Final Pattern wrote:
Firstly I haven't finished reading the Qur'an yet but I'll try to address your points as best I can. From what I know Muhammad was married to a wealthy and well respected widow fifteen years his senior named Khadija.
She was one of his wives. Another was Aisha, seven-years old at the time of marriage – though Mo, being a respectable and moral chap, waited until she was nine before consummating. Of course, being that Mohammed is their idol - this isn't considered particularly shocking in the Islamic world. Kind of demonstrates my point?
Final Pattern wrote:
When Muhammad settled in the sanctuary of Yathrib (later known as Medina) the prophet made a pact of mutual solidarity between all the tribes of Yathrib that they would defend one another against attack and each tribe would be equal under this arrangement and free to practice their own religion. The point I'm making is that Islam isn't a historical monolithic block of fundamentalism. There is still much I must learn about this fascinating religion.
It’s called strategy. If Mohammed immediately declared war on the entire non-Muslim world – Islam wouldn’t exist. Of course, non-Muslims in the Arabian peninsula didn’t last for too long once his empire was grown.
And no, through its history it hasn’t always been strict to its abominable rule. So much as the Qur’an is distinct from so many other religious texts – the Bible for instance – in its conciseness, linearity and dogmatism: in times of leisure, absolute adherence has been less abundant. This is unrelated with Islam, but rather a universal human trait. Nonetheless – this is not a point deserving of praise, and it has no bearing in modern political discussions.
I would suggest you be careful with further reading, as your thus far positive opinion seems to imply a lack of comprehension. Perhaps alternate with some scholarly Islamic criticism to simulate impartiality.
Final Pattern wrote:
Actually I'd say the problem with some aspects of modern Islam has arised through the West's funding of Wahhabism in previous decades. Hopefully someone else knows more about the geopolitical dimensions to this?
That’s easy to say, but not particularly useful. It can be seen that there are aspects to the Islamic religions that are significantly at odds with western morality. Western morality being the more rational and freedom-centric approach that I would assume you also subscribe to. These aspects are entirely independent of any modern influence.
Further, the ‘West’ is not a meaningful entity. Pointing to any particular intervention and you can follow the blame back to individuals – the ‘West’ is not an ideology. ‘Western morality’ is not equivalent. People love to play the ‘blame game’ until it obscures the original discussion – it’s not impactful.
Final Pattern wrote:
While we're on the point of religious oppression why don't we get onto the Catholic Church which has always been an enemy of progress and intellectual freedom especially in the medieval period when the Islamic world was a bastion of scientific advancement. While in Catholic Europe schismatics, dissenters and reformers were being wiped out and mass murderers like Dominic Guzmán were receiving sainthood. Then there's Pope Paul VI's 'Humanae Vitae' an encyclical so backwards on issues such as contraception and family planning, one might be forgiven for thinking it was written in the early 13th century around the same time Pope Innocent III sanctioned the genocide against the Good Christians of the Languedoc and not as it so happens 1968.
Islam comes out comparatively spotless compared to your Popery I'm afraid!
Yes, Christianity is often ‘bad’ by these standards, Islam is demonstrably worse. Further, it’s a pointless ‘blame game’ again – the fact is: Christianity is dilute and dying, Islam is the opposite. Which should we prioritise?
And no, Islam doesn’t come out ‘spotless’. Even the concept of a ‘pope’ is but one interpretation of the vague doctrine of Christianity, where Islam’s problems can be quickly traced to the Qur’an and Mohammed.
Home
