Posted on 11/15/2002 8:52:56 PM PST by Angelus Errare
Luke 11:23
In any event, the stories we have of Moses date from much later than the events they purport to describe, as even the bible makes clear - the law was "lost" until recovered in the temple in the time of king Hezekiah, as related in Kings. Moreover, the people were determinately idolatrous at the time, and "recovery" of the law led to wholesale persecutions of polytheists. Which waxed and waned with particular kings, some of whom followed Yahweh-ist policies and some of whom did not. The institution of monotheism as the sole state cult dates only to the time of the return from the Babylonian, not the Egyptian, captivity - under Persian protection.
The same is not true of Mohammad, who is a known historical figure who conquered much of Arabia - though the great conquests really came under his second successor, Omar, who was the military genius of the affair. Certainly episodes of Muhammad's life are stylized legends, dating from a couple of hundred years after his actual life and rule. But that a single man organized a new state centered on Medina and from it conquered Mecca, and imposed a monotheism on the pagans of Arabia, is not disputed by any serious historian. The sequel (conquest of the near east by Arab armies under Omar), and the chronicles of Bzyantium and Persia about it, make enough of it clear.
More to the point, however, the original quibble that there is nothing pacifist about the old testament is entirely true. It describes a monarchy exercising full military force, invading countries, and punishing apostacy with death. Kings who slaughtered idolatrous priests on their own altars are singled out for praise. The old testament's line on pacifism is succinct - "false prophets cry 'peace, peace', but there is no peace". It is, moreover, full of injunctions to exterminate enemies, reports of massive slaughters, prisoners of war thrown from cliffs, savage revenge fantasies, denunciation of whole nations, religions, and time periods, and also (to the knowing) abounding in political agitation.
Jewish religion has not historically been oppressive because the Jews lost their state in 70 AD and didn't get one back until 1947. Not because tolerance is part of their written doctrines. It also undoubtedly helps that it was meant as a law for a single people - though one prophesied to rule mankind - rather than as a law directly meant for everyone. In the main, however, the simple cause of the relative benign nature of Jewish religion is that they have had no power to do mischief for thousands of years. In that period, generations of rabbis covered the existing ancient text with layer upon layer of commentary, keeping it up to date with justice around them.
If Jews were literalists and fundamentalists, they would be dangerous, but few are. The same is true but to a lesser extent of Christianity, for incorporating the old testament into its canon. There you get two possible sources of injustice - excessive literalism about archaic barbarisms, in the old testament in particular, or when departing from literalism in favor of some historical human authority, that authority engaging in persecutions of its own. Because as a matter of human political history, real tolerance is only about 250 years old, anywhere, and has been less than general even within living memory (when half the world was ruled by intolerant communists, etc).
Anyone trying to get their principles of justice from ancient books faces the problem that injustice was all over the place for most of the long term past. Certainly there are better principles in ancient books, notably in the Sermon on the Mount, which is as good a statement of true morality as you will find anywhere, at any time. But distortion by selection, the motives of a commentator, old injustices that have to be ignored not emulated - these pitfalls are inseperable from the whole idea of learning morality from old books.
In the end, there is no substitute for an awake, living moral sense. One that does not rest on authorities in the last analysis, but on direct seeing and direct understanding of what is moral and good, from the heart. There is no innovation in saying so. "Is there a man among you who, when his son asks for bread, would give him a stone?" Evidentally, yes - alas. Plenty of pretended moral teachers are asked for moral bread by their followers, and hand out stones - orders to hate so and so - instead.
Morality is morality. There is no finessing it, and identity politics, allegiance to this or that doctrinal code, is not any substitute for it. To its credit, Christian theology acknowledges as much, refusing to regard all Christians as saints in a world of non-Christian sinners, and instead insisting rather more honestly that all men are sinners, Christians included. That honesty, and the clear justice of things like the Sermon on the Mount, are what can be regarded as better about the Christian tradition, compared to others. Always remembering that it rests on the practical moral humility of its adherents, not on any pretended self-righteousness.
As for the problem of the islamicists, it is much easier to state and not at all complicated. It does not depend on old books or on how they read them, or which they read. Anybody who says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar. It is not complicated, they are hypocrites. The leading cause of terrorism is terrorists. Evil men we always have with us. Whether they have power over juster men, or vice versa, that we can change.
Or whether or not you know anything about ancient near eastern history, more like.
"There's probably quite a few folks here that would take offense to your claims on Moses."
I much don't care whether islamists think I am insulting a successful 7th century brigand, and I don't care whether our own home-grown literalists are upset that I don't believe their fairy tales about their King Arthur. They can take all the offense they like. Truth isn't an opinion poll.
While on the subject, I wish also to address those fine upstanding tinfoiled kooks who have convinced themselves there are grand satanic conspiracies at work, and secret powers ruling the world. I am sure plenty of silly people think that of Islam. I am not surprised, when Bob Jones thinks it of Catholics, and Pat Robertson thinks it of Masons, and Lyndon Larouche thinks it of the British royal family, and others nominate - the Federal reserve, the UN, the CFR, the communist internationale, elders of Zion, and for all I know the orbital mind control lasers.
Give Bin Laden and company a little bit of credit for sanity, though none for justice. At least when they challenge the governing power in the world they manage to find some of the right street addresses. The US military actually decides who runs the world, taking immediate direction from the pentagon, political direction from the white house and capitol building, based on wealth and technology created by American capitalism. Those of us who consider that a Good Thing (TM), bother ourselves about seeing that the US military is used reasonably justly, as well as effectively.
Those looking around for guys with horns hiding under beds presumably bother themselves about other things...
I certainly do not begrudge Palazzi his goal. I most certainly do not wish Muslims to enter upon prolonged residence in the West until the good Sheik's goals are met. Neither do I believe the Wahhabis are the only violent sect within Islam.
Just as you and I are formed by the relentless logic of the Christian West, Muslims are formed and driven by a logic that is completely alien to us and has not matured beyond the era of strife and bloodshed in the name of sectarianism epitomized in our own history by the point and counterpoint of a Cromwell and a Bloody Mary. Furthermore, the Muslims Palazzi (and you and I) consider "Bad" want to wipe out all Christian Sects. Luther? The Pope? Calvin? Zwingli; The Vicar of Brae? Makes no difference to them.
Besides the philosophical differences which are now causing bloodshed, slavery, mutilation, and enforced conversion of Christians across the globe, there is the simple question of today's numbers. Cromwell did not have even 50,000 troops with which to oppress Ireland. Bloody Mary burned hundreds at the stake. Ditto Zwingli and Calvin. They executed 15 witches at Salem. The Romans executed thousands.
This sordid litany pales in comparison to the damage now being done in the Sudan and which was done in East TImor. And the number of oppressors in the name of religion dwarfs any total of the worst ever known. The tiny percentage of Muslims who are Islamists, or jihadists, or "Bad" Muslims in Palazzi's book number in the 10's of millions, at the very least.
How many 9/11s does the good Sheik think might occur while he is working his ambitious process? How long does he think it will take him to bring 50MILLION vicious dogs to heel and lead them to the sweet light which he claims radiates from the teachings of Muhammed, May Peace Be Upon Him?
Let the good Sheik make his circuit of the watering places and raise all the money he can for his project. Perhaps the europeans, or our government will back his foundation, or whatever mechanism he develops. But if it includes any more Muslims taking up residence in the West, I'll fight it. I won't be alone, as I predict you'll see if the "bad" Muslims commit any atrocity soon in the West.
What I think you ought to fight is logical relativism. You probably cannot profitably apply the thought processes of the West to Islam. In fact, I think Palazzi is trying to apply a thought process from the East ;;;; Good Kharma. But east or West, if you and the Sheik wish to reform Islam, don't do it in my backyard.
As I understand it these are the only facts known:
There is only one brief mention of a man called Mohammed in any contemporary historical document.
In the Arabic coinage of the time there are no coins depicting Mohammed.
In the Arabic coinage of the time and until much later there are no coins with quotations from the Koran.
The earliest known mosques are not in Medina or Mecca they are in present day Syria.
In the earliest mosques there are no quotations from the Koran as we now know it.
The inscriptions that are there were altered much later to conform to the present text.
Islam probably did not originate in Medina and Mecca but in Syria
which was far more advanced culturally
and had much greater contact with Judaic and Christian ideas.
I am not a historian so I cannot provide references.
However I shall endeavour to do this if you are interested.
I notice, however, that we only learned religious toleration relatively recently. It is not something we've had for time out of mind that is alien in other atmospheres, it is instead a still revolutionary new principle that has simply never been accepted in half of the world. Including the communist half quite recently, in China today, etc.
If you go look at how we learned it, principle did play a role and the arguments for it can be run through and repeated, for those who can listen to reason. But we did not really get it established by deriving it from first intellectual principles - let alone finding it in ancient books, slapping our heads, and crying out "oh sorry, now it is so obvious we've been doing it wrong for the last 1500 years".
Instead, we arrived at the principle of tolerance -practically-. By exhaustion. We tried persecution at the wholesale level in the reformation and counterreformation - and fought ourselves to a bloody stalemate. We gave up, because it did not work in practice. It seems to me this is quite relevant to the present war against Islamic terrorists.
I think we can teach them religious toleration in much the same way we learned it. But thwarting their will to persecute, directly, by superior force. Some of them are having a persecution brain-storm right about now, and think it will somehow help them. We can make sure it doesn't, in spades. While simultaneously working with those like the article writer to hold out a reformed islam, and the carrot of reasonable treatment for reformist countries by the west (e.g. Turkey).
One has to envision the eventual state we can live with as victory. And coordinate our practical actions so that they move things toward it. In the long run, victory will mean islamic countries we can live with, that are not determinately hostile. They will be thinking differently than the islamicists are urging them to think now. A large part of that will be enforcement of practical outcomes, what will work vs what we won't let work. Some will be theoretical justification, in their own traditional terms, some in ours, the language of human rights, etc.
As for how many terrorist attacks will occur while this is going on, fifty to a hundred sizable ones is a realistic estimate. I am extrapolating from history, and things have changed somewhat, so that is obviously just a guess. But millions are not going to actively engage in terrorism. Armies will fight wars, particularly against the weak - Islamic armies have a limited and pathetically inglorious record against opponents that are fully armed. All powerful they most certainly are not.
None of which addresses the religious and political movement involved. Religions are not books, nor are they based on books in their formative periods. Books are means to preserve traditions that already exist, not the origin of new ones. Remember that only a tiny minority of the ancient world was literate in any way, and most writing there was, was restricted to practical matters of rule or commerce. With priestly matters a third, in more civilized areas.
The salient political fact is that both Syria and Egypt were conquered by Arab armies commanded by one caliph Omar, who ruled as successor ("caliph") to an Arabian monotheist prophet named Muhammad, who had already consolidated the support of most of Arabia before Omar took power. This is not any made up tradition, but a massive historical fact clearly seen in the history of the rival empires of the area, Persia and Byzantium.
Omar's political and military system was legitimated by claiming to follow the previous practices of Muhammad, down to the portions of division of spoils, tax laws, who owed military service, and conditions of surrenders. When an area was conquered, those who converted became soldiers in the new regime, those who did not owed tax. "The Muslims" and "the army" were synonomous. They lived seperated in military encampments, under a sort of military-religious discipline.
Some time later, after further military successes, a succession crisis split the force. When the dust cleared, a different family dynasty, headed by the governor of Syria under the previous ruling group, a family that was originally from Mecca but were rivals even there of the previous ruling house, was in charge of the regime. The court moved to Damascus. Seperatist movements remained in existence, though their size and influence is hardly known.
Under the new dynasty, the Omayyads, the whole thing settled down. Soldiers were settled on land in return for owing taxes. A "civil list" supported by taxes grew up. The strict regimentation of the previous period relaxed. And men began writing down - or making up - traditions about the earlier period, and about the actions of Muhammad, to justify whatever they wanted done. With the nearby power of both Bzyantium and Persia already broken, the new regime continued to expand, incorporating all of Persia and most of North Africa, and making inroads into Asia minor. Frontiers and central court were differentiated. Taxes flowing in to the court in Damascus funded construction, art, and literature in a serious way, for the first time in the movement's history.
Less than a century later, the Omayyad dynasty fell apart, in turn. Opposition movements formed around the changes in taxation, resentment of the civil list as producing inequality, disputes over division of spoils, theological controversy as factions fought over their "traditions" and absorbed hellenist, christian, and persian influences. The army shifted from all Arab to mixed Arab and frontier recruits, particularly from Persia. A new dynasty largely backed by the Persian faction of the army overthrew the Omayyads and moved the capital to Baghdad. There it stayed for hundreds of years.
This is the sort of standard history you get from British turn of the century orientalists like Duncan McDonald. There is zero credulity toward Arab legend spinning involved in any of it. Do not confuse Arab legends about the Koran (tremendously falsified for doctrinal reasons) and about Muhammad's particular actions, sayings, and rulings (falsified in detail to support this or that principle or faction), with the basic political history of the movement's formation and political spread. The last is quite well known.
I stated earlier that, yes, there probably was a historical Mohammed
who was a king
and who considered himself some kind of prophet.
The point I was making is
that the Mohammed of the Koran and the Hadith is a mythological person
who bears very little resemblance to any historical person.
Further more, the 'theology' of Islam
(such as it is)
probably originated in Syria not in Mecca and Medina.
Oh geez, the hawks aren't buying - or peddling - the "nuke em all" line. What a shock. And even after you told people to "grow up". Such peaceniks running the pentagon. Sure, a few cattle and snake stories ought to be enough to switch whole governments and nations from the "divide and conquer" politics of justice, to fantasies of extermination.
Me, I am happy to be slightly to the right of those political juveniles, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld...
I did find that the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Mohammed says:
The sources of Mohammed's biography are numerous, but on the whole untrustworthy, being crowded with fictitious details, legends, and stories. None of his biographies were compiled during his lifetime, and the earliest was written a century and a half after his death. The Koran is perhaps the only reliable source for the leading events in his career. His earliest and chief biographers are Ibn Ishaq (A.H. 151=A.D. 768), Wakidi (207=822), Ibn Hisham (213=828), Ibn Sa'd (230=845), Tirmidhi (279=892), Tabari (310-929), the "Lives of the Companions of Mohammed", the numerous Koranic commentators [especially Tabari, quoted above, Zamakhshari 538=1144), and Baidawi (691=1292)], the "Musnad", or collection of traditions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (241=855), the collections of Bokhari (256=870), the "Isabah", or "Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed", by Ibn Hajar, etc. All these collections and biographies are based on the so-called Hadiths, or "traditions", the historical value of which is more than doubtful.
These traditions, in fact, represent a gradual, and more or less artificial, legendary development, rather than supplementary historical information....
If the accepted story of Mohammed's life was simply developed over time as a legend in service of furthering Islam, it shines a different light on events such as Mohammed's massacre of the Jews in Yathrib (before it was renamed Medina, the City of the Prophet), or his marriage to the six-year old girl Aisha, consummated when she was nine. If his life is a created legend, did the early Muslims think that these stories would illustrate the holiness of Mohammed's character?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.