Things I think EVERYONE should KNOW & RESPECT about Islam & Moslems

[IdaBriggs]

My favorite hobby over the last quarter of a century has been studying religion, so join me for a few minutes as I share some things you may or may not know, that I think EVERYONE should Know. (Any misunderstandings are my own; disclaimer, etc.)

Q: Where do Moslems come from?

A: They are an “offshoot” of Christianity from the beginning of the seventh century. Specifically, they were an attempt to return to the core principals of the Jewish and Christian religions, which the Prophet (or “Teacher”) Muhammad felt had become corrupted by the evolving Church hierarchy of the day. Also, ongoing debates over monotheism versus polytheism (which the Church was struggling with) were getting a lot of people killed, and the Prophet Muhammad attempted to put an end to the killing by explaining God in a clear, simple way.

Q: Understanding God in a clear, simple way? Explain!

A: By the sixth century, most of the Middle East had converted to Christianity, but as is the way of humanity, a power struggle over interpretation and control of the Church had been going on for a while already. (Google “heresy” and/or the history of the Early Christian Church.)

Most Christians think of themselves as “monotheists” – that is, they believe in “One God.” If you ask them to explain “The Trinity” they struggle a bit, hem and haw, and in general look at you as if you are crazy. Yes, “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” are represented as THREE SEPARATE ASPECTS of the Deity, but they are the same … right?

Wrong. During most of the early days of the Christian Church, stating a definitive view one way or the other was a good way of getting oneself killed for “heresy” depending on which view – “One God” versus “Three Separate Gods” was in vogue. (We aren’t even going to start on the controversy about Mary, OR the magical role of “Saints” or the importance of “Relics” here.) For the Catholic Church in particular, theologians waged huge battles over which of the three aspects of the Divine was “in charge” or outranked the others. Did Jesus as the Son have to obey the Father? Or was he on an equal footing with Him? What about the Holy Ghost? Was he in charge of both the Father and the Son? And how could one “explain” how Jesus was at once A MAN and a DIVINITY?

Most of the Christians of the Middle East were “Nestorians”, which is explained as follows in the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

Nestorianism originated in the Church in the 5th century out of an attempt to rationally explain and understand the incarnation of the divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus Christ. Nestorianism taught that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate and that there are two persons, the man Jesus Christ and the divine Logos, which dwelt in the man. In consequence, Nestorians rejected such terminology as "God suffered" or "God was crucified", because the humanity of Jesus Christ which suffered is seperate from his divinity. Likewise, they rejected the term Theotokos (Giver of birth to God) as a title of the Virgin Mary, suggesting instead the title Christotokos (Giver of birth to Christ), because in their opinion Mary gave birth to only the human person of Jesus and not the divine.

Is that clear? If it isn’t, keep in mind theologians have been fighting over this issue for close to two thousand years, and even asking the questions was a good way of getting killed depending on whose army was in the area. If you wish to learn more about “heresy” in the early Christian Church, a good place to start (with about sixteen of them) is here: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm -- everyone having an opinion about the "proper" way to worship "God" isn't anything new! :)

Besides, all followers of Christ who aren’t “Roman Catholic” are technically heretics who are going to burn in hell anyway. (snicker)

Q: That isn’t funny. Get back to the story, please.

A: Sorry. Here we go…

A very nice man named Muhammad finally said ENOUGH! He was sick of the arguments about the drattable Trinity (among other things), and therefore he “created” the first TRULY monotheistic religion, with the following prayer:

“There is no God but God and Muhammad is His Prophet.”

(Keep in mind that “Prophet” also means “Teacher.”)

Was that clear enough? One God. (Allah means “God” by the way.) No more arguing about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. No more arguments about the status of Mary as the Holy Mother, or Mary Magdalene as a Prostitute, or Joseph the Cuckold. No more fussing about the power of the Saints, whether the priests performing the Sacrament were REALLY turning water into Blood, and bread into the “Flesh” of Jesus, or why Satan was so powerful, or even more powerful than God, or....you get the idea.

One God, who heard your prayers without needing a priest to intercede for you.

Now, toss in some kick butt social reform (the Prophet Muhammad immediately ordered a stop to female infanticide, heretofore allowed under Christianity, demanded women be treated with respect in matters of family law, and that the other “peoples of the book” – Jews and Christians – be treated with respect and tolerance), and the religion spread like wildfire. Nearly fourteen hundred years later, its still one of the world’s most popular. The five basic tenets are filled with common sense and decency.

1) Proclaim yourself a follower of God and Submit to the Will of God;
2) Pray five times a day;
3) Fast during Ramadan (to remember those less fortunate and celebrate the blessings of your family with a feast at dusk);
4) Give to the Poor; and
5) Travel to the Holy Places at least once in your life if you can afford it.

Q: Sounds reasonable. So how come Moslems are allowed to have “jihads” or “holy wars?”

A: When the small community that followed the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad was attacked for their “heresy,” he told his followers it was fine to defend themselves (as opposed to becoming slaughter victims). Since his writings were later “organized” by his best friend, the CONTEXT of the “holy war” or “jihad” was kind of removed.

Q: “Organized” and “context” – what are you talking about?

A: The Prophet Muhammad lived a long and productive life. After he passed away, two different men proclaimed themselves his "spiritual" heirs – his best friend, and his son-in-law. Both were convinced they knew what he *really* wanted. (We know their followers today as the Sunnis and the Shiites.)

After Muhammad died, his best friend sat down with the only copy of *all of his writings*, and did a literal “cut and paste” – in other words, he took EVERYTHING that Muhammad had *ever* written, and tried to group it together in “chapters” (which makes for some interesting reading, as context became extremely confusing).

Try to picture twenty years worth of your own writings being parsed sentence by sentence, with “same topics” all put into one folder, and you will TOTALLY appreciate how almost any stance can be justified by something in the Qur’an. (It’s kind of like the Bible that way.)

Q: So why do the women have to wear Head Scarves?

A: A head scarf in Islam is first of all a profession of MODESTY. Just like most American women don’t run around bare breasted unless they work at a strip club, a respectable woman who follows the teachings of Islam wears a head scarf. In addition, it is at one level simply a beautiful fashion accessory, and at another a very practical device because much of the Middle East is A DESSERT.

Q: What does the climate have to do with head scarves?

A: DESSERT. That means a) not a lot of water for daily washing of hair; and b) a TON of sand coating every exposed portion of your body. On a purely practical note, a head scarf allows a woman to have beautiful long hair exposed at home, that doesn’t look like crap in public.

Now, before you get on your high horse, I would like to remind you that in the United States women still wear head coverings to Church, and modest “pilgrim women” wore bonnets all the time. Hats and gloves are still standard “Easter wear”, and the history fashionistas among us can give more details than I on the evolution of “appropriate” women’s headwear – with an observable rise in the trend for “uncovered heads” definitely coinciding with increased advertising for shampoo, conditioner, mousse, hair spray, curling irons, flat irons, and blow dryers, etc.

Q: Are you saying Grandma used to wear a hat all the time because her hair was DIRTY?

A: Yes. That isn’t why Moslem women wear head scarves nowadays, but historically, it probably had a lot to do with practicality, and also, it immediately let other Moslem people know that a woman who was attired MODESTLY was “a sister” in faith.

And, as I said before, it is just something that “respectable, decent, modest” women wear. It’s a social convention; women in the United States don’t run around with their breasts flapping in the wind, and women of good reputation in the Moslem world wear head scarves.

Q: So, what’s with the chadoras, and the “no skin exposed” stuff?

A: I can only speak of what I saw in Egypt: fashions varied. My mother and I wore beautiful silk galabayas (which I assure you was no hardship, as they were extremely comfortable), and we saw women wearing pants, skirts, galabayas, and chadoras – it just depended on the woman, and the day. The big thing all of the garments had in common was that there wasn’t much (if any) “skin” exposure – which makes sense in a DESSERT where you don’t want everyone to run around being sunburned, dirty, and dying of skin cancer. The loose fitting nature of the garments made them cool and comfortable in the Egyptian heat, and still warm as the sun set.

It was clothing that was perfectly appropriate to the climate and the culture, and women, as is the way of women everywhere, still expressed their individualism, style and social standings in their dress and demeanor.

Q: Why did you put “Respect” in this posting subject?

A: When we automatically make the assumption a woman must be “oppressed” because of the clothes she wears, we are at a certain level showing disdain for her and her culture. When we exhibit scorn for the practioners of a religion without understanding it, and how it has bettered the lives of millions of people, we are showing our own ignorance. When we display a lack of RESPECT for others, we are showing ourselves as unworthy of RESPECT ourselves.

In the ten days my mother, my husband and I vacationed in Egypt last November, I was NEVER treated with anything but Respect. Our hosts were lavish in their hospitality, generous in their consideration of us and our comforts, and welcoming in a way I have never experienced before or since. We wore clothing that we felt showed our understanding and respect for the culture, but it wasn’t required, and our hosts assured us repeatedly that we didn’t “have” to do it – but as I said, for us, it was a way of demonstrating our RESPECT for a culture that is part of the cradle of civilization.

Q: Did you feel persecuted because you were an American in an Islamic country?

A: NO! In fact, I felt safer in Egypt than I have felt while driving through bad neighborhoods in my own state. The constant question we were asked over and over again was “how are Muslims treated in America?” to which we replied honestly that they were treated just like everyone else – like fellow citizens. The closest we came to a “negative” experience involved a small horde of young children who were excitedly practicing their English on us (“Hello. What is your name? How old are you?”), and a small diatribe by a stranger about how Americans are Evil: the school teacher promptly corrected him saying that BUSH is evil, but Americans are NOT. I joined in (because I also believe Bush is EVIL), and we left knowing all the peoples of the world agree on one thing: BUSH IS EVIL!!!

Q: Would you go back to Egypt again?

A: YES. The Egyptian people we met were wonderful, the history of the region was incredible, the beauty of the area was inspiring, the food was great, the shopping was amazing – the list goes on forever!

One of the things that stayed in my mind was how we were referred to: my husband was called, “my Brother,” my mother was “my Mother”, and I was called “my Sister.” They were terms of Respect: they acknowledged our common humanity, and the relationships we all shared. Even though our homes were half a world away, we were *all* brothers and sisters to each other, and parents to all of Earth’s Children.

Q: So, why did you write this (very long) post?

A: Because when we remember that we are truly *ALL* brothers and sisters – Moslems, Christians, Hindus, and Others – and when we learn to *APPRECIATE* the diversity that is our birthright as citizens of this planet, I believe we stand a better chance of preventing politicians from using our fears of the "Other" against us. When we realize that the death of a two year old child in ANY part of the world diminishes us all, we become wiser. When we learn to question our basic assumptions ("people who wear head scarves are stupid"), we open ourselves up to knowledge and wisdom.

Plus, I think this stuff is really interesting. :)

[knowbody0]

1. thank you for posting this

very interesting. tolerance is all that we need to break through the nonsense. embracing cultural differences enriches our own culture.

[ourbluenation]

2. Great post...and the Bahai Faith is an offshoot of Islam...

Though not one myself, I've been married to a Bahai for 20 years. Learned a lot about Islam from him.

[riderinthestorm]

62. From what I've read, Bahais are NOT respected nor tolerated

in virtually all Muslim areas. They are not considered to be Muslims and in fact are actively persecuted if not killed outright for their faith.

Egypt is particularly intolerant and disrespectful to other religions - I am finding it incredulous that the OP who waxes rhapsodic about her trip makes no mention of the terrible plight of the Egyptian Copts for example, one particular group who are ostracized and worse.

And it would a serious mistake to overlook the social, political and economic realities facing Muslim women in particular, across the entire Islamic world - this is noted in several UN studies done by Muslims for Muslims just so the OP knows I'm not trying to be xenophobic here.

It does no good service to whitewash any religion, especially when examining a particular religion's tolerance and respect. I wish OP would address some of Cali's or PP's points.....

10 days on a vacation does NOT give any kind of accurate picture of a place, it's inhabitants, culture, sociology etc.

[cali]

67. I'm grateful that people

with good sense and knowledge are posting on this thread. It's not a matter of piling on, it's about accuracy. I regret that this post is getting so many accolades. I disasgree with PP about it being on the greatest page, however. Hopefully a lot of people will read it and understand how deeply flawed the OP is. It's a disservice to simplify a complex matter like a religious tradition to rainbows, gumdrops, and what a nice guy the Prophet was.

[riderinthestorm]

69. 10 days on vacation...

...and suddenly an expert.

:eyes:

[IdaBriggs]

79. Well, that and 25 years of scholarship.

As for expert -- as I stated in my original post, studying the great religions of the world and their various mythologies has been a passion for a long time, but despite the study in both university and religious settings, I can not claim "expert" status. Now, give me another twenty or thirty years....:)

[riderinthestorm]

85. I'm mystified then as to why you have left out so much

25 years of scholarship!

As a progressive, I am truly flummoxed at how you could gloss over so many important and relevant details of Islam (and Muslims).

One thing I believe we strive for as liberal Dems is some honesty about strengths and weaknesses in humanity.

Your OP is so much spin.

And one thing we Dems have going for us, is we know spin.

[IdaBriggs]

89. FIVE PAGES, single spaced, on a topic most people on this board

have ZERO introductory background on, and you are CHASTISING ME for GLOSSING OVER STUFF???

:banghead:

[cali]

93. I realize you're not addressing me in this post but

for someone who still hasn't explained how they could claim that Islam was the first truly monotheistic religion (something I've courteously asked you to do, several times), your outrage seems a bit over the top.

[IdaBriggs]

96. My apologies: I keep thinking I have done it.

While there are those who believe that the small tribal folk followers of Yahweh (originally believed to be a volcano god) were the first "monotheists", others believe that the insistence of Muhammad that THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD was the first WIDESPREAD dissemination of "monotheism", particularly as followers of the Jewish faith allowed only those who were born into the religion to practice it. However, one could very easily make the argument that "the People of the Book" were the "original" monotheists, despite their lack of political power in the region, and a tendency of many to worship the various Gods and Goddesses of the region where they resided (as detailed in the Old Testament). My point, made perhaps clumsily but meant to show the difference between the "strong" Christian religion with its Trinity and Demi-Gods (Saints), was meant to highlight the power of the idea of ONE GOD and no priests, and how quickly it spread across great portions of the world. Obviously, however, the evolved Islamic faith owed a debt of historical gratitude to the Jews and Christians who came before them, hence the requirement that both Jews and Christians be treated with respect.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[riderinthestorm]

94. yes

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Look, we spend DAYS dissecting the most minute detail on this board. We PRIDE ourselves on our balance, our fairness.

You spent a lot of effort trying to convince people why they must somehow respect this religion.

As a progressive, I would have much more appreciation for this religion if you had pointed out any attempts by Muslims to empower their women. Or tolerate their minority religions in their midst. Perhaps you could give examples of Muslims trying to stop the religious enforcers in Islamic countries, or ways in which Islam is trying to reform.

As it is, for example, you give us a travelogue that doesn't mention anything about the reality of the religion and it's practitioners in Egypt. You tell us that women in headscarves aren't coerced just modest and we should just get over ourselves for objecting (okay, I'll stop there with the critique, I think you get the gist).

My objections revolve around your attempts to somehow make this religion into something to be admired while ignoring it's deep flaws. I can only speak for me (athough clearly there are others who agree) but your OP's "glossing over stuff" just offends my progressive, humanist, liberal nature.

[IdaBriggs]

98. Actually, for its time period, the religion was EXTREMELY

empowering of women. "Don't kill baby girls" is just one example, while the rules about divorce were actually intended to PROTECT women and children from starving in the streets. Context and time period are everything....

I will *not* attempt to pretend that any religion does not have "deep flaws" as exhibited by its HUMAN practitioners. We could go on for hours about the hypocrisy exhibited by (fill in the blank), but I believe the ideals of most religions can be summed up in two basic concepts:

Love God & Be Nice To Each Other.

In the Christian mythos, the man who preached these values was nailed to a cross. In modern times, Martin Luther King was shot for insisting that people of differing ethnicities are still human. And if you already knew everything I had to share, then you are in the MINORITY of people in the United States.

So, don't pretend I'm saying that "everything is hunky dory" because I'm not. I'm saying LISTEN -- LEARN -- UNDERSTAND -- and then, decide for yourself what is right, and what is wrong. But don't assume wearing a head scarf makes you a 'victim' of oppression.

Now, being executed for being gay -- THAT is oppression!

[riderinthestorm]

103. Look your OP wasn't talking about Islam in "its time period".

You were purporting to have readers respond to Islam as practiced today, as evidenced by your travelogue for one example. For another exampe re: headscarves, most Muslims in France support the religious-symbols-ban-in-schools law because so many CHILDREN were being forced to wear the headscarf, yet another example of headscarves being a symbol of oppression.

Muslims aren't nice to each other, let alone to unbelievers.

And many if not most of them have transcended the "love god" commandment and turned religious fanaticism into a political tool. The lack of recognition of that fact in 2006, in your OP, is egregiously wrong, in my opinion.

And in Islam, you are executed for being gay. Let's see, I think the most recent execution happened in.... wait for it.... Egypt.

Of course, that was left out of your OP.

[IdaBriggs]

105. Trying to do too much in one post -- here is the reference to "history"

"Now, toss in some kick butt social reform (the Prophet Muhammad immediately ordered a stop to female infanticide, heretofore allowed under Christianity, demanded women be treated with respect in matters of family law, and that the other “peoples of the book” – Jews and Christians – be treated with respect and tolerance), and the religion spread like wildfire. Nearly fourteen hundred years later, its still one of the world’s most popular. The five basic tenets are filled with common sense and decency."

while the head scarf thing is modern day, and don't even ask me to try to defend executing homosexuals, because I won't. (Did we post that comment simultaneously?) Other points you make I disagree with -- "Muslims aren't nice to each other, let alone unbelievers" -- is a sweeping generalization that I find generally incorrect. Or, as true as saying "Christians aren't nice to each other, let alone unbelievers."

[riderinthestorm]

108. As an atheist

Nobody's nice to me.

Remember, we are the world's most untrusted group according to recent studies.

"Muslims aren't nice to each other, let alone unbelievers" -- is a sweeping generalization that I find generally incorrect. Or, as true as saying "Christians aren't nice to each other, let alone unbelievers."

It's just human nature. We are NOT nice to each other. And to try to spin Muslims as somehow "nicer" than others is disingenous. I find all religious groups to be "not nice" to me.

So I object to your spin from that angle but more importantly, I believe your spin isn't factual as others have pointed out as well.

Beyond that, you are shifting your argument between 600 AD and today to suit yourself. Your OP was clearly present day. Let's try to stick with Islam (and it's adherents) as it's practiced now in some vague attempt to stay on course with your topic.

You dismiss my arguments about the present day practice of Islam like they are somehow superfluous: coerced behavior for women (their garb), execution of homosexuals! Bah! Don't ask me about those silly things... that's not the Islam I want you to look at, just look at my OP and ignore that man behind the curtain (reference to the Wizard of Oz for those who just don't catch it).

This is precisely my argument (and cali's, and PP's, and geenie weenies etc.)

[IdaBriggs]

116. Actually, my post INTENTIONALLY switches from 600 AD to present

time! And the Godless Atheists who are out to destroy America are CLEARLY the real problem! (joke!)

So, take my post in the spirit it is meant: "Basic Intro to the History of Islam 101" told in an interesting way, with a follow up of "Not Everyone Who Wears a Head Scarf Today is a Moran 102."

One of my favorite autobiographies is "Daughter of Persia : A Woman's Journey From Her Father's Harem Through the Islamic Revolution" by Sattareh Farman Farmaian & Dona Munker. (Persia, as you undoubtedly know, is modern day Iran.) Anyway, one of the images that has always stayed with me from that particular book is when the Shah passes a law forbidding the wearing of the traditional chadora -- Sattareh's mother is of a generation that is absolutely HUMILIATED by this law, and she refuses to go out in public for a very long time as a result, because it was like asking her to go out in public NAKED. :shrug:

In the meantime, if you choose to have no respect for the followers of Islam because of what you perceive to be human right's abuses, that is your choice. I have said on two different occasions (now three) that I am not attempting to defend the indefensible (the treatment of homosexuals, for example), but I believe some of the scorn for garb (for example) is simply ignorance of the culture, and is frankly insultingly ignorant. But, that is my opinion. :shrug:

I am trying to remember the name of a book that was really awesome that I read in a college "Magic, Witchcraft & Religion" course -- something about a Pig....ARGH! Its going to drive me nuts! Anyway, I think you might like it. The premise was examining religion from a practical, anthropological viewpoint, and it was quite fascinating. Ah ha! Just did a search at Amazon! The title is actually "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches : The Riddles of Culture" by Marvin Harris. I liked the chapter of the Island of the Pigs -- they were considered 'sacred' most of the time, except when there were too many of them, at which point a war would occur which brought the island's human and pig population back into balance, all in the name of "religion" -- as I said, a fascinating read....

[riderinthestorm]

177. Thanks for the conversation!

For whatever it's worth, respect is earned by the individual for me. I try to not generalize.... This was one of my points in response to your OP.

[LWolf]

123. So, if I take your objections in context,

that of your professed belief (atheism), I have to understand that you are really protesting any positive discussion of any faith outside your own. Kind of like Christians protesting a positive discussion of paganism.

When trying to understand those with beliefs different than our own, we must first suspend judgement. We can't really learn effectively if we study with prejudice, imo.

I think comparative religion, including the interconnected history of various faiths, ought to be mandatory in high schools. It's a great way to get past all of the dogma, ritual, and corruption to the universals that so many people of all times and places have felt called to.

It's also a good way to see how fundamentalism corrupts every faith it touches, and how it plays out in the alternative faiths or beliefs practiced by skeptics, atheists, etc..

I can find something positive to discuss, and something corrupt to refute, in every faith and belief system, everywhere.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[riderinthestorm]

178. Atheism isn't a belief nor faith

And I fully agree with your last statement - however I was trying to address what I perceived as the lack of balance in the OP and some glossing over of other important points.

I'm not trying to be prejudicial but this is a discussion board - alternative points aren't necessarily bigotry or prejudice, they are just simple statements of fact.

And I've taken several comparative religion classes and fully agree with your suggestion that they be available for everyone. Great idea!

[LWolf]

199. Would you say, then,

that atheism is a point of view, a perspective, a philosophy? A non-belief?

It's good to hear it described from the inside, to go with perceptions from the outside. ;)

I've always perceived atheism to be a belief; kind of like:

"I believe that there is no validity to religion, based on lack of credible evidence," or something like that. The difference being that it's a belief based on the lack of something, instead of a belief based on the mythology, writings, practices, etc. of a particular culture.

In reality, I just want people to have empathy, integrity, and make the world a better place for all; I don't care what system, or not, they use to get there. Maybe atheism is a different kind of system?

[riderinthestorm]

201. It's a lack of belief

To describe atheism as a belief would be to say that going barefoot is just another form of footwear.

We are conditioned or we acquire beliefs re: religion. Atheism usually entails shedding that conditioning/acquisition in my opinion.

There are thousands of posts delineating atheists' belief vs. what religious people want atheists to believe on the Religion/Theology forum. We are way off topic here and I encourage you to explore this at your leisure over there. The atheists at that forum are far more articulate than I.

The most empathetic people I know, the ones most filled with integrity and working every day of their lives to make a better world are all atheists in my experience (and I live in the self-proclaimed "Bible capital of the world" so I know a LOT of people of every religious stripe).

I apologize if I came off sounding peeved. It seems as though anyone who criticizes any aspect of Islam is labeled "prejudiced" or worse. It's the same with criticizing Israel - if you do, there will always be shouts of "Anti-Semite!".

IdaBriggs herself says that she has glossed over the unpleasant parts of Islam, and states outright that she wishes no discussion on the execution of gays for example, so it's irksome that somehow those of us who desire fair and balanced reporting (an inside joke as you know) are criticized for speaking up.

As a progressive Dem, I just can't stand aside and let it pass.

Peace!

[cali]

90. Well put!

As this debate continues, I'm increasingly disturbed by the OP's spin, and by her inability to graciously admit that she made some very basic factual errors.

[IdaBriggs]

95. There isn't anything to debate, Cali. These are opinions

and interpretations of historical facts, myths, and legends. Scholars have been disagreeing about this stuff for millenia, and (here's a shocker), we continue to do so.

Now, if you or Pacific Patriot think you can do a better job of explaining things IN YOUR OPINION, please feel free. I'm very proud of the fact this post may have opened up a few eyes to the wealth of information that is out there on the topic, and you are welcome to continue telling people I don't know what I'm talking about (despite the fact I can footnote darn near every statement I've made). My attempt at explaining it in "plain speak" instead of "scholar ease" has undoubtedly offended some folks, while talking about how "everyone is a heretic to someone else" means SOMEONE is going to get offended. Obviously there is a lot more that can be said about these topics -- the ins and outs of the political intrigue, and the differing interpretations of the data is just plain FASCINATING.

But for tonight, I'm going to bed. I'll be happy to pick up this conversation again in the morning.

[cali]

97. I'm sorry Ida, but the claim that this is ALL

merely a matter of opinion is wrong. Good scholarship requires an open mind, not an agenda. If you are constantly trying to fit material into a fixed viewpoint you end up with shoddy scholarship. Alas, that's what one sees in your OP. Some basic facts are essential. Virtually no reputable scholar that I know of would make the claim that Islam was the first truly monotheistic religion, and when you start there, well, you're setting up a false explanation.

I won't be continuing this conversation. It's played out for me. As for my response to your OP, or PP's responses, you posted this. You got challenged. It doesn't follow that there's a burden on your challengers to post their own treatises. And explanation of a religion shouldn't rely so heavily on opinion, but should be firmly rooted in the best scholarship of the subject.

Finally, I'm a big fan of simple, but a critic of simplistic.

Goodnight, cali

[IdaBriggs]

101. We have differing opinions. I've posted a list of SOME of my sources

further down wards. In my experience, most discussions of Religion usually devolve into Opinion Wars with differing interpretations of Facts, etc. If you don't like what I have to say, or find me non-credible, I suggest you use the "Ignore" feature. :)

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RagingInMiami]

3. Very informative post

Why is there so much tension between Jews and Muslims? And I once heard they are genetically related? Is this true?

[WinkyDink]

7. Well, since the Quran calls Jews "pigs" and "dogs", I'd say that would

spark a bit of tension.

[Richard D]

18. Hmmmm

I did a search of the Quran and didn't find that. What is the chapter and verse where Jews are called Pigs and Dogs?

[babylonsister]

22. I too would like to see what verse that came from. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. Primarily from...

<5.59> Say: O followers of the Book! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?
<5.60> Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.

Misinterpretation and out of context in my opinion. See my response below. I consider it a disingenuous use of scripture to foster enmity.

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. Mistranslations and misinterpretations...

Sura 3 : 71 "O followers of the Book! Why do you confound the truth with the falsehood and hide the truth while you know?"

This is used to claim that the Quran accuses Jews and Christians of getting their message wrong. It's actually an accusation of hypocrisy and does not condemn the message, but the practices which contradict the Bible.

Sura 4 : 46 "Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little."

SURA 5
<5.60> Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.
<5.61> And when they come to you, they say: We believe; and indeed they come in with unbelief and indeed they go forth with it; and Allah knows best what they concealed.
<5.62> And you will see many of them striving with one another to hasten in sin and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired; certainly evil is that which they do.
<5.63> Why do not the learned men and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work.
<5.64> And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.
<5.65> And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded (against evil) We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We would certainly have made them enter gardens of bliss

Much has been made of these passages and other quotes taken out of context. The Quran can be likened to Aquinas' take on Aristotle. It's not that Artistotle was wrong, it's that he didn't go far enough. Likewise, it's not like the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are wrong, it's that they didn't go far enough. Because people did not live according to the teachings of the great prophets another revelation was required that set the record straight.

Okay, generalized enough to perhaps be wildly erroneous but perhaps I've gotten the gist of it across. One can interpret it however one chooses and that is the crux of the problem we have today.

[Igel]

151. But you see sermons in print which cite precisely those

verses. In newspapers. National newspapers. And in broadcasts. State funded broadcasts. From prominent universities and the countries' main mosques (if they have such a thing).

It's rather like one sect of Xians saying another sect misinterprets the document. In this case, it's the dominant sect doing the misinterpretation.

The minority sect may say that "those people are Xians, but they don't understand a thing", but that's always been a silly thing to say. A religion is what its believers and teachers make of it. You cannot not understand "your religion" any more than you can be a native Nweh speaker and not understand more than a few words (unless your a toddler, of course); you may miss a construction or a word, but hardly the main principles.

The Qur'an is a bunch of sheets of wood or linen pulp with squiggles on it. A faith-based statement may be "The Bible is infallible, but only 3 people *really* understand it", but from outside the religion the only possible conclusion is that if the other 99.999 say it means something, that's what it has to be assumed to mean. Otherwise you're deceived.

This great prophet called either the former great prophet a liar, or his obvious inferior, or his followers willful perverters of his message. No respect given, no respect deserved.

[shance]

41. Where did Winky dink go?

I guess he's still looking for that verse about the "pigs" and the "dogs".

[WinkyDink]

115. I'm a "she", and don't worry about my whereabouts.

Source: "The Quran"
Translator: M. H. Shakir
Published by: Tahtrike Tarsile Qu'ran, Inc./ Publishers and Distributors of Holy Qu'ran/ P.O.Box 731115/ Elmhurst, New York 11373-0115. From the frontispiece: "You will find most of our Qurans in many of the libraries....This translation was originally published by Habib Esmail Benevolent Trust of Karachi, Pakistan; and later, was reprinted by the World Organization for Islamic Services of Teheran, Iran." AKA: An unimpeachable source.
Date: 2001, Twelfth U.S. Edition

I refer you to the following Surahs:
2:65
5:60
7:166

And, lest there be any clap-trap about misapplication/misinterpretation, these chapters and verses are listed, in this ACCEPTED TRANSLATION, in the INDEX under "JEWS" (p.449)("became apes and swine"). (Oh, there's also "cursed"; "enmity of"; "greedy"; "slew prophets"; "took usury"; "unbelief and blasphemy of"; "work iniquity"; etc.)

Thanks for asking. P.S. Sorry about the "dogs" in my previous post; it's been a while since I read the "apes" part.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

147. Is this a reply to my quoting a RESPECTED Quran translation?

Are you implying an apology for my posting a mere REFERENCE?? For QUOTATIONS??

Oh, and where are the nay-sayers and claimers of "misrepresentation" and "misinterpretation"??
How can they argue with THIS SOURCE??

[Pacifist Patriot]

156. As the person who used those particular words...

I'd encourage you to go beyond mere translation. I am in no way defending these suras. I do not find them to be particularly inspirational, enlightening or compassionate. But they do have a deeper historical and theological context than simply claiming Muslims believe God is going to, or should, turn Jews into pigs and apes. I've provided what meager context I can.

Here's the simplistic train of thought. God revealed his law to the Jews. This revelation had been corrupted by man. So the prophet Jesus was sent with a new revelation. Which likewise became corrupted by man. So the prophet Mohammed was sent with the final word on things. Early Mohammedans felt that Jews and Christians were simply incomplete or corrupted Muslims. Their desire was to bring them to the truth and believed God's revelation through the prophet Mohammed would speak for itself. Didn't quite meet with the success they anticipated.

So yes, taken out of context, misrepresentation and misinterpretation can render these disturbing suras even more heinous. Especially when it inspires thought into action.

As for respected translations, it is still a translation and not the Quran. That is only the "word of God" when it is in its original Arabic. The Quran includes poetry, myth and metaphor just as much as the Judeo-Christian scripture. I think it's ridiculous to insist on literalism in either case.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

203. Perhaps I can explain why there is some controversy

There are many different translations and translators of the Qur'an. Sadly, the translations and notes therein are slanted to fit the perspective of the people making the translations, or those who are paying for them. The Saudis have made sure that a Wahhabist translation of the Qur'an is available in most American public libraries because they provided them at no cost. Realize, please, that other translators and translations take a totally different view of these verses and would agree with you that the translation you have presents an ugly prejudice that is not shared by all believers. The Abdullah Yusif Ali translation has a very different interpretation, which I will be glad to share with you if you are interested.

Right now in Islam there is a divide between different sects, with the "fundamentalists" (an odd name, as the Wahhabists are of relatively recent origin, and are NOT returning to any fundamentals of Islam, but rather to the prejudices that were inherent in the culture before Islam imho)chastising the moderates and liberals. Sufis are often considered heretics for their tolerance, though a Sufi will cite Qur'anic passages and hadiths to back up the Sufi concepts.

Perhaps the best way to truly understand what the Qur'an means would be to study Arabic and the history of the region; then one could read the text and interpret it for onesself.

[WinkyDink]

223. A cop-out. We deal with translations every day. Who, besides Mel Gibson,

reads Aramaic? (A JOKE, people.)

Oh, and if we are remiss in dealing with translations, respected by Islamic Institutes or no, then what are the credentials of the O.P. to "tell" us what is or is not to be "respected" about Islam, pray tell? Unless, of course, said O.P. reads Arabic?

[bloom]

14. Semites

Semites

{sem' - yts}
General Information

Semites are peoples who speak Semitic languages; the group includes Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, and many Ethiopians. In a Biblical sense, Semites are peoples whose ancestry can be traced back to Shem, Noah's eldest son. The ancient Semitic populations were pastoral Nomads who several centuries before the Christian Era were migrating in large numbers from Arabia to Mesopotamia, the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River delta. Jews and other Semites settled in villages in Judea, southern Palestine.

Present day speakers of Semitic languages are as diverse in physical, psychological, cultural, and sociological characteristics as are speakers of Indo European languages. The most prominent Semites today are Arabs and Jews. They are different in many ways, and they have absorbed a variety of European traits through centuries of migration and trade. The origin of Semitic languages, however, and many similarities in the stories of Islam and Judaism reflect a common ancient history.

Robert A Fernea

Bibliography:
B Lewis, Semites and Anti Semites (1987); J Morgenstern, Rites of Birth, Marriage, Death, and Kindred Occasions among the Semites (1966); S Moscati, Ancient Semitic Civilizations (1957); W R Smith, The Religion of the Semites (1890).
-------------------------------

Additional Information
A Semite is someone descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

A HEBREW is someone descended from Heber (or, "Eber"), one of the great-grandsons of Shem. So all Hebrews are Semites, but not all Semites are Hebrews. (Both Sunnite Arabs and Jews are Semites, and Hebrews.)

Six generations after Heber, Abraham was born to his line, so Abraham was both a Hebrew and a Semite, born of the line of Heber and Shem.

Ishmael was born of Abraham, and (Sunnite) Arabs (and specifically Muslims) consider themselves to be descendants of him, so they are both Semitic and Hebrews. Isaac was born of Abraham, then Jacob of Isaac. Jacob's name was changed to "Israel," and he fathered 12 sons. His sons and their descendants are called Israelites, and they would be both Semitic and Hebrew. However, this would not make either Abraham or Isaac "Israelites." Those who interchange the words "Jew" and Israelite, call Abraham a Jew, even though Abraham was not even an Israelite, and where the word "Jew" is not used in the Bible until 1,000 years AFTER Abraham.

One of Jacob-Israel's children was Judah (Hebrew - Yehudah). His descendants were called Yehudim ("Judahites"). In Greek this reads Ioudaioi ("Judeans"). The confusing thing here is that almost all Bible translations employ the word "Jew," which is a modern, shortened form of the word "Judahite." Every time you come to the word "Jew" in the Old Scriptures, you should read "Judahite;" and every time you come to the word "Jew" in the New Scriptures, you should read it as "Judean."

R Novosel

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/semites.htm

[RagingInMiami]

15. That was a great explanation as to how the two religions evolved

from the same family. I wonder when all the hate strarted. Thanks for posting that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

40. Karen Armstrong's book "Jerusalem" does a great job...

of addressing this issue. Personally, I'm inclined toward the theory that colonization and imperialism went far in generating hatred where grudging tolerance once existed.

[riderinthestorm]

113. I had read that Muhammed slaughtered the Jewish population at Medinah

I always assumed this was the start of the enmity. I know there were other confrontations but this battle in particular seems to come up over and over.

Of course an argument could be made that this episode was also just another chapter in "colonization and imperialism"!

How does Armstrong's book handle this?

[Bridget Burke]

127. Where did you read it?

Obviously, it is possible to read the Koran and Prophet biography literally and believe that early Muslims killed Jews in Medina and gave unbelievers the choice between sword and Koran. But as critical, modern readers we have to interpret these verses as the result of polemical discussions among Jews, Christians, and emerging Muslims in Iraq during the 800s and 900s when the Arab conquests had long ended.

There is no historical evidence of Jews in Medina or a Koran being around in the 620s and 30s. Such a critical interpretation, of course, is no different from that of the Torah and the New Testament, some books of which also bristle with martial passages and which we today view in their historical contexts. We have to free ourselves from the naive essentialist and unhistorical opinion that Christianity is pacific, Judaism passive, and Islam martial. At most, the Koran is polemical, but the same holds true for the seemingly so innocent Gospels.

www.edge.org/documents/whatnow/whatnow_vonsivers.html

[riderinthestorm]

179. Good question. It's been ages since I read it (I'm dating myself here)

I did a quick Google search last night before I posted just to check to see that there is still a belief that episode occurred but I didn't check the sourcing. It's out there as a fact in several places - if it's been refuted in the past 15 years or so since I last read that, I apologize for my error.

[Pacifist Patriot]

132. That doesn't make sense.

Muhammed was invited to Medina, then known as Yathrib. There was a decent population of Arab Jews in Yathrib but he did not slaughter them. Muhammed and his followers attempted to convert the Jews and Christians there, but they didn't meet with a whole lot of success. Muhammed referred to Jews and Christians as "People of the Book" and granted them special concessions not offered to pagans.

Medina was the base Muhammad used to go out on the attack (and to be attacked at). It was from Medina that he marched on Mecca. But it should be noted he became the ruler of Mecca without having to engage in battle.

The periods in which Jerusalem was under Moslem rule typically were the periods of greatest tolerance in that city.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IdaBriggs]

46. At the moment the "tension" is from the creation of the State of Israel

50 years ago. The "biblical" one was wiped out by the Romans in 78 A.D. when the "last" Jerusalem was burned down in retribution for a revolt.

The interesting thing about the historic "tension" is that the Middle East was one of the safest places for Jews during much of the last two thousand years because the Christians of Europe were busy persecuting them, while the people of the Middle East were required by the teachings of the Qur'ran to respect them. (Three important things in Spain in 1492: 1 Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue; 2 The Turks were expelled from Spain; and 3 all Jews were ORDERED to leave Spain under pain of death.)

As for genetically related, well, go back far enough and EVERYONE is related to everyone. :)

[genie_weenie]

58. That's a bit simple as for Israel's history

The Kingdom of Israel fell to the Assryians in the 700s BCE and The Kingdom of Judah fell in 587BCE, this also was the destruction of the first temple. Both these military defeats saw large numbers of JEws scattered into parts of the Assryian/Median/Persian Empires.

Later, after the Jews came back to the Levant under Persian control, this then passed to Alexander and his generals. The descendants of the Ptolemy (in egypt) and Selecus (in the Asia Minor) fought for control of the region.

But, I think your posts need to get back on track with Islam and Muslims as Cali has pointed out.

[IdaBriggs]

77. As I have said before, I was going for the "simple" version.

Yes, I am aware of the historic periods of which you speak, but the Roman Empire did allow its subjugated peoples to have their own leader (as long as they answered to the Romans). It is indeed a separate topic. My point is that the RECENT tension in the area is really HISTORICALLY RECENT (dating back only fifty years with the creation of the state of Israel).

[RagingInMiami]

80. Well that's messed up

I was thinking it went deeper in history than 1948.

[cali]

88. Of course it did.

I'm just getting weary of pointing out these errors, but there was certainly hostility prior to 1948. Certainly the establishment of Israel in that year, escalated and magnified that hostility, but asserting that everything between Jews and Muslims was harmonious prior to that year, is factually incorrect.

[EVDebs]

107. 164 Jihad verses from the Koran.

http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm

BTW, wasn't Yasser Arafat's a nephew of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem ?

And nowadays, Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong in Atlantic Monthly

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200201/lewis

along with Irhad Manji's The Trouble With Islam
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

and others who are seeking a Reformation within Islam (at the risk of their lives) begs the question, if Islam seeks respect, why doesn't it show any for other religions ? Too often the cry of Muslim 'humiliation' seems to come from self inflicted wounds.

I've heard that in the past there was a sufi sect called the Qammations, who are possibly the precursors to the Freemasons, via the Knights Templar who may have learned of their beliefs during the Crusades according to John J. Robinson (Born In Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry and also The Knights Templar In The Crusades). The tenets of toleration within this peaceful sect of Islam may have led up to our Founding Fathers, mostly Freemasons, strong belief in the need for religious toleration.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

204. I am a Sufi initiate

I have not heard of the Order you call Qammations, but then there are several orders. It is often stated that the basis of Freemasonry came from Sufi teachings;I have brother Sufis who are Masons and confirm this.

I have yet to find a Sufi Order which is intolerant. The point of Sufism is to work on the individual; to turn the "dross" of the ego into "gold" by stripping away the veils we have erected between ourselves and God.

Sufi Orders are initiatic, but you can belong to more than one Order at a time. I have yet to go to a Sufi gathering where non-Sufis were barred; all are welcome, including to zkr, our ceremony of remembrance. The Sufi Order International and the Sufi Ruhaniat Society practice Universal Worship, where the sacred books of all religions are placed upon an altar and honored equally. Both of these orders have initiates that practice the Dances of Universal Peace, a form of body prayer honoring the world's spiritual traditions. My husband and I just led such a Dance in Springfield MO last night at a Unity Church.

Sufis are, indeed, suppressed in certain countries, including Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Yet there are Sufi teachers and Sufi Orders in all these places; they must do their practices in secret. One reason Sufis are suppressed, I think, is because TPTB realize the truth in their teachings, and the power that is behind them. God willing, some day TPTB will open their eyes and awaken.

[IdaBriggs]

106. Nope. In fact, when the "Crusaders" came through, one of the

big problems they had were how well Jews were treated! :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

159. Yep. Can't argue with that.

Seriously, if you enjoy this kind of stuff Karen Armstrong's book Jerusalem is fantastic. I've got it on CD if you'd like me to send it to you. If so, just PM your address.

[IdaBriggs]

192. I'll take you up on that!

Seriously, its always fun to discuss these topics with other people who find them fascinating. We don't have to agree with each other on everything (what fun would THAT be?), but its such an intriguing topic.

I am hesitant to keep posting in the thread due to its length; I was off today with two of my nephews, and it looks like the thread just keeps growing! :)

[riderinthestorm]

81. Dhimmi status was (is) not a great thing

And recent scholarship is casting a lot of doubt on the level of comfort and respect Jews (and well, virtually anyone who wasn't a Muslim) received from Muslims.

Your portrayal of dhimmi status as something akin to "respect" sounds suspiciously propagandized.

[EVDebs]

109. 1962 Saudi Arabia stopped slavery. Some other Islamic countries still

practice this. Some things shouldn't be "respected". Ida Briggs knows this.

[Bridget Burke]

125. The tension probably began with Israel/Palestine....

Historically, Christians & Jews are "People of the Book" & allowed to practice their faiths is countries under Islamic rule. Some look back to Moorish Spain, where culture & scholarship flourished. After 1492, that all changed. Even in recent times, Jews did well in Islamic countries.

Tensions arising from conflicts between Israelis & Palestinians have led to the tension you speak of.

[uppityperson]

4. Heard tell "Allah"= Al+Lah="the all"

interesting stuff.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Interesting.

I thought it was "The One", not "The All", but I can't quote a source for that.

[uppityperson]

34. I don't have a source either, but one could = all

sort of everything is one and we are all everything one walrus sort of thing. Sometimes the term "god" gets in the way because we each have a different definition. I like 'the all' or 'the everything'

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Hmm.

Wikipedia and Dictionary.com both suggest Al = the, Ilah = God as the stems.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

205. I've heard it as All/Nothing or Nothing/All (forget the order)

inclusive as the Yin/Yang symbol. The sound itself-the "Ah" sound-has mystical meaning, as it opens the heart chakra.

[aden_nak]

5. This is an OUTSTANDING post.

And Im passing it along to a number of friends. Though if I could make one small correction. . . DESERT has one S as you've used it. I only really noticed because it's capitalized so many times. >.>;

[ourbluenation]

11. (Dessert is twice as nice...two s's)

carry on

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Best post I've read on DU that I can remember...

Thanks so much for taking the time to write it. Even knowing better, it is hard for me to shape my views properly with so much negativity towards moslems.

[ret5hd]

8. a minor peeve to an otherwise excellent post:

dessert:


desert:

[cali]

9. I'm sorry I can't agree with all those heaping

praise on your post. It's very sweet, but it's incredibly simplistic. It's like a child's sanitized story. BTW, this is not true: "“created” the first TRULY monotheistic religion, with the following prayer:"

I wouldn't describe Christianity or Judaism in such a saccharine manner. I don't think it's any more fitting to describe Islam this way.

Your account of your trip to Egypt is a nice travalogue, but I fail to see that it's germane to the issue of Islam.

[IdaBriggs]

47. Well, I was attempting to explain a complex history in a simple

easy to understand fashion, so I guess I succeeded. And the MONOTHEISTIC nature of the religion was firmly defined by the prayer, as opposed to the polytheistic nature of the Christian religion. The travelogue was to demonstrate how modern Muslims view Americans. :)

[cali]

50. Ida, this is very sad.

You addressed virtually none of the points I made. You addressed none of the points Peace Patriot made. She's clearly more knowledgable than either of us, and she pointed out some serious factual errors in your piece.

You made the claim that Islam was the first truly monotheistic religion. In the post I'm responding to you compound that error by not acknowledging my correction. Sad.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jigarotta]

185. I thought you said you were leaving this thread...

was that before or after this one?

[cali]

188. Clearly I changed my mind.

I find the discussion both seductive and invigorating. I assume you don't have a problem with that, but if you do, it's your problem, not mine.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

206. I agree that the subject is fascinating

As to monotheism: As I understand it, Akanaton was the first monotheist. It was he who said that there was only one God, called the Atan. Sufi tradition has it that the Prophet Abraham took his elder son Ishamael with him the Egypt, where he learned monothesim in the mystery schools there. When he was journeying home, he wished to build a temple to the One God, but all he and Ishamael could find was a stone. This is the stone in the corner of the Kaaba in Mecca. Whether Christians believed in the Trinity or not depended upon their sect; even in earliest times, there were groups that believed in God, and saw Jesus as a prophet, as Muslims do.

But this leads me to a bit of a quandry; you see, Sufis do not say there is only one God; they say there is ONLY God. A bit of a difference. I've never been quite sure if this makes me a polytheist or monotheist. :)

[cali]

213. The first monotheist?

Who knows? Lost in the shrouded mists etc. Could have been Ashkenaten and the cult of Aten. In any case, my objection was to Ida's claim that Islam was the first truly monotheistic religion. All I'm really pointing out is that that claim is patently in error. Judaism was a highly developed monotheistic religion far before the year 600. Christianity's doctrinal struggles over the trinity abolutely do not mean that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion. Making the claim that Islam was the first truly monotheistic religion flies in the face of ALL credible scholarship on the subject.

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. I am surprised to hear that much of the middle east is a dessert

What's the main course? Israel?

:evilgrin:

]Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[AngryAmish]

28. I heard Kuwait is delicious

Sweet, creamy and a little hint of nuttiness.

[Cronus Protagonist]

44. Sounds appetising - and with all that shrubbery. . .

. . . and the extra virgin light sweet crude oil, it must be quite a banquet for the Gods.

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SlipperySlope]

12. Whitewash and heresy

I think this post whitewashes Islam.

More to the point, I think it is a heretical view of Islam.

This stuff about Muhammad saying "enough" and choosing to create his own religion contradicts was Islam teaches. Muhammad was the mouthpiece of God, and God's word passed through him. If ever for a minute it was suspected that these words were the creation of Muhammad himself, then the entire faith collapses on itself.

Shades of "The Satanic Verses".

[Yupster]

48. Was Muhammed a Christian?

I had not heard that?

[Pacifist Patriot]

54. No. He was not.

[IdaBriggs]

83. No, he wasn't. He was trained in the religion of Kaaba (the moon God),

but tradition holds that he met a Nestorian (Christian) Monk when he was twelve who hailed him as God's messenger. (The various Christian missionaries of the time were very busy, and he was most definitely familiar with their teachings.) Paraphrased, it is also said that he had an early predilection for conversing with priests and rabbis from a very young age, since his home was on the caravan routes, and he was employed as a herd boy who also dealt with camels for the caravans. (Robert Payne's "The History of Islam," page 11-12. :)

[IdaBriggs]

49. Well, one could view Muhammad as divinely inspired by God,

just as many members of the Christian and Jewish faith view the Bible as divinely inspired. If that makes sense to you, then by all means, please put it in your head that way. I am attempting to explain a complex history in an easy to understand manner, and maybe even get people interested enough in learning about the religions (and how they evolved) to start asking the questions.

It can be as complex or challenging as you wish; my understanding is that Muhammad was truly interested in going back to the basic tenets of "Love God" and "Be Nice to Each Other" -- the crazy ways people use to justify horrible things USING religion as an excuse are really beside the point, in my opinion. This is about the INTENT to help make a better world, which is how I think things started. :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

207. Perhaps the story of how the Qur'an came to be would help

Mohammed was around 40 years old. He was orphaned at an early age, and yet had become a successful merchant, mainly because of his utmost honesty and wisdom. He was respected within not only his own extended family but all the neighboring tribes, etc. But he felt something lacking in his life. In his travels as a trader, he had met and talked with Christians and Jews, and he learned a bit of their faiths and traditions. Anyway, he began wondering about faith in general, and took to going to a cave to meditate and try and make sense of it all.

One time, while in meditation, the angel Jibril (Gabriel) came to him and said, "Recite! Recite in the name of God!" Mohammed was terrified. He was illiterate, and told the angel so. But the angel commanded him-and the words of the Qur'an came from Mohammed's lips. He ran down from the cave, thinking that he had gone mad. He tried to hurl himself over a cliff, but a Light stopped him. His beloved wife, Khadijah, listened to his tale when he came home, and instead of dismissing it, encouraged him to continue meditation and prayer.

Anyone who thinks that being a prophet is easy doesn't understand true prophethood. Most people who start upon a spiritual path find their lives change drastically; it is not unusual for an initate to have some sort of "misfortune" after initiation (such as getting in an accident, losing one's job, etc). And those are just regular initiates. In Mohammed's case, he literally lost everything he possessed in this world by proclaiming the Word he was commanded to do. He lost many in his extended family, including the uncle who raised him; he lost all his wealth, his buisness, his very home. When the Muslims were not allowed to work or buy food, he made sure his followers were fed before he took even a mouthful to eat. When he would go to pray at the Kaaba, pagan tribesmen would spit upon him and even tried to assassinate him; he did not raise a hand against them. It is true that later Mohammed said that a war was permissable, but it was to get back possessions stolen from the Muslim community by the pagan Meccans, and was done to keep the Muslims from starving to death. And in any case, the Prophet said that this was the "lesser jihad", for the Greater Jihad is that within one's own soul-the struggle with the ego and the ripping away of the veils so that there is no seperation between you and God.

[Pacifist Patriot]

55. True. The Quran is a recitation. It's not even really meant to be read...

but to be listened to. It is more the "word of God" than even the connotation the fundamentalist Christians give the Bible when they use that phrase.

[Raiden]

136. I don't think this post whitewashes Islam

I think Ida started a great dialogue about Islam. And she has acknowledged faults.


btw, I think it's just as bad to hear an atheist say "all religions are out to get me" as it is to hear a Christian say "all atheists/Jews/Muslims/gays/liberals/etc. are out to get me." Me, I'm an agnostic.

[riderinthestorm]

180. I didn't say all religions are "out to get me"

I said they aren't "nice" to nonbelievers. I should have qualified my comments better with a different word: most religions specify real punishments for nonbelievers.

Sorry I wasn't clearer, it was getting late.

And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether the OP whitewashes Islam.

Peace!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

13. K&R for "knowledge and wisdom" anytime.... thanks

btw, blessed are the peace-makers.

[msongs]

16. love your myths and fairy tales, great propaganda

the moslems Ive met don't fit your description however.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[madeline_con]

37. Maybe you need to get out and meet a few more. n/t

[IdaBriggs]

17. Doh! Sorry for the spelling error! Dessert/Desert - Doh!

Its one of those things I've been goofing up my whole life! :) And thank you all for the wonderful compliments! :)

[Yollam]

63. And Isn't it usually "muslim", not "moslem"?

Anyway, I only briefly looked at the post, since I find Islam, as well as all other religions to be a tedious distraction from reality.


There's a part of me that wishes I could believe in the magical realms and beautiful afterlife ideas common to most religions, but it simply would not be worth the insanity they all tend to impose on the rest of one's life. Life is way too short to be spent bowing towards mecca or chanting sutras or feeling guilty because masturbating makes baby Jesus cry, or flogging oneself, etc. etc. etc.

So do I admire Islam or Muslims per se? Hell no. Nor do I admire adherents of any religious mythology simply for believing.

But I do admire Mother Teresa, Ghandi and others, who despite the shackles of religion, and maybe even because of them, managed to do great things for the world.

[Pacifist Patriot]

70. Transliteration from Arabic leaves spelling somewhat open.

[CJCRANE]

111. "Moslem"

used to be the standard American spelling. "Muslim" is the standard British spelling and seems to me more widely used nowadays, perhaps because it is more common in other countries (and since the War on Terror began and Bushco became obsessed with all things islamic, Americans have been more exposed to this spelling).

[genie_weenie]

19. People deserve Respect, systems of control DO NOT.

Islam (submission) and every other systems invented by men to exert control over their fellow men do not deserve respect. Systems need to be handicapped with various checks and balances so that one man or group of men can not pervert it for their uses...

And the headscarf thing was actually in place (for several centuries) by women under the suzentry of the Byzantine Empire.

[IdaBriggs]

57. As for your first point, I think you misunderstand what "submitting

to the Will of God" means -- its about ACCEPTING the will of God, and one's fate without "blaming" or being angry about it. It is about staying strong in your faith regardless of the circumstances in your life. :)

(European Middle Age Trivia: Did you know people used to believe everything "bad" that happened to a person was either a) because God was punishing you; b) God was allowing Satan to test you; or c) you were cursed by a witch? This didn't change until the eighteenth century!)

And yes, women have worn head scarves throughout much of the world at various points in time, including during the Byzantine Empire (circa 4th and 5th centuries); this does not change the fact that this was deemed a point of modesty in the sixth century. :)

[genie_weenie]

68. Inshallah

It is the Will of Allah, I believe is the term.

But, I don't want to steal or corrupt anyone's belief system. I am cognizant of my cultural biases and am forced to take an Etic approach (placing another cultures structures in terms of my understanding) but I always try the third person limited omniscient viewpoint, by trying to read as much first hand source information (unfortunately translated) about subjects. History in specific.

But, the key is many people have a bad view of Islam because of the Ottoman Empire and oral traditions handed down through their families, just as many other cultures have negative views on some group that has perpetrated some heinous crime upon them.

I have no idea where to go with the rest of this post!?! I think I'll just try to point out some other people have brought up some good ideas which you could look at and mull over or comment upon.

Anyway, thank you and peace be unto you.

[Pacifist Patriot]

20. Um, treading in sensitive waters here, but I think you're a bit ..

off base with some of your facts and conclusions.

It's true that Islam claims descendancy from the patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible (Abraham through Hagar rather than Sarah) but it is inaccurate to claim it is an "offshoot" of Christianity. While Jesus is recognized as a great prophet in Islam, Mohammed was highly unlikely to wax philosophical on the theological errors of the trinity. He just wasn't that knowledgable. A skilled man of commerce to be sure, but his exposure to monotheism was at the marketplace not the church or synagogue.

It wasn't polytheism that was getting people killed on the Arabian penninsula, it was blood fueds/clan warfare and struggle for access to trade and resources. Additionally, the Arab peoples were extremely sensitive to the fact that God had revealed himself to the Israelites in Hebrew and the Roman-Hellenic world through Jesus. They had no revelation in Arabic and it was a source of insecurity. Yes, they believe Allah, Yahweh and the Lord God are one in the same but that doesn't equate to being an "off shoot." That implies some sort of relationship, particularly a developmental one, that just doesn't exist.

That's about all of your post I can tackle right now because I need to move on getting a five year old to bed. I think there are tons of things that people should know and respect about Islam but I'm afraid some of your information isn't as accurate as it should be. Sorry!

[IdaBriggs]

66. Actually, Muhammad was a very educated man, and was well

versed in the Christianity of the time. I recommend Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity" for more detail on this particular time period. Specifically, page 93 (in the chapter entitled "From Martyrs to Inquisitors (AD 250-450)): "Why was it that the arguments about the nature of Christ and the Trinity evoked so much more passion in the Greek-speaking East than in the Latinized West?" And the "mini-crusades" against the various "heresies" of the time were well known to everyone.

Yes, there were blood feuds and clan warfare in the area, but the religious fires of the time were very busy raging. Attempting to "define Orthodoxy" was not easy! :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

72. I didn't mean he was a dolt. Simply that he was not a theologian.

I stand by my post.

[IdaBriggs]

86. I disagree with you, but my sources on this point are books that deal

with the History of Islam, so it is possible they may be prejudiced. :shrug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

208. Educated in that he was acquainted with Christianity and Judasim

in the oral tradition. The Beloved Prophet did not write; he was illiterate. But at the time he was living, this was not a handicap. In fact, only scribes and a few scholars of the time actually wrote, I believe. The fact that he was a trader and went on long trips afforded him the religious education you allude to. But when one looks at Mohammed's time from the present, "illiterate" tends to be construed as "uneducated" which is far from the truth.

[cali]

21. I just reread your post

It fares even less well upon a second reading. I understand that you're trying to foster good will here, but I don't think propaganda is the way to go. At the same time that you're praising Islam, you're doing so, in part, by denigrating Christianity. (And I already mentioned that I found it curious that you described Islam as the first truly monotheistic religion). Using adjectives such as "drattable" to describe the trinity, is hardly neutral. But you go further:

" No more arguments about the status of Mary as the Holy Mother, or Mary Magdalene as a Prostitute, or Joseph the Cuckold. No more fussing about the power of the Saints, whether the priests performing the Sacrament were REALLY turning water into Blood, and bread into the “Flesh” of Jesus, or why Satan was so powerful, or even more powerful than God, or....you get the idea."

In the above paragraph you're being dismissive and snide, something you clearly don't want to see others do to Islam. Well, you shouldn't do it to other religions. And no, it doesn't matter if you're a Christian.

The truth is that when we ignore the darkness of the great religions, we ignore the truth.

That's regrettable, and that's why your post borders on being dangerous.

[genie_weenie]

25. Excellent reposte Cali

I dislike the emails, web pages, blogs that harp on the, 'Do enjoy X, Y or Z? Well, you have Our (hidden meaning: Superior) Culture to thank for it'...

[cali]

29. Thank You, Genie n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. I'm also troubled that it seems to gloss over the sectarian...

divisions within Islam. There are no fewer doctrinal, dogmatic and theological debates within Islam as there are within any other monotheistic religion. It goes beyond the Sunni Shiite split which is all most people seem to know about.

[cali]

27. Thank you so much PP, for all the

fascinating information you're providing. It's much appreciated. I've learned a lot from your posts. I'm bookmarking this thread because of them. Real information may be less fun than pleasant bromides, but it's vitally important.

I don't know any where near as much about Islam as you do, but I do know how to engage in critical thinking. I'd love to see more of it.

[IdaBriggs]

87. I completely glossed over the later "splits" on purpose; it seems

as non-relevant to an explanation of how things began as trying to explain which nineteenth century version of Baptist, Amish, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Mormon, Shaker, Methodist, Puritan, etc. is *really* correct, especially since many of the later splits seem (to my eyes) to be more about political power for the leaders than about the appropriateness of killing each other in order to 'worship' the right way. Again, this is intended to be a simplified Intro Primer; those who find the topic interesting, including our ongoing disagreements, are actively encouraged to pick up some books on the topics and begin studying for themselves! :)

[Cronus Protagonist]

45. Not that I give a crap about fundamentalists of any faith . . .

. . . but it's widely known among scholars that Sufi is the first monotheistic eschatological religion and it predates both Islam and Christianity. For what it's worth, this post being in a partisan discussion about who's faith is the best...or not bad... something which a Sufi would never engage in.

[Pacifist Patriot]

53. Sufism is a mystic tradition within Islam.

It does not predate Christianity and Islam.

[genie_weenie]

60. I'm not sure I agree

some Sufi beliefs and structures were absorbed by Muslims, much in the same way many other earlier religions (mithras, zoroastrianism) ideas were absorbed. I would ask ayeshahaqqiqa for information on Sufism she is very wise, patient, nice and kind. She has a wealth of knowledge.

[Cronus Protagonist]

71. Talk with a Sufi and get back to me

I can't be bothered to educate you, but try a google search on the phrase "Sufi predates Christianity" for some good reading. :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

75. Perhaps we need to clarify definitions of Sufism?

My education, apparently deficient as it is, presents that Sufi thought appeared in the Middle East in the eighth century. Which by my reckoning puts it post-Christianity and post-Islam.

I did try your Google search and it returned, "Your search - 'Sufi predates Christianity' - did not match any documents." "Sufism predates Christianity" returns exactly one hit. A discussion on mypotential.com that is no longer there.

Perhaps you might want to Google, "history of Sufism."

I would like to hear from a Sufi why there is a belief that it predates Christianity.

[Cronus Protagonist]

99. Funny I did the same search and got

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,100 for Sufi predates Christianity. (0.24 seconds)

And one only needs to read some Sufi master's writing to get the low down on Sufi. If I may recommend some fine and easy reading, almost anything by Hazrat Inayat Khan will be most edifying. As for the claim of Sufi predating Christianity, that is not my claim but theirs. I am simply a messenger as I have no axe to grind one way or the other.

Here's a link to Hazrat Inayat Khan's (perhaps the most famous Sufi master of the West) most approachable work. I highly recommend it, but it is not a history book, rather it is a source of Sufi beliefs, myths and teaching.

The Art of Being and Becoming

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093087241X/104-7148350-8916763?v=glance&n=283155

Addionally, in his introduction to the book "The Sufis" by Idries Shah, the well known Sufi scholar Robert Graves states the following "The Sufis are an ancient spiritual freemasonry whose origins have never been traced or dated; nor do they themselves take much interest in such researches, being content to point out the occurrence of their own way of thought in different religions and periods".

The claim that they predate Christianity is simply supported by their claim that the Sufi way has been around as long as there have been human beings on the earth and the observation that their philosophies have been incorporated into almost all religions, which is not true in the reverse. The Sufis claim to be the original, the one, the source of all religion, and in fact they claim to be religion itself. On the back cover of the same book, we find the following:

"The Sufis is the first authoritative, responsible book an Sufism, and as such it fills a collossal gap in Western documentation of Eastern subjects. Following a mystical teaching and a way of life that have had an enormous, though unrecognized, impact on both the East and the West for four thousand years, the Sufis believe not that theirs is a religion, but that it is religion." (italics theirs)

There you have it. I highly recommend the first book for practitioners and the latter for scholars. Both are very interesting and authoritative on Sufi.

[Pacifist Patriot]

118. There are a couple of problems with this.

The claim that they predate Christianity is simply supported by their claim that the Sufi way has been around as long as there have been human beings on the earth and the observation that their philosophies have been incorporated into almost all religions, which is not true in the reverse. The Sufis claim to be the original, the one, the source of all religion, and in fact they claim to be religion itself. On the back cover of the same book, we find the following:

In my opinion, the "sufi way" being around for a long time does not mean that Sufism as a cohesive religious movement predates Christianity. The fact that their philosophies have been incorporated into almost all religions does not make their religion antecedent.

I also have difficulty accepting Robert Graves as authoritative on the subject if we are talking about the Robert Graves whose scholarship on pre-Christian European paganism has been widely dismissed by contemporary scholarship.

We can split hairs on this ad infinitum and never reach an agreement. We'll have to agree to disagree respectfully.

[Bridget Burke]

161. As a serious scholar, Robert Graves was a great poet.

It's laughable to me that modern Pagans have made his fascinating "White Goddess" part of their Holy Scripture. His works have great value but should not be taken literally.

According to Idries Shah, the Sufis are responsible for EVERYTHING. It might be reasonable to say that some of their practices have older roots. And they did influence European literature & art.

[Sufi Marmot]

181. At some point, distinctions like "within Islam" become irrelevant...

Interesting tangent on Sufism y'all have going on...

I think that many Sufis would argue that at some point, the doctrinal distinctions between Islam and Christianity (and other religions, for that matter), become irrelevant for those who practice Sufism. After all, much Sufic thought and practice involves inner states which don't depend on strict dogma or invariant rituals.

I think that maybe its more accurate to say that formalized Sufi philosophy, the most important Sufi literature, and the development of Sufi orders flourished in an Islamic context, but the major spiritual concepts of Sufism (love, the unity of all things, union with the divine, dissolution of the ego, etc.) have been present in (some) people since the beginning of history.

A relevant quote:

...(A)ccording to the sacred history which the Sufis have inherited from one another, it is clear that Sufism has never been owned by any race or religion, for differences and distinctions are the very illusions from which Sufis purify themselves. It might appear that Sufism must have been formed of the different elements of various religions which are prominent today, but it is not so, for Sufism itself is the essense of all religions, as well as the spirit of Islam. -Inayat Khan

I suspect that many Muslim Sufis struggle with the notion that the practice of Sufism, which has changed and evolved over time, can exist outside of a strictly Islamic context, as per their religious beliefs Islam is the "most perfected" religion and Muhammed was Allah's final prophet. For an interesting discussion, ask a Muslim sometime who Allah's next prophet will be...

-SM

[Pacifist Patriot]

194. Umm...

For an interesting discussion, ask a Muslim sometime who Allah's next prophet will be...

Ouch!

[Sufi Marmot]

195. LOL...

I wasn't trying to be snarky, really. One of my problems with Islamic dogma is its chauvinism regarding other religions. In my travels I've had conversations with numerous Muslims who, while paying lip service to the fact that Muslims recognize Jesus, Moses, and Abraham as great prophets, insist that Muhammed's revelations represent the "perfection" of God's message to mankind and who reject the notion of any other wisdom improving upon or superceding the Quran. Personally, that kind of blind, textual dogmatism sets my teeth on edge as much as that from fundamentalist Christians, especially given the various schisms and the numerous schools of Quranic interpretation that occur in Islam.

-SM

[Pacifist Patriot]

198. Can't argue with you there.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

210. I respectfully disagree

I have been a Sufi initiate for 17 years, and don't claim to know everything. But according to Pirs of various Sufi orders, the first Sufi was Adam. Sufis feel that the Teachings are the Teachings are the Teachings, and that those who follow them, whatever their faith, can be called Sufis. Each time a prophet has emerged with the Teachings fresh again, the Sufis have come out in the open to be around them; as the Teachings are dogmatized, the Sufis again go into the background. Many consider Sufism to be only from Islam simply because that was the last major faith to emerge, and Sufis took on the practices of that faith. Sufis have had connections with mystical Christians from the earliest times; St. Francis of Assissi was said to be a student of a Sufi master. So to us, there is no seperation, either by Order or by faith; the Truth is the Truth.

[cali]

59. Oh for pity's sake.

What a word salad. Do you even know what eschatology is? You just applied it utterly inappropiately. If you believe that sufiism predated Islam, you clearly know nothing about it and shouldn't presume to speak for Sufis.

[Cronus Protagonist]

73. Oh for Christ's sake

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eschatology

es·cha·tol·o·gy Audio pronunciation of eschatology ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-tl-j)
n.

1. The branch of theology that is concerned with the end of the world or of humankind.
2. A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity, the Second Coming, or the Last Judgment.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There you go. Is that defined enough for you? All religions that deal with the destiny of humanity and/or literally, cheating death are eschatological. Ergo I used the word perfectly correctly.

As for Sufi predating Christianity, that is one of my pet topics and I've read literally dozens of books on it. Sufi adherents claim to be members of the one, the original monotheistic religion, although you would be hard pressed to find one willing to talk about it because of their beliefs.

Now get off your high horse and wipe that snot off your nose, it's not pretty.

:)

[Pacifist Patriot]

76. Talk about a high horse.

Doctrinal or philosophical claims are not necessarily consistent with history. I know Christians who trace their roots to Adam and Eve but that doesn't mean the Eucharist was celebrated in the Garden of Eden.

[IdaBriggs]

91. Um, I get the point you are trying to make, but the Eucharist is about

JESUS, not Adam & Eve. Pentateuch versus New Testament, etc. :) (tee hee)

And no fair going off on the second version of creation with the Big Bad Snake! :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

92. You want to hear my Buddhist interpretation of the Myth of the Fall?

:)

But that is exactly my point and why I said I would love to hear a Sufi explain how Sufism predates Christianity.

As for Adam and Eve being in the Pentateuch and Jesus in the New Testament we could go off on a whole new tangent. Jesus was the new Adam you know. ;)

Regardless, there are Christians who claim their religion predates X, Y, and Z because the Bible is their scripture and Adam and Eve are in the Bible. I'm trying to figure out how a claim that Sufism predates Christianity and Islam could come out any better.

[Cronus Protagonist]

102. You asked for it

Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=925918&mesg_id=928411

As I noted in another posting, this is all the time I'm willing to spend on it, but four thousand years of Sufi easily predates Christianity, and that's not my claim, but one of a scholar of greater import than either of us.

Besides, what does it matter?

:)

[cali]

84. It may be one of your pet topics

but you've provided no citations or evidence of any kind to back your claim. Here's some refuting it:

SUFISM: ITS ORIGINS

Courtesy: Al-Haramain Foundation


The word Sufi is most likely to be derived from the Arabic word "soof", meaning wool. This is because of the Sufi habit of wearing woolen coats, a designation of their initiation into the Sufi order. The early Sufi orders considered the wearing of this coat as an imitation of Isa bin Maryam (Jesus). In reply to this, Ibn Taymiyyah said: "There are a people who have chosen and preferred the wearing of woolen clothes, claiming that they want to resemble al-Maseeh ibn Maryam. But the way of our Prophet is more beloved to us, and the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam.s) used to wear cotton and other garments."1

Sufism is known as "Islamic Mysticism," in which Muslims seek to find divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God2. Mysticism is defined as the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality, and the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)3 Both the terms Sufi and Sufism and Sufi beliefs have no basis from the traditional Islamic sources of the Qur'an and Sunnah, a fact even admitted by themselves. Rather, Sufism is in essence a conglomerate consisting of extracts from a multitude of other religions with which Sufi's interacted.

During the primary stages of Sufism, Sufis were characterised by their particular attachment to zikr (remembrance of Allah) and asceticism (seclusion), as well as the beginning of innovated practices to 'aid' in the religious practices. Yet even at the early stage of Sufism, before their involvement in innovated rituals and structured orders, the scholars warned the masses of the extremity of Sufi practices. Imam Al-Shafi' had the opinion that "If a person exercised Sufism (Tasawafa) at the beginning of the day, he doesn't come at Zuhur except an idiot". Imam Malik and Ahmad bin Hanbal also shared similar ideas on this new movement which emanated from Basrah, Iraq. Although it began as a move towards excessive Ibaadah, such practices were doomed to lead to corruption, since their basis did not come from authentic religious doctrines, but rather from exaggerated human emotions. Sufism as an organised movement arose among pious Muslims as a reaction against the worldliness of the early Umayyad period (AD 661-750)4. The Sufis exploited the chaotic state of affairs that existed during the fifth and sixth centuries A.H. and invited people to follow their way, alleging that the remedy to this chaos was conformity to the guidance of their order's Sheikhs. Dar al-Hikmah was established during the reign of Khalifah Ma'moon, where he invited the scholars of the Romans and Greeks to meet with the Muslims and 'discuss' their respective positions. This provided the perfect breeding ground for the synthesis between Islam and Pagan theology, to produce the Sufism of the like of Ibn Arabi.

[Cronus Protagonist]

100. Sorry that scholar needs some education

I answered you here, and this is all the time I'm prepared to spend on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=925918&mesg_id=928411

[Pacifist Patriot]

134. Quotation marks around the phrase do impact the search results.

http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=734

"Sufism is an esoteric movement existing within the framework of Islam. It is probable that parts of the Sufi tradition predate Mohammed and share sources with esoteric teachings existing in Eastern religions, Hellenic mystery schools and Christianity. The relationship between Sufism and mainstream Islam has been problematic throughout the ages and many Sufis have been sentenced to death as heretics. We could say that Sufism is the branch of the esoteric stream which has taken Islam as its platform and substrate and presents the esoteric through the culture and emotional flavor of the Middle East and Persia."

So because Christianity is a syncretic religion that incorporated elements of Hellenic mystery schools, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, the Golden Rule which is found in some variation in most, if not all, religions, etc....I guess we can claim that Christianity predates 33 C.E. too.

[Bridget Burke]

129. There are many different schools of Sufism...

And "Sufi" means a person who belongs to one of those schools.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

211. Slight correction

but thank you for spreading the information about Sufi schools-you are absolutely correct.

But the term "Sufi" itself is a level of initiation-that is why I try always to say I am a Sufi initiate, and not a Sufi. God willing, some day I will attain that level of initiation.

[IdaBriggs]

190. Just as a trivia point --

I was once privileged enough to meet a Sufi Saint! I was young at the time, but he was a very fascinating man. One of his disciples translated his talk for us. It remains one of my most cherished memories, despite the fact I have not studied the Sufi teachings as much as I could. :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

212. Please, could you share with me his name?

Did he live near Philadelphia PA? A Sufi saint is indeed buried there, and I have visited his tomb. Or did you meet this person overseas?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

209. The first Sufi was Adam

this is from Pir Zahirian, an elder in the Chisti Order of Sufism in India. Sufi tradition is that Sufis have always been around, and have adopted the faiths of their time. When dharma decays, or the faiths fossilize into dogma, the Sufis tend to slip back into the desert, as it were, doing their practices and waiting upon the will of The One.

As to which faith is best-that is, imho, like having the big toe having a discussion with the little finger as to which is 1)truly a part of the body; and 2)better and more important than the other.

[cali]

218. I'm incredulous about this claim.

what's the point? Adam is the stuff of pure myth. To believe in Adam as an actual person, one must discard science totally.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

220. The point is

that mysticism has been around since mankind first acquired the sense of Self. A lot of mysticism is dealing with symbolism and concepts; it doesn't really matter if Adam was myth or a real person. I think this is where many people get misperceptions of things. The concept of alchemy turning dross into gold really has nothing to do with physically changing lead into gold, but rather is symbolic of the changing of the Inner Person. Another example is the idea of flying carpets-taken as fairy tale myths, it actually alludes to the heights to which mystics can soar while doing spiritual practices on their prayer rugs.

The mystical path is one of personal experience, and one that is difficult to share-how can one explain That which is unexplainable? That is one reason for the symbolism. In reality, as one contemporary mystic, Joe Miller of CA said, "It can't be taught, it can't be bought, but it can be caught."

[cali]

222. Yes, i'm aware

of the mystic tradition. Not just intellectually but personally. And sorry, I still don't see the claim that Adam was the first Sufi as making any sense in the context of mysticism. It's different from the classic example of alchemy or prayer rug as metaphor. Those have very clear connections.

[cali]

30. Ida, could

you please respond to some of these posts? I think PP's, genie's and my posts deserve a response.
You posted this long thread and made certain claims that some of us our disputing. What do you think?

[IdaBriggs]

117. Sorry, Cali, I have been responding to as many of them as I could.

I made a long post, and then took care of some personal business, and then had to share the computer with my beloved husband for a good portion of the evening. It was not my intention to ignore anyone's comments.

I've said to you several other times that these are my opinions, based on my understanding and knowledge, based on my study of the topics over the past twenty-five years. Any errors, or disagreements, or whatever, are my own, and no fault of any of my teachers or sources. While I could have footnoted the entire five page original post, I was concentrating on making it easy to understand as I understand it; folks with different viewpoints on the topic are free to post their opinions. :shrug:

Opinions are like orifices: everyone has a few, and some spew out ... gunky stuff. :)

[cali]

119. Well, here I am, posting again

after having forsworn this thread. Oh well.

Ida, you entitled your OP something like "things I think everyone should know and respect....". You present your information as fact in the OP, not as opinion, but never mind that, my objections can be boiled down to their essence very easily: The roots of Islam, are obscured behind the passage of 1400 years. We don't know for sure what experiences influenced the Prophet. We know, in fact, far less than we don't know. All the great religious figures assume the garb of myth over time. I know you're cognizant of that fact.

I've stated in earlier posts that I don't think it's helpful to paint one of the world's major religions as swathed in sunshine and rainbows. It's possible to write something about Christianity or Islam or Judaism that speaks to the strengths of that particular faith, and still nods to the flaws. Not emphasizes them, mind you, but acknowledges them. Islam, in particular, a great and beautiful faith, is currently struggling to define or redefine itself in relation to today's world. That's just a fact. It's not perjorative to say it.

I appreciate the intent of your OP, and the time you've spent responding. Unfortunately, I don't think your answers have been, on the whole, enlightening. You never, for instance, addressed why you were so dismsissive of Christianity in your OP. I forget what thread I made that point in. I think it was my first or second. I stand by the criticisms I've made throughout this thread.

Respectfully, cali

[peacetalksforall]

32. Excellent. Thanks. 'Ya got talent. Come back tomorrow! n/t

[proud patriot]

33. Thanks Great Post

:hi:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

43. That's just bigotry

and it adds nothing to the discussion.

[madeline_con]

36. RE: the trinity

I've read of a three part God in many religions that predate Christianity.

In fact, the Egyptian religion that Moses was taught under has the concept in Isis osiris and Horus.

The idea of a God creating a cross between spirit and matter is a concept n lots of religions, right?

The syllables "Ra", "La", "Ya", Ja" and other nams for "The One" are said to come from the same root syllable in ancient Sanskrit.

I could go on, but just wanted to shar the point about the trinity, or God in three parts.

BTW, my eldest son is Muslim. Thanks for posting toward more tolerance and love in the world. :hi:

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. The trinity pops up everywhere.

Hindu: Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu

Chinese traditions: Heaven, Earth, Humanity

TaoTeChing: "Do gave birth to One; One gave birth to Two; Two gave birth to Three; Three gave birth to all the myriad things. The myriad things carry the yin on their backs and hold the yang in their embrace, and derive their harmony from the permeation of these forces." (42)

From one of my papers:

Triads abound when considering the nature of God. In the west, the most obvious example is the trinitarian theology of Christianity in which God is experienced in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This response to understanding the nature of Jesus took several centuries to develop and is still not entirely understood by many of the laity. Additionally, while both the Roman and Orthodox churches adopted trinitarianism as doctrine, their interpretation of the components is not in accord.

The Quran presents the nature of God in three recurring basic themes: Creator, Refuge and Judge. This tension between God as pure unity and yet the source of a diverse creation and the paradox of refuge and judge became a serious question from the beginning. The theological responses to this dilemma evolved over time and are still debated today.

In the East, Hinduism expresses the three forms of “God manifest in all life: creation, sustance and dissolution” (Bowker 2002, 90) in the Trimurti consisting of Brhama the creator, Vishnu the sustainer and Shiva the destroyer. Daoism maintains the Three who are “decisive agents in bringing the manifest world into being.” (Bowker 2002, 154) The Asian triad of heaven, humans and earth are one way the Three is perceived.

[Bridget Burke]

130. The legend in Ireland is that Patrick used the Shamrock ...

To explain the Trinity.

Of course, the Irish had been worshipping deities by threes for some time. Then, there's the Arabic word "shamrakh"....

[eallen]

42. Q: Why are women in Islamic nations less literate than men?

In the Egypt you think so wonderful, the literacy rate for men is a poor 67%, while that for women is a pitiful 47%. This pattern holds throughout much of the Islamic world: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Morroco. Even in Saudi Arabia, the gender literacy difference is 14%.

The truth is that Islam does nothing for the status of women. Or for human rights generally. That's not a particular slur on Islam. The Abrahamic religions generally have a poor track record in these regards, except to the extent that they have been influenced by the Englightenment. And Islam, like medieval Christianity, forbids the charging of interest, which puts a large damper on economic progress.

Sorry, but your whitewashing of Islam is far too facile. There are many things for a liberal not to like about Islam. I believe in absolute freedom of speech and belief, absolute separation of church and state, legal equality between women and men, including in their education, and I reject foolish and harmful morality that keeps societies poor. Let me know when even a fifth of the Islamic world comes near all that.

[Terran1212]

51. Maybe they just don't want the same things as you

[cali]

52. Oh, please

what a lousy and callous response.

[Terran1212]

56. I think it's a response that epitomizes the "multicultural liberal"

That he seeks to be.

Different strokes for different folks -- how callous is that?

[eallen]

64. You're saying NO ONE in the Islamic world wants those things?

You're saying that the individuals in Pakistan and Sudan who are jailed for blasphemy and apostasy don't want freedom of speech and religion? And what of their children? Must they be condemned to living without freedom because of their parents' desires?

Personally, I'm a liberal. I hold there are some human rights society may not legitimately deny to individuals.

[Terran1212]

65. Calm down

[Pacifist Patriot]

61. Another error I must point out.

By the sixth century, most of the Middle East had converted to Christianity, but as is the way of humanity, a power struggle over interpretation and control of the Church had been going on for a while already. (Google “heresy” and/or the history of the Early Christian Church.)

You need to provide geographic boundaries for your definition of the Middle East in the sixth century. At that point in history, the Christian church was not nearly the foundational structure you present it to be. Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Hellenic mystery religions, polytheistic tribal religions, etc. were all present in a great morass from Rome to Persia. Jews and Christians were present on the Arabian penninsula with neither constituting a majority, even combined.

I really wish I could get behind a post urging tolerance towards Islam, but in truth I'm appalled a post riddled with inaccuracies has made the Greatest Page. I am so sorry!

[IdaBriggs]

74. I thank you for your input, but obviously disagree with your conclusions.

I can obviously quote my sources, but as is the way of most things, everyone has opinions on the validity of the different sources (and why they are or aren't valid).

Please be aware that I have *definitely* done my best to simplify a very complex topic in an effort to make it clear to everyone. I have been studying this topic for well over a quarter of a century, including the evolution of the Trinity from "Mother, Maiden & Crone" to "Father, Son & Holy Ghost." :) I am familiar with a wide variety of religious pantheons, and the political influence exerted by the differing sects. As I said, EVERYONE believes their way to worship (fill in the blank) is the best, most correct one. :)

For your edification, some (but not all) of the specific sources I have used include (but are not limited to):

Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity"
Robert Payne's "The History of Islam"
Merlin Stone's "When God Was a Woman"
Susan Wilson's "Culture Shock: Egypt!"
Joseph Campbell's "Comparative Mythology" & "Hero with a Thousand Faces" (among others)
Chas S. Clifton's "Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics"
John Boswell's "The Kindness of Strangers : The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance"
Barbara Walker's "Women's Encyclopedia of Mythology & Secrets"

and various versions of both the Old & New Testaments, as well as the Qur'ran, and discussions with other religious scholars in both a university and religious setting.

The nice thing about religious scholarship, however, is that we are always free to disagree with "who is right" and "who is wrong." As I said, my attempt to "simplify" is not intended as a disparagement, but instead is meant as an introduction. Your additions (which I disagree with in some cases), are certainly more than welcome to the discussion! :)

Any errors, of course, are my own. :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

82. Having read the Stone, Walker and Campbell books...

I remain surprised by your conclusions. I would recommend the following books to anyone reading the discussion and wishing to learn more:

Islam : Religion, History, and Civilization by Nasr
The Battle for God, A History of God, and Jerusalem by Armstrong
The Oxford History of Islam and What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam by Esposito
God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism by Kirsch
The Three Faces of Monotheism : Judaism, Christianity, Islam by Frankl

Yep, I love debate on religious scholarship. You'll never run out of things to discuss. Cheers!

[EVDebs]

169. Islam (and Judaism for that matter) still rely upon sacrificial systems

for atonement of sin.

50,000 sheep were refused into Saudi Arabia awhile back in 2003, apparently to protest Australia's participation in the Iraq war, or whatever, by not using these sheep in qurbani.

Cabinet approves Cormo Express return
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s964630.htm

And regularly the Temple Mount Faithful create dustups over a return to a Third Temple, to be used to reinstate the sacrificial system of Judaism with atonement for sins

Impact of Millennium on the Holy Land
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week319/cover.html

This Third Temple would, btw, necessitate a destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque/Dome of the Rock, but that is another matter. My point is that both Islam and Judaism rely upon sacrificing animals for an 'atonement'.

Islam:
""...The Muslims say that this has nothing to do with blood and gore (Qur'an 22:37: "It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah. it is your piety that reaches Him..."). "" on Qurban

Christianity:
""The concept of self-sacrifice and martyrs are central to Christianity. In Christian teaching, God became incarnate in Jesus Christ to accomplish the reconciliation of God and humanity, which had separated itself from God through sin (see the concept of original sin). God's perfect justice required an atonement for sin from humanity if human beings were to be saved from damnation, but God knew limited human beings could not make sufficient atonement, for humanity's offence to God was infinite. So God, in his perfect mercy, himself became a man so as to offer a perfect sacrifice which would compensate for humanity's sin. Only God could make the infinite sacrifice; only a human being could offer it on behalf of humanity, hence only Jesus Christ, truly God and truly human, could offer the atoning sacrifice. This he did by his death on the Cross. This sacrifice replaced the insufficient animal sacrifice of the Old Covenant; Christ the "Lamb of God" replaced the lambs sacrificed at Passover in the Mosaic law. Christ's bodily resurrection three days after his crucifixion shows the efficacy of his sacrifice in freeing human beings from the chains of death.""

Judaism:
""The centrality of sacrifices in Judaism is clear, with much of the Bible, particularly the opening chapters of the book Leviticus, detailing the exact method of bringing sacrifices. Sacrifices were either bloody (animals) or unbloody (grain and wine). Bloody sacrifices were divided into holocausts (burnt offerings, in which the whole animal was burnt), guilt offerings (in which part was burnt and part left for the priest) and peace offerings (in which similarly only part of the animal was burnt). Yet the prophets point out that sacrifices are only a part of serving God, and need to be accompanied by inner morality and goodness."" on Korban

from Sacrifice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice

[eallen]

78. And yet another error, regarding the origin of the Qu'ran...

After Muhammad died, his best friend sat down with the only copy of *all of his writings*, and did a literal “cut and paste” – in other words, he took EVERYTHING that Muhammad had *ever* written, and tried to group it together in “chapters”..

The orthodox Islamic tradition is that Muhammed was illiterate, and left no writings at all, but that his followers memorized his prophetic speeches. It was Uthman, the third Caliph, not Abu Bakr, who allegedly put together a committee to write down the canonical Qu'ran.

That's the tradition. Non-Islamic scholars have considerable doubt that it happened quite that way. Muslims reaction to Qu'ran scholarship varies, as does Christian reaction to Biblical scholarship. The fundamentalists in both religions must wrap the history of their scripture in an origins myth, to justify the utter faith they put into its every jot and jittle. That irrationality is one of the ways that fundamentalism and liberalism are essentially at odds.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

104. Excellent post. Thank you.

[EVDebs]

110. Bush in ME ignores 'self-determination' aspect of all this

Arab Human Development Report
http://www.rbas.undp.org/ahdr.cfm

Failures in the Arab world, and thus mostly Islamic cultures in the ME, led Bush and the neocons to try to do what Arabs should have been able to do themselves, promote "freedom" in the ME.

I put "freedom" in parentheses because Muslims believe that their religion provides that to them.

Christians, who believe that salvation is a gift from God that isn't the result of any work ("For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9), are apparently lazier than Muslims.

[CJCRANE]

112. Good post.

I find that many people that are islamophobic have never actually been to a muslim country and don't realise that they are just normal people going about their lives.

The reverse example would be a non-American thinking that Americans are all gangsters, torturers and murderers just because that's all they see on TV or read on the internet.

[riderinthestorm]

114. I hope you aren't accusing those of us who are presenting another

opinion on the OP as islamophobic.

And that only those who have been to a Muslim country are qualified to comment....

I know there is a rightwing campaign to vilify Islam. And I know that there's a lot of garbage out there but whitewashing Islam's problems will be a huge mistake for Dems. We need to stand firm in our values of equal rights for women, religious freedom for all, separation of church and state etc.

This Admninistration has come to a sorry crossroads because they have looked the other way, for decades, in regards to Islam's problems in their greed for oil.

Let's not start Dems down our own path towards that same crossroads in some misguided attempt to be PC. We need to be clear-eyed about the world around us and that means calling spin when we see it, regardless of whose doing the spinning.

For what it's worth, I believe the rest of the world is probably correct in labelling us now as gangsters, torturers and murderers. Somewhere near half the population voted for this Admin. Somewhere near 35% still support this hideous crew. Thank god that we here on DU aren't afraid to acknowledge this problem, that we don't whitewash America's transgressions and shortcomings, and that we put our noses to the grindstone and work even harder to effect change. We're all in this together and the sooner most Americans face up to this hard fact, the better.

An OP that spun America as lily white as this OP has done for Islam, would be laughed off DU I believe.

[Bridget Burke]

170. Quite a few other opinions have been presented.

Many are corrections of facts, made by those who have respect for & knowledge of Islam.

Your appear to believe that Islam is worthy of no respect at all. I would not consider myself a believer in any faith. History & current events demonstrate the evils people do in the name of religion. But those same sources also show that religion can have positive effects.

[Pacifist Patriot]

120. Things I think everyone should know and respect about Islam and Moslems...

The majority of Moslems are like everyone else. They want someone to love, something to do and something to look forward to. They want to provide for their families. They seek to live according to God's law. Like other religions, the precepts can be used for good or ill and some followers do better than others.

None of the 5 pillars of Islam are violent or deserving of contempt. They do not infringe upon anyone else's rights.

1. To bear witness that there is none worthy of worship save Allah and that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the Messenger of Allah.

2. To observe Prayer (Salat).

3. To Pay Zakat (Alms giving)

4. To perform the Pilgrimage to the House of Allah (Hajj).

5. To Observe fasting during Ramadhan." (Bukhari)

Islam's fundamental belief is the Unity of God. All other beliefs hang on this belief. In this respect I find the statement of faith to be similar to the opening line of the Jewish Shema. "Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One."

Like other scriptures, the Quran contains beautiful poetry and sublime ideals. The words can inspire followers to compassion. Like other scriptures, the Quran contains passages that are disturbing and downright unpalatable. The words can inspire followers to malevolence.

Having travelled in both Moslem and non-Moslem countries, I'll risk a generalization. Yes, I have found Moslem communities to be quite friendly and hospitable. More so than the strangers I met in New York and London. Less so than the strangers I met in Chartre and the small villages of Quintana Roo.

Before anyone gets too upset about religious prescriptions and taboos they should learn more about the practice to find out if it is born of practicality and respect or of oppression.

Diversity within Islam should be respected. Islam is global and can be found in Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Great Britain, Canada...aw heck, most countries. Cultural mores and Quranic interpretations vary but there remains the consistency regarding the fundamental belief in the Unity of God.

What everyone should know and respect about Moslems. They don't appreciate broad brushes, be they dipped in whitewash or at the tip of a poison pen, anymore than anyone else does.

[dailykoff]

121. good summary (n/t)

[cali]

124. Excellent, Peace Patriot

Simple but not simplistic. I wish you had posted this in its own thread.

[dailykoff]

122. thank you, bookmarked! (n/t)

[TAPat]

126. Thank you for this post -

I know very little about Islam, or any other religion for that matter, but I do know that respect for others is sorely lacking in the human race.
I greatly appreciate your desire to stimulate some thought on the issue of respect - and a great place to start is to respect others opinions... :pals:

[Saphire]

128. bookmark for later reading

[Dorian Gray]

131. Saudi Arabia is not DESSERT

Q: What does the climate have to do with head scarves?

A: DESSERT.

Just saying. Otherwise, an interesting read. I don't agree with it all, but it's nice to read about ones travels and their observations! Thanks for sharing!

[Bridget Burke]

133. Some are complaining that you have failed to explain....

The complete history of Islam & its current status throughout the world in one brief essay. Of course the subject takes many volumes. But you've made a good summary from your own educated perceptions.

Others complain that you only spent ten days in an Islamic country, whereas they have spent none. I am sorry for the poor folks living in such stagnant backwaters of the USA that they have never met any Muslims.

One quibble: The Roman Catholic Church was not the only part of Christianity riven by heresy. Orthodox Christianity had similar problems--such as complex, violent conflicts over the exact nature of God & Jesus. Not to mention the difficulties between those who refused to accept the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church & those who did. However, the great branches of Christendom were not truly divided until the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople.

Muslim ladies do not all wear head coverings. Many in the USA don't & I believe this is also true in countries such as Turkey. As you stated, the veil can be quite practical--no bad hair days. I've seen Muslim ladies dressed in quite conservative outfits who still exuded a sense of style. & there are Islamic feminists: www.newint.org/issue345/legacy.htm

This is a huge subject & worth further study. Ignorance is so boring.

[Pacifist Patriot]

138. I hope you do not believe this to be my problem with the essay.

I do not think it possible to provide a complete history of Islam and it's current status throughout the world in a single post. I also couldn't care less whether the OP has spent ten years, ten days, ten seconds or never in an Islamic country. Some of the points presented as "things to know" (i.e. facts) are inaccurate and should be addressed.

I am all for people learning more and respecting other religious beliefs, but I'd like to see it done from a realistic and factual basis.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

152. If you are lumping all the criticism of the OP

together, you're doing an injustice. There's some criticism that appears to arise out of ignorance, but there's a great deal that clearly doesn't. I've criticized Ida's OP, and perhaps you'd care to actually address my criticism with specific responses. Let me also add that I've traveled to three Islamic countries. I know Muslims, and I respect them and their religion.

Stating that ignorance is boring doesn't help to shed light on those who dwell in ignorance. Categorizing all the criticisms on this thread as unwarrented or arising out of ignorance is, well, ignorant.

[Bridget Burke]

162. This thread was started to counter the current campaign against Islam.

I agree that some of the points are incorrect. But the OP's intention was not to give an expert's view, only to correct what she saw as injustice.

Some of the replies on this thread do show ignorance & bigotry. Not yours, of course.

Perhaps those with greater knowledge should stick their necks out & start their own threads, rather than picking this honest & well-intentioned effort apart.

[cali]

164. Bridget, I've repeatedly commended Ida's intent

even as I see her post as slightly counter productive. It's difficult to correct an injustices with factual errors and a sunny take on a weighty matter.

I stick my neck out frequently here, and I may do so on this topic. It doesn't mean that it's neccessary for me or anyone else to do it immediately.

Respectfully, I take issue with your assertion that reasoned criticism on this thread is picking it apart.It's not. When you post something at DU, you should expect criticism. It come with the territory, and no matter how good the intentions of the poster, that shouldn't give any post an exemption from thoughtful criticism and corrections of facts.

[Pacifist Patriot]

167. I don't see this as picking an effort apart. I too agree with the intent.

But unfortunately errors detract from that intent in my opinion. Why the harm in correcting facts? Sorry, but that reeks too much of junk science to be comfortable.

Why the need to start a different thread when this one has generated excellent discussion? Productive criticism is best served remaining where it is rather than being held elsewhere. Ida's shown she can handle the situation gracefully. I imagine anyone following the discussion who is curious enough will be inspired to do research on the subject and reach their own conclusions. At least I hope so.

[theboss]

143. Might be the first person ever to call Islam an off-shoot of Christianity

Mohammad was not Christian and Roman Catholicism was hardly the dominant religion in that region at the time.

[mwb970]

168. That was the part I wasn't so sure about.

I have read books about early Islam and I do not remember ever seeing it characterized as an off-shoot of Christianity. But, many biblical stories and characters (including Jesus) do appear in the Koran.

[malaise]

144. Thank you IdaBriggs - lovely post n/t

[reprehensor]

148. The Demonization of Islam and all things Arab...

...is an essential part of Neocon strategery.

It's easy to demonize things that we don't understand.

"International Terrorism" is another thing that we don't really understand, even though "International Terrorism" took out 3,000 Americans on 9/11, and is often framed as a uniquely "Arab problem".

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, a British writer of Arab descent, examines the broader milieu of Al Qaeda here;

Subverting 'Terrorism'

Canadian researcher Peter Dale Scott begs us to take a closer look at the history of Arab assets as tools of Western Intelligence here;

9/11 in Historical Perspective: Flawed Assumptions

...and in more detail here here.

Does radical fundamentalim exist? Yes.

Do politicians amplify and distort it out of the bounds of reality?

HELL, yes;

The Power of Nightmares



Thank you for posting this, Ida.

"First they came for the Muslims..."

[Jeffersons Ghost]

153. here's a neocon strategy

As you well know I was one of the first people to kick up and recommend your thread, so I hate to do this to your hard work but free speech online is important. I'm posting this link all over your thread, so EVERYONE will wonder why moderators saw fit to hide one thread on religion while lettig another remain in full view. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x923910

[cali]

154. Realistic and respectful

criticism and the correction of factual errors is not a demonization, and there are several people on thhis thread who have been doing just that. Yes, I include myself in that number. Attempting to discredit legitimate and differing points of view is disgraceful.

[Pacifist Patriot]

157. This is precisely why accurate information is so critical.

Today's Islamic terrorist is yesterday's Communist spy. Neither your typical muslim nor your typical communist give much thought to world domination.

While celebrating the diversity among humans, we still share common attributes as humans. Personally I think groups of people are typically more alike than they are different. Hence the full court press to amplify and distort. It's hard to hate someone if you see them as being the same as you.

[reprehensor]

163. Indeed. n/t

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

155. One thing that drives me insane about some (most) religious faiths

is why does a woman have to show modesty and 'respectability' and why isn't the same 'courtesy' extended to the man? In other words, women have to cover their hair, wear 'modest' clothing, etc. yet men have none of these conditions. Why? To me, it sounds like women are to be guarded because they are potentially dangerous or could in some way affect the poor defenseless men. I'm not picking on Islam, because most religions deal with this as well.

[Pacifist Patriot]

182. I remember when I was a kid in Germany I would see farmers out...

in their fields with their shirts off. I thought it wildly unfair that men could use this method to stay cooler but women could not. And that's just social convention not religious modesty.

Yes, I agree. I'm not particularly fond of this aspect of either society or religion. The human body should not be viewed as shameful and neither gender should be weighted more heavily in that area than the other.

[BlueEyedSon]

158. Judaism was the first monotheistic religion., not Islam.

Anyway religion is all fairytails.... fairytrails that will get us all killed in the long run.



http://www.samharris.org/

[Pacifist Patriot]

160. I don't know. When theology provides a basis for social justice...

Gandhi, Mother Teresa, MLK...there's a good thing going. It's when people elevate their theology above the social good that we get into problems. We just need more Gandhis and fewer Dobsons. Not sure how to arrange for that though. I can be pretty pessimistic about humanity from time to time. But I don't think religion is the root of all ills. If we didn't have religion I think we'd find some other dividing issue to hang our contentious hats on. ;)

[BlueEyedSon]

165. there are many atheists who champion social justice

being religious is not a necessary pre-condition

organized religion is about the maintenance of a power structure and can only thrive by the viral spread of denial-of-critical-thinking

the problems that will face humanity in the next few years will require a whole lotta critical thinkin'....

[Pacifist Patriot]

166. Never said religion was a necessary pre-condition.

I said I like it when it serves as an impetus to social justice. It would be nice if it was used that way more often.

[mimitabby]

171. great post!

except for the parts about dessert, this should be copied and sent to every junior high school
and high school in the USA.

[cali]

172. I used to teach

8th grade. This is not a piece that should be disseminated in schools. Several posts have pointed out that, despite the good intentions of the author, it contains important factual errors, and omits needed information.

[mimitabby]

173. that well may be

however, all i learned about muslims in school was that the crusaders hunted them down and killed them.
this is a considerable improvement.

[etherealtruth]

174. Oversimplifications

...to the point that there is only "a resemblance to Islam" coupled with outright factually incorrect statements is NOT an improvement. Post #120 by Pacific Patriot IS factual and useful(as well as other PP posts, Cali's ...)

The history of the middle East and Islam is very interesting and we do need to seek information, but I want accurate info.

[Pacifist Patriot]

176. It's certainly an improvement in attitude. No one can dispute that.

However if we are serious about doing our school-aged children a great service we should provide robust history courses that include more areas of the world and a greater variety of viewpoints. Inaccurate (albeit well-meaning) essays are not the answer.

If that is all you learned about Muslims in school that is a curriculum issue that cannot be resolved by this post.

[theboss]

183. That would be a uniquely bad idea

Students would somehow get the idea that Mohammad was a 7th century Martin Luther fighting the hegemony of the Catholic Church over Christian teaching.

I really can't get beyond the "off-shoot" of Christianity idea.

It's more of a parallel to Christianity than anything. Arabs did not have a "revelation" of God's will; Mohammad provided that.

There are so many factual errors in all of this that it is stunnning that it got so many positive responses. It's really a testament to what everything thinks of Ida. Because this is really really bad scholarship.

[MsTryska]

175. mmmm..DESSERT!!

hee - great post - loved the typo!

[Jigarotta]

184. Thank you, Ida.

I especially appreciate how you handle your critics here with tolerance and respect while they sneer at you through their keyboards. To me that makes your OP even more worthy.

thanks,
peace and light for all.

[Pacifist Patriot]

193. I am disturbed by your post.

Any criticism here has been directed at factual content rather than tolerant intent. As one of the major critics I take exception to your characterization of "sneering." Nothing could be further from the truth. From what I have seen, all criticism has been supportive of respect and knowledge. I hope you can view the criticism as coming from tolerance and respect as well.

[cali]

197. This is a regrettable post

particularly jarring is your sign off of "peace and light for all", contrasted with your blanket condemnation of people who criticized the OP. Respectful criticism is a vital part of discussing a post such as Ida's. There was far, far more respectful and enlightening criticism than there was sneering and dismissive criticism. It's a shame you couldn't recognize that.

respectfully, cali

[Post]

186. Ruining Babylon

Check this out: http://postanapology.blogspot.com/2006/04/babylon-apology.html#links

[Spinoza]

187. The Elephant in the Room noone is mentioning.....

Islam on the status of women:

"Your wifes are your fields. Therefore go to your fields as you like."
(The Koran, sura 2.223)

"Males have the resposibilty for the females, because Allah has given one of them greater strenght than the other, and they provide for the women from their own means. Good women are therefore devoted obedient, and guard the absense (of the man) what Allah want to be hidden. But if you fear that they will not be disobedient, then you must warn them, let them lie alone in their beds and beat them, but if they return to obedience, don't use any means against them. Because Allah is the highest." (The Koran, sura 4.34)

"If any of your wifes do something bad, then call four witnesses against them and lock them in the house - until death or Allah opens a way for them. " (The Koran, sura 4.15)

"Oh you Prophet, tell your wifes and your daughters and believing women that they must draw together their coats closely around theand over themselves. That is the best, then they will be known (as pure), and then they will not be harassed." (The Koran, sura 33.60)

When women report rape: "If they cannot bring 4 witnesses who are men, they are liars in the eyes of Allah." (The Koran, sura 24.13)

The right of the woman in Islam:
"Half the right of inheritance:Allah has ordered:.One boy must inherit as much as 2 girls."
(The Koran, sura 4.11) "Half the right to give evidence in court:Call two males as witnesses, or if there are not two males then a male and two females who are convinient as witnesses." (The Koran 2.282) Males' right to 4 wifes: ". marry the those you find suitable: two, three or four, but if you fear you cannot be just to all of them, then don't marry more than one." (The Koran, sura 4.3)

"The women are underdeveloped in intelligence, in gratitude and religion." (Hadith Sahih al-Buchari)

"If a male marry a sexually immature girl, and has sex with her before she is 9 years old, he must not repeat the sexual intercourse, if it is traumatic to her." (Ayatollah Khomeini, Principes, Paris, 1979) Note: Mohammed married the the child 'A'isha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

"A man's right over his wife has been given by god"
(Hadith Miskat al-Masabih Koranen 8.39)

The above is just a small sample.

[cali]

191. I think the reason

why it's such an elephant is that unlike other major religions, there's still adherence, in many places, to those suras, as codified in Sharia law.

I don't know enough to take it on. I confess that the treatment of women, under Sharia law, is something I'm not comfortable ceding to cultural differences. It's hard to do if one is committed to human rights. Same goes for gays and lesbians, and Muslims converting to other religions.

[rustydad]

189. Very good summation

In reading all the reactions, some heated as might be expected, I want to add one comment. According to many religions and spiritual people the founders of what have become world religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and many other major and minor religions are all founded on the teachings of one person. That being is called by many an Avatar, or God man. In essence he/it is the same spirit taking human form over and over. Christ, Moses, Muhammad, all the same spirit, incarnated on earth for purposes only God clearly knows. So as the debate over which religion is truest or best think on the fact that they may spring from the same source. Only the imperfect use of the Words separate them from the essence of One. Bob

[Spinoza]

217. You may be right.

On the other hand, they may all all be charismatic loony tunes.

[mikelewis]

196. There is only one God...

You can approach God on your knees in prayer or with your hands raised in song. You can call out to him in despair or thank him when your heart can longer contain its joy. It matters very little if you call yourself a Jew or a Gentile, a Sunni or a Shite, a Catholic or Protestant. It matters very little to God.

There is only one God.

[Spinoza]

219. "There is only one God" But

most pagan and pantheistic beliefs accept a multitude of divinites, not just one big Mojo. And atheists, of course, don't believe in any divinity. Who says you are right and they are wrong? Perhaps, you should have said....."In my opinion there is only one God".

[Jigarotta]

200. Huston Smith's 'The Religions of Man'

Haven't read this in years but will dust it off and give it another go now. Enjoyed it greatly.

from back cover:
'An intelligent, clearly written study which reveals the spirit of each faith without attempting a comparative evaluation'
NYT

'This book is niether a history nor a critique. Instead it explains, simply and sympathetically, the basic tenets of each religiion and the reasons why it attracts millions of devout followers.'

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

202. Thank you for your lovely post

I have never traveled abroad, but my experience with Muslims in this country has been the same as yours; lavish hospitality, and, in my case, a feeling of brotherhood/sisterhood that I have never felt before.

[SPKrazy]

214. We Invaded Iraq For It's Dessert?

Maybe that is what B* thought was over there, dessert, instead of desert.

Seriously, it is an interesting post.

Thanks for posting it

[davekriss]

215. kick

Too late for me to add to the greatest post tally, but a truly excellent and beautiful post, IdaBriggs. Thank you. :)

[Jigarotta]

216. to the top, for Ida.

kick is inappropriate. ;)

[fortyfeetunder]

221. Thanks for the insight.

Now I remember next time I go hanging out somewhere hot is find some headscarves. I admire the ones I've seen, and the concept makes sense to me!!!