Religion, what's the point?

[Dumbstar]

I'm interested to know your thoughts on it being dismissed so easily further up the page here.

Her age? Or the acceptance of child marriages at the time?

Her age seems to lean towards 9 years at consummation. I don't have any other facts to state otherwise.

The acceptance of child marriages at the time if they are 'of age' is a new one to me. I know during Victorian times and earlier girls in the West would get married and have kids by 12, 13 14, etc. Which was considered normal then. Maybe the same was happening in other parts of the world and our perceptions have since changed. The article covered it well again.

I don't think I dismissed her age above. I did say that she was very, very mature as proven by her elevated status among men (imagine in a men dominated era) at only the age of 16.

 

[Carolina Red]

Her age? Or the acceptance of child marriages at the time?

Her age seems to lean towards 9 years at consummation. I don't have any other facts to state otherwise.

The acceptance of child marriages at the time if they are 'of age' is a new one to me. I know during Victorian times and earlier girls in the West would get married and have kids by 12, 13 14, etc. Which was considered normal then. Maybe the same was happening in other parts of the world and our perceptions have since changed. The article covered it well again.

I don't think I dismissed her age above. I did say that she was very, very mature as proven by her elevated status among men (imagine in a men dominated era) at only the age of 16.

Not you. @2mufc0 gave a very abrupt dismissal of the link I posted there, as he takes issue with the person accepting the validity of Bukhari hadith. I'm interested in your thoughts there, as you seem to think the article was well written / researched.

 

[Gehrman]

Of course not but my point is the vast majority. It would be like a christian not believing in christ to be the son of God. Belief in Hadith on the other hand is a wide spectrum.



My point is you are using the same sources that claim saliva healed people for your negative criticism. You can't pick and choose. Either we accept all the negative you talked about and miraculous healing or you reject it. They are the same source. So tell me, which side are you on?

i'm not a either or person. Both greek and roman and all kind of history is filled with supernatural elements on the field of battle, but it doesnt mean that battle did not take place. It's not really a case where either the source is 100% or 0% reliable.

Now I would like to hear, what are your sources? You have never mentioned this. I take it that you are a muslim. So if supernatural phenomena excludes the validity of a source, then Allah and Islam is by nature immediately excluded since it is by nature defined by postulations we consider supernatural, and there rendered false and a big sham.

 

[Dumbstar]

Evangelical Christians believe that God dictated the Bible through those human authors, so still the verbatim word of God.

From the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention statement of faith...
"The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy."

I don't mean to offend my Christian friends here but always wanted to ask about mistakes in the Bible. There many arguments and counter arguments all over the net. However this Guardian article touches upon relatively simple things:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/21/10-baddest-mistakes-in-the-bible

My question would be, how do we know they are typos. Maybe they are the actual words of God and by us 'correcting' the typos we are changing the message of the Bible? Now if we had an original source document, preferably in Aramaic, then we would be 100% sure. And English wasn't the first language the original Bible was translated into, surely other languages including Latin would have been involved? How many typos in those cross-translations were corrected and noted as corrections? There is no chain of authenticity.

 

[Dumbstar]

Not you. @2mufc0 gave a very abrupt dismissal of the link I posted there, as he takes issue with the person accepting the validity of Bukhari hadith. I'm interested in your thoughts there, as you seem to think the article was well written / researched.

He seems to have studied far more than me so I would be interested in his opinions too. Either way I think the article pretty much covers both points (she was, she wasn't) and one thing is sure there is a difference of opinion. It's not as clear cut as you can't eat pork, end of discussion. I hold my point on her age but willing to keep listening. I liked the article though.

 

[shamans]

i'm not a either or person. Both greek and roman and all kind of history is filled with supernatural elements on the field of battle, but it doesnt mean that battle did not take place. It's not really a case where either the source is 100% or 0% reliable.

Now I would like to hear, what are your sources? You have never mentioned this. I take it that you are a muslim. So if supernatural phenomena excludes the validity of a source, then Allah and Islam is by nature immediately excluded since it is by nature defined by postulations we consider supernatural, and there rendered false and a big sham.

My sources for what exactly? What claim am I making for which you want a source?

I don't understand your reasoning either. You cite sources that claim what you do not believe in to be accurate for the negative you want to propel. I don't understand your reasoning of not being an "either or person". There is a resource in front of you -- a set of narrations. You either claim these narrations as reliable or not reliable.

What I am saying in regards to source citation is logical so I would again want to know if you find the sources you claim reliable or not.

 

[Carolina Red]

I don't mean to offend my Christian friends here but always wanted to ask about mistakes in the Bible. There many arguments and counter arguments all over the net. However this Guardian article touches upon relatively simple things:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/21/10-baddest-mistakes-in-the-bible

My question would be, how do we know they are typos. Maybe they are the actual words of God and by us 'correcting' the typos we are changing the message of the Bible? Now if we had an original source document, preferably in Aramaic, then we would be 100% sure. And English wasn't the first language the original Bible was translated into, surely other languages including Latin would have been involved? How many typos in those cross-translations were corrected and noted as corrections? There is no chain of authenticity.

I wouldn't worry about it... this is the thread for taking the piss out of religion, after all.

My simple explanation of the problems with the Bible are that it is wrong anyway, just like all the rest of the religious texts in the world.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I don't mean to offend my Christian friends here but always wanted to ask about mistakes in the Bible. There many arguments and counter arguments all over the net. However this Guardian article touches upon relatively simple things:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/21/10-baddest-mistakes-in-the-bible

My question would be, how do we know they are typos. Maybe they are the actual words of God and by us 'correcting' the typos we are changing the message of the Bible? Now if we had an original source document, preferably in Aramaic, then we would be 100% sure. And English wasn't the first language the original Bible was translated into, surely other languages including Latin would have been involved? How many typos in those cross-translations were corrected and noted as corrections? There is no chain of authenticity.

Well, obviously. As well as deliberately mistranslated and edited for a whole variety of purposes.
I'd, of course, answer that we know it isn't the word of god for a fairly obvious reason.

 

[Gehrman]

My sources for what exactly? What claim am I making for which you want a source?

I don't understand your reasoning either. You cite sources that claim what you do not believe in to be accurate for the negative you want to propel. I don't understand your reasoning of not being an "either or person". There is a resource in front of you -- a set of narrations. You either claim these narrations as reliable or not reliable.

What I am saying in regards to source citation is logical so I would again want to know if you find the sources you claim reliable or not.

It's about probability and also taking into account that history is largely written by the victors. For example I don't doubt that the Battle of Badr actually took place and that amount of soldiers of each side seems to correspond with the density of population of Arabia at that time. It a question what is probable and how many sources are there on the topic. Some the letters I believe that Muhammed sent around the kingdoms outside Arabia where he invited them to the call Islam are actually historically preserved I believe. When it is said that muhammeds eye was wounded in battle and it fell out and he took in his hand and put in back in and became even stronger than his other eye, I consider it something probably said by either Muhammed himself or one of his most zealous disciples to make him look good and elevate in his claim to prophethood and divine athourity.

When I claim that Muhammed fx enslaved people, kept slaves and traded slaves I use sources that are widely considered to be canon, but you are right unless we were there ourselves it is difficult to prove beyond doubt that this actually happened. If we use this line of reasoning there is actually little point in reading pre-modern history or religion at all in the first place.

When it comes to all the passages that are now sources of controversy, like slaving, fighting defensive as well as agressive wars, brutal punishments for prisoners and criminals, marrying a girl said to be 6 years old. I think none of people putting this into scripture were thinking that this might look bad when by scrutinized 21st atheist or religious critics 1500 years later. The customs at the time were completely different.

I for one believe that Alexander The Great did indeed exist and that he won the major battles that he did often in a remarkable manner. I don't believe the way he tamed his source, that he cut the knot that could not be untied and that he was the son of Zeus as claimed by his mother.

 

[shamans]

On a side not, I don't get how some of you and @Shamana in particular start yelling "There is no free speech and I cannot criticize Islam!" when others respond to the criticism. Just because you respond to criticism does not mean anyone is stealing your rights or curbing your speech. I'm sure this sort of stuff happens in the world but in my daily routine I have not seen anyone go apeshit on someone for any sort fo criticism.

Drawing cartoons btw is not criticism. A lot of followers wont care but it is obviously very instigative to some and it's trying to ignite their emotions.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Drawing cartoons btw is not criticism. A lot of followers wont care but it is obviously very instigative to some and it's trying to ignite their emotions.

Sorry, what do you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

 

[shamans]

It's about probability and also taking into account that history is largely written by the victors. For example I don't doubt that the Battle of Badr actually took place and that amount of soldiers of each side seems to correspond with the density of population of Arabia at that time. It a question what is probable and how many sources are there on the topic. Some the letters I believe that Muhammed sent around the kingdoms outside Arabia where he invited them to the call Islam are actually historically preserved I believe. When it is said that muhammeds eye was wounded in battle and it fell out and he took in his hand and put in back in and became even stronger than his other eye, I consider it something probably said by either Muhammed himself or one of his most zealous disciples to make him look good and elevate in his claim to prophethood and divine athourity.

When I claim that Muhammed fx enslaved people, kept slaves and traded slaves I use sources that are widely considered to be canon, but you are right unless we were there ourselves it is difficult to prove beyond doubt that this actually happened. If we use this line of reasoning there is actually little point in reading pre-modern history or religion at all in the first place.

When it comes to all the passages that are now sources of controversy, like slaving, fight defensive as well as agressive wars, brutal punishments for prisoners and criminals, marrying a girl said to be 6 years old. I think none of people putting this into scripture were not thinking that this might look bad when by scrutinized 21st atheist or religious critics 1500 years later. The customs at the time were completely different.

I for one believe that Alexander The Great did indeed exist and that he won the major battles that he did often in a remarkable manner. I don't believe the way he tamed his source, that he cut the knot that could not be untied and that he was the son of Zeus as claimed by his mother.

The idea is it is what you believe to be true and what you do not believe to be true. With a historical resource like this, your interpretation will be based off of your intentions. I gave you an extreme example -- a devout follower who would believe in all the miracles because they want to believe. Even from how you claimed to "win" this debate when you yourself are now saying you pick and chose what you thought to be true and what wasn't. People will interpret all of it differently than someone looking at it from another intention.

Issue is, you frame the negatives as facts that happened 100% and as the "truth" or "reality" of an often glanced over history. The reality is we have a set of accounts that can be interpreted in many ways.

Such character assassination that has become quite trendy nowadays is silly because followers understand the intention behind it. You would make better use of your time criticizing the teachings and belief system of a religion.

 

[shamans]

Sorry, what do you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

It is a blatant attempt to instigate followers not criticism, dialogue or debate. Overwhelming majority won't even react to it. Few will and then they are used to project a community as "intolerant".

 

[Gehrman]

The idea is it is what you believe to be true and what you do not believe to be true. With a historical resource like this, your interpretation will be based off of your intentions. I gave you an extreme example -- a devout follower who would believe in all the miracles because they want to believe. Even from how you claimed to "win" this debate when you yourself are now saying you pick and chose what you thought to be true and what wasn't. People will interpret all of it differently than someone looking at it from another intention.

Issue is, you frame the negatives as facts that happened 100% and as the "truth" or "reality" of an often glanced over history. The reality is we have a set of accounts that can be interpreted in many ways.

Such character assassination that has become quite trendy nowadays is silly because followers understand the intention behind it. You would make better use of your time criticizing the teachings and belief system of a religion.

Well who and what do you propose to use as sources when speaking about the life of Muhammed? Or should we just pretend that he did not exist at all then?

I am not going to suggest how you should use your time shamans, as I don't think you should tell me how to spend mine, but I would like to know that if we are going to discuss the prophet Muhammed what sources do we use get a somewhat accurate picture with the evidence available?

 

[Gehrman]

Quite entertaining discussion. I would critize Richard Dawkins inability in this debate to acknowledge the good deeds carried out by religous peole.

 

[2cents]

Yes, indeed. I'm trying to understand if that's, basically, similar to Christianity in that there is something of a "pick and choose" approach as is the case with many Christians regarding the Bible. May be it's a tough question to answer I guess.

Yes, I suspect so. I feel my question may not be helpful but I'm trying to get some base understanding of how a very different religion and its philosophies are structured through the prism of a religion I'm more familiar with which may well be foolhardy.

Here’s the long post I promised earlier. It’s longer than I planned (sorry about that) but hopefully it gives a sense of the structures of legal authority in pre-modern Islam, and the forces challenging that authority today:

Spoiler

This will focus primarily on the legal/shari’a-minded aspect of Sunni Islam, since today that is the side of Islam which seems to interest people the most (certainly if we go by the discussion of the last few pages of this thread), and for many people, Muslim and non-Muslim, it defines the essence of Islam. I won’t comment on the mystical and spiritual elements, or Shi’ism, except to say that we shouldn’t reduce “Islam” purely to what is written in the Qur’an, what was subsequently written about Muhammad and his closest companions, and what was then later laid down by scholars of Islamic law on their basis. While they all have a part to play in the elaboration of the shari’a*, understanding that aspect of their function will not give a full understanding of the lived experience of what it means, and has meant in history, to be a Muslim. Any such understanding must account for the role of the Sufi orders, the concept of umma, the Hajj, prayers, fasting, the Arabic and Persian languages, etc. But anyway...

*(literally the way/path, mostly translated as “Islamic Law” although there are some problems with this and it is best not to think about it in terms of the rigid systems of law we find in modern societies)

The Qur’an is regarded as the literal word of God. Most Muslims believe it to be uncreated, i.e. it has always existed in space and time, it is an eternal part of what/who God is. However a minority, today mostly associated with minority sects, believe it to be one of God’s creations, an expression of his conscious will. There was a time when this debate produced violence among Muslims, but its main relevance in history relates to deep theological questions concerning matters such as free will and the roots of evil in the world, which don’t concern us here.

The problem with the Qur’an is that it is not very useful as a source for telling us a lot of important things we’d naturally like to know, especially about early Muslim history. The text is fragmented, disjointed - it doesn’t really tell chronologically linear stories (or at least doesn’t dwell on them), it refers to people, places and incidents without giving context, taking it for granted that the reader (or listener as the first Muslims would have been) understands. According to some scholars of classical Arabic much of the language is obscure and in parts close to incomprehensible. There was also a problem in that early written editions omitted the marks which denote vowels (like Hebrew the Arabic alphabet doesn’t use vowels, although some consonants are used for long-form vowels) and alternative soundings of certain consonants, which, depending on how they were applied, could alter the meaning of a word in the text.

None of this was really a problem while leadership of the early Muslims rested in the hands of men who, by their close association with Muhammad, were trusted by most to lead the community along the right path (although the question of who exactly should lead did produce conflict). However, this period didn’t last long. After a time, leadership passed to a dynastic house (the Umayyads), the generation of Muslims who were close to Muhammad died off, and the state established by the early Muslims expanded into an international empire spanning three continents, which threw up many questions which the Qur’an was not designed to answer.

Learned Muslims tried to solve the problem by collecting and cataloguing sources on the example (Sunna) of Muhammad and his companions, and using rational analogy (qiyas) to understand how to apply that example and the message of the Qur’an in new contexts. The most commonly used sources for the Sunna were the hadith, snippets of stories or conversations which could be traced back through a chain of reliable sources to Muhammad and his associates. They also came to believe that if they all came to a consensus on an issue (‘ijma), then they could not be in error. In this way, the four primary sources of Islamic law came to be accepted - the Qur’an, the Sunna, qiyas, and ‘ijma.

Eventually a massive corpus of law concerning all aspects of society and private life was derived from these sources and consolidated in compilations treating all kinds of topics. And while much variation existed on a range of matters, most Muslims came to accept four schools of law (madhahib) as equally legitimate - the Shafi’i, the Hanafi, the Maliki, and the Hanbali. While each had different approaches to questions such as when to apply qiyas or when to read a particular source literally, they each recognized the legitimacy of the other, and as far as I know their adherents have never engaged in violent conflict with each other over their disagreements.

This process played out at a time in Islamic history when the empire of the Umayyads and the Abbasids who succeeded them was becoming fatally weakened/decentralized, and numerous regional successor states were assuming their authority. The Muslim men who studied and expounded the law, known as the ulama, played a hugely important role in providing legal and cultural continuity and coherence across the span of the Islamic world in the face of this political fragmentation. These scholars could network with each other in famous places of learning such as Cairo or Damascus, and settle anywhere from Spain to India where a local governor required their expertise. Dynasties could rise and fall, but the ulama remained as the most authoritative interpreters of the Islamic tradition, setting and maintaining the standards of what it meant to be consciously Muslim in the pre-modern world. The important thing was the maintenance and understanding of the shari'a so that the layman could get into paradise, and if the ruler provided the conditions for that, then his authority was legitimate.

However, the accumulation of centuries of generally unoriginal and repetitive theological treatises, commentaries, and other forms of scholarship produced by the adherents of the four madhahib created a massive gulf between the average illiterate layman and the original texts upon which the sharia was based - the Qur'an and the hadith. When the European powers began to encroach upon and eventually conquer much of the Islamic world, many learned Muslims blamed their weakness and relative backwardness on this sense that Muslims had lost touch with the original spirit of Islam, and consequently blamed the ulama for stifling free enquiry into the original texts and basically acting to preserve their acquired privileges as a unique class within Islamic society.

So by the end of the nineteenth century, there was an anti-ulama backlash. This coincided with the growth of literacy and the use of print in the Islamic world, which enabled more and more people to directly access the original texts (the Qur'an and hadith) to understand the practice of Muhammad and the early Muslims (the salaf), and use their own independent reasoning (ijtihad) to judge the correct practice of their religion.

This freedom from the conservative ulama and search for the true spirit of early Islam produced four trends. The lines between them are sometimes blurred, and some movements can be placed across more than one, but it generally holds true IMO.

The first group, the secularists, decided that Western civilization, or at least the Western model of political order, was on the rise and basically superior, and the Islamic tradition redundant, and aimed to relegate Islam to the private sphere. The most successful example of this was Ataturk in Turkey, although for almost half a century from the end of WW1 until the 6-day war many Arab countries were generally dominated by 'secular' regimes. However, for obvious historical reasons it was much harder for Arabs to make the clean break with the past that Turkey had done, and Arab Nationalism was always infused with elements of Islamic imagery and rhetoric.

The second group, the 'modernists', believed that by returning to the Qur'an and the hadith and emulating the prophet, Muslims could reconcile Islam with the reality of Western power, since they believed that Islam, properly understood, already enshrined all the positive aspects of Western civilization, and that there need be no conflict between them. In India, the most famous proponent of this trend was Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan who founded the Muslim University at Aligarh. Another famous proponent was Muhammad Abduh of Egypt, who attempted to reform the Azhar University in Cairo along the lines of a modern European university. He is famous for writing "I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam." This trend has probably been the least successful politically, but certainly embodies how many Muslims in the west and elsewhere approach questions of textual interpretation and authority in Islam today.

The third trend, the 'Islamist', was explicitly anti-Western but revolutionary, and believed that the return to the texts and spirit of Islam was the means to oust the Western powers from Muslim lands and restore the glory of the early Islamic empires. At the same time, they discovered they could utilize Western technology and organization (primarily 'the State') for the good of Islam. This is the trend which produced the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i Islami, who were influenced in organizational terms by interwar European fascism and sought to seize the state in order to implement a top-down Islamization of society.

These three trends are explicitly anti-clerical in their disdain for the traditional, conservative ulama. Hence the lack of officially-earned religious credentials held by members of the Muslim Brotherhood and groups like al-Qaeda. The final trend, what I'll call the 'scriptural', was primarily driven by the reaction of the ulama to the sudden loss in their prestige and traditional authority. It was deeply conservative and believed the West was best shunned in order for Muslims to maintain their true identity. They tended to retreat into their madrasas and other educational institutions to concentrate on purifying the creed, and often remained apolitical. Some, such as the Salafis of the Middle East and the Ahl-i Hadis movement in South Asia completely rejected the authority of the madhahib, while others, such as the Deobandis of South Asia, sought to preserve the most literal, conservative manifestation of the law schools (in the Deoband case, the Hanafi). The problem for the ulama in the last century or so has been maintaining their hold over the community. To do this they've had to tread a fine line between the state, which from the mid-twentieth century onwards attempted to co-opt them, and the Islamists, whose success and growing prestige undermined their own power.

So as you can see, the authority to determine the true meaning of the “Straight Path“ in Islam in today’s world is fragmented. The ulama try to hang on to their former prestige, but every Muslim who can read and use the internet (and as we often see online these days, non-Muslim) can now access the source material for themselves and come to their own conclusions based on their own individual context. Of course, knowledge of Classical Arabic remains a massive barrier for most, so many continue to humbly accept the authority of those with more knowledge. But translations are available, and the internet being what it is, quick answers lacking sufficient context and broader understanding are often in demand. Which is perhaps one reason why these frustrating online debates over the legitimacy of this hadith, or the proper interpretation of that Qur’anic verse, often go nowhere.

 

[Carolina Red]

Quite entertaining discussion. I would critize Richard Dawkins inability in this debate to acknowledge the good deeds carried out by religous peole.

He does exactly that starting at about 15:45

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Quite entertaining discussion. I would critize Richard Dawkins inability in this debate to acknowledge the good deeds carried out by religous peole.

That's not what he says. He argues that good things are done by those who are religious and those who are not but that dogmatic belief, unchallengeable faith, both in religions and political positions can lead to people doing bad things because they know that they are right.

I think the gap in his argument there is that if that is true if bad things being can it not also be true of good things being done.

It is a great debate and I think the main thrust of Dawkins argument that what he cares about is truth most of all is strong and the interviewer doesn't lay a glove on that core point. His points about flying horses did not help admittedly.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Here’s the long post I promised earlier. It’s longer than I planned (sorry about that) but hopefully it gives a sense of the structures of legal authority in pre-modern Islam, and the forces challenging that authority today:

Spoiler

This will focus primarily on the legal/shari’a-minded aspect of Sunni Islam, since today that is the side of Islam which seems to interest people the most (certainly if we go by the discussion of the last few pages of this thread), and for many people, Muslim and non-Muslim, it defines the essence of Islam. I won’t comment on the mystical and spiritual elements, or Shi’ism, except to say that we shouldn’t reduce “Islam” purely to what is written in the Qur’an, what was subsequently written about Muhammad and his closest companions, and what was then later laid down by scholars of Islamic law on their basis. While they all have a part to play in the elaboration of the shari’a*, understanding that aspect of their function will not give a full understanding of the lived experience of what it means, and has meant in history, to be a Muslim. Any such understanding must account for the role of the Sufi orders, the concept of umma, the Hajj, prayers, fasting, the Arabic and Persian languages, etc. But anyway...

*(literally the way/path, mostly translated as “Islamic Law” although there are some problems with this and it is best not to think about it in terms of the rigid systems of law we find in modern societies)

The Qur’an is regarded as the literal word of God. Most Muslims believe it to be uncreated, i.e. it has always existed in space and time, it is an eternal part of what/who God is. However a minority, today mostly associated with minority sects, believe it to be one of God’s creations, an expression of his conscious will. There was a time when this debate produced violence among Muslims, but its main relevance in history relates to deep theological questions concerning matters such as free will and the roots of evil in the world, which don’t concern us here.

The problem with the Qur’an is that it is not very useful as a source for telling us a lot of important things we’d naturally like to know, especially about early Muslim history. The text is fragmented, disjointed - it doesn’t really tell chronologically linear stories (or at least doesn’t dwell on them), it refers to people, places and incidents without giving context, taking it for granted that the reader (or listener as the first Muslims would have been) understands. According to some scholars of classical Arabic much of the language is obscure and in parts close to incomprehensible. There was also a problem in that early written editions omitted the marks which denote vowels (like Hebrew the Arabic alphabet doesn’t use vowels, although some consonants are used for long-form vowels) and alternative soundings of certain consonants, which, depending on how they were applied, could alter the meaning of a word in the text.

None of this was really a problem while leadership of the early Muslims rested in the hands of men who, by their close association with Muhammad, were trusted by most to lead the community along the right path (although the question of who exactly should lead did produce conflict). However, this period didn’t last long. After a time, leadership passed to a dynastic house (the Umayyads), the generation of Muslims who were close to Muhammad died off, and the state established by the early Muslims expanded into an international empire spanning three continents, which threw up many questions which the Qur’an was not designed to answer.

Learned Muslims tried to solve the problem by collecting and cataloguing sources on the example (Sunna) of Muhammad and his companions, and using rational analogy (qiyas) to understand how to apply that example and the message of the Qur’an in new contexts. The most commonly used sources for the Sunna were the hadith, snippets of stories or conversations which could be traced back through a chain of reliable sources to Muhammad and his associates. They also came to believe that if they all came to a consensus on an issue (‘ijma), then they could not be in error. In this way, the four primary sources of Islamic law came to be accepted - the Qur’an, the Sunna, qiyas, and ‘ijma.

Eventually a massive corpus of law concerning all aspects of society and private life was derived from these sources and consolidated in compilations treating all kinds of topics. And while much variation existed on a range of matters, most Muslims came to accept four schools of law (madhahib) as equally legitimate - the Shafi’i, the Hanafi, the Maliki, and the Hanbali. While each had different approaches to questions such as when to apply qiyas or when to read a particular source literally, they each recognized the legitimacy of the other, and as far as I know their adherents have never engaged in violent conflict with each other over their disagreements.

This process played out at a time in Islamic history when the empire of the Umayyads and the Abbasids who succeeded them was becoming fatally weakened/decentralized, and numerous regional successor states were assuming their authority. The Muslim men who studied and expounded the law, known as the ulama, played a hugely important role in providing legal and cultural continuity and coherence across the span of the Islamic world in the face of this political fragmentation. These scholars could network with each other in famous places of learning such as Cairo or Damascus, and settle anywhere from Spain to India where a local governor required their expertise. Dynasties could rise and fall, but the ulama remained as the most authoritative interpreters of the Islamic tradition, setting and maintaining the standards of what it meant to be consciously Muslim in the pre-modern world. The important thing was the maintenance and understanding of the shari'a so that the layman could get into paradise, and if the ruler provided the conditions for that, then his authority was legitimate.

However, the accumulation of centuries of generally unoriginal and repetitive theological treatises, commentaries, and other forms of scholarship produced by the adherents of the four madhahib created a massive gulf between the average illiterate layman and the original texts upon which the sharia was based - the Qur'an and the hadith. When the European powers began to encroach upon and eventually conquer much of the Islamic world, many learned Muslims blamed their weakness and relative backwardness on this sense that Muslims had lost touch with the original spirit of Islam, and consequently blamed the ulama for stifling free enquiry into the original texts and basically acting to preserve their acquired privileges as a unique class within Islamic society.

So by the end of the nineteenth century, there was an anti-ulama backlash. This coincided with the growth of literacy and the use of print in the Islamic world, which enabled more and more people to directly access the original texts (the Qur'an and hadith) to understand the practice of Muhammad and the early Muslims (the salaf), and use their own independent reasoning (ijtihad) to judge the correct practice of their religion.

This freedom from the conservative ulama and search for the true spirit of early Islam produced four trends. The lines between them are sometimes blurred, and some movements can be placed across more than one, but it generally holds true IMO.

The first group, the secularists, decided that Western civilization, or at least the Western model of political order, was on the rise and basically superior, and the Islamic tradition redundant, and aimed to relegate Islam to the private sphere. The most successful example of this was Ataturk in Turkey, although for almost half a century from the end of WW1 until the 6-day war many Arab countries were generally dominated by 'secular' regimes. However, for obvious historical reasons it was much harder for Arabs to make the clean break with the past that Turkey had done, and Arab Nationalism was always infused with elements of Islamic imagery and rhetoric.

The second group, the 'modernists', believed that by returning to the Qur'an and the hadith and emulating the prophet, Muslims could reconcile Islam with the reality of Western power, since they believed that Islam, properly understood, already enshrined all the positive aspects of Western civilization, and that there need be no conflict between them. In India, the most famous proponent of this trend was Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan who founded the Muslim University at Aligarh. Another famous proponent was Muhammad Abduh of Egypt, who attempted to reform the Azhar University in Cairo along the lines of a modern European university. He is famous for writing "I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam." This trend has probably been the least successful politically, but certainly embodies how many Muslims in the west and elsewhere approach questions of textual interpretation and authority in Islam today.

The third trend, the 'Islamist', was explicitly anti-Western but revolutionary, and believed that the return to the texts and spirit of Islam was the means to oust the Western powers from Muslim lands and restore the glory of the early Islamic empires. At the same time, they discovered they could utilize Western technology and organization (primarily 'the State') for the good of Islam. This is the trend which produced the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i Islami, who were influenced in organizational terms by interwar European fascism and sought to seize the state in order to implement a top-down Islamization of society.

These three trends are explicitly anti-clerical in their disdain for the traditional, conservative ulama. Hence the lack of officially-earned religious credentials held by members of the Muslim Brotherhood and groups like al-Qaeda. The final trend, what I'll call the 'scriptural', was primarily driven by the reaction of the ulama to the sudden loss in their prestige and traditional authority. It was deeply conservative and believed the West was best shunned in order for Muslims to maintain their true identity. They tended to retreat into their madrasas and other educational institutions to concentrate on purifying the creed, and often remained apolitical. Some, such as the Salafis of the Middle East and the Ahl-i Hadis movement in South Asia completely rejected the authority of the madhahib, while others, such as the Deobandis of South Asia, sought to preserve the most literal, conservative manifestation of the law schools (in the Deoband case, the Hanafi). The problem for the ulama in the last century or so has been maintaining their hold over the community. To do this they've had to tread a fine line between the state, which from the mid-twentieth century onwards attempted to co-opt them, and the Islamists, whose success and growing prestige undermined their own power.

So as you can see, the authority to determine the true meaning of the “Straight Path“ in Islam in today’s world is fragmented. The ulama try to hang on to their former prestige, but every Muslim who can read and use the internet (and as we often see online these days, non-Muslim) can now access the source material for themselves and come to their own conclusions based on their own individual context. Of course, knowledge of Classical Arabic remains a massive barrier for most, so many continue to humbly accept the authority of those with more knowledge. But translations are available, and the internet being what it is, quick answers lacking sufficient context and broader understanding are often in demand. Which is perhaps one reason why these frustrating online debates over the legitimacy of this hadith, or the proper interpretation of that Qur’anic verse, often go nowhere.

Thank you so much for this. I will digest it and respond soon.

 

[MrMarcello]

No one in their right mind said that a fecking eyeball just popped out of nowhere.

But you'll no doubt have some religious apologist argue for the eye as proof of intelligent design.

 

[Synco]

Quite entertaining discussion. I would critize Richard Dawkins inability in this debate to acknowledge the good deeds carried out by religous peole.

First time I've seen Dawkins speak. He makes some good points of course, and he can articulate them well. But his criticism of religion comes across as too narrow and dogmatic as soon as more ambivalent issues are brought up. Or when religious convictions might get any credit for something desirable. Hasan is quite good at pointing out inconsistencies (and sometimes absurdities) resulting from that, and on a few occasions Dawkins starts to wriggle.

 

[calodo2003]

Napoleon said some brilliant things about the fallacy of religion. Can’t believe there are still adults in the world who try to prop up their fairy tales, believe in fictional ‘telephone game’ stories, & try to sway other people to follow their delusions.

I will give religion props for being an unbridled money maker in history. Thankfully that has started (& will continue rapidly) to wane.

 

[MrMarcello]

You say Shamans, I say Shamana, let's call the whole thing off.

If I could dedicate a song to both it surely must be Shama Lama Ding Dong.

 

[Carolina Red]

If I could dedicate a song to both it surely must be Shama Lama Ding Dong.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

If I could dedicate a song to both it surely must be Shama Lama Ding Dong.

I tip my hat to you Sir.

 

[Revan]

Time to leave Muhammad alone, and attack Jesus. @Carolina Red , saying that Quran is the verbatim word of God is kind of absurd, but at least has some logic. All copies after all are more or less the same, and the majority of contradictions are with the science, which means that the Muslims can always pretend that the science is wrong. However, saying that the Bible is also entirely correct is nuts, absolutely nuts. I am not talking about the contradiction with science (which are in a much higher scale than in Quran), but the contradictions between the gospels themselves. And not small contradictions which are subject to interpretation, I am talking about this.

The first 17 verses of Matthew:

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of aDavid, the son of Abraham.
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Let's see what Luke says (3:23-3:38):

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

As can be plainly seen, Matthew and Luke heavily contradict each other. There are 27 generations between David and Joseph in Matthew, while there are 42 according to Luke. They actually disagree with each other on the father of Jesus' stepfather (Jacob vs Heli). There are not many names in common between Jesus and David (though it is identical between Abraham and David, possibly cause it comes from Torah).

Leaving science aside (only 42 generations between Jesus and Adam, even if each of these guys lived 1000 years, it is too short to reach to the first homo-sapients), these two books contradict each other here. 'Believers' can try to retcon as much as they want, but this is a bigger plothole than anything which happened in the last two seasons of Game of Thrones. One of these two gospels (or both) is definitely not the word of God, unless God was drunk when he was doing the part with Luke and forgot what he told Matthew.

The nice thing of Bible though, is that one verse being wrong, does not neccesarly make the entire Bible wrong (unlike in Quran). However, unlike in Quran, you don't even have to try to find things that are wrong, they are drawn there for you.

 

[Lj82]

Can I just say... @shamans debating @Shamana has caused more than one double take on my part

It was the source of my confusion as well.

 

[Wibble]

Can I just say... @shamans debating @Shamana has caused more than one double take on my part

Me too.

 

[Gehrman]

This is quite relevant. Basically what sparked this whole argument was that a presumably Saudi Arabian poster in the Saudi Arabia newcastle thread said that all was well in Saudi Arabia and that the brutal punishments dished out to criminals meets the severity of their crime. So I asked whether he thought that it is okay that apostacy is punished with death or okay that it punished at all? Which sparked allegations that it was just something I made up.

 

[Carolina Red]

Time to leave Muhammad alone, and attack Jesus. @Carolina Red , saying that Quran is the verbatim word of God is kind of absurd, but at least has some logic. All copies after all are more or less the same, and the majority of contradictions are with the science, which means that the Muslims can always pretend that the science is wrong. However, saying that the Bible is also entirely correct is nuts, absolutely nuts. I am not talking about the contradiction with science (which are in a much higher scale than in Quran), but the contradictions between the gospels themselves. And not small contradictions which are subject to interpretation, I am talking about this.

I didn't say it made sense, I'm just telling you what Evangelicals believe.

 

[Revan]

I didn't say it made sense, I'm just telling you what Evangelicals believe.

Yeah, but it is nuts. How can they both read the Bible and think that? This is not a hidden 'mistake' it is like half a chapter.

 

[Carolina Red]

Yeah, but it is nuts. How can they both read the Bible and think that? This is not a hidden 'mistake' it is like half a chapter.

The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003).


https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932

 

[Fingeredmouse]

The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003).


https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932

Well, that's certainly the writings of a deeply sane man.

 

[Revan]

The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003).


https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932

Best retcon I have ever seen.

Mary is the daughter of Heli, so obviously, it is written that Joseph is the son of Heli. Yipes.

And obviously that Luke tracks the maternal line. Except in cases where it agrees with Matthew, in which case it is obviously tracking paternal line.

Yipes! #flatEarth

 

[Carolina Red]

Well, that's certainly the writings of a deeply sane man.

Best retcon I have ever seen.

Mary is the daughter of Heli, so obviously, it is written that Joseph is the son of Heli. Yipes.

And obviously that Luke tracks the maternal line. Except in cases where it agrees with Matthew, in which case it is obviously tracking paternal line.

Yipes! #flatEarth

Welcome to the world of the American evangelical community. Try growing up in it!

Also check out this: https://answersingenesis.org/

 

[MrMarcello]

Well, that's certainly the writings of a deeply sane man.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/dm.aspx

Spoiler

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Welcome to the world of the American evangelical community. Try growing up in it!

Also check out this: https://answersingenesis.org/

Oh, what the actual feck? That's actually astonishing. "Old Earth" Scientists?

 

[Fingeredmouse]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/dm.aspx

Spoiler

Isn't this the guy that comes out of the painting in Ghostbusters II?

 

[Carolina Red]

Oh, what the actual feck? That's actually astonishing. "Old Earth" Scientists?

yeah man. That's how it is. I'd say at least 9 out of every 10 people I've ever known have been evangelicals who believe this stuff completely.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

yeah man. That's how it is. I'd say at least 9 out of every 10 people I've ever known have been evangelicals who believe this stuff completely.

Seriously. Move somewhere else.