I think you’re begging the question there. I’ve read the Qur’an (in M.A.S. Abdel Haleem’s English translation), and I found it the most unpersuasive religious writing I’ve ever seen. It consists almost entirely of exhortations to believe in the greatness of Allah, and promises of heaven for those who do and destruction for those who do not. Believe, submit, pray, and destroy your enemies—and that’s it. There are few exemplary tales (the only one I recall is that of Moses and Khidr), and no moral teachings beyond “believers are your friends, infidels are your enemies.”
I haven’t read the hadith, but skimming this site, they are mostly about rituals of cleanliness and prayer, and legalistic matters, expressed in the form of vignettes of Muhammad’s life. And of course the whole method of determining the truth of anything by inspecting the exact words of people who lived and died centuries ago is absurd.
But I’ve never been a Moslem. What was it like, for you? Have I mischaracterised it?
I’ve read the Qur’an [...]]no moral teachings beyond “believers are your friends, infidels are your enemies.”
What, all of it? Then surely you have forgotten, say, this fragment which is about morals and nothing else (and which I had to learn by heart in school). The bits that are purely about “join me and you will be rewarded, oppose me and you will be punished” are mostly of the Mecca era, when the Islamic community was weak and getting killed and tortured and ostracised and embargoed by everyone. Establishing creed and promoting hope and promising justice and retribution were a priority: it’s kinda similar to the context behind the Book Of Revelation.
The bits written in Medinah were much more about social reform, new laws, rules, communty life… and are deemed to be much more boring than the Mecca ones by the sort of unreligious people that read the Qran for entertainment.
infidels are your enemies
Well, it was quite literally true in context. Infidels would kill you. Sometimes after horribly maiming you. Simply because you declared to believe in that new cult. That was even worse than joining the Communist Party back in the Red Scare. At least in the US you got a trial.
EDIT: Oh, and comically enough, many Muslims in modern day morocco are taking the opposite view: infidels are your friends, other muslims are to be avoided at all costs. Most Moroccans I know who went abroad actively avoid maintaining contact with local Moroccans, except for their closests friends from back home. I think we avoid each other mostly because we don’t want to be submitted to scrutiny, judgemental remarks, gossip, and so on. With the Spaniards our private life is safe. Also, they don’t expect you to marry them after having sex.
No, but now that you mention it, this is hilarious. I shall bring it up next time I meet some compatriots. However, in Morocco (and perhaps other Arab countries’ defence), I will say that our society has been heavily molded by the imperialism-serving police states that appointed themselves our rulers. In Morocco everyone spies on everybody, and people are such gossips they might give you intel about their neighbours for free, just because. Everyone is corrupt, everyone is compromised, because otherwise there is no way to get anything done: if you want to live without ever bribing anyone you might as well go live in a cave, because even in a monastery you will need to bribe someone for some reason. Society and status revolve around money and crass materialism and small-minded hedonism AND bigotry AND religious puritanism. Hypocrisy and doublethink run rampant, and family men who pray regularly and berate you for smoking will go once a month to the red district to completely whore themselves up. The families I know that are genuinely, observantly, rigorously Muslim can be counted on the phalanges of one finger, and they tend to be gentle, compromising people who do not overlap at all with The Fundamentalist.
In the grim darkness of present Morocco, there is no justice, there is no freedom, there is only social warfare, and the laughter of thirsting pimps.
Now to lighten the mood, read the entire post in your hammiest voice. Don’t worry, it’s not nearly as GRIMDARK as it would seem. Humans… can get used to anything. But I am sure we could use some applied rationalism in sorting this mental mess out :)
BTW, a cookie to whoever acknowledges the GRIMDARK reference.
What, all of it? Then surely you have forgotten, say, this fragment which is about morals and nothing else (and which I had to learn by heart in school).
My eyes may have glazed over a few times. :-) But here’s my summary of the whole of that sura:
(1) Fear Allah.
(2,3) Don’t talk over the Prophet.
(4,5) Don’t pester the Prophet.
(6) Don’t trust enemies.
(7) Believe.
(8) Allah knows all.
(9) Exercise justice among believers.
(10,11,12) Let believers be as brothers.
(13) Allah knows all.
(14,15) Believe and obey.
(16) Allah knows all.
(17) Believe.
(18) Allah knows all.
I mean, yes, those moral fragments are there, but they seem to take a lot of searching. Anyway, LW isn’t really the place to discuss the relative merits of different religions, so I don’t want to prolong this.
Well, it was quite literally true in context. Infidels would kill you.
All rather a long time ago. Now you can be killed for leaving it. I wonder if there are statistics on the number of people, worldwide, voluntarily converting to or from the various faiths (plus atheism)? Like measuring immigration and emigration as a measure of people’s preferences among countries.
LW isn’t really the place to discuss the relative merits of different religions, so I don’t want to prolong this.
I wasn’t aware that that was the way you saw this discussion. Why compare things that are equally false? But I understand that, from your perspective, the text is boringly monotonous. I had similar problems when reading the Bible. All those names one after the other, with no introduction, no context, no Character Establishing Moments, nothing… Well, at least you have just demonstrated that there is something strongly subjective about the appeal and power of the Qran. Then again, to return to the Obama example, his speeches will probably appeal and move much more the choir he is preaching to rather than his detractors, no matter how well done they are.
When you read Allah Knows All and variations, you do not feel the scrutiny of the LORD looking upon your shoulders, policing all your thoughts, knowing your decisions before yourself. It’s like Big Brother Is Watching, except on a Cosmic Horror scale. And Big Brother loves you and is just and fair and merciful. My God a pattern for a Qran/1984/TheMatrix/CtuthluMythos crossover parody is forming in my mind. Now that would be an attack against Islam (and theism in general). AND it could be hilarious.
By the way
They consider it a favor to you that they have accepted Islam. Say, “Do not consider your Islam a favor to me. Rather, Allah has conferred favor upon you that He has guided you to the faith, if you should be truthful.”
I think I have heard something similar over here
Do not consider you are giving others a favour by accepting their arguments. The favour is to yourself. (paraphrased)
wonder if there are statistics on the number of people, worldwide, voluntarily converting to or from the various faiths (plus atheism)?
That would mean officially classifying citizens according to religion, which can lead to discrimination. No secular state would ever dream of doing such a thing.
When you read Allah Knows All and variations, you do not feel the scrutiny of the LORD looking upon your shoulders, policing all your thoughts, knowing your decisions before yourself.
You’d have to believe a little already. So, an affective death spiral. The more you believe, the more the Book terrorises you into believing.
Going off on a tangent though, that last phrase, “knowing your decisions before yourself” reminds me of Libet’sexperiments on detecting decisions before the person making them is aware of them. I started wondering what sort of Dark Arts-based religion could be constructed even out of rationalism.
That would mean officially classifying citizens according to religion, which can lead to discrimination. No secular state would ever dream of doing such a thing.
The UK isn’t very religious, but the 10-year censuses do ask people to declare a religion. I think most countries’ censuses do. It’s something practically useful to know, even for benign purposes.
That would mean officially classifying citizens according to religion, which can lead to discrimination. No secular state would ever dream of doing such a thing.
The UK isn’t very religious, but the 10-year censuses do ask people to declare a religion. I think most countries’ censuses do. It’s something practically useful to know, even for benign purposes.
wonder if there are statistics on the number of people, worldwide, voluntarily converting to or from the various faiths (plus atheism)?
That would mean officially classifying citizens according to religion, which can lead to discrimination. No secular state would ever dream of doing such a thing.
Actually, in Islam it is: “professing” Islam is not the same as “believing” Islam: this is explicitly acknowledged in the Qran. When you make the profession of faith, that is what defines you as Muslim: you submit yourself to Islamic law’s rule and protection, and become a member of the Islamic community with all the advantages and disadvantages it confers. However, only God knows if you believe or not (you might be deluding yourself).
Therefore, a Muslim is simply someone who claims to be one. That’s as well defined and easy to test as it could possibly be, am I right?
I think you’re begging the question there. I’ve read the Qur’an (in M.A.S. Abdel Haleem’s English translation), and I found it the most unpersuasive religious writing I’ve ever seen. It consists almost entirely of exhortations to believe in the greatness of Allah, and promises of heaven for those who do and destruction for those who do not. Believe, submit, pray, and destroy your enemies—and that’s it. There are few exemplary tales (the only one I recall is that of Moses and Khidr), and no moral teachings beyond “believers are your friends, infidels are your enemies.”
I haven’t read the hadith, but skimming this site, they are mostly about rituals of cleanliness and prayer, and legalistic matters, expressed in the form of vignettes of Muhammad’s life. And of course the whole method of determining the truth of anything by inspecting the exact words of people who lived and died centuries ago is absurd.
But I’ve never been a Moslem. What was it like, for you? Have I mischaracterised it?
What, all of it? Then surely you have forgotten, say, this fragment which is about morals and nothing else (and which I had to learn by heart in school). The bits that are purely about “join me and you will be rewarded, oppose me and you will be punished” are mostly of the Mecca era, when the Islamic community was weak and getting killed and tortured and ostracised and embargoed by everyone. Establishing creed and promoting hope and promising justice and retribution were a priority: it’s kinda similar to the context behind the Book Of Revelation.
The bits written in Medinah were much more about social reform, new laws, rules, communty life… and are deemed to be much more boring than the Mecca ones by the sort of unreligious people that read the Qran for entertainment.
Well, it was quite literally true in context. Infidels would kill you. Sometimes after horribly maiming you. Simply because you declared to believe in that new cult. That was even worse than joining the Communist Party back in the Red Scare. At least in the US you got a trial.
EDIT: Oh, and comically enough, many Muslims in modern day morocco are taking the opposite view: infidels are your friends, other muslims are to be avoided at all costs. Most Moroccans I know who went abroad actively avoid maintaining contact with local Moroccans, except for their closests friends from back home. I think we avoid each other mostly because we don’t want to be submitted to scrutiny, judgemental remarks, gossip, and so on. With the Spaniards our private life is safe. Also, they don’t expect you to marry them after having sex.
The edit is an interesting contrast to the link against back-biting. Did you intend that?
No, but now that you mention it, this is hilarious. I shall bring it up next time I meet some compatriots. However, in Morocco (and perhaps other Arab countries’ defence), I will say that our society has been heavily molded by the imperialism-serving police states that appointed themselves our rulers. In Morocco everyone spies on everybody, and people are such gossips they might give you intel about their neighbours for free, just because. Everyone is corrupt, everyone is compromised, because otherwise there is no way to get anything done: if you want to live without ever bribing anyone you might as well go live in a cave, because even in a monastery you will need to bribe someone for some reason. Society and status revolve around money and crass materialism and small-minded hedonism AND bigotry AND religious puritanism. Hypocrisy and doublethink run rampant, and family men who pray regularly and berate you for smoking will go once a month to the red district to completely whore themselves up. The families I know that are genuinely, observantly, rigorously Muslim can be counted on the phalanges of one finger, and they tend to be gentle, compromising people who do not overlap at all with The Fundamentalist.
In the grim darkness of present Morocco, there is no justice, there is no freedom, there is only social warfare, and the laughter of thirsting pimps.
Now to lighten the mood, read the entire post in your hammiest voice. Don’t worry, it’s not nearly as GRIMDARK as it would seem. Humans… can get used to anything. But I am sure we could use some applied rationalism in sorting this mental mess out :)
BTW, a cookie to whoever acknowledges the GRIMDARK reference.
Warhammer 40k. This is a website packed to the gills with nerds; of course we’d get the reference. ;)
Here’s an internet cookie.
My eyes may have glazed over a few times. :-) But here’s my summary of the whole of that sura:
(1) Fear Allah. (2,3) Don’t talk over the Prophet. (4,5) Don’t pester the Prophet. (6) Don’t trust enemies. (7) Believe. (8) Allah knows all. (9) Exercise justice among believers. (10,11,12) Let believers be as brothers. (13) Allah knows all. (14,15) Believe and obey. (16) Allah knows all. (17) Believe. (18) Allah knows all.
I mean, yes, those moral fragments are there, but they seem to take a lot of searching. Anyway, LW isn’t really the place to discuss the relative merits of different religions, so I don’t want to prolong this.
All rather a long time ago. Now you can be killed for leaving it. I wonder if there are statistics on the number of people, worldwide, voluntarily converting to or from the various faiths (plus atheism)? Like measuring immigration and emigration as a measure of people’s preferences among countries.
I wasn’t aware that that was the way you saw this discussion. Why compare things that are equally false? But I understand that, from your perspective, the text is boringly monotonous. I had similar problems when reading the Bible. All those names one after the other, with no introduction, no context, no Character Establishing Moments, nothing… Well, at least you have just demonstrated that there is something strongly subjective about the appeal and power of the Qran. Then again, to return to the Obama example, his speeches will probably appeal and move much more the choir he is preaching to rather than his detractors, no matter how well done they are.
When you read Allah Knows All and variations, you do not feel the scrutiny of the LORD looking upon your shoulders, policing all your thoughts, knowing your decisions before yourself. It’s like Big Brother Is Watching, except on a Cosmic Horror scale. And Big Brother loves you and is just and fair and merciful. My God a pattern for a Qran/1984/TheMatrix/CtuthluMythos crossover parody is forming in my mind. Now that would be an attack against Islam (and theism in general). AND it could be hilarious.
By the way
I think I have heard something similar over here
That would mean officially classifying citizens according to religion, which can lead to discrimination. No secular state would ever dream of doing such a thing.
You’d have to believe a little already. So, an affective death spiral. The more you believe, the more the Book terrorises you into believing.
Going off on a tangent though, that last phrase, “knowing your decisions before yourself” reminds me of Libet’s experiments on detecting decisions before the person making them is aware of them. I started wondering what sort of Dark Arts-based religion could be constructed even out of rationalism.
The UK isn’t very religious, but the 10-year censuses do ask people to declare a religion. I think most countries’ censuses do. It’s something practically useful to know, even for benign purposes.
One of the common reasons Muslims claim the Qran is miraculous, apart from “awesomely-written-get-the-sensation”, is this sort of stuff which happens a lot with the Qran. There comes a scientific study, and people see some verse that seems to say the same thing, and they say “Lo and behold! The Qran has anticipated science again with this criptical little sentence that always seemed out of left field! Now we know what it means! It is a hint placed there by the LORD, so that, throughout the centuries, the veridical nature of our Holy Book is confirmed once and again, unlike their Bible, that says the Earth is flat and grasshoppers have four feet, roflmao!”. Oh, I appear to have built a strawman that has built another strawman. That was in poor taste. Please forgive it.
The UK isn’t very religious, but the 10-year censuses do ask people to declare a religion. I think most countries’ censuses do. It’s something practically useful to know, even for benign purposes.
You could use voluntary surveys.
There seems to be some data, but as far as I can tell it’s pretty crappy and approximative.
The data are going to be blurry because what being a member of a religion means isn’t well-defined.
Actually, in Islam it is: “professing” Islam is not the same as “believing” Islam: this is explicitly acknowledged in the Qran. When you make the profession of faith, that is what defines you as Muslim: you submit yourself to Islamic law’s rule and protection, and become a member of the Islamic community with all the advantages and disadvantages it confers. However, only God knows if you believe or not (you might be deluding yourself).
Therefore, a Muslim is simply someone who claims to be one. That’s as well defined and easy to test as it could possibly be, am I right?