Is it fair to insinuate about Islam?

Re: Reply to Tao Equus

Netti,
Netti-Netti said:
Thank you for your thoughtful post, Tao. And sorry for the delayed reaction.
Click to expand...

Thank you and likewise my apology for not answering your question on my next post.

Tao: But there is no reasonable way to refute the assertion that the Q'uran was a political tool devised and engineered very deliberately by powerful warlords.
Click to expand...
Netti:
Did you have some support for this view?
Click to expand...


If by support you mean is there some paper, book or individual that I have heard/read that puts it in quite that way then no, I do not. But my own broad reading into the evolution of religions leaves me to draw no other conclusion. However, I am not biased, the Emperor Constantine to my mind is exactly analogous to Mohammed. Both saw the political advantage in enslaving hearts, minds and souls to a set of rules they dictated.

As I say when you look at the evolution of religions there may be a first founder who was truly believing in what they were saying. Jesus, C.T. Russell, Bahaullah etc. But invariably such messages are hijacked and used by the politically cunning to their agenda. In the case of Islam the only real difference between what is in the Q'uran and the other Abrahamic texts is the level of "control" it seeks to give itself over its believers. This is why I dislike Islam more than the others, though it is a tight race.

I have read quite extensively on the rise of Islam and Christianity and the parallels are striking. I am far from being a scholar of the subject but from the point of view of a simple man with no agenda the conclusion I state is the only reasonable conclusion to reach.

Tao


 
Re: Reply to Tao Equus

Tao_Equus said:
....the Emperor Constantine to my mind is exactly analogous to Mohammed.
Click to expand...
I'm reading between the lines here and I gather you are referring not only to social control but also to forced conversions (based on comparisons to the Crusades). Then problem we run into when we talk about "Islam" is that we veer toward a unitary concept even though its expressions are diverse. Consider Indonesia, which has the single largest Islamic population of any country. Indonesia has been practicing a variety of Islam that is pluralistic and syncretic and is quite at odds with the variety of Islam we associate with Saudi Arabia. The dominant religion of Indonesia is Sufi Islam. Aggressive ideology is alien to the Sufi Islam traditions of Indonesia and other Central and Southeast Asian countries.

Sadly, Indonesia has been subjected to the onslaught of militant movements like Laskar Jihad. Arabian geopolitics in southeast Asia has included not only terrorist attacks, but also ongoing efforts to convert traditionally moderate Sufi Muslims to an extreme brand of Islam that developed largely in isolation. A number of African countries also have large Sufi populations and I expect they are ripe from militant infiltration.

Islam's origins are syncretic in the sense that it combined element of Judaism and Christianity. The spread and further development of Islam was also syncretic. The spread of Islam into SE Asia and Africa in particular was due in part to the fact that it was adaptive and coexisted with pre-existing tribal culture. (These hybridization phenomena are not specific to Islam. Buddhism also took syncretic forms, as in the case of Tibet, where Buddhism merged with ancient animistic religion to give rise to Tibetan Buddhism.) By contrast, the spread of Christianity was marked by the perspective that tribal culture was satanic and, as such, that it should be wiped out.

Islam is often described as actively evangelistic. Right wing war mongers in the US are particularly fond of portraying Islam as intolerant and intent on forcing itself on the world. Early Islam may have include some elements of aggressive expansionism. However, forcing Islam on people as not always the central focus. It simply wasn't necessary.

In fact, the spread of Islam in SE Asia and Africa was linked largely to merchants who wanted to strengthen trade. Rather like other religions before it. Islam spread along trade routes. The reason half of all Muslims of the world live in SouthEast Asia is because these are Silk Road regions. The Prophet Muhammad himself was apparently a very well to do merchant who (according to the Wiki) "was involved in trade between the Indian ocean and the Mediterranean Sea." Interestingly, by the 10th century Muslims were in charge of China's import/export business. Even today, the Silk Road regions have large Muslim populations.

Similarly, Islam's spread in Africa was gradual and organic and as before in Asia, along trade routes. Africa's trade centers became focal points for the development of Islam, with flourishing societies that were enriched by trade as well as by literacy imported by Muslims.

My point here is that Islam is not strictly an Arabic religion. Taken together, Asia and Africa actually comprise the largest segments of the Muslim world. It is also helpful to have historical perspective about the cultural transformation of Saudi Arabia into a legalistic state. This is actually a fairly recent development that seems to have more to do with the monarchy's power politics than the stringent imperatives of fundamentalist Islam.

The role of militant religion in Saudi Arabia became evident during the rule of Ibn Sa'ud, the first Saudi monarch. Saudi Arabia didn't become a unified nation until 1932, the end result of years of effort that did have a religious component. Specifically, after 1912 Ibn Sa'ud sought to advance his agenda by means of the Ikhwan, which is described in the Wiki as "a militant religious organization which was to assist in his later conquests." Before this time, social organization was largely tribal and scattered -- hardly indicative of anything suggesting a tendency toward "global Caliphate" or even strict legalistic uniformity in the system of social control.
 
Netti,

I am aware of the diversity within both ancient and modern Islam and recognise that by far the great majority of adherents to any religion simply want to live in stability, security and peace. It is never the majority that matter when the blood starts spilling tho, and only by trickery or coercion that they are led to partake. All too often religion is the first tool in the tricksters box.

By contrast, the spread of Christianity was marked by the perspective that tribal culture was satanic and, as such, that it should be wiped out.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. Constantine himself was a pagan and built many temples to pagan gods. Up until he won the battle of the Tiber and marched into Rome victorious Christians had been persecuted and enslaved. But Constantine's, (like Alexandros the great, and in an some sense Oedipedially Muhammed through his marriage to a wealthy, powerful woman many years his senior.....a good topic for a thread!! Tyrants and their mummy's!!), mother was a Christian and he ordered that their persecution must stop. It was he that later in life and as he expanded his domain incorporated many pagan beliefs into Christianity including changing the Sabbath to a Sunday, (which is a story in itself). But to keep it brief, Constantine merged the idea of the Roman Emperor being a living God with monotheism purely as a tool to help control his vast empire and was clever enough to incorporate pagan beliefs and holy dates wherever he could.
However, forcing Islam on people as not always the central focus.
Click to expand...
Not always, but often. How about Darfur in the Sudan, here we see no effort to evangelise but to exterminate. Here as in any other such tyrannical operation religion is but a tool. Islam is a rallying call to to legal robbery, rape, murder and genocide. It does not matter that it is Islam or any other religion, what matters is that anybody accepts the diversion. Russia is currently undergoing a nationalistic renaissance that is just as dangerous but with patriotic ideology rather than religious. They are all the same thing. Little men with big ego's using the tools of social manipulation. I think I would probably never have a bad word to say about religion if people had some balls and stopped being sheep. But being an atheist, and seeing how religions are so easily usurped I have nothing but disdain for them. They do very little good and heaps of harm.

Tao
 
Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

i would agree that Saudi Arabia does not represent Islam as a whole it represents a particular school of jurisprudence within Islam and, in that respect, is an accurate representation.

by and large, however, i think this is an issue of which is somewhat related to the explosion of readily accessible media and news stories which leads to somewhat of an information overload. people have so many more choices regarding the sorts of news and media which they consume that they often cannot or will not take the time to actually investigate what is being told to them.

i'm sure there are myriad reasons not just the one which i've outlined.

metta,

~v
 
Tao_Equus said:
How about Darfur in the Sudan, here we see no effort to evangelise but to exterminate. Here as in any other such tyrannical operation religion is but a tool.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of any religious justification for the genocide in Darfur. The only explanations I have seen pertain to economics and politics.

Considering the conditions that now characterize a region devastated by climate change, these people can be seen as having been reduced to plunder. The Sudanese Government claims to have no control over the Janjawid who are perpetrating these crimes. However, there is reason to believe that the government is not only actively involved in persecuting Darfur's black Muslims rebels, but also recruits people with the cover story that these black Muslims are a threat to the community.
Islam is a rallying call to to legal robbery, rape, murder and genocide.
Click to expand...
This is the first time I have heard the expression "rallying cry" applied to the situation in Darfur. I might add that it makes no sense to me because the victims are themselves Muslims. The Koran calls for religious tolerance. Wouldn't that this extend to Muslim brothers and sisters?

It does not matter that it is Islam or any other religion, what matters is that anybody accepts the diversion. ]
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I would say it does matter. It matters a great deal if you consider that West has now embarked on a new Cold War against the Middle East. As I have suggested at the outset of this thread, the right wing proponents of such a war effort are trying to pass it off as self defense in a religious conflict. They consistently portray Islam as intolerant and intent on a full-scale, militaristic global Jihad that must be stopped pre-emptively. The invasion of Iraq was, I believe, the first step toward as more systematic policy of pre-emptive war in a predominantly Muslim region. A larger effort will require re-instatement of the draft. Additional terrorist attacks on the US will be a prelude.

For all of these reasons, it's vitally important to keep sight of Islam as the focal point - i.e., as a target for propaganda, including but not limited to insinuation and characterization, especially among nationalistic, right wing Americans who are attached to the delusion that the US is the world's only superpower.


 
I agree that religion is far from the only reason for the conflict in Darfur but its historical roots are in the conflicts created by the Islamic legion. The Sudan Liberation Front, based in Darfur, was set up in response to Government neglect of the people during the 83/84 famine. Between the SLF and JEM they account for the majority of the tribes in Darfur that though have many Muslims are not considered the pure "arab" variety by the leadership in Khartoum. The Janjaweed are Arab Muslims and there is now a substantial body of evidence to show they are directly funded by the ruling party. The propaganda of the Arab Muslims is to not consider the western blacks as being true Muslims. The cry is to pure Arab Islam as defined by Ghadaffi and his Islamic Legion. In truth its all bull. Its about a few corrupt politicians wanting control over the oil reserves that lay there.

Tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
Constantine himself was a pagan and built many temples to pagan gods.
Click to expand...


I have not been able to confirm this. It may well be true since he converted to Christianity at a relatively late age. However, we do know that Constantine imposed a ban on the construction of new pagan temples in Constantinople. He also plundered existing ones to subsidize new churches. Further:
.... Constantine ordered persecutions against Pagans in Didyma. Violence escalated against unbelievers. In Asia Minor, the Oracle of the Apollo was sacked and it's priests were tortured and executed. He also drove pagans from Mount Athos, a holy place for pagans, and destroyed all the Hellenic the temples in the region. Mt Athos was be taken over by Christians and eventually become a major monastic center and holy place for Eastern Christians. ​
http://community-2.webtv.net/Tales_of_the_Western_World/RLCONSTANTINE/

It was he that later in life and as he expanded his domain incorporated many pagan beliefs into Christianity including changing the Sabbath to a Sunday, (which is a story in itself). But to keep it brief, Constantine merged the idea of the Roman Emperor being a living God with monotheism purely as a tool to help control his vast empire and was clever enough to incorporate pagan beliefs and holy dates wherever he could.
Click to expand...

Based on the fact that Constantine combined the sun and the cross (pagan and Christian symbols), he was in favor of some kind of syncretic adaptation. Maybe he was a politician at heart who wanted to have it both ways. However, as is often the case for new converts, it apears he was quite fervent in his commitment to his new religion, to the spread of Christianity, and the eradication of paganism. It seems he held back mainly because of political pressures from members of his government. Also, since pagans were the majority at the time, it would have been hard for him to enjoy popular support if he had undertaken a more aggressive campaign point of actively stamping out paganism.

My original point was that the spread of Christianity was marked by the perspective that tribal culture was satanic and, as such, that it should be wiped out. The facts are clear in this regard. Historically many of the popes were unabashedly militaristic in their positions on evangelism. Constantine's son ushered in anm era of intolerance. He had a very aggressive agenda with respect to paganism, as did other emperors who followed for almost 200 years later. There was an official ban on paganism that was legislated in the forms of various decrees and laws which were enforced by means of the demolition of pagan temples and prohibitions against pagan practices. These policies would be practiced on a large scale a thousand years later when Europeans settled in the New World. Killing the heathen natives was considered a form of ministry.
 
We don't really see Christian witch hunters today, but witch hunting seems to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia, as the article from the opening post shows.
 
seattlegal said:
We don't really see Christian witch hunters today, but witch hunting seems to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia...
Click to expand...
Are you saying there have been other witch hunts in Saudi Arabia besides the one that was recently publicized?
 
seattlegal said:
We don't really see Christian witch hunters today, but witch hunting seems to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia, as the article from the opening post shows.
Click to expand...
You could call McCarthyism witch hunting...just substitute religion for politics. And that was not so long ago.

Tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
You could call McCarthyism witch hunting...just substitute religion for politics. And that was not so long ago.
Click to expand...
Rather than there being a clash of civilization between Islam and Christianity, I see it as more a clash of propaganda in the service of ideological warfare. Witch-hunting and burning heretics used to be more common forms of it. Nowadays, we have extreme and polarized worldviews. Consider the ideological ramifications of the Bush administration branding war protesters as unpatriotic. This is recent history.

In this context, I was interested to see a definition of nationalism as "terroristic ideology." True, opposition to the war has not been criminalized. But the intended polarizing reaction to dissidents strikes me as being what you would expect for a primitive doctrinal world view combined with an ongoing attempt to capitalize on people's insecurities and fears. Expectancies of conflict and fear of the unknown have become the dominant aspects of American culture. Some of us want to have a part in creating such a culture. Some of us don't.
 
seattlegal said:
Yes, Muslimwoman mentioned it in post 29 of this thread.

Here's a Reuters article about it. It happened last November.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply, SG.

I wonder what is going on in Saudi Arabia that is giving rise to a focus on some "undefined crime." What's the unemployment rate there now? The Saudi's dependence on US petro dollars has made it unnecessary for them to diversify industries. Their oil export business simply does not create enough jobs for Saudis. It is essentially a welfare state that is being funded by petro dollars. If I may borrow Tao's terminology, maybe this witch hunt is just a "diversion" from pressing issues like unemployment. This would explain why they have let the witch hunt case drag on for so long. They're getting as much mileage out of it as they can.

Maybe I'm overanalyzing. It seems so far there has been only one other case. Based on all of two witch trials, one could say that witch hunts are "alive and well" in Saudi Arabia. One the other hand, one might say that the "alive and well" language suggests an ongoing pattern over time which is not in evidence.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Thanks for your reply, SG.

I wonder what is going on in Saudi Arabia that is giving rise to a focus on some "undefined crime." What's the unemployment rate there now? The Saudi's dependence on US petro dollars has made it unnecessary for them to diversify industries. Their oil export business simply does not create enough jobs for Saudis. It is essentially a welfare state that is being funded by petro dollars. If I may borrow Tao's terminology, maybe this witch hunt is just a "diversion" from pressing issues like unemployment. This would explain why they have let the witch hunt case drag on for so long. They're getting as much mileage out of it as they can.

Maybe I'm overanalyzing. It seems so far there has been only one other case. Based on all of two witch trials, one could say that witch hunts are "alive and well" in Saudi Arabia. One the other hand, one might say that the "alive and well" language suggests an ongoing pattern over time which is not in evidence.
Click to expand...
It's quite possible they want to make a spectacle to draw attention away from other things. Executions are public, and are therefore a spectacle. Here's a BBC article about a Saudi executioner telling his story.
 
Tao_Equus said:
I agree that religion is far from the only reason for the conflict in Darfur but its historical roots are in the conflicts created by the Islamic legion.
Click to expand...
I see the formation of the Islamic legion as an expression of a pre-existing conflict. Sudan has been in the throes of civil war and its aftermath for many years. The conflict dates back to Sudan's first prime minister of Sudan, Ismail al-Azhari. The Qoreishi ideology that accounts for how things have been evolving of late had been in the works long before things reached critical mass in the late 90's when the situation was exacerbated by drought and famine and the displacement of hundreds of thousands.

The propaganda of the Arab Muslims is to not consider the western blacks as being true Muslims. The cry is to pure Arab Islam as defined by Ghadaffi and his Islamic Legion. In truth its all bull. Its about a few corrupt politicians wanting control over the oil reserves that lay there.
Click to expand...
Qoreishi ideology does not appear to be purely religious. Rather, it appears to be a combination of racism and pan-Arabic power politics that was later packaged with a veneer of religious supremacy. In fact, it seems the religious elements were added as an afterthought and did not form the core of the ideology. Apparently some people started to assert their alleged lineage to the Prophet Muhammad, something that presumably gives them some superior stature to qualify them them as meant-to-be rulers.

As is often the case, the conflict in Sudan appears to have been fuelled by economic privation and political isolation. It should be noted here that recruits for Gaddafi’s Islamic Legion included disenfranchised Arabs, including Mahdist Ansar members who had been exile for years after a failed attempt to overthrow the government in the 70s. As you point out, competition for resources - especially oil - has raised the stakes and hightened tensions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top