700 Years to Enlightenment
One commenter in another forum wrote:Of course, 700 years ago if you stuck a crucifix in a bucket of piss or you burned a bible you would probably have been strung up.
However, that’s the difference, isn’t it? Do we really have to wait 700 years for them to become more enlightened?
This is, indeed, a key difference.
Looking around at the world, we can see societies and cultures that began thousands of years BC (like China) and other cultures that have come about much more recently (some of the island nations). In each case, they are fairly close to synchronized now in their "enlightenment" -- including a freshly formed Jewish nation that is modern, democratic, and spinning off tremendous technical and scientific innovation.
Christianity is, of course, several hundred years older than Islam, and Judaism is older yet. The Hindu and Buddhist communities are rising rapidly, hindered only by political situations that are not native to those cultures. (The communist takeover of China was within the lifetimes of some on this board.)
So with all of this, what is with Islam? What's that key difference that makes Islamic countries write into their governing documents that one must be put to death for insulting (or leaving) that religion?
I submit that it started with the Gutenberg press (a device Gutenberg actually lost control of in a lawsuit). When the press became popular, and printed books became the rage, they could not be printed in any Islamic country -- as the plates were cleaned with pig-bristle brushes, and they could not countenance the idea of a pig hair touching the name of Allah, as written in all Islamic writings even if not on religion.
So this one-time repository of knowledge fell behind -- they sidestepped a great surge in the world's stored knowledge.
They've never caught up.
Another issue lies in how they think of their holy works, the Sunnah, al Hadith, and Qur'an. While some of these can be argued about with regard to authenticity, much as Christian and Jewish scholars debate the provenance of their books, the Qur'an is considered a literal transcription of the word of God (Al-lah, "the God") as passed by the angel Gabriel ("Jabreel") to Mohammad, and recorded without the slightest error.
They're stuck with it. It's still in the original language, the classical Arabic essentially created and maintained by the Qur'an and other writings, and they can't argue that a translator got it wrong. (Such an argument will get you a death sentence in several countries.)
There's also no equivalent of the "Old Testament/New testament" dichotomy that changed the rules for Christians. There is something that seems analogous -- the Mecca and Medina sura -- but there was no easing of the core edicts.
The other big difference is that Islam stands alone as having a famous warrior/conqueror as its founder; Jesus was not known for being good with a sword, and Buddha hijacked no caravans that we're aware of, nor did Confucius put large numbers of people to death or enslave them. Those parts of Mohammad are as revered -- and relied upon for guidance -- as any other.
So the path to enlightenment -- the softening of the much-talked-about "sword verses" of the Qur'an, cannot happen the way they did with the fiercer aspects of the Bible, say, like the Old Testament's Leviticus.
Islamic scholars do not want a casual, modern treatment of the faith, preserving its good parts but allowing the Qur'an to be not-quite-authoritative. That way, they feel, lies the dissolution of the religion.
I think they're right -- but the faith will continue to fuel jihad as an official doctrine of uncounted millions until such an accommodation is reached.
===|==============/ Level Head
However, that’s the difference, isn’t it? Do we really have to wait 700 years for them to become more enlightened?
This is, indeed, a key difference.
Looking around at the world, we can see societies and cultures that began thousands of years BC (like China) and other cultures that have come about much more recently (some of the island nations). In each case, they are fairly close to synchronized now in their "enlightenment" -- including a freshly formed Jewish nation that is modern, democratic, and spinning off tremendous technical and scientific innovation.
Christianity is, of course, several hundred years older than Islam, and Judaism is older yet. The Hindu and Buddhist communities are rising rapidly, hindered only by political situations that are not native to those cultures. (The communist takeover of China was within the lifetimes of some on this board.)
So with all of this, what is with Islam? What's that key difference that makes Islamic countries write into their governing documents that one must be put to death for insulting (or leaving) that religion?
I submit that it started with the Gutenberg press (a device Gutenberg actually lost control of in a lawsuit). When the press became popular, and printed books became the rage, they could not be printed in any Islamic country -- as the plates were cleaned with pig-bristle brushes, and they could not countenance the idea of a pig hair touching the name of Allah, as written in all Islamic writings even if not on religion.
So this one-time repository of knowledge fell behind -- they sidestepped a great surge in the world's stored knowledge.
They've never caught up.
Another issue lies in how they think of their holy works, the Sunnah, al Hadith, and Qur'an. While some of these can be argued about with regard to authenticity, much as Christian and Jewish scholars debate the provenance of their books, the Qur'an is considered a literal transcription of the word of God (Al-lah, "the God") as passed by the angel Gabriel ("Jabreel") to Mohammad, and recorded without the slightest error.
They're stuck with it. It's still in the original language, the classical Arabic essentially created and maintained by the Qur'an and other writings, and they can't argue that a translator got it wrong. (Such an argument will get you a death sentence in several countries.)
There's also no equivalent of the "Old Testament/New testament" dichotomy that changed the rules for Christians. There is something that seems analogous -- the Mecca and Medina sura -- but there was no easing of the core edicts.
The other big difference is that Islam stands alone as having a famous warrior/conqueror as its founder; Jesus was not known for being good with a sword, and Buddha hijacked no caravans that we're aware of, nor did Confucius put large numbers of people to death or enslave them. Those parts of Mohammad are as revered -- and relied upon for guidance -- as any other.
So the path to enlightenment -- the softening of the much-talked-about "sword verses" of the Qur'an, cannot happen the way they did with the fiercer aspects of the Bible, say, like the Old Testament's Leviticus.
Islamic scholars do not want a casual, modern treatment of the faith, preserving its good parts but allowing the Qur'an to be not-quite-authoritative. That way, they feel, lies the dissolution of the religion.
I think they're right -- but the faith will continue to fuel jihad as an official doctrine of uncounted millions until such an accommodation is reached.
===|==============/ Level Head