in 61 A.H. (October 10, 680). Both Hussayn and his half-brother ˤAbbās ibn ˤAlī were buried by the local Banī Asad tribe at what later became known as the Mashadu l-Hussayn. The city grew up around the tombs, though the date of construction of the first sanctuary is not known.

The Battle of Karbala took place on Muharram 10, 61 AH (October 9 or 10, 680 CE) [1] [2] in Karbala, in present day Iraq. On one side were supporters & relatives of the Prophet MuhammadSallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam grandson Husayn ibn Ali and on the other side were a military detachment from the forces of Yazid I, the Umayyad caliph.

On 7th Muharram, 61 AH (October 6th, 680 CE), Yazid's forces followed and surrounded the traveling group of Husayn ibn Ali and cut-off their access to food and water. For three days in the heat of Iraqi desert, these men, women & children were made to suffer the thirst and hunger before they were brutally slaughtered on the deserts of Karbala.

They see themselves as martyrs for the cause, of course, and being descendants of the Prophets makes them on the side of the righteous, esp since Yazid was corrupt , brutal and power hungry.

Or so they say:

Although presented in many sources as a dissolute ruler, Yazid energetically tried to continue his father's policies and retained many of the men who served him. He strengthened the administrative structure of the empire and improved the military defenses of Syria, the Umayyad power base. The financial system was reformed. He lightened the taxation of some Christian groups and abolished the tax concessions granted to the Samaritans as a reward for aid they had rendered in the days of the early Arab conquests. He also paid significant attention to agriculture and improved the irrigation system of the Damascus oasis.

 

[Michael]

So it isn't a religious festival?
Is that correct?

What exactly is a religious festival?

 

[S.A.M.]

So it isn't a religious festival?
Is that correct?

What exactly is a religious festival?

Ramadan (Eid ul Fitr) is a religious festival. It is the culmination of 30 days of fasting as prescribed in the Quran.

So is Eid ul Zuha, when an animal is sacrificed to commemorate Abraham's willingness to give up what he held most dear for God (his son).

So is Muharram, the first day of the Islamic calendar.

(it coincides with the Shiite mourning of Karbala which they celebrate simultaneously but is a separate festival)

The Muslim New Year is a cultural event which some Muslims partake on the first day of Muharram, the first month in the Islamic Calendar. Many Muslims use the day to remember the signifance of this month, and the Hijra, or emigration, Muhammad made to the city now known as Medina. Recently, in many areas of Muslim population, people have begun exchanging cards and gifts on this day.

However, not all Muslims partake of this event. Shia Muslims do not partake in such activities since the month is observed as a month of mourning in honor of Imam Hussain, who was martyred in the Battle of Karbala on Muharram 10th.

Laylat ul Qadr is another one. It is the anniversary of the revelation of the first Quranic verse. It is also the anniversary of the night of the first time the Quran was revealed in its entirety.

The 15th day of Shaban is another. It is a day when sweets are prepared and fireworks are lit to remember the dead and commemorate Gods creations.

 

[Michael]

I don't understand why; Ramadan (Eid ul Fitr), Eid ul Zuha, Muharram, Laylat ul Qadr, and the 15th day of Shaban are "religous" holidays while the celebration of Ashura by the Shia is not considered religous?
What are the criterion for "religous holidays" - that all holidays must meet to be considered "religous".

If the celebration of Ashura by the Shia is not considered religous would you say mainstream Shia was agree it is a secular Holiday?


Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't understand why; Ramadan (Eid ul Fitr), Eid ul Zuha, Muharram, Laylat ul Qadr, and the 15th day of Shaban are "religous" holidays while the celebration of Ashura by the Shia is not considered religous?
What are the criterion for "religous holidays" - that all holidays must meet to be considered "religous".

If the celebration of Ashura by the Shia is not considered religous would you say mainstream Shia was agree it is a secular Holiday?


Michael

Ashura literally means the tenth, they are commemorating the tenth day of Mohurrum when the war was fought. It was fought against other Muslims.

How can it be a religious holiday? They celebrate it as a martyrs day which is why they flagellate themselves (they are martyrs). The only possible religious connection is that Hussein was a son of Ali the Prophets nephew, but that's hardly religious. (My neighbor was Shia but he did not celebrate it as a religious holiday, but as a day of mourning, there may be Shias who consider it religious, there are as many types of Shias as Sunnis)

 

[kl5k]

martyr?

Ashura literally means the tenth, they are commemorating the tenth day of Mohurrum when the war was fought. It was fought against other Muslims.

How can it be a religious holiday? They celebrate it as a martyrs day which is why they flagellate themselves (they are martyrs). The only possible religious connection is that Hussein was a son of Ali the Prophets nephew, but that's hardly religious. (My neighbor was Shia but he did not celebrate it as a religious holiday, but as a day of mourning, there may be Shias who consider it religious, there are as many types of Shias as Sunnis)

I don't understand that explanation. A martyr is someone who dies for their belief's.

 

[Michael]

Ashura literally means the tenth, they are commemorating the tenth day of Mohurrum when the war was fought. It was fought against other Muslims.

How can it be a religious holiday? They celebrate it as a martyrs day which is why they flagellate themselves (they are martyrs). The only possible religious connection is that Hussein was a son of Ali the Prophets nephew, but that's hardly religious. (My neighbor was Shia but he did not celebrate it as a religious holiday, but as a day of mourning, there may be Shias who consider it religious, there are as many types of Shias as Sunnis)

That's why I then asked: What exactly is a religous holiday?

Would you say mainstream Shia would agree with you in saying it is a purly secular Holiday?

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic,

One may reflect upon a reflection.

(that is where the word derives it's second meaning? No?)


Michael

true, but I am just trying to determine whether the meaning you are drawing (ie - montheism is inherently violent) has any basis

For instance, is the argument "some people are doing it wrong therefore everyone is doing it wrong" valid?

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't understand that explanation. A martyr is someone who dies for their belief's.

Not in Asia. A martyr is someone who dies for a cause. Could be nationalism, human rights, belief etc.

Hussein was martyred fighting Yazid, a tyrant.

 

[S.A.M.]

That's why I then asked: What exactly is a religous holiday?

Would you say mainstream Shia would agree with you in saying it is a purly secular Holiday?

Well I would say God has to be in the equation somewhere.

No idea, I just go by what I know from Shias I know.

Is Shiasm a religion? Is it separate from Islam? Were they fighting for religious reasons?

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Hey Sam, what was the name of Abraham's son who was prepared to be sacrificed?

 

[LiveInFaith]

Then why yet another Prophet and yet another book if neither offer something new? It just simply doesn’t make sense to me.

Had qur’an be corrupted, and no way to memorize it, it still make sense if another one comes.

There is one God – OK yeah knew that.
Mohammed is his last Prophet – OK so what?

Oh, wait – you mean because you’re the last Prophet you get extra women and get to become the military leader .. now it’s becoming clear. Most military leaders in the ancient ME claimed to have divine guidance. Alexander was worshipped and revered for over a millennia there.

Muhammad claimed to have divine guidance long before wars. Under hard pressures, still no war; they even were forced to hijrah (moved) from mecca to medinah, left over houses and many things. Several years of ahimsa.
Apparently, things were not as good as in India. Maybe because it was not British they dealt with (which had some busy ‘works’ with the allies in WWII), or maybe eventually realized ahimsa alone was not effective enough to keep people lives.
War verses are regarded as ‘permission’ to go war. After several years dealing pressures with ‘passive resistance’, obviously it was not effective that time. You’re not gonna just sit and let your family living miserably under long time threats in your own home.
As leader of his community, it is kind of compulsory to him to become military commander, nothing to do with the last prophet status.
Muhammad is the last, nothing special, that just means revelation is enough. No more required for those willing to follow, the guide is already there, and promised to be kept as is for the whole time. It’s all set.

As for women, the reason people call muhammad as what.. a sexual bastard?
Had there not war, not many widows, I speculated he would not have many wives, but nonetheless, that’s not the case, because actually he did have.
Tradition of kings, they can have 100 concubines in their ‘harem’, and considering muhammad position, he could also get the same. But he got far from 100. He married them, and I guess those wives were happy with him.
What about it? oh yaa… nothing to do with the ‘last prophet’.

Alexander, he could have been had divine guidance, who knows?

Maybe he’s pulling a Bush and going for pre-emption? That’s a “defence” in a manner. It all depends how one looks at it. So he’d probably say it is you who don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t know true Islam. I don’t know. But certainly he read the Qur’an and he found in it inspiration for war. There’s no denying that. He even quotes the number of passages that inspired him to kill people.

This is what happens when you “give an inch” as they say -they take a mile.

Maybe he knows better. Maybe I don’t.
But I believe it is not ‘inspired’, better to use your previous term ‘justifying’. What I see, inspiration of war comes from some fellow foreigners came to their homeland, which do what you quote ‘given an inch, asking a mile’. I know what this quotes did. My homeland is the sample; colonialists came without invitation, stick up a mile when an inch was not even given; and that happened for hundreds of years. Apart from others, some region (of muslim people) did fight against this colonialists, justified the fight as jihad, and that seems more effective compared to others. Anything effective in protecting homeland and its people, is good anyway.

As for pre emption, it might be justified as defence. But he said, he wanted to rule the world, that is not the case.

Lets look at it this way. The country of Iran was conquered (or as my Persian buddy puts it – culturally raped). Why did Muslims have a mandate to conquer the whole of the country? Persians may have had agreements with Arabs and may have received tribute – but in 5000 years they had never conquered the whole of the Arabian peninsula. Why the sudden mandate just post-Islam to conquer Iran? It was justified in the name of Islam and it obviously did happen.

So a good question is: Where in the Quran is a mandate to conquer and kill Persians?

What of Greece? Sicily? Egypt? North Africa? Spain? India?

What about Constantinople? Was that justified?

Is it that all these people for all these centuries who read the Qur’an and conquered other people – that ALL got it wrong?

Well, what does THAT say?

Well, I have the same question. I didn’t find any mandate.

That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is as a means to end violence and ones own actions will not perpetuate violence in the future.

Let us compare: Bush is in line with the notion that greedy hungry powers need to be crushed and killed like vermin while Gandhi thought peaceful passive resistance was the way – don’t even harm animals.

Now, with this in mind: Who do you think is the complete dimwitted imbecile and who the well thought-out philosopher!?!?

I admire Gandhi as one of the greatest ever.
Who do you call imbecile? Is it Muhammad? Or anyone who committed fight? Or just muslims go jihad?
I didn’t call patriots of my country as imbeciles, they gave their lives (in fights, and many just were killed for giving food for other patriots) for me to enjoy living in independent country today. On the other hand, many thanks to renaissance in Europe; which brought colonialists all over the world, which gave them chance and capability to do your quote ‘given an inch and stick up a mile’ in any places they harboured. Do you think passive resistance can work alone, without fight? They sent scholar-patriots to jail, many alienated in small islands for years, living lonely place far from family and society.

Lets sum it up like this: The apple doesn’t fall far from the monotheistic-tree.


Michael

[/quote]

So that’s the only tree you see?

 

[Michael]

true, but I am just trying to determine whether the meaning you are drawing (ie - monotheism is inherently violent) has any basis

For instance, is the argument "some people are doing it wrong therefore everyone is doing it wrong" valid?

It is a difficult situation as humans have such a violent nature which is reflected in many of the religions that they have created. Even in Greco-Roman Myths there is a God of War but that is tempered with a God of Fertility or Love – a Goddess that enjoys a sense of humor and enjoys a good joke - including at the God of War’s expense

However, in the Middle Eastern monotheistic religions we find a single One God – one that gets jealous, surprised, angry and is homicidal to the point of murdering all of humanity - simply for the crime of acting on their own free accord. This God is the God that inspired the inquisitions, It supported Slavery, It enjoys a man to have 4 wives (so long as he doesn't like pork) and It iwas the nspiration for both Xian and Muslims to brutally kill and conquer most of the known world (the Xians way way way more so than the Muslims) in Its name.

It is History

Instead of relying on a well thought-out enlightened approach to human suffering – say something like empathetic meditation (empathy via neural plasticity); this God instead relies on the promise of eternal hell-fire and tricks such as a tax on non-believers to coerce belief. Indeed, these beliefs (especially if taught at a young age) will modulate the brain. They have a DIRECT effect on neural conductivity. If one lives their whole life in fear of a God the sits in judgment – expect that person's brain to be completely rewired towards this fear. It is so.

As a Great Jedi Master once said:
"Fear leads to Anger.
Anger leads to Hate.
Hate leads to suffering."



Look at the rise of Christianity – witness the Dark Ages.
It’s demise heralds the Renaissance and the rise of secularism: The Age of Enlightenment.

Can one find another main stream religion that has even close to the violent history as Christianity and Islam?

Michael

 

[Michael]

Is Shiasm a religion? Is it separate from Islam?

You litterally took the next two question right out of my mouth!

Well? What do you think?

Oh, and then ask the same of the Bahai' and what of their holidays? Are they religous holidays?

 

[Michael]

LiveInFaith,

It's hard to say. Yes, if one doens't fight then perhaps one loses everything. But if there really is another better life for ALL of humans - does it matter in the least?

We're really still monkeys - run by instinct.
I'm sure my instinct would be to fight - Gandhi was obviously as enlightened person and he went above this instict and he won.

His is the better way.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

You litterally took the next two question right out of my mouth!

Well? What do you think?

There are only two requirements to be a Muslim: monotheism and acceptance of Mohammed.

That makes all Shias Muslims. Do they have different practices?

Sure, because practices are determined by the Madhabs and Shias have a separate Madhab. The practice is about being part of a group. In Mecca, everyone can follow their own practices, it makes no difference. So no, its not separate from Islam, and their differences are part of their group culture.

 

[Michael]

There are only two requirements to be a Muslim: monotheism and acceptance of Mohammed.

That makes all Shias Muslims. Do they have different practices?

Sure, because practices are determined by the Madhabs and Shias have a separate Madhab. The practice is about being part of a group. In Mecca, everyone can follow their own practices, it makes no difference. So no, its not separate from Islam, and their differences are part of their group culture.

So Baha'i are Muslim? They accept their is one God and they also accept the Mohammed was one of his Prophets...

Can Muslims be monotheistic and accept Mohammed was the Last Prophet yet also accept the fact that the Qur'an has been altered over the years and hence have new better “perfect” books like the Bahá'u'lláh's Kitáb-i-Aqdas and The Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá?

They do meet your definition after all….