Islam.

[epictetus]

So this Afghan bloke who ran over the people in Melbourne was an ice addict and mentally ill (but he was able to retain his licence?).

He was also aggrieved at the way Muslims are treated (everywhere? just in Australia?).

He's clearly psychologically damaged, but there seem to be a lot of psychologically damaged Muslims. They pop up as malefactors quite often, and the police and politicians are quick to identify the mental issues as the main problem when harm is caused.

I'm not going to start ascribing mental illness to Islamic belief and culture (though it's certainly a factor among the Palestinians - no wonder the Arab nations are now keeping their distance from them). But is there something in the life-experience and circumstances of Muslim immigrants from troubled lands that is going to incline them to mental and emotional instability?

I think there is, and it might include

• Traumatic experience pre-immigration
• Cultural alienation in Australia
• Religious and community leaders' discouragement of integration
• Fundamentalist preachers' encouragement of hostility and resistance to non-Muslim culture and people
• Failure to achieve personal goals and find stability

I would think that, especially, the cultural and spiritual alienation that a young single man from a place like Afghanistan might experience here, combined with the fact that he may not be able to find a wife owing to his lack of success, could make such a young man addictive and mentally ill.

But not necessarily hostile and homicidal. The wish to cause mass homicide is a very extreme consequence of alienation combined with a belief that one is unquestionably superior to one's victims. I suspect strongly that these feelings have been provoked and encouraged by an extremist preacher at a mosque or Islamic study centre. I would expect that the Victoria Police will be closely investigating this man's networks, especially Islamic ones and their key figures.

The police say they have no record of him as a threat (ice-addict, mentally ill, drives an SUV - no bells ringing there?). But Islamic grievance seems to be the motivation for his act: the other conditions are factors rather than motives, so why haven't the police been surveilling extremist preachers and the young men who sit at their feet? Can they really not know who they are? I doubt it.

Still, keeping an eye on every young misfit who might just want to harm the general public is very expensive and probably logistically impossible, so as long as we take in seriously disturbed people from seriously disturbed countries, especially Islamic ones that regard non-Islamic states and people as blasphemous, we can expect that attacks on the innocent will occur from time to time.

[cster]

Our intake of immigrants form traumatised nations is far too high for an aggrieved nation like ours. We are in strife and wont admit it. Yet we continue to take people in. I'd plumb for line 3,4 and 5 of the above 5 likely reasons contributing to his actions. With less immigration comes a chance to allow them to assimilate, one matched to our present employment circumstances. With less unemployment we'd be in a better position to assist any young fellow who needs help acclimatising to Australia. But we don't have that advantage. The Parliament wont back down, so we can expect to see more of this and the reports of street gangs doing harm to our nation's cities and beaches. Just comes with stupidity. Might he have found work and had less influence from his religion he may have not ended up doing what he did. His hierarchy would have to be removed for things to change. We cant shoot the lot of them just as we cant shoot the Parliament that ok's their unassisted presence here. So we have to take a step back and study the chaos from far enough to see if there are any patterns. Then act accordingly. Be that avoidance or meddling I don't know.

[forge]

IF (10years ago!) YOUSE could understand the Italian/French language, YOUSE would have been "gifted" of the gift of reading & foreseeing the future of Australia and...ATTEMPT to act accordingly! The "changes" happening in Australia NOW, were visible/happening in Europe THEN!! Italians and French nationals, are NOW into (nose deep!!) the "Fantastic Masses of Asylum Seekers"!! They,Italians & French, are hotly debating and engaged in deep dissertations ON "How to control the FLOW" of the SOO many valuable "additions" to their populations. The Australian Population?
WHO KNOWS!?!? Even the Intellectually Active Seniors, will (eventually/may be!!) realize that it is far TOO late to DISCUSS the "shut the gate NOW"...there is NO gate...it has been...stolen & burnt!!
Forge
PSS.++So we have to take a step back and study the chaos++
Far...TOO late, Cster!! The soil BEHIND you has been eroded! Behind US there is an increasing HOLE/VOID...NO soil to allow US to "step back"!!

[epictetus]

Yes, Forge, global movement of people, willingly or unwillingly, legally or legally, is an unstoppable force.

Australian multiculturalism has been successful because it hasn't thrown the integrationist baby out with the assimilationist bathwater.

Australia never accepted the US "melting pot" model, in which the differences among immigrants would be boiled down over time. Australian policy has accepted that migrants will retain their culture and character for at least two generations.  Australia has not accepted ghettoisation, though, while recognising that new immigrants, especially refugees, have tended to congregate in certain locations for good reasons. The second or third generations have moved out though.

Australian multiculturalism has been officially bipartisan, too, since the 1989 National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia. And it has not been culturally relativist or rootless. It is based on the English language, British-derived institutions, the Constitution, and the mainstream values of the host society (though that it now being challenged by the post-national and post-modern Left). Immigrants have been encouraged to nurture the things that are important to their identity, but without rejecting the social foundations that underpin the historic host society.

Given that background and the widespread adherence to these principles and values by the immigrant communities until the emergence of recent minority resistance in some communities, Australia has a successful model with which to approach the challenge of international migration and human movement.

Whether it can stick to these principles - whether "the centre can hold" remains to be seen. There certainly appear to be some cracks in the wal, and they could get out of control with unforeseen (humans are unpredictable, as is the future in general), but civilly disruptive effects.

[forge]

Good morning Epic. Your last post is overflowing by respectful respects, respectfully offered to please Every and One &... Most and Them!!
In 1969 I applied to the Australian Government to obtain a Visa Permit to migrate to Australia. While I waited for the Visa, I had a technical position offered in the aircraft industry...somewhere near Wollongong. Within 3 monts I could have “moved” to Australia.
At THAT time, the prospective "migrant", had to show reasons WHY He/She was deserving of a Visa. The Australian Government decided. At a certain point/time, the Australian Government LOST THAT RIGHT. Now the Government MUST give reasons WHY a Visa is NOT granted. My dear friend Epic, you may continue to increase the production/length/number of your posted posts...to fill this forum and another 11 related/unrelated forums. All Forum DO need platitudes that will please ALL/MOST members or…NO answers and/or the posts are ignored. Do youi understando il myo Englisho??
Migrants/Immigrants USED to ask/apply for a Visa/Permission BEFORE they "visited" the Selected Country.
My English is rather poor. Epic, would you answer these questions:
1) If I need shelter, and I asked/beg you to accommodate ME at YOUR place. WHAT/WHO am I?
2) If I take possession of a room (and facilities) at YOUR place and...YOU are compelled to provide lodging/food/money/medical services...WHAT/WHO am I?
Forge

PSS. Please, do NOT waste your precious time to produce/release...hot air balloons!!
++Australia has a successful model++ and surrounded by a buffer of...thousands of km. of OPEN SEAS. You forgot to mention THAT!?!?!?
Careful, Epic! Your comments/posts MUST NOT hurt  the feelings of : wife, relatives, past/present employers, local fruit and fish suppliers, overseas friends, son in law, uncle....!

[epictetus]

Forge, Forge, Forgeous Forge .... Where on earth did you get the impression that I am defending unrestricted immigration or open doors for refugee claimants? Comprehension 101: Fail. 

No need to re-read. Just take it from me, I'm not. Period.

All I was saying was that, in the event, e.g through wars, famines, collapsing economies and states, that Australia may have to take in more immigrants/asylum claimants, then we have a model that has been helpful and may continue to be helpful in absorbing the newcomers, even if they are culturally unattracted to Australian values and way of life. It's certainly a better model, for the reasons I stated, than the concept of multiculturalism in Europe, which appears to be based on cultural relativism, ghettoisation, and postmodern (i.e. entirely subjective) morality.

I believe the present government should stay firm on its policies regarding illegal arrivals. I also think the proposals by the Treasurer to further restrict welfare entitlements to immigrants are sound and should apply to asylum-seekers as well, even after they have been given permanent residential rights. If it is not possible for genuinely needy refugees and displaced people to be denied welfare benefits (e.g. they have no relatives or support community here and would be begging outside railway stations or climbing in your windows), then the criteria for receipt of benefits should be very strict and clear.

The world, says I, the 21st century Nostradamus, is on the edge of a catastrophe caused largely by corruption, fiscal irresponsibility, vote-chasing, cupidity, ignorance, insularity (psychological as well as physical), religious tribalism and over-populaton. Nation-states will burst at the seams, and the survivors and their leaders will be those with the most and biggest guns and the charisma to gather followers. We will be back in the days of barbarism (and Mad Max, though I haven't seen any of those films?). People will take off in all directions, and boats and shanghaied aircraft will be hard to keep back. The arrivals will come armed and desperate. If we still have a working government here (though any funds it has will have had to be expropriated), it will need to have a strategy whereby the new arrivals, knowing they can't take over altogether, will see the benefits of compliance with our models in return for safety, security and the freedom to be entrepreneurial (they won't be without skills and talents). 

Before these scenarios take effect, however, we need to be strengthening our multiculturalism along the lines of the 1989 platform. I can't see any other way. To adopt a free for all approach will be more snouts at the trough and rent-seekers in the lobbies of parliaments. The "stockade" approach, where we just try to keep everyone out, will only work for a short time unless we inside are united and strong. Unfortunately, we're not.

Only a return to respect for our fundamental British-derived institutions and cultural values, together with active social tolerance and recognition of the need to be different in some ways will provide a firm enough basis on which to build a multicultural society that can absorb incomers without indulging them and promoting unreasonable and unsustainable claims to "rights" and "equality".

I'm pessimistic, however. I suspect the whole edifice will collapse under pressure and the law of the jungle will prevail until some powerful Uber-Warlord restores order. Then off we'll go again.

[epictetus]

Faith no more

Sami Shah and Ishma Alvi thought long and hard about Islam before deciding to renounce it.

THE WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN MAGAZINE, JUNE 17-18, 2017

My name is Sami Shah, and I’m not a Muslim. I was born a Muslim, I grew up a Muslim, but at a point in my life I stopped being a Muslim. You can do that, but it’s not encouraged. No religion gets excited when an adherent tries to leave and Islam tends to frown on apostasy: it’s illegal in most Muslim countries, ­punishable by death in some. This is what the Quran says about apostates: … if they turn their backs, take them and slay them, wherever you find them. [Quran 4:89]. Now, I would really like that not to happen to me.

Every time I meet someone new, their first assumption is that I’m a practising Muslim – it’s practically an occupational hazard. It doesn’t upset me. I know that I have a Muslim-y name and a Muslim-y face. Brown skin, black beard, “Allah 4 lyfe” tattooed across my forehead. OK, so maybe not the last part. But I do have a face that’s Muslim-y enough that in a hostage situation, I’d be the suspect. Even if I was the hostage.

Growing up, I didn’t know it was a Muslim-y name or face. I was living in Pakistan, so it was just another face, just another name. Then, in 2012, I migrated to Australia, and all of a sudden I went from background scenery to curiosity. That’s ­actually unfair to parts of Australia. In Melbourne, for example, you can have a 17-syllable name only pronounceable through a combination of whistles, semaphore, eyebrow curls and a 13-person flash mob, and people will go out of their way to make you feel as though that’s just how it is for everyone. And having a beard means you’re expected to own a ukulele, not implement shariah law.

Unfortunately, I didn’t move to Melbourne when I first landed in Australia. Instead, because the immigration department has a sense of humour all its own, I spent almost four years living in Northam, a small country town two hours’ drive from Perth. I still have many friends there and an appreciation for the West Australian ­countryside – a thing of unparalleled beauty. But a small part of my love for Northam has to do with how far it is from the world I’d just left behind.

Sami Shah
Pakistan is a Muslim country. The religion ­suffuses every portion of the country: from the ­government to the media, and even to everyday conversations. To suddenly be away from Pakistan was a relief to me. I didn’t have my aural environment filled with constant calls to prayer, every sentence wasn’t ended with a religious invocation of gratitude for Allah’s blessings, and I could openly proclaim myself an atheist.

My departure from Islam had been gradual. I didn’t just wake up one day with the decision that I was no longer a Muslim – I came to it over time. Comedy replaced Islam as my primary identifier but it wasn’t this that caused Islam’s hold over me to disintegrate – rather, it was my decision to start truly studying the religion. By 2006, Pakistan’s briefly peaceful period under the rule of the dictator-president General Pervez Musharraf was wrapping up, with increasing terrorism. What stood out for me wasn’t just the mass murder and carnage initiated by the extremists but also their religious justification for it. The religion I had been told my entire life was a religion of peace – an argument I myself had propagated when ­confronted with Islam’s critics while studying in America – was ­comfortably being used as a ­religion of war.

I decided then that if, as Islam’s defenders claimed, the extremists were perverting their pure religion, then perhaps if I studied once more I could counter those perverted and twisted arguments with the true wisdom of Allah. Except, a close ­reading revealed no true wisdom to me. Every time I approached it, I found the Quran to be maddening as a text – dense and convoluted. I found the Old and New Testaments equally incapable of ­having relevance to modern life.

I came to believe that the rest of Islam, derived from the life and times of the Prophet himself, was worse, containing phrases and quotes so contradictory that you can use them to justify almost anything you feel like doing. On the positive side, many Muslims lead lives of sharing, caring and empathic humanity because of just how vague those pronouncements are. However, if religion really is that Rorschach blot that I found it to be, then it’s no wonder psychopaths and mass murderers can also find within it whatever they seek.

So in Australia it felt good to no longer be ­surrounded by Islam. I looked forward to never having to worry about it again – until my daughter came home from school one day and began to tell me all about Jesus.

We’d put her in a Catholic school. It was close to our house, all our friends’ kids went there, and everyone told us it had the best-quality education in town. And, to be honest, I didn’t consider the “Catholic” part of the Catholic school to be that overt. So when, one morning, my daughter began lecturing me about “Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”, I had a bit of an adverse reaction. What threw me into confusion wasn’t that I disliked the idea of her having religion. It was that I suddenly really wanted her to have some Islam in her life. At that moment, I realised that I may no longer be a practising, believing Muslim, but I’ll always be a cultural Muslim.

Until my daughter started talking about Jesus, I hadn’t considered just how much a part of my ­cultural genealogy Islam was. I’m proud of the ­culture that suffused my early life; or, at least, parts of it. Some things, like the grotesque misogyny, I’m happy to be rid of. But I still listen to Pakistani songs; some of them even make me cry. As does the right painting, or story. And I wanted my daughter to enjoy those works too. I wanted her to have some connection to the land of her birth and to the family she still has there. She needed to know why her grandparents prayed regularly and who exactly Muhammad was.

Both her maternal and paternal grandparents are still in Pakistan, so I asked them for help. And so their weekly Skype sessions with my daughter became about Islam. The Islam countered the Christianity enough that she enjoyed hearing and reading about both, but stopped caring about either. She didn’t talk about Islam beyond the Skype conversations, which, I felt, was just the right amount of Islam in our world.

My daughter is the main reason we migrated to Australia. If I’m to be perfectly honest, had I had a son, I would not have left Pakistan, despite the threats against me [in response to columns and news satire Shah wrote as a journalist]. Because, based on my own personal experience, being a boy in a Muslim country like Pakistan is a lot ­easier than being a girl. As a boy, your freedom of movement is unrestricted, you’re free to dress however you want, and your level of personal safety is much higher than that of a girl. I wanted my daughter to grow up in a place where her ­freedoms were the same as mine.

Nor am I alone in believing that; my daughter’s mother feels much the same. Ishma Alvi’s understanding of feminism within and without Islam has had a big influence on my own understanding of it. Which is why I turn this story over to her.

Ishma Alvi
I am an ex-Muslim. I was born into Islam, so a relationship with it was unavoidable. But by the time I was 17, I realised that Islam did not like me – not me personally, but women in general. I started seeing Islam as swinging between benevolent sexism (if there is such a thing) and venomous misogyny. So, Islam and I took a break. The relationship was on the rocks anyway; teenage rebellion beckoned. I drank and had sex and wore what I wanted.

Islam and I got back together when I was about 20, as a result of two events. The first was that I enrolled in a masters program at the ­University of Karachi. The campus was an hour away, so I decided to take public transport. Women from the higher socio-economic classes did not – in fact, still do not – use public transport in Karachi. There were horror stories about women on public ­transport being sexually assaulted and raped so I decided to defend myself by wearing the Arab-style abaya: a floor-length, closed-front gown made of heavy fabric, a hijab with niqab and gloves. And it worked – I felt protected from the worst of the assaults, and felt safe and even grateful to Islam for offering me this option. Islam had wedged a foot in the door of my psyche. At that time, it didn’t strike me that the only way for me to feel safe as a woman was to cover my woman-ness; that being a woman was the ­barrier to safety.

The second event that let Islam get a foot in the door of my life was that a close friend had turned passionately to the religion, embracing the hijab and abaya, along with religious classes called dars, which I started attending with her. The leader, a woman named Farhat Hashmi, encouraged her students to seek an education but was quite clear on her interpretation of the role of women within Islam – as primarily compliant with and obedient to their husbands. She also supported the idea that polygamy (by the men) was something women should be comfortable with as “other sisters can also ­benefit”, i.e. share the wealth. And she suggested that women could function as the saviours of their men, rescuing them from non-marital sexual intercourse (and thus, from the hell-fire) because men will be men. There was no mention of female sexuality – women were receptacles, handmaidens and pious saviours.

Despite my acceptance into this group, I was angry most of the time. Not just angry – I struggled with rage, doing things that put me at serious risk, like standing in front of a speeding bus to make sure it stopped for me, taking a crowbar to a man who tried to grab me between the legs as he walked past, throwing a brick at a car whose driver had tried to sexually solicit me. Some might argue that I was raging against a culture that was pitted against me. But I no longer differentiate very much between culture and religion when the boundaries between the two are so vague, as is the case in Pakistan.

I was tired of struggling to fit myself into what Islam wanted; tired of trying to make myself smaller, to hide my woman-ness just so I could be safe; tired of trying not to question things that were blatantly against me as a woman; tired of forcing my dissonance to resolve itself by citing faith, by citing context of the Quran. So Islam and I broke up for good. It wasn’t an impulsive decision: it took thought and reflection, and I homed in on the key issues that I couldn’t simply dismiss any longer.

For one thing, the issue of domestic abuse, where the Quran states: Men are in charge of women by

what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. [Quran 4:34]

The obvious and the implied, in this single verse, summarise the entire attitude towards women in Islam. It does not matter to me – as a woman, a ­psychologist or a human being – whether “strike” is with a feather or a rod: abuse is not only about physical pain but also psychological pain and fear. And why would a man have to discipline his wife, anyway? Another area that I couldn’t just accept on faith alone was to do with a woman being valued as half a man: … And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her… [Quran 2:282]

The Quran here is quite clearly stating that a woman is half a man: in judgment, in comprehension, in the ability to be objective and just. It can, and has, been generalised to an overarching ­perception of a woman’s ability to use her brain.

It’s also saying that women are ultimately to be obedient and submissive to men, that it is incumbent upon them to “save” their men from hell-fire by accepting polygamy, that a woman is not to inherit from her own parents what her brother might, that a woman can be beaten, that there is no legal/standard age for marriage in Islam, that marital rape is not directly and clearly addressed in Islam (a non-issue). That the woman is to cover herself, again to save the men from their carnal lusts. That there are guides to disciplining a wife/woman. And, finally, that there are no equal or even similar guides for women to be used with men/husbands. For all these reasons, I knew that I could not go back to Islam. That a return to Islam would be a betrayal of my gender.

Muslims in general, especially the ­moderate kind, twist themselves into convoluted knots trying to explain away the blatant misogyny ground into the fibre of the religion. They cite ­context: context of the verses, context of the times, context of the politico-social environment. But context serves no purpose except to excuse and justify. I’m frankly bored of the arguments to do with Quranic context and interpretation that are feebly used to defend this or that sexist verse, because none of that changes anything in terms of women in Islam, nor does it make it more palatable.

The most controversial of Islam’s impositions on women, due to its visibility, is the hijab. Let me be clear: I by no means feel that the hijab should be banned. But my perception of women who wear it has become slightly skewed. Where once I was unquestioning about what I perceived to be an informed choice, even defending friends who chose to wear it later in life, I now speculate about the basis of that choice, whether or not it was informed.

I gave some thought to recent female converts to Islam. They do not have the prior conditioning and have no predisposition to wear the hijab, so perhaps their choice is truly objective and informed. However, I need to come clean about my own biases first. I feel that if someone has converted as an adult, they are seeking something that they hope to find in Islam, and will probably be willing to embrace the rituals, dress codes and mores to get to what is sought. It’s a decision perhaps based on a hungry need, not intellectual understanding.

While I’m clear on where I stand on Islam and my choices, I would like to think that I take issue with the religion and not the people. Whether I can neatly separate the ideology and the people who put it into practice is what I’m still trying to resolve. There are groups within the Muslim community that I take particular issue with – such as the fundamentalists – for impinging on the rights of women due to their literalist interpretation of the Quran. But then, to follow this train of thought, these very people are actually following the Quran as it’s written, with no convoluted explanations or hiding behind context: practising Islam in the way it was meant to be practised, in simple black and white. Therefore, as much as this literalist group is damaging women, they are at least easy to identify and address. However, the moderate groups – the Muslim reformists and Muslim feminists – are tangled in knots of convoluted arguments; they are the ones who create the cognitive dissonance, blur choices and boundaries.

So what, in my opinion, does Islam need to do? Islam can do nothing; it is a concept. Only ­Muslims can bring about a more female-positive change. This can happen when they stop presenting convoluted arguments that function only to manage their own dissonance and maintain the status quo. Justifications such as “But it was the first feminist faith” and “It’s about context” and “It depends on the interpretation” need to be discarded.

When the apologist approach to Islam from moderates ends, acceptance and an objective examination of Islam and women could happen. Which might be the impetus to positive change – reformists could then look at reinterpreting it from a women-friendly standpoint. But, frankly, I don’t see how that can happen. Even if it is reinterpreted, how can that new standpoint be accepted worldwide across the various Muslim subgroups and sects? And then be consistently practised and maintained so that the new practices and beliefs supplant the old ones? Maybe reformists and ­Muslims have the answer to this one. I don’t.

In the end, I believe Islam is not a religion for women, nor a religion for our times, or for any time – because, at its very heart, it does not like women. And since I’m a woman, I don’t like it back.

Edited extract from The Islamic Republic of Australia, by Sami Shah, $32.99 (ABC Books)

[epictetus]

I hope the Jihadis don't read The Australian. They probably don't; it would be above their IQ level.

Actually, critics of Salafi Islamists are usually left alone as long as they're writing for a limited audience of, e.g. fellow academics and students, but once they become public figures, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then they're threatened and the police have to provide them with extensive protection services.

If I were Sami Shah, as a public figure, I'd leave the apostasy story at that - a piece in the Oz. I'd not refer to it again in public. His wife is not a public figure, so until she becomes one, she should be OK. Not altogether safe, though. I'd advise them to stay away from windows and lock up securely at night. Keep the car in a lockable garage. Don't let the little girl go to school by herself.

Sad, but these things have to be kept in mind.

[forge]

Epic.....I enjoyed your post & the comments and the to and from between you and Forge ..... and Forge..... and Forge.....and ALL the others!

Epic, Keep It UP. People like me learn/learnt SO MUCH from this Thread & ALL the posts posted..... It is valuable, interesting, very deeply informative and very useful in so many DAILY & future occasions/situations and the frequent/casual deep dissertation!!++ LOOKS GREAT and F A N T A S T I C!!
Forge

PSS. Our Seniors Group have read and animatedly discussed the first 53 pages of your latest post. All the Seniors have asked Forge to THANK YOU, Epic!!

[epictetus]

In my earlier post on the Meccan surahs (chapters) of the Qur'an I noted that there are 86 Meccan surahs and 28 Medinan ones, but the Medinan surahs tend to be longer and more proclamatory than those uttered by the Prophet in Mecca.

The Meccan surahs, I suggested, largely performed the following functions: They
- warned the Meccans of God's Judgement
- described to them the horrors of Gehenna/Hell/the Fire
- affirmed the prophetic status and role of Muhammad
- alerted the Meccans to the punishment they will receive if they do not believe what Muhammad is telling them
- warned the Meccans of the horrific punishments they will undergo if they "ascribe partners to God"
- provided examples of communities and individuals that have been punished for their disbelief
- gave reasons why monotheism makes more sense than polytheism
- promised the Meccans that they will be well rewarded if they worship Allah alone, obey the Prophet, honour their parents, give alms generously, look after orphans and widows, act honestly in their commercial dealings, do good to others, recognise the essential equality of human beings regardless of their social status, and encourage others to recognise and worship Allah alone.

The Medinan surahs do all of the above as well, though with far fewer repetitions of the Old Testament punishment stories; however, in Medina the surahs provide the legal basis for the Sharia that developed over the next 200 years. This formative legal function of the Qur'an includes:

proclamation of laws regarding marriage, divorce, inheritance, sexual propriety, disciplines regarding women, adultery, rape, fornication, relations with Jewish, Christian and polytheistic communities, fair trading, division of war booty, payment of taxes, compensation for wrongdoing, rights and obligations of treaty participants, treatment of slaves and captives, rights of infants (including banning of female infanticide) and orphan children, responsibilities for performance of military jihad and exemptions for the weak, ill and aged. (I'm sure I've forgotten some.)
    
It is also noticeable that in the Medinan utterances, God takes a close - indeed intimate - interest in matters concerning the daily life of the Prophet and his wives and community. He criticises those who enter the Prophet's house without knocking, who stay too long and who speak too loudly. He takes Muhammad's side in disputes with his wives and some others who are named. He commands the Prophet's wives be curtained off from visitors (the origins of purdah and Islamic women's dress and headwear). He reassures the Prophet that nothing improper happened between Aisha and the young man who found her and guarded her in the desert after she became separated from the convoy. (This let Aisha off the hook, too. Very handy, though on another occasion when the revelation affirmed Muhammad's preference in a personal matter she told him that his visions were sometimes very convenient.)

God takes a close interest in Muhammad's battles and raids, reminding him that He sends angels to help turn the tide, but that if the Muslims lose, as at Uhud, it's because of their disobedience or haste to get at the booty.

A number of incidents involving Jewish leaders or their representatives are recounted, placing the Jews in an unfavourable, tricky and perfidious light. Christians are nominated as the best of the People of the Book, as they have monks who set an example of asceticism and spirituality. Later, however, Christian monks are excoriated for their corruption and self-aggrandisement. And, throughout both the Meccan and Medinan surahs, believers are reminded that Christian trinitarianism (as Muhammad misunderstood it) is blasphemous and denied by Jesus himself. Apparently, Jesus's followers were calling him the literal Son of God even in his lifetime. However, he set them to right by quoting the Evangel to them. (Muhammad seemed to believe that the "Evangel"/Gospels was a book that was revealed to Jesus and used by him in his teaching. Maybe "book" in this case does not refer to a finished and bound work. The Qur'an refers to itself as a "book" even in Meccan days, 40 years before the Qur'an was collected as a standardised codex.)

I believe that Muhammad was seriously disappointed that the Jewish tribes did not accept him as a prophet in the Judaic tradition. He saw himself as a successor to Abraham, Moses, Jesus and the other Jewish prophets and was angry when the Jews refused to accept him and belittled his claims. Hostility to Jews intensifies in the Medinan surahs.

Muhammad was a great leader and a man who attracted steadfast loyalty from his followers. I doubt there's much disputing that. The fact that there are tens of thousands of accounts (hadiths) of his sayings and doings, whether authentic, hearsay or fabricated, suggests a man who had an enormous impact on the people around him as well as further abroad.

The Medinan surahs are the Qur'anic basis for the hadiths that followed. Most hadiths ( a very high percentage, from memory) recount events in Medina. Islam really began in Medina when Muhammad became no longer a voice crying in the wilderness, but the inspirational leader of a growing and ultimately successful community. Medina was the place and time when the template for what became Islam was set down. There was little theology other than strict monotheism, a passionate belief in the Last Day, and some natural theology regrading evidence for the existence of God and that God must be One, not many. There was a strong sense of identity, however, based on the charisma of the Prophet and loyalty to him.

Terms like "Islam (used 53 times in the whole Quran) and "Muslim" (used 44 times) did not yet refer to an organised religion or a formal creed. They were loose terms connoting "submission" and "one who submits". The general term used for people who had formally acknowledged God and His Prophet was "believer" (mumin), and men went on jihad to fight "in the cause of God", not on behalf of "Islam". This continued through the 7th century until the Umayyad caliphs brought some formal coherence to the religion of Islam as a set of beliefs distinct from Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Sabaeanism (South Arabian religion).

[cster]

Ha Ha Mrs Aisha seems to know him very well.
So far all the Major religions are all based on revelations.
Moses had gad revealed to him
Islam had God revealed to the profit
God revealed himself to Mary the virgin.

Nowhere have any of these gods delivered to a multitude so some sort of verification could occur.

All have occurred in roughly the same piece of turf on the globe.

If I was that Sami Shah I'd just leave it be.

[madametarot]

Dec 29, 2017 17:43:42 GMT 10 cster said:

Ha Ha Mrs Aisha seems to know him very well.
So far all the Major religions are all based on revelations.
Moses had gad revealed to him
Islam had God revealed to the profit
God revealed himself to Mary the virgin.

Nowhere have any of these gods delivered to a multitude so some sort of verification could occur.

All have occurred in roughly the same piece of turf on the globe.

If I was that Sami Shah I'd just leave it be.

God does walk among us - it's me - I am the great god of misery - you should have no trouble proving I exist with all the misery that is around us all. I am doing a great job of distributing misery.

[epictetus]

Dec 29, 2017 17:43:42 GMT 10 cster said:

Ha Ha Mrs Aisha seems to know him very well.
So far all the Major religions are all based on revelations.
Moses had gad revealed to him
Islam had God revealed to the profit
God revealed himself to Mary the virgin.

Nowhere have any of these gods delivered to a multitude so some sort of verification could occur.

All have occurred in roughly the same piece of turf on the globe.

If I was that Sami Shah I'd just leave it be.

Hi Cster

The Abrahamic/Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are based on revelation and the prophetic tradition.

Hinduism and Buddhism are not. They are based on analysis of phenomena and experience. Buddhism has a prophet-like founder, the Buddha, but he did not receive revelations. His teaching was based on observation and analysis.  Both Hinduism and Buddhism are rich in mythical stories, but they are not essential to the core teachings.

In Catholic Christianity there have been some cases of apparent revelation to large numbers of people. Perhaps the most famous one is the "Miracle of the Sun" at Fatima, Portugal 1917. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

The Sami Shah article, I have since discovered is pretty much quoted from the first pages of his book The Islamic Republic of Australia (1917). The book is written in comedic style though though by no means flippant.

[epictetus]

Dec 29, 2017 18:09:23 GMT 10 madametarot said:

Dec 29, 2017 17:43:42 GMT 10 cster said:

God does walk among us - it's me - I am the great god of misery - you should have no trouble proving I exist with all the misery that is around us all. I am doing a great job of distributing misery.

Hi God. Hope you had a good Christmas. We'll be back NYE.

[cster]

Hi God I hope you had a great Christmas and Have a great new Years Eve. Why didn't you reveal yourself to someone?
Or is that considered rude these days.

[cster]

1917 seems to have been a rather primitive time what without any Helio-physicists to back up the claims. Though local government officials and everyone else should probably cover it.

So we no longer see it as relevant? Does anyone do as she forecast or requested of the kids of Fatima.

Did we forget?

[epictetus]

The Third Secret was written down by one of the children, Sr Lucia, a Carmelite nun, in 1943 when it was feared she might die of pleurisy (she eventually died aged 97 in 2005). It was placed in an envelope and sealed to be opened in 1960. It was released in 2000 by Pope JP2 and is believed to relate to the assassination attempt on the Pope in 1981. There is some controversy as to whether the secret that was revealed is the same as the one that Sr Lucia wrote down.

The perceived phenomena at Fatima were a bit similar to those attested to in 1998 just north of Bangkok, on behalf of Wat Dhammakaya, a pretty dodgy Chinese-Thai Buddhist movement.

Here's something I wrote about that in 2010 in a review of a book on the Dhammakaya movement:

7. Perhaps the most spectacular Wat Dhammakaya epiphenomenon was the reported “Miracle in the Sky”, which occurred before thousands of Dhammakaya followers in September 1998 (and which bears a strong resemblance to the widely known Miracle of the Sun reported at Fatima in October 1917). Something occurred or was believed to have occurred that set Dhammakayan nerves tingling and tongues buzzing. However, reports differ as to what actually happened. The Temple reported that the sun was “sucked out of the sky” and replaced by an image of Luangpor Sot [the founder of the movement]. Others saw him as a golden statue, and others as a giant crystal. Professor Somsuda of Kasetsart University saw Luangpor in the sun, but Mr Termpong of the Thanachart Trust (now Thanachart Bank) saw the sun emitting flashing rays and an image of the Buddha. Who knows? Public ephiphenomena of this kind are seen as legitimation at a comprehensive level of the religious institution in whose name they occur – often the Roman Catholic Church, as at Fatima, Lourdes and Medugorge (this one popular, but contested by the official Church). Dhammakaya’s miracle gives credence to Donald Swearer’s view that the Temple sees itself as an international spiritual force while at the same time a bulwark against a possible impending decline of the monarchy and religious institutions in Thailand.

My favourite "phreaky phenomenon" is the "Hindu Milk Miracle". 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle

[forge]

+++Good Morning Cster!! The Forecast of the Kids of Fatima (and their immediate descendants) are VERY much remembered and their teachings are part of the Education Curriculum of the Argentinian Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Schools!!

Good Morning Epic Epitectus!!
++Professor Somsudatteluki of Kasetsartatu University saw Luangporani in the sun, but Mr. Termpongaru of the Thanachartarri Trust (now Thanachartemuntori Bank) saw the sun emitting flashing rays and an image of the Buddha. Who knows? Public epiphenomenal of this kind are seen as legitimating at a comprehensive level of the religious institution in whose name they occur++
We, the Members of the Aged Senior Citizens Post Religious Pizza Eaters Eastern Chapter (Thirroul Spiritual Retirement Village) were seriously discussing the same & latest epiphenomenal version of the Christmas dinner menu!! The 132 Members of the Restricted Spiritual Inner Prjuctanas Group were equally adamant that THEIR versions of the Graatedsantousin Parmigianutori was the CORRECT and the most believable. There were 4 active groups of Retired Pensioners:
1) 33 were favorable to the Bariukstani version
2) 33 were favorable to the Jankmutratastleu version
3) 33 were favorable to the Makartatsuia version
4) 33 were favorable to the Bebugguredifweknowtatsiuna version

The Unduterranaia Nurse has asked Forge to thank the Main Producers of the Spiritual Enhancing Kykatranturiatarx Posts.

Great posts!!

Forge

[cster]

So no mention of the milk phenomenon Pryor to the Equinox? Or they ritually had their eyes closed earlier?

I've no clue how so many people can see something and it not be known by scientists.
The Northern and Southern Lights appear in the Exosphere some 700km to 10,000km up If it appears right there with the northern lights then why cant it be so with these phenomena? Just seems like nobody ever checks this stuff out.

The exosphere is huge when I think 700km I think take the BMW too far to walk. When I think 10,000km I'm thinking lap of OZ. OK that's usually 12 to 14 for those that do it because they don't just stay on the bitumen but generally its the equivalent of a lap.

We've only got to look at our own Troposphere to see mirages and dust devils to know strange things occur just by observing.

Still all the really incredible miraculous stuff is supposed to happen in a war zone, One does wonder at times if that best describes the middle east best.

[cster]

We the members of the Aged Senior Citizens Post Religious Pizza Eaters Eastern Chapter ( Thirroul Spiritual Retirement Village) were seriously discussing ?? Seriously discussing?? what nothing to imbibe? Surely you all should have been raucously discussing the dinner menu. I'll have a Tia Maria and coffee in ice thanks.

[epictetus]

Jan 2, 2018 6:25:43 GMT 10 cster said:

I've no clue how so many people can see something and it not be known by scientists.
The Northern and Southern Lights appear in the Exosphere some 700km to 10,000km up If it appears right there with the northern lights then why cant it be so with these phenomena? Just seems like nobody ever checks this stuff out.

The fifth dimension, Cster.

But how do we penetrate the fifth dimension with four dimensional equipment (eyes, ears, etc)?

Maybe it's just all in the mind/s. There's a lot we don't know about the mind.

[BlueSky]

The following is a letter to the editor of the Herald Sun (Jan 2, 2018 Edtion):



On New Year’s Eve, after 26 years as a bail justice for Victoria and performing in excess of 5000 out-of-sessions hearings around the CBD and western suburbs, out of pure frustration and legal attitude changes, I resigned. I now reflect on the “most livable” city in the world. In every aspect of our lives, we live with varying types of risk. Each presents a problem of remedial or preventive action. We have seen the state government removing unsafe railway crossings, and everyday we hear from Victoria Police about ways to stop the death road toll. We have banned the use of deadly drugs and activities like carrying guns since Port Arthur. Many things in our world are causing death, destruction and refugee hordes, such as dictatorships and factional wars. But the one thing more than any other that is causing more harm today is Islam. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if Islam was treated in the world, and particularly in Australia, like the risk it is to our health, we would be a safer place. Starting with Bourke St car attack, there have been more deaths through the existence of Islam than any other risk is the world, e.g. World War 2. So why don’t we do anything about it, be proactive, not reactive? The Koran or Islamic holy book directs perpetrators. Even the Ilsmaic prophets and imams tell us that. So why do we have Islam? No other religious order, to the best of my knowledge, caused one single death or been a risk to world peace. So who is keeping Islam alive and well, and for what reason? I don’t have a problem with the people who worship Islam, but they have a problem with me. Why? Happy New Year. And be careful.

I think the author of this letter has kind of summarised the main problem in Australia today, but does not have any idea as to why these things are occurring. I recently had a discussion about Islam with a self-confessed socialist work colleague. I bluntly stated that immigration from Arab nations ought to be stopped. His position was that it shouldn’t be stopped because Irish immigration was not halted during the days of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The main problem I see with his argument is that adherents of Islam, as opposed to terrorists in the British Isles, live out of a book that not only contains violence but promotes, sanctions and mandates ongoing violence. And that in my opinion is the big difference between Islam and every other world-view. And if you add in the warnings by some leading Islamic scholars that the lines between moderate and radical Islam are too thin to contain any stable future permutations, then woe betide anyone born in this country from herein because they are the ones who will be dealing with this $h*t.

[cster]

Yes it is recognised as a problem, so is youthful enthusiasm, we have in place protocols to help deal with youthful enthusiasm. It don't work but we have them. I'd expect we have protocols for religious enthusiasm too, Islam in particular. Equally so they don't work. Many would possibly, only be reassured if they banned the worship of and confiscated the property of the religion. Time will tell.
Most of the issue with immigration or refugees is they intend to stay. Many seem to believe they should go back when the fuss dies down. Our government doesn't see that. Once elected out of office and none of the two biggies are in then and only then may they sit up and take notice of the peoples concerns. Or even address them.

This thread is sort of a "clue us in" thread, but you are not alone with your point of view.

[epictetus]

Thanks BlueSky and Cster.

BlueSky, did you see the letter in the paper itself or get it from another source? The reason I ask is that a couple of sentences and phrases in the letter made me question its authenticity.

For example, the sentence, No other religious order, to the best of my knowledge, caused one single death or been a risk to world peace, seems quite extraordinary coming from an educated man. The Thirty Years War? (3 - 11.5 million deaths). The Reconquista (7 million deaths). The Crusades? (1.7 million deaths). Surely an experienced magistrate has some idea of these things just from his or her general knowledge. (His grammar would be better, too.)

And the clause, I don’t have a problem with the people who worship Islam ... This is a very strange statement from one who, professionally, is expected to be precise and accurate, but I've never heard anyone say that Muslims "worship Islam". They worship Allah, or God; they profess or practise or follow or adhere to Islam, never "worship" the religion itself. 

However, taking the letter at its face value, he is accurate in that (a) there are Muslims who would threaten our safety, and (b) those whose first responsibility is to protect public safety can only come up with protective measures after the event, and only then after considerable prevarication and denial as to the cause of the events that they are now protecting us from. This is a far cry though from, as he suggests, treating Islam (i.e. Muslims) as an international pandemic of a fatal disease, to be cured by ... what? Banning migration from Muslim nations might be helpful, but if they are carriers of a communicable disease then surely they'll find other ways to spread the poison. (NB. I do support some restriction on immigration from those countries, or at least very careful vetting.)

I agree that Islam is problematic. So is Catholic Christianity. Though it no longer attempts to subjugate people by force, it is a cause of other problems, as we've been well apprised of in the past couple of decades. All forms of Christianity have lent a hand to propping up corrupt states, including slave states, if they saw benefit in doing so, and all opposed the Enlightenment. Catholic and Orthodox Christianity set their face against any kind of liberalism. Protestantism badgered the world during Imperial days with nonsensical biblical literalism, fortunately without much success in countries with a rich and developed culture already in place. Although people are angry, I don't see any advocacy of banning Catholics from immigrating.

All religions, as all political philosophies, are problematic. Islam has been fairly dormant outside its heartlands since the 16th century, but has, with the help of vast financial investment by the Saudi government, experienced a resurgence in resentment and revanchism especially since the UN's creation of the State of Israel in what the Arabs saw, regardless of a Jewish history that ended 2000 years ago, as Arab and Muslim territory. The bungling US campaign in Iraq has added to Muslim grievances, as well as US intervention in Afghanistan and Syria, in all of which campaigns the US has shown itself to be out of its depth. ISIS, Al Qaeda and other anti-western movements attract the loyalty of Muslims who believe that the West is out to destroy them and Islam.

The trouble with the argument that "the Qur'an teaches offensive jihad, therefore Muslims believe in offensive jihad" is that most Muslims don't see it that way. The ones that do are usually visible (thick beards without moustaches, Arabic clothing, etc) and very few of them are actually courageous or mentally deranged enough to fight offensive jihad. They just admire the ones that do while keeping a safe distance themselves. These guys are usually not very bright, and the brighter ones come from the technical fields - IT and engineering, the occasional doctor. They are not theological giants by any means.

Most Muslim imams and their followers in Australia cherry-pick the good bits from the Qur'an and the Sunnah and explain away the bad bits by referring to the context, the times, variant translations of key terms, etc. Most Australian Muslims do not attend Friday prayers at the mosque (women are not required to, anyway). They may go to the mosque for counselling from the Imam, for cultural events and Islamic celebrations, or for youth activities and the like. The preachers of violence meet their disciples in other places - bookshops, Islamic centres, private homes, etc. 

Some Imams brought in from overseas are very conservative (remember the role of Saudi money). But they are not encouraging their small and inoffensive congregations to go out and commit murder. They just want to keep women in their place, men to keep paying the Zakat (religious tax), and Islam to be kept alive and well amongst the young. And I suppose most of them sincerely do want their followers to lead good lives and get to Paradise at the end (this usually requires strict adherence to a plethora of rules and restrictions).

And then we should keep in mind the growth (though hard to quantify) of young Muslims who no longer believe in or practise the faith. They are Muslims in name only, though they are sensitive to what they perceive as Islamophobia because they see it as an attack on their heritage and their families, and they feel solidarity for Muslims under pressure from the West in countries of the Middle East.

To the extent that Islam is a significant Abrahamic religion (therefore an irrational belief-system), and is usually found in traditional societies or immigrant communities from traditional societies, is struggling with modernity in terms of values and behaviours, and is resentful about colonialism and what they see as injustices against Muslims by neo-imperial powers, especially the USA, then it is problematic, but also very human. Humans generally are not very rational in their choices, believe things that their parents taught them, struggle with change, and tend to be irate and resentful at times. They share these traits with Muslims. Unfortunately, at present, Muslims seem to display these characteristics in a more magnified form. Telling them to change won't help though. Telling them they're all ignorant and vicious bastards won't help either and is far from the truth. Police and ASIO surveillance is important. They can't hope to catch everyone; nevertheless, the surveillance already done has prevented a number of attacks, some of which would have been very serious.

I don't think we can launch a campaign to isolate and spotlight Muslims in Australia, encouraging them to see the error of their ways. They don't all live in Lakemba (though a lot do). They don't all wear Arab gear. They don't all put Islam at the centre of their lives. Many are Australian-born (and have rights), and many are in most respects indistinguishable from non-Muslims. They will most likely not eat pork, though, and will probably have strong views about Israel, but many will have a drink with you and express views on a whole range of matters that agree with yours.

Perhaps the one sensible thing the West can do to prevent malignant Islam is to stop intervening in the Arab and Muslim World. It's too complicated and is usually counter-productive. We're not going to minimise dead babies and displaced refugees by joining in with Arab and Muslim dogfights. Now the US is in bed with Saudi Arabia, the chief source of money and men who've taken up Jihad against America. Go figure! Realpolitik always beats ethics and justice. But for us, and for the unhappy retired magistrate and letter-writer, perhaps the best advice is still to "Keep calm and carry on".

[epictetus]

On the immigration issue, I would suggest someone who has had active involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood or its offshoots should have to be questioned very carefully before approving a visa application. What kind of involvement was it? For how long? How long ago? Questions like these need to be asked and followed through. Same would apply to other named groups or movements, e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah, Hizbut Tahrir, Taliban (Pakistan), etc. The UAE government has put out a list. 

www.thenational.ae/uae/government/list-of-groups-designated-terrorist-organisations-by-the-uae-1.270037

[cster]

We have a list here in OZ
www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-04/bikie-gangs-by-colours/4999510

It's by no means as long, and it don't list the sibling street gangs which inhabit all of our major Cities.
But it does at least advise that they have been actively seeking New Ethnic Members and gangs.

One may see the day religion takes a back seat to the crimes taking place. But as you say people are want to resist change, but one day It'll happen.

[BlueSky]

I read the letter in the Herald Sun. However, the name and address of the person who wrote it was not given. I tend to agree with your observations, but I think the person was referring to the causation of death or disruption to world peace in the present tense, not past tense. I also picked up the bit about worshipping Islam as well as the sloppy or rather awkward writing with a few comma splices and whatnot. I’m far from being an expert in linguistics, but the one thing that stands out for me is the grammatical style. It’s mainly written in the passive voice which is normally reserved for the sciences; in contrast, someone with a background in law or literature would tend to write with the active voice as it’s more direct and specific, so maybe that’s a hint that it is not genuine.



You’ve raised a number of varying points, and I’ll very briefly offer up a few lines of reasoning on the following subjects only as much as time allows. Christianity consists of three main broad categories or taxonomies: Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism. Specifically though, it’s centred on one person and not on a particular denomination. In saying that, all Christianity is Catholic, but for our specific purposes I think you are referring to Roman Catholicism. The fact is that there has been an Australian Royal Commission into the evils of sexual abuse within that particular religious institution; in contrast, no such treatment has been intended for Islam.



I’d much rather Muslims find a way to ‘spread the disease’ from their own lands, not within ours. This is much in the same vein that my work colleague also argues for the legalisation of marijuana. Despite the fact that it’s linked to mental ill health, exposing young minds to it can’t be anymore of a problem than exposing children to the hazards of alcohol. The thinking goes that alcohol is responsible for home spun violence and it’s here and it’s legal, so why not allow dope? I’m not big on conflating things, and Islam ought to be treated with utter seriousness, on its intrinsic worth, and whether or not it has any value to this country. I don’t think it does.



It’s worth bringing in some context to the enlightenment. France led the enlightenment but was in turmoil. In the 18th century the Roman Catholics were in control and tied to the monarchy and aristocracy. As a consequence, the leading thinkers of the enlightenment saw a corrupt monarchy led by a superstitious church - which led to a lot of anti-church sentiment.



Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and John Toland, both exhibited religious convictions with the latter being a deist. They talked about how reason could be applied alongside revelation as a way to unite society both culturally and politically. On the other hand, Carl Becker firmly laid to rest, or if not, called into deep suspicion the idea that the Enlightenment was in anyway progressive. Keep in mind that Becker was not a Christian. As part of his lecture series delivered at Yale, ‘Heavenly City of 18th Century Philosophers’, he wrote:

"If we examine the foundations of faith of the philosophes we find at every turn, the philosophes betrayed their debt to medieval thought without being aware of it. They denounce Christian philosophy, but rather too much after the manner of those who are but half emancipated from the superstitions they scorn. They had out of the fear of God, but maintained a respectful attitude toward the deity. They ridiculed the idea that the universe had been created in six days, but still believed it to be a beautifully articulated machine, designed by the Supreme Being, according to a rational plan, as an abiding place for mankind. The Garden of Eden was for them a myth, no doubt, but they looked enviously back to the golden age of Roman virtue, or across the waters to the unspoiled innocence of an Arcadian ivilization that flourished in Pennsylvania. They renounced the authority of church and Bible, but exhibited a naïve faith in the authority of nature and reason. They scorn metaphysics, but were proud to be called ‘philosophers.’ They dismantled heaven, somewhat prematurely it seems, since they retain their faith in the immortality of the soul. They courageously discussed atheism, but not in front of the servants. They defended toleration valiantly, but could, with difficulty, tolerate priests. They denied that miracles ever happened, but believed in the perfectibility of the human race. We feel that these philosophers were at once too credulous and too skeptical, they were victims of common sense. In spite of their rationalism and their humane sympathies, in spite of their aversion to hocus pocus and enthusiasm and dim perspectives, in spite of their eager skepticism, their engaging cynicism, their brave youthful blasphemies, and talk of hanging the last king in the entrails of the last priest, in spite of it all, there is more of Christian philosophy in the writing of the philosophe than has yet been dreamt of in our histories."

From memory, Becker offered up insights into the use of language through the 13th-20th centuries. Basically, the idea was that words relating to religion or more specifically theology were slowly calibrated throughout the centuries to reflect changing perspectives. This later developed into methodological naturalism whereby all features of the natural world can apparently be explained purely in material causes. All of this was analogous to Auguste Comte’s idea when he reasoned that science goes through three distinct phases of scientific thought: theological; metaphysical; and the positivistic vision.



Anyway, thanks for the discussion and insights.

P.S. You did leave out the Armenian Genocide, which is notable in history.

[cster]

Sounds like Carl Becker had more than one conversation with Thomas Payne, who said that God gave us reason. Perhaps Becker had that in mind with his Nature and reason statement.
Consciousness over cognisance, Cognisance being the Animal brain activity in us and Consciousness being that part of god the spark if you like that links us to the god consciousness of the universes gave us reason.
Payne doing the same thing maybe around the same time. Said God gave us reason and we created religion to block reason with faith in revealed revelations.

Ah well that's the gist of it anyway.

[epictetus]

Thanks guys.

BlueSky, I agree with your view that Islam hasn't much of value to offer Australia, but unfortunately most Muslims disagree. I would alert you to my suggestion that there are more than a few young Muslims who no longer believe in the religion but are in the closet because they don't want to upset their families or they are afraid of extremists who may do them harm.

Although Islamic teaching may have little of value for most of us, Muslims include lots of very decent people, and they may well have something to offer as exemplars of family closeness and loyalty, self-discipline and clean living, and an alternative to the very conformist centre-left mainstream thinking that passes for intellectual discourse in our country. In my web-based complaint, as an enrolled student at Charles Sturt University, at the Vice-chancellor's intervention in the gay marriage plebiscite, the only one who backed me up (and very eloquently) was a Muslim. Whether we were "right" or "wrong", we were the only ones to bring in a different point of view.

Sami Shah, the comedian, has written a very good book about the conflicting strands in the Islamic communities in Australia, especially questions of loyalty to the nation, the status of women, attempts to reform Islam and reinterpret its teachings, attitudes to fundamentalists and radicals, freedom of speech, perceptions of "Islamophobia", and Islamic education. Shah, a Pakistani Shi'ite by origin, is an open ex-Muslim, as is his psychologist wife Ishma Alvi, who wrote a chapter on women and Islam in the book which she ends by saying "Islam ... does not like women. And since I'm a woman, I don't like it back".


The Islamic Republic of Australia, by Sami Shah. (ABC Books)

[forge]

1) our own Troppo Sphere ?? Spheres & olive oil should be of a reasonable size! Going troppo is deleterious to a slim belly!!
2) The fifth dimension, Cster. YOU forgot…THAT dimension!?!? Go and write 50 times : THANKS GUYS & GIRLS ( or GIRLS & GUYS?)
3) Thanks BlueSky and Cster.
4) Anyway, thanks for the discussion and insights.
5) Thanks guys.
6 ) A bag half-full of sincere THANKS from Forge and the Restricted Group of Annointed Members of the Retirement Village of Thirroul!!

Are WE approaching the “Thanks YOU & ALL” stage of this deep and meaningfull desertification? Should I have written dissertation?