Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Jester]

Wiki is your authoritative source?

(...)

So, the sum total of "the generally accepted point of view" is that Watt and Bell said it was so in their 40 year old book?

The Cambridge History of Islam sounds to me like it would give a pretty accurate impression of the state of the scholarship - certainly the Cambridge History of Latin America does for my field. I would think carefully before dismissing it as just what a couple guys scrawled down 40 years ago.

What's your authoritative source, your own opinion? You haven't given us anything else, best I can tell.

-Jester

Edit: Ah, I see the other citation to Watt's own book. Still, anyone who's writing chapters for a Cambridge History would certainly have impressive credentials.

[Zenda]

I've read the Quran (Koran), and it is clear that this guy Mohamed was a vicious war lord.

And you think you found something which the billions who read it before you, including respected (non-Islamic) historians, missed? Remarkable. Did you do the translations yourself?

[kandrathe]

The Cambridge History of Islam sounds to me like it would give a pretty accurate impression of the state of the scholarship - certainly the Cambridge History of Latin America does for my field. I would think carefully before dismissing it as just what a couple guys scrawled down 40 years ago.

I agree that Bell and Watt are one of the mainstreams of the field, just that two guys and one opinion does not encompass the sum of Islamic scholarship. They were part of that 70's Carter middle east peace era, "we just need to understand them and embrace them more", crowd.

Three things make this topic difficult; 1) Fatwah, 2) political correctness, and 3) bias from Christian and Judaic scholars.

Ok, one (of many) example of why I don't hold the "prophet" in much esteem;<blockquote>From the Hadith, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 16: "While we were returning from a Ghazwa (Holy Battle) with the Prophet, I started driving my camel fast, as it was a lazy camel A rider came behind me and pricked my camel with a spear he had with him, and then my camel started running as fast as the best camel you may see. Behold! The rider was the Prophet himself. He said, 'What makes you in such a hurry?" I replied, I am newly married " He said, "Did you marry a virgin or a matron? I replied, "A matron." He said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?" When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, "Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region."</blockquote>This was in reference to his marriage to Aisha, aged six at the time. But, he waited until she was nine to consummate the marriage.

This will be fun, see you and Zenda try to defend Mohammad as misunderstood. :) Wait until we go over some of the horrific slaughter of innocents.

As for scholarship, what do we know about the man called Mohammed? Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq, edited by Abd al-Malik ibn Hisham, translated by Alfred Guillaume and titled "The Life of Muhammad", 1955, Oxford Press. Ulmar al-Waqidi of Medina, "The Expeditions of Muhammad" 825 A.D. "The History of al-Tabari" by Abu Muhammad bin al-Tabari between 870 and 920 A.D. translated and published in 1987 through 1997 by the State University of New York Press. Al-Bukhari's Hadith, titled: Sahih Al-Bukhari and The True Traditions collected by Imam Bukhari, 850 A.D. And, then, there is the Quran itself in various translations.

[kandrathe]

And you think you found something which the billions who read it before you, including respected (non-Islamic) historians, missed? Remarkable. Did you do the translations yourself?

Have you read it? I think others who have read it, were profoundly influenced by it. Were we to model the behavior of this great prophet, we'd be dead ringers for Zarqawi. That is one of the problems with Islam.

[Jester]

This will be fun, see you and Zenda try to defend Mohammad as misunderstood. :) Wait until we go over some of the horrific slaughter of innocents.

First, you seem pretty willing to blur culture and religion now that we're talking about Mohammed, going back fifteen centuries and halfway around the world. But you're pretty touchy about it when it comes to Christians in Haiti. Either cultural context is important, or it isn't. But you can't go excusing one group for it, then blaming another. Inter-tribal violence, genocide, marriage (especially of women) at a young age, slavery, these were all parts of life back when, and it really wasn't much better in the Christian world at the time, if at all.

Second, have you read the bible recently? Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is a personal favourite (thanks, Adam Thrasher!).

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

But that's just the start. This God is a merciful God! Want genocide and slaughter of innocents? You got it! Deut. 20:10-15.

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Other examples abound, of course. Good thing Jesus was a little calmer, because his dad seems kind of psycho. Moses also seems a little off in the head, by modern standards.

None of this is to show that I think Christianity, or Islam, has been well-understood, or misunderstood, or whatever. It all seems like ancient mythology to me. But the point is - it all reads like that. Even Jesus says and does some pretty freaky stuff - don't even get me started on the Apostles.

All religions spend their days selectively reading their holy texts, picking out and interpreting what seems convenient, and ignoring the bits nobody wants to hear about.

-Jester

Afterthought: As for scholarship, does the Hadith support your viewpoint? Or just throwing it out there? I still haven't seen the scholars or scholarship that reinforces what you're saying. (To me, it seems like projecting our biases - what is "genuine" prophecy? Is there a test for it? I don't believe in prophecy, so it all seems "contrived" to me in that sense, but how are we to figure out intent from someone 1400 years dead?)

[Zenda]

Have you read it?

No, I leave the studying of ancient texts, be it Bible, Koran or Rosetta Stone, to historians (scientists, not 'scholars'). I recommend you do the same. And may I remind you that our dispute was about the Islam being a "contrived religion based on Mohamed's desire to use his cult of personality to shape his society", and not about the sexual morale of Arabic tribes in the year 600?

[Zenda]

First, you seem pretty willing to blur culture and religion now that we're talking about Mohammed, going back fifteen centuries and halfway around the world. But you're pretty touchy about it when it comes to Christians in Haiti.

This also reminds me of a small discussion from a few years back, when a *Christian* minority was accused of child abuse and Kandrathe even found reason to defend them.

So, you see that the trouble for LDS and now FLDS has its roots in the beginnings of the religion. They have always practiced what they are practicing now. I don't believe they are in it for the sex or the arranged marriages with under aged girls, but are practicing their beliefs and are in it for the bearing of many (FLDS) children. ...They have not changed. It is society that has encroached upon their beliefs and territory.

[--Pete]

Hi,

No, I leave the studying of ancient texts, be it Bible, Koran or Rosetta Stone, to historians (scientists, not 'scholars').

Just a minor nit. History is not a science in the strict sense. For it to be so, it would have to make testable predictions. I'm at a loss to even guess what that would mean.

I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but contrasting 'scientist' to 'scholar' doesn't really work. I've sat here for a few minutes trying to think of an appropriate contrast, but really haven't come up with anything good. Perhaps 'scholar' and 'charlatan' or 'bigot'?

--Pete

[Jester]

FWIW, while I'm studying in a department (Economic History) with many who would consider themselves social scientists, I consider myself a scholar (in training) rather than a scientist. Reading, interpreting, and contextualizing information from textual evidence is valuable, but it's not science. Even doing quantitative analysis with explicit hypotheses in mind strikes me as being borderline science at best, since the inherent fuzziness in human-generated data sources makes strict controls impossible.

This is not to say that there are no historical sciences - Paleontology comes to mind. I just don't consider that I'm in one of them. :)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is a personal favourite (thanks, Adam Thrasher!).

Deuteronomy is in fact one of the books of the Bible which was added to coerce the people to follow the new edicts of King Josiah in the 7th century BC. It is exactly the same type of coercion I object to in the Koran.

Afterthought: As for scholarship, does the Hadith support your viewpoint? Or just throwing it out there? I still haven't seen the scholars or scholarship that reinforces what you're saying. (To me, it seems like projecting our biases - what is "genuine" prophecy? Is there a test for it? I don't believe in prophecy, so it all seems "contrived" to me in that sense, but how are we to figure out intent from someone 1400 years dead?)

The analysis I've seen shows that the prophecies were written after the events. Much like the biased embellishments made by Christian monks in translating earlier works. This is why historical accounts from non-Islamic writers near the same time are important in ferreting out the truth from the myth.

[kandrathe]

This also reminds me of a small discussion from a few years back, when a *Christian* minority was accused of child abuse and Kandrathe even found reason to defend them.

Wow. Nice out of context attack!

You missed where I said; "I don't support the practices and doctrine of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Warren Jeffs, Eldorado or otherwise)...". My concern was that the government decided to take ALL their children away without specific evidence of crimes, then figure out who's guilty after the fact. This is not how we normally conduct justice in the US, rounding up people and such. The tactics were more reminiscent of certain totalitarian regimes.

Jester said, "People can practice what they like for their Religion, and I have no objection to polygamy per se. This, however, is an abusive cult that uses children for the purposes of sexually satisfying church bigwigs, subjecting young girls to brainwashing and abuse to perpetuate what would otherwise be totally unsustainable. That's criminal. Their liberty does not extend so far that they can make prisoners of their children."

I replied, "I agree. And, the individuals who are suspected, charged, and proven to perpetuate these crimes should be held accountable. What does brainwashing your children mean? Teaching them what you believe (maybe only if you live in a cloistered community)? If that is the standard, I think the Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, and many others are all in some trouble."

Emphasis by me!

[Jester]

Deuteronomy is in fact one of the books of the Bible which was added to coerce the people to follow the new edicts of King Josiah in the 7th century BC. It is exactly the same type of coercion I object to in the Koran.

It sure isn't just Deuteronomy. Practically every book in the Old Testament is Chock Full 'o Nuts, so to speak. Moses ordered exactly the same kind of slaughter, rape and enslavement. Woe betide the society that tries to follow even half the recommendations in the Pentateuch, or even the Acts; every city in the country would be burnt to the ground within the week.

However, if you're objecting to these foundational texts of the Judaic and Christian religions just the same as the Koran, what exactly is it that singles Mohammed and Islam out for blame? Why no impassioned screeds about the atrocities of Moses, or King David? Why not attack Paul's bizarre misogynistic rantings from just about every letter he wrote?

I can't blame you for deploring the state of human rights in many Islamic countries, nor for trying to find the origins of these problems. But you appear to be either blind or apologetic to similar instances in other religions, especially Christianity. When a Muslim blows something up, he's suffering from "Islamification", and manifesting a hyper-version of a religion founded by a "vicious war lord." The religion should be closely monitored, and offenders deported or imprisoned. When a Christian shoots an abortion doctor, he's not really a "true" Christian, definitely nothing to do with the religion, he's just sick in the head. When Fundamentalist Mormons have polygamy and child marriage, you "...don't believe they are in it for the sex or the arranged marriages with under aged girls, but are practicing their beliefs and are in it for the bearing of many (FLDS) children." When Mohammed does it (14 centuries prior!) it's horrific child abuse, part of his "contrived" religion. I guess that means he just made up to justify his own behavour, utterly unlike the FLDS, who are simply genuine believers?

It's making your arguments seem lopsided, to put it gently.

The analysis I've seen shows that the prophecies were written after the events. Much like the biased embellishments made by Christian monks in translating earlier works. This is why historical accounts from non-Islamic writers near the same time are important in ferreting out the truth from the myth.

I'm still not seeing the scholarship you keep mentioning. Going back to primary sources is admirable, but a very dangerous game without knowing the context, which is the point of the scholarship.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

No, I leave the studying of ancient texts, be it Bible, Koran or Rosetta Stone, to historians (scientists, not 'scholars'). I recommend you do the same. And may I remind you that our dispute was about the Islam being a "contrived religion based on Mohamed's desire to use his cult of personality to shape his society", and not about the sexual morale of Arabic tribes in the year 600?

In your opinion how does one become anointed as historian? :D I think they study history, then write a book that may or may not be held in the esteem of other historians. Much like science however, the truth of their work usually has very little to do with their popularity. So, then in your opinion, you and I (or anyone else for that matter), should not discuss topics in which we have not invested a PhD. of effort into mastering. Pretty chilling to our ability to have discussions. My wife and I would never be able to discuss politics, as neither of us has even a BS in political science.

Mohamed's behavior is his motivation for claiming to be a prophet, and using God revelations to justify his rapes, murders, thefts, and bloody legacy. When I'm studying the history of warfare, I'll look to Sun Tzu. When I'm looking for philosophies of peace, I'll look to people who walk their talk.

From the roots of religions, people such as Lao-zi, Confucius, Mahavira, Buddha, Pythagoras, Jesus, Nanak, and Baha'u'llah have been advocates of social harmony with profound ideas. Philosophers and social transformers have expanded and refined those ideas, such as Mo-zi, Mencius, early Christians, Sufis, Francesco of Assisi, Chaucer, Erasmus, George Fox, etc. The philosophies of social harmony handed down through the ages have been adopted and adapted into principles of social justice by people like Dante, Vitoria, Crucé, Grotius, Wolff, Vattel, Penn, Rousseau, Bentham, Kant, and Emerson. Finally, methods of nonviolent action for social transformation have gone from Thoreau to Tolstoy to Gandhi to Martin Luther King to the present day.

[kandrathe]

When a Muslim blows something up, he's suffering from "Islamification", and manifesting a hyper-version of a religion founded by a "vicious war lord." The religion should be closely monitored, and offenders deported or imprisoned.

I don't believe in closely monitoring any religion, but when extremists (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Environmentalists, or Animal Rights) begin to make bombs, or make plans to do harm, then we should act to protect the society.

When a Christian shoots an abortion doctor, he's not really a "true" Christian, definitely nothing to do with the religion, he's just sick in the head.

And... I said, that guy who had been diagnosed, should have been committed for the good of society. There was pre-existing evidence that he was going off the deep end. He did.

When Fundamentalist Mormons have polygamy and child marriage, you "...don't believe they are in it for the sex or the arranged marriages with under aged girls, but are practicing their beliefs and are in it for the bearing of many (FLDS) children."

I don't care why they are marrying under aged girls, it is illegal, and those who commit crimes should be prosecuted. But, I believe in gathering evidence of a crime before you arrest people.

When Mohammed does it (14 centuries prior!) it's horrific child abuse, part of his "contrived" religion. I guess that means he just made up to justify his own behavior, utterly unlike the FLDS, who are simply genuine believers?

And, I said, I don't support the beliefs of the FLDS, nor the delusions of Joseph Smith. My sole beef in that case was the actions of the state in perverting justice and violating the rights of the parents who did not commit crimes.

I'm still not seeing the scholarship you keep mentioning. Going back to primary sources is admirable, but a very dangerous game without knowing the context, which is the point of the scholarship.

No. I've decided not to be the one to prove Mohamed is a warlord. If you or Zenda want to believe that he was a Prophet, and anointed by God, then so be it. What point is there in debating a topic where Zenda refuses to even read the basic text.

[Jester]

And, I said, I don't support the beliefs of the FLDS, nor the delusions of Joseph Smith.

But, unlike Mohammed, you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he was a "true believer" and not just some ambitious pervert making up crazy lies and calling it a religion to cover his own crimes? Why is that, exactly? Are Joseph Smith's delusions more believable than Mohammed's?

No. I've decided not to be the one to prove Mohamed is a warlord. If you or Zenda want to believe that he was a Prophet, and anointed by God, then so be it. What point is there in debating a topic where Zenda refuses to even read the basic text.

First off, you can't call null hypothesis on this one. You haven't proven your case that Mohammed was not genuine in his beliefs; that is a positive hypothesis. Nor does being genuine in one's beliefs require also being correct - Mohammed was, to my mind, delusional insofar as he thought he was talking to God. He shares this delusion will all people who claim as much, including the founders of most religions.

However, if we must be pedantic (I do so love it), from Wiktionary:

Prophet (plural prophets)
1)Someone who speaks by divine inspiration.
2)Someone who predicts the future; a soothsayer.

I do not believe in divine inspiration, and even if I did, I don't know how we would distinguish genuine inspiration from fake - there is no test for this. So, strictly, it would be indeterminate in all cases. If definition 1 merely means someone who claims to speak by divine inspiration, or is seen in this way, then it is clear Mohammed qualifies. Definition 2 requires the same parsing - I do not believe in genuine prophecy, nor can I tell it from non-genuine. But if all it requires is a prediction of the future, then Mohammed also qualifies by this definition as well, having made many predictions about the future, and about other unknowable things.

Your argument against would be?

-Jester

[Zenda]

So, then in your opinion, you and I (or anyone else for that matter), should not discuss topics in which we have not invested a PhD. of effort into mastering.

I wonder where I said that. Not studying the original texts yourself does not exclude discussing the findings of others. And there is nothing wrong with relying on work from others, without checking everything they did for yourself. We humans do this all the time, it's what separates us from animals. It's what allows us to 'stand on the shoulders of giants'. Why would we need to re-read age-old books, when the useful knowledge contained in them has been integrated into our societies already?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Not studying the original texts yourself does not exclude discussing the findings of others. And there is nothing wrong with relying on work from others, without checking everything they did for yourself.

Yes, but if the others disagree with each other, then how do you form your opinions? By going with the ones who agree with your preconceived notions? That's prejudice. By going with the ones that express themselves the best? That's elitism. By going with the ones from your nation, your tribe, your religion? That's chauvinism.

When the experts disagree, you have two choices. Wait for a consensus before forming an opinion or going to the source itself. If you chose neither, then at least you need to be honest (at least with yourself) and admit your relative ignorance.

We humans do this all the time, it's what separates us from animals. It's what allows us to 'stand on the shoulders of giants'.

Actually, when a chimp is presented with a problem and a number of ways of solving it, he will stay with the first way that works. If he's then integrated with a group that does not know how to solve that problem, he will teach them his way, and the group will, almost invariably, use his technique.

Gives an insight into the beginning of education. And probably of religion.;)

Oh, and by the way, *nothing* separates us from animals.

Why would we need to re-read age-old books, when the useful knowledge contained in them has been integrated into our societies already?

Because, along with the useful knowledge, the harmful superstitions in those books have also been integrated into our societies. The adherents to those superstitions claim that those books are their justification. As long as this remains the case, we opponents of those superstitions need to study those books, if for no other reason than to know our enemy.

Besides, if and when the modern superstitions join Gilgamesh, Thor, Zeus, etc., in myths and legends, the books will still make interesting reading, just as the Iliad and Odyssey still make good reading three thousand plus years after the fall of Troy has had any significance. It's called intellectual curiosity.

--Pete

[Zenda]

Yes, but if the others disagree with each other, then how do you form your opinions?

I don't see others disagreeing. Jester specifically asked for links, but didn't get any.

When the experts disagree, you have two choices. Wait for a consensus before forming an opinion or going to the source itself.

What good would going to the source do, if you are not an expert yourself? Being a layman, is there really any hope of finding something there, that the experts missed? I don't think there is such a choice. But as I said, we don't see disagreement among experts.

Actually, when a chimp is presented with a problem and a number of ways of solving it, he will stay with the first way that works. If he's then integrated with a group that does not know how to solve that problem, he will teach them his way, and the group will, almost invariably, use his technique.

No, animals can learn, but they don't teach. Other chimps will try to replicate the first chimp's efforts after they see it is rewarding, but the first chimp will never try to help them with getting the technique right. For example, when other chimps happen to pick a stick that is too thick to fit a hole in a termite hill, they will have to find that out for themselves. Humans would indicate a smaller stick is needed, as soon as they detect the mistake. And not only lack animals the willingness to teach, they also lack the willingness to accept knowledge from others. Even if you'd try to point out that a smaller stick is needed, the chimps would still go on with whatever they had in their hands (and likely attack you for trying to replace their stick with a more useful tool).

Edit: Regarding the teaching/learning of animals...

There is a test that nicely illustrates my point. Take a non-transparant box with a small drawer near the bottom, and put a sweet in the drawer. Then present the box to a group of chimpansees, together with a small stick, and perform the following demonstration. Tap the top of the box with the stick, then the right side, then the left side. Put the stick down, open the drawer and take out the sweet. When given the stick and (refilled) box, most chimps will duplicate the ritual without effort. If this test is carried out with children (5 to 7 year olds, for example), the result will be very similar. They too will learn quickly to duplicate the ritual. However, things change when the box is made of a transparant material. Now the chimps will not be fooled and open the drawer right away, without using the stick. But the children will continue to tap the box as demonstrated, even when they can clearly see there is no need for it. They will value the knowledge of their teacher higher as their own opinion, and assume there is a reason for it all. And that's what sets us apart. Individually, we are not as 'smart' as animals, and we make up for it by relying on our 'cumulative' knowledge.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't see others disagreeing. Jester specifically asked for links, but didn't get any.

This branch of the thread started with a disagreement on Mohammad's character. If you Google {Muhammad koran "war lord" -video -movie}, you'll get hundreds of links to disagreeing opinions.

What good would going to the source do, if you are not an expert yourself? Being a layman, is there really any hope of finding something there, that the experts missed? I don't think there is such a choice.

As often as not, the experts disagree on the meanings of what was written more so than on what was actually written. In that, a knowledgeable layman is usually just as capable of making up his mind as is an expert. And, also, no one is a born expert. One can become very knowledgeable in many fields with just a little bit of application and effort.

But as I said, we don't see disagreement among experts.

Only if you don't look.

No, animals can learn, but they don't teach.

Again, I recommend you to Google {"sign language" teach Washoe}. And, yes, there is disagreement by the experts.

. . . However, things change when the box is made of a transparant material. Now the chimps will not be fooled and open the drawer right away, without using the stick. But the children will continue to tap the box as demonstrated, even when they can clearly see there is no need for it. . .

Sounds like proof that chimps bred with sheep to make humans. :P

Since the question is whether animals can teach and not whether animals respect their teachers, I don't see how your story applies.

--Pete

[eppie]

Mohamed's behavior is his motivation for claiming to be a prophet, and using God revelations to justify his rapes, murders, thefts, and bloody legacy.

Let's start a new thread discussing the evil of the big bad wolf, the loch ness monster, captain hook and Dr. No.


(Of course the difference is that these guys don't have millions of followers)

I have been thinking once in a while about reading the bible, quran or whatever, but I always came to the conclusion that it doesn't make much sense.
First, they are filled with fairy tales, second, everybody interprets like he wants (or better like he thinks he can use it to obtain most power with) and because of all the miracles, and weird language sensible persons will not be able to do anything with these books.
In my house we only obey the rules of thermodynamics.