Visit from a time traveler

[fossten]

..established religion.
That's a human problem. That's a problem with corruption and management. He didn't write anyone out of the bible, he took issue with the management of the corrupt Catholic church and the men who were abusing it to expand their own political and economic power.

And while there are some who use Islam as a tool to manipulate the population and expand their power, this isn't the fundamental problem with it.

That's some high level quality analysis right there, my friend.

 

[foxpaws]

It can't really trace its' roots to the torah, it can trace it's roots to Mohamed, the illiterate meglomaniac. He incorporated some of the widely known stories of the torah and the bible, as he personally understood them, into his "philosophy," but that was done in an effort to convince the Jewish tribes, and the other monotheistic tribes, to follow him.

So, what was the 'Christian reason' for incorporating the Torah - could it have been the same reasoning?

Cal - you seem to know a lot about this, certainly far more than I do. However, I would like to know more...

I had always heard of the 'myth' of his illiteracy - but, that he certainly probably read and wrote as well as most businessmen of the day - because that is what he was.

Jews are broken down into different 'levels' - orthodox, reformed, etc. Why couldn't Islam be looked at the same way - rather than scrapping all of Mohammad's teachings. Sort of an 'early, late' division. When I read his stories it is is almost as though it is 2 people. If you read his early stories on, for instance, his views of women, and then compare it to his later views - gak. Did 'wife to be #8' spurn him, and so he punished all Islamic women from that point forward?

No, there really isn't.
And anything that might sound good is later contradicted as Mohamed's forces became more powerful and he sought more power.

I have always thought the study of Mohammad is the perfect way to study how power corrupts.

I've discussed this in a few of the other posts, but you can only reform something that has a solid foundation. The church needed reformation because corrupt people had abused the teaching of Christ.

If you remove the 2nd half of Mohammad's life - the foundation is pretty sound. I often wonder how different the world would be, if, like Christ, Mohammad died fairly young. He really is like 2 different men.

The only way to 'reform' Islam as you imagine it would essentially be to transform it into something altogether different- basically removing EVERYTHING the prophet said, and only relying on the Judeo-Christian oral stories the Mohamed incorporated into his early philosophy, while still in Mecca.

It wasn't all Judeo-Christian stories - he also gleaned from the far east... in his earlier stories. Islam would be different than Christianity, even if you removed everything after Mecca. It would different than it is now - but it wouldn't just be another version of Christianity or Judaism.

Furthermore, even if that were reasonable, how do you convince the billion and a half muslims to abandon their prophet? The same one that caused Europe to erupt in flames after a newspaper published a drawing of him?

How was the Catholic world convinced to abandon the Saints and the Mother Mary... Time Cal. If you don't think Europe didn't burst into flames after the 95 Theses...

And you aren't being asked to abandon Mohammad - perhaps 'temper' is a better word in this case. Acknowledge the problems with the 2nd half of his life - and start to gravitate toward his time in Mecca, and start to discount the megalomaniac era.

That's a human problem. That's a problem with corruption and management. He didn't write anyone out of the bible, he took issue with the management of the corrupt Catholic church and the men who were abusing it to expand their own political and economic power.

Well, protestants did delete whole books of the bible...

Not only do you have to take the prophet as a whole, the later teachings are considered more important than the earlier ones. Infact, the later ones essentially correct the early ones.

So, when someone speaks of Islam being a religion of peace and quoting from the Mecca period, the early surrahs, they are deceiving you. Those were created when Mohammed was still weak, the inclusiveness was stated in an effort to survive. As his power expanded, the tolerance receded.

But, many Jews don't take all of the Old Testament Law as a whole - and yet, they are still Jews.

Again, Luther didn't change the religion, he addressed human problems and corruption..

No, he started the 'change' - removing large parts, such as basically undeifying the Mother Mary for instance....

I would argue that "moderate" Muslims are usually those who practice without really knowing the scripture. In most parts of the world, people aren't able to read the Koran on their own because devote Muslims believe that the Koran can not be translated into other languages.

Often times, even devote Muslims, simply learn the Koran phonically by rote memorization, without knowing what the words actually mean. Because of sort of disconnect, in countries like Indonesia for example, Muslims have incorporated some concepts of Islam into their native cultures.

This is the opposite of Christianity. With the advent of printing press, the Church no longer had strict control over the teaching of the scripture. The revolution and reformation took place when the writings were widely disseminated and made available for individuals to empower themselves. In Islam, being isolated from the actual writings is the liberating condition.

But, basically before Luther, the Church kept the Bible in Latin - doing almost the same thing you are stating that Muslims do - Mass was 'rout', in Latin that very few people understood. That is why you 'canter', because the sing-song nature of cantering is easier to remember.

But, I agree that as it stands - Islam is a violent, virulent religion. To overcome the latter teachings of Mohammad would be pretty much an impossible task.

It is too bad - his early teachings of peace, completeness, caring, are well worth saving.

 

[fossten]

When I read his stories it is is almost as though it is 2 people. If you read his early stories on, for instance, his views of women, and then compare it to his later views - gak. Did 'wife to be #8' spurn him, and so he punished all Islamic women from that point forward?

Urk - I just had an epiphany. Remember Sheherazade? Part of Arabian Nights. I read the whole book several times as a kid. The Sultan killed hundreds of women before she came along. I never made the connection until now.

 

[fossten]

No, he started the 'change' - removing large parts, such as basically undeifying the Mother Mary for instance....

Actually, Luther clarified the position of the Catholic church as inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible, which never deifies Mary. Remember, Catholicism stems from a combination of Christianity and Isis worship - which is where praying to Mary comes from. See Constantine.

Jesus rebuked Mary in the Gospels - and she clearly was not without sin, as the Bible makes that clear. She has no authority over Christ, as the Catholic church teaches. She's a sinner just like everybody else.