|
Post by tartanphantom on Jun 13, 2023 23:53:35 GMT -5
And thus, you are beginning to comprehend the foundational pillars of the concept of Jihad.
However, this principle of the justification of violence as a holy charge is not limited to Islam. It has been used as a Cassius Belli by multiple religions throughout history-- Sikh, Zoroastrian, Hebrew (the Old Testament documents more than one account) Christians (see the crusades) as well as dozens of others, including tribal groups and civilizations throughout the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere, just to name a few. Even several Eastern philosophies are complicit in such actions at one time or another.
I'm not saying that advocating violence as a means of theological subjugation is acceptable, I'm just saying that it is a strategy as old as civilization.
Thanks. I'd be curious to know more about where it appears in Torah and the Christian Bible. Understanding that it exists in all three doctrines would, on the one hand, disturb me more but, on the other, make me more comfortable with Islam. The two most well-known examples in the Torah/Old Testament are in the Book of Joshua, where the Israelites were directed in the conquest of Canaan, and Gideon's victory over the Midianites in the Book of Judges.
As far as the condemnation and proscription of specific peoples based on divine instruction, refer to the Book of Deuteronomy, chapters 19 and 20, which precedes the Books of Joshua and Judges.
The New Testament says very little about holy war as a method of subjugation or conversion, except in referential contexts to the Torah/Old Testament. In general, under the New Covenant, conflict is not necessarily prohibited, but should be limited to defense if possible. Unfortunately, that is not always possible.
Initially, the Crusades of the late 11th century were intended to recapture the historical Christian Holy Land from Muslim conquest. However, as we know, it got uglier from there on out, and multiple conflicts lasted on and off for well over 200 years.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,757
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 14, 2023 0:24:13 GMT -5
Thanks. I'd be curious to know more about where it appears in Torah and the Christian Bible. Understanding that it exists in all three doctrines would, on the one hand, disturb me more but, on the other, make me more comfortable with Islam. The two most well-known examples in the Torah/Old Testament are in the Book of Joshua, where the Israelites were directed in the conquest of Canaan, and Gideon's victory over the Midianites in the Book of Judges. As far as the condemnation and proscription of specific peoples based on divine instruction, refer to the Book of Deuteronomy, chapters 19 and 20, which precedes the Books of Joshua and Judges.
Joshua and Judges are part of the Christian Old Testament, but they do not appear in the Jewish Torah. Deutoronomy 20, though...wow. I've got some serious reflecting to do. Thank you much for the insight, my good man.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Jun 14, 2023 1:06:04 GMT -5
The two most well-known examples in the Torah/Old Testament are in the Book of Joshua, where the Israelites were directed in the conquest of Canaan, and Gideon's victory over the Midianites in the Book of Judges. As far as the condemnation and proscription of specific peoples based on divine instruction, refer to the Book of Deuteronomy, chapters 19 and 20, which precedes the Books of Joshua and Judges.
Joshua and Judges are part of the Christian Old Testament, but they do not appear in the Jewish Torah. Deutoronomy 20, though...wow. I've got some serious reflecting to do. Thank you much for the insight, my good man.
Correct, not in the Torah proper, as it is constructed of the books of Moses (Chumash, or often referred by Christians as the Pentateuch).
They would be listed in The Tanakh (also called the Hebrew Bible), which encompasses 24 books, including the five books of Chumash contained in the Torah).
The next eight books are the Books of the Prophets (Neviim), which includes the books of Yehoshua and Shoftim-- which are Joshua and Judges in the the Christian Old Testament.
The final eleven books of the Tanakh are the The Books of the Writings and Latter Prophets (Ketuvim).
The entire Tanakh (Chumash, Neviim & Ketuvim) is included in the Christian Old Testament, plus additional books. Also, the Ketuvim is generally subdivided differently in the Christian Old Testament, resulting in more than 11 books.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,757
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 14, 2023 1:16:47 GMT -5
Joshua and Judges are part of the Christian Old Testament, but they do not appear in the Jewish Torah. Deutoronomy 20, though...wow. I've got some serious reflecting to do. Thank you much for the insight, my good man. Correct, not in the Torah proper, as it is constructed of the books of Moses (Chumash, or often referred by Christians as the Pentateuch).
They would be listed in The Tanakh (also called the Hebrew Bible), which encompasses 24 books, including the five books of Chumash contained in the Torah).
The next eight books are the Books of the Prophets (Neviim), which includes the books of Yehoshua and Shoftim-- which are Joshua and Judges in the the Christian Old Testament.
The final eleven books of the Tanakh are the The Books of the Writings (Kesuvim).
The entire Tanakh (Chumash, Neviim & Kesuvim) is included in the Christian Old Testament, plus additional books. Also, the Kesuvim is generally subdivided differently in the Christian Old Testament, resulting in more than 11 books.
You know your Tanakh. My point is just that those passages are not in the core religious text for Judaism. Had the passage that concerned me in the Quran instead appeared in the Sunnah, it wouldn't have seemed as troubling to me. But all this is moot as your example from Deuteronomy was an excellent one.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 14, 2023 1:42:13 GMT -5
The thing to keep in mind is interpretation of passages have been used throughout history, in most cultures, to justify acts that are also prohibited or condemned. Whether or not you believe in the word of a deity (or deities), it is through the mouths of men that they are passed on and used to one end or another.
One of the more interesting dramatizations of how enlightenment can stray, as it is passed on, was in Babylon 5, in the form of G'Kar. At the start of the series, he is depicted as a villainous figure; a schemer who looks for advantages. As things unfold, you find he is more complex. His people were conquered and enslaved, then fought a guerrilla war for freedom. G'Kar seeks to ensure his people are never again slaves. However, due to the influence of the Shadows, to sow conflict and push evolutionary development, his people are conquered again. Under the influence of a narcotic, he has a vision and earns of greater conflict than just his world, that their suffering is part of greater suffering, throughout the galaxy. For him to free his people, he must sacrifice himself and some of his people, for greater good, including letting Londo live, his most hated enemy and representative of their conquerors. G'Kar spends time under arrest and starts to write of the revelations he was given, without understanding that his vision was telepathically manipulated by another higher race. Eventually, he aids Londo in killing the mad emperor of the Centauri Republic and ending the influence of the Shadows. In return, Londo orders the total withdrawal of all Centauri forces from Narn, G'Kar's homeworld. As time passes, G'Kar learns that his writings have been transcribed and bound into a holy book, called the Book of G'Kar, just as he read the teachings of a previous religious figure, the Book of G'quan. The book has been transcribed by hand by the next and the next and people come to him to learn about his word. G'Kar reluctantly takes up trying to teach them, but is frustrated as time and again, his ideas and metaphors are turned into something else, whether to single out previous oppressors or to express superiority of their culture, while G'Kar speaks of the universe being interconnected and the various races are united in bonds they can't see, because they do not look past their world and their community. Eventually, G'Kar must remove himself from his people, as they will not listen and seek him to take up leadership of them, against their perceived enemies. He goes off to explore unknown space, to see what is there. His followers turn this into a holy ascension and it becomes part of further lore.
The story gets to the heart of how scripture is passed on from the writings of a prophet or religious figure and then adapted into a group's world, without always perceiving the intended message or without the context for some things that appear. It also shows how it can even evolve into contradiction....thou shalt not kill.....but smite thine enemies.......that sort of thing.
I am an atheist, but my parents were not and my grandfather was a Baptist preacher, as well as a farmer. However, I never heard him preach a hateful word, never condemned a single person, never spoke evil of anyone. He studied the Bible for the good he could find in it and preached that and lived it. I'm sure he read some of the darker passages, which are in conflict with some things he taught, but either he chose not to see them or he felt the messages of peace and love were more important. Like any knowledge, it is the application of the learning that brings good or evil, positive or negative consequences.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Jun 14, 2023 1:43:05 GMT -5
Correct, not in the Torah proper, as it is constructed of the books of Moses (Chumash, or often referred by Christians as the Pentateuch).
They would be listed in The Tanakh (also called the Hebrew Bible), which encompasses 24 books, including the five books of Chumash contained in the Torah).
The next eight books are the Books of the Prophets (Neviim), which includes the books of Yehoshua and Shoftim-- which are Joshua and Judges in the the Christian Old Testament.
The final eleven books of the Tanakh are the The Books of the Writings (Kesuvim).
The entire Tanakh (Chumash, Neviim & Kesuvim) is included in the Christian Old Testament, plus additional books. Also, the Kesuvim is generally subdivided differently in the Christian Old Testament, resulting in more than 11 books.
You know your Tanakh. My point is just that those passages are not in the core religious text for Judaism. Had the passage that concerned me in the Quran instead appeared in the Sunnah, it wouldn't have seemed as troubling to me. But all this is moot as your example from Deuteronomy was an excellent one.
From my perspective as a Christian, to fully realize the New Testament teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, one has to understand the context of historical Hebrew law, customs and teachings. After all, The Tanakh was the "bible" to Jesus, and many Christians fail to put that in perspective.
This requires reading not only religious texts like the Tanakh, Christian Holy Bible and the Quran, but also historical accounts such as those of Flavius-Josephus; which are also relevant in understanding the New Testament teachings.
On top of that, my theological education is a bit beyond the basic "Comparative Religions 101" course.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 14, 2023 6:18:17 GMT -5
If you are referring primarily to verses 7 and 8, you need to understand that, like The Holy Bible, there are multiple English translations of the Quran.
In this case, you must also understand the historical context of verse 7 first. You can find a detailed explanation of it HERE, midway down the page (look under the section attributed to Ala-Maududi). Regarding verse 8, it is generally accepted that chapter 17 serves as a universal admonishment for non-believers, not just Israelites. In the context of verse 8, the Israelites are used as an example, not as a specific.
Hope this helps.
It's even more the earlier portion that states, "We would send against you some of Our servants of great might, who would ravage your homes". The idea of advocating any kind of violence concerns me, but coupled with the naming of a specific group that it also deems as "arrogant" concerns me even more. The historical context has to be considered as well, as Muhammad was a historical figure as well as a major religion's prophet. While he had at first been in good terms with the Jewish populations of the region (who supported him politically, mostly), he eventually turned on them after a perceived betrayal. The Banu Qurayza in particular, who had apparently refused to join in a certain battle (I think it was against the Quraysh, who had caused Muhhamad to flee Mecca) were declared enemies and attacked. Essentially, he went from "yeah, the Cohens are pretty good neignbours!" to "I can't stand my neighbour Isaac anymore! His cat destroyed my flower bed!" The degradation of relations between Moslems and Jews led to things like the former no longer praying in the direction of Jerusalem as they had done initially (turning toward Mecca instead) and to more serious consequences. All in all the history of Moslems and Jews in the early days of Islam is pretty interesting, and not at all like what we'd imagine by looking at modern history. (It's also alluded to in Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses). The Quran sometimes preaches tolerance toward law-abiding dhimmis, and sometimes curses unbelievers to the eternal flame. Some will see the whole thing as allegorical, others will pick and choose which passage to take literally. As an unbeliever, I think that the whole thing simply reflects that Muhammad could change his mind depending on the circumstances, as do we all.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,757
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 14, 2023 9:04:29 GMT -5
It's even more the earlier portion that states, "We would send against you some of Our servants of great might, who would ravage your homes". The idea of advocating any kind of violence concerns me, but coupled with the naming of a specific group that it also deems as "arrogant" concerns me even more. The historical context has to be considered as well, as Muhammad was a historical figure as well as a major religion's prophet. While he had at first been in good terms with the Jewish populations of the region (who supported him politically, mostly), he eventually turned on them after a perceived betrayal. The Banu Qurayza in particular, who had apparently refused to join in a certain battle (I think it was against the Quraysh, who had caused Muhhamad to flee Mecca) were declared enemies and attacked. Essentially, he went from "yeah, the Cohens are pretty good neignbours!" to "I can't stand my neighbour Isaac anymore! His cat destroyed my flower bed!" The degradation of relations between Moslems and Jews led to things like the former no longer praying in the direction of Jerusalem as they had done initially (turning toward Mecca instead) and to more serious consequences. All in all the history of Moslems and Jews in the early days of Islam is pretty interesting, and not at all like what we'd imagine by looking at modern history. (It's also alluded to in Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses). The Quran sometimes preaches tolerance toward law-abiding dhimmis, and sometimes curses unbelievers to the eternal flame. Some will see the whole thing as allegorical, others will pick and choose which passage to take literally. As an unbeliever, I think that the whole thing simply reflects that Muhammad could change his mind depending on the circumstances, as do we all. From a historical perspective, this all makes perfect sense. The dilemma is that a practicing Muslim believes that the Quran is the perfect word of god, untarnished by human motives. Of course, as tartanphantom would point out, this is also the stance of Orthodox Jews and the Torah, as well as most Christian groups and the Holy Bible.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Jun 14, 2023 9:33:35 GMT -5
The historical context has to be considered as well, as Muhammad was a historical figure as well as a major religion's prophet. While he had at first been in good terms with the Jewish populations of the region (who supported him politically, mostly), he eventually turned on them after a perceived betrayal. The Banu Qurayza in particular, who had apparently refused to join in a certain battle (I think it was against the Quraysh, who had caused Muhhamad to flee Mecca) were declared enemies and attacked. Essentially, he went from "yeah, the Cohens are pretty good neignbours!" to "I can't stand my neighbour Isaac anymore! His cat destroyed my flower bed!" The degradation of relations between Moslems and Jews led to things like the former no longer praying in the direction of Jerusalem as they had done initially (turning toward Mecca instead) and to more serious consequences. All in all the history of Moslems and Jews in the early days of Islam is pretty interesting, and not at all like what we'd imagine by looking at modern history. (It's also alluded to in Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses). The Quran sometimes preaches tolerance toward law-abiding dhimmis, and sometimes curses unbelievers to the eternal flame. Some will see the whole thing as allegorical, others will pick and choose which passage to take literally. As an unbeliever, I think that the whole thing simply reflects that Muhammad could change his mind depending on the circumstances, as do we all. From a historical perspective, this all makes perfect sense. The dilemma is that a practicing Muslim believes that the Quran is the perfect word of god, untarnished by human motives. Of course, as tartanphantom would point out, this is also the stance of Orthodox Jews and the Torah, as well as most Christian groups and the Holy Bible.
Major differences being ideological. Hebrew orthodoxy does not necessarily call for the conversion of others.
Islam generally requires it, and Christianity advocates for proselytizing and sharing the Gospel, but ultimately leaves the choice up to the individual (in theory, not necessarily in practice-- that is often dependent on the sect).
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 14, 2023 9:40:18 GMT -5
The historical context has to be considered as well, as Muhammad was a historical figure as well as a major religion's prophet. While he had at first been in good terms with the Jewish populations of the region (who supported him politically, mostly), he eventually turned on them after a perceived betrayal. The Banu Qurayza in particular, who had apparently refused to join in a certain battle (I think it was against the Quraysh, who had caused Muhhamad to flee Mecca) were declared enemies and attacked. Essentially, he went from "yeah, the Cohens are pretty good neignbours!" to "I can't stand my neighbour Isaac anymore! His cat destroyed my flower bed!" The degradation of relations between Moslems and Jews led to things like the former no longer praying in the direction of Jerusalem as they had done initially (turning toward Mecca instead) and to more serious consequences. All in all the history of Moslems and Jews in the early days of Islam is pretty interesting, and not at all like what we'd imagine by looking at modern history. (It's also alluded to in Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses). The Quran sometimes preaches tolerance toward law-abiding dhimmis, and sometimes curses unbelievers to the eternal flame. Some will see the whole thing as allegorical, others will pick and choose which passage to take literally. As an unbeliever, I think that the whole thing simply reflects that Muhammad could change his mind depending on the circumstances, as do we all. From a historical perspective, this all makes perfect sense. The dilemma is that a practicing Muslim believes that the Quran is the perfect word of god, untarnished by human motives. Of course, as tartanphantom would point out, this is also the stance of Orthodox Jews and the Torah, as well as most Christian groups and the Holy Bible. Correct, and it is not surprising at all to realize that good people who happen to be practicing Muslims, or Jews, or Christians, of Hindus, or Sikhs, will interpret their sacred book (the perfect word of God) in a way that's compassionate, caring and decent while other people, whose motives it is not for me to judge, will interpret the exact same texts as an invitation to intolerance and hatred. Oh, THE HUMANITY!!!
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jun 14, 2023 9:42:37 GMT -5
Yes, because the fundamental problem with religion in general is being unwilling to question anything. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, where their interpretation of the Bible is unquestionably "the truth" straight from God through man. They discourage, or more appropriately, forbid the reading of other sacred texts. Even other translations of the Bible that isn't their translation. If you truly believe that your sacred texts are indeed the word of whatever god that you worship than them being open to scrutiny shouldn't be a problem. But in the case of religions that do so like the JW's is too keep their constituents within their control. If you can have people blindly believe something and not question something, like what shaxper posted, than you've got them. And then you have people like my parents, loving and caring people that would do anything to help anyone, blindly following a religion that cannot seem to come up with any accurate foresight into the future when it comes to something like Jesus' second coming. They've been wrong more times in my lifetime predicting it than I have been in one day about anything. All that aside I do enjoy reading on other religions and their sacred texts. You just have to take them with a grain of salt in my opinion.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,757
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 14, 2023 10:54:13 GMT -5
Yes, because the fundamental problem with religion in general is being unwilling to question anything. While I respect your perspective and agree with it in part, generalizing is dangerous ground that's likely to result in inaccuracy. Judaism actively invites questioning, and I can't speak to whether or not Islam does, but I know some Christian denominations do: Methodists, Unitarians, and I can't speak for whether Jesuits as whole do, but I've certainly met a few Jesuit priests who were very radical in their thinking/questioning. But yes, any faith that calls for unquestioning obedience has the potential to be extremely dangerous, as well as self-serving for those in a position to benefit. That certainly does not seem to be the example Jesus of Nazareth was trying to set when he repeatedly questioned and challenged the hierarchy of his temple.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jun 14, 2023 12:38:27 GMT -5
Yes, because the fundamental problem with religion in general is being unwilling to question anything. While I respect your perspective and agree with it in part, generalizing is dangerous ground that's likely to result in inaccuracy. Judaism actively invites questioning, and I can't speak to whether or not Islam does, but I know some Christian denominations do: Methodists, Unitarians, and I can't speak for whether Jesuits as whole do, but I've certainly met a few Jesuit priests who were very radical in their thinking/questioning. But yes, any faith that calls for unquestioning obedience has the potential to be extremely dangerous, as well as self-serving for those in a position to benefit. That certainly does not seem to be the example Jesus of Nazareth was trying to set when he repeatedly questioned and challenged the hierarchy of his temple. I agree. The statement could have been better said. Something like ... The fundamental problem with religion can be the unwillingness to question anything.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 14, 2023 13:52:49 GMT -5
Yes, because the fundamental problem with religion in general is being unwilling to question anything. While I respect your perspective and agree with it in part, generalizing is dangerous ground that's likely to result in inaccuracy. Judaism actively invites questioning, (...) And to this day I remain convinced that it is that attitude that gave us so many Jewish Nobel prize winners (something like one out of five!)
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,757
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 14, 2023 14:41:35 GMT -5
While I respect your perspective and agree with it in part, generalizing is dangerous ground that's likely to result in inaccuracy. Judaism actively invites questioning, (...) And to this day I remain convinced that it is that attitude that gave us so many Jewish Nobel prize winners (something like one out of five!) That and the existential/theological crisis for all Jews that was The Holocaust. It left Jews with pretty much two choices concerning their faith: throw it away, or turn the deaths of nearly twelve million into a theological call to action.
|
|