Comparing religions

[skiguy]

Yes, definitely debatable...as is most everything in the Bible. (the authorship and dating of the NT probably being one of the bigger debates)
I'll just leave it at this: there's a big difference between studying the bible (or any religious text) for scholarly purposes, and studying it because you believe it.

The original question was because I think there are a lot of moral similarities between the 2 religions, and those similarities can be used for peacekeeping. Just wondering if Sarajevo would agree.

[wm]

More to the point raised by Sarajevo is the divine nature of all the texts. The Gospel of John may have been written by Mary Magdalene's great grandson or some out-of-work wino sitting in the ruins of Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba revolt. I submit that the wielder of the writing instrument does not really matter. The important issue is whether the works are the revealed word of a supreme deity. This claim is differentially made for the Koran and for the elements of the Bible, including the Apocrypha and the so-called Gnostic gospels, among others. It is likewise made for the Book of Mormon and the Eleusian Mysteries, to list a very small sampling of a very long list of foundational religious texts. Can any of us refute these claims? The claims of faith are not usually subject to refutation using rational argumentation.

[marct]

Hi Wayne,

Can any of us refute these claims? The claims of faith are not usually subject to refutation using rational argumentation.

A good point. Of course, that still leaves open their refutation by irrational arguments - something that was certainly the case with many of these texts.

[wm]

Hey Marc,

. Of course, that still leaves open their refutation by irrational arguments - something that was certainly the case with many of these texts.

Irrational argument--isn't that an oxymoron? Or did you mean to use that as a polite euphemism for "knuckles" and associated exercises of brute force?

[marct]

Hi Wayne,

Hey Marc,
Irrational argument--isn't that an oxymoron? Or did you mean to use that as a polite euphemism for "knuckles" and associated exercises of brute force?

I was thinking more along the lines of "God says..." or "credo qua absurdam est", but the knuckle dusting refs will do as well .

[wm]

Marc,

I was thinking more along the lines of "God says..." or "credo qua absurdam est", but the knuckle dusting refs will do as well .

The argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to (false) authority is an example of the exercise of brute force; at least that's how I have taught it in critical reasoning classes. By the same token, in the argumentum ad batulum , that stick is a false authority, as is the insult in the argumentum ad hominem, wouldn't you agree?

[marct]

Hi Wayne,

The argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to (false) authority is an example of the exercise of brute force; at least that's how I have taught it in critical reasoning classes. By the same token, in the argumentum ad batulum , that stick is a false authority, as is the insult in the argumentum ad hominem, wouldn't you agree?

This, of course, gets us into the nature of truth - something I try not to get into unless it's face to face with a tangential discussion of optics . Anyway, I've got to run... I'm singing Mozart's Requiem tonight.

[marct]

no i don't think that there is any similarities in this case. but there are many other similarities between these two religions.

Which two religions? You seem to be making a whole series of comments in all of the threads on religion (in general), but no specific points.

[graphei]

Holy Exegesis Batman!

As I've done textual work on both, I'll offer some observations.

First and foremost, the Qur'an as it is known today was not written down until after Muhammad died. If it was written down, there would be no need for those fantastically talented men who've earned the title of Hafiz! A Hafiz is someone who has memorized the Qur'an in its entirety. You can give them the number of any verse and they will recite the correct verse back to you in beautiful medieval Arabic. Verbatim. Although it is written down, it's meant to be recited. In fact, Qur'an is a verbal noun of qaraʾa which means "he recited". How fitting!

Second, I'll offer a different viewpont of thinking about the Qur'an and the Bible. In Christianity, Christ is said to be 'The Word of God made Flesh." While the Bible contains the Word of God, the book itself is not 'The Word of God." Christ is. In Islam, the Qur'an IS the 'Word of God'. The physical object and contents are one in the same. Therefore, it is more analogus to compare Christ to the Qur'an, than to compare the Qur'an and the Bible. The two texts are similar in that both are available from your local book retailer in either hard or soft cover. That's it. The Qur'an does retell stories that are found in the Bible and Old Testament, and certain imagery and word phrases are repeated through all three, so it is possible to compare those specifics. However, any comparisons beyond that are highly problematic.

Third, to be perfectly honest Christians have been called both dhimmi (People of the Book) and kufir (Infidel). That in large part depends on a little known principle called naksh, or abrogation. Naskh is a highly controversial technqiue that has been applied sporadically and unequally throughout Islamic history, and is a method of determining which source will be applied in cases where the Qur'an and the Sunnah conflict (which is often). Unless you're up-to-date on your tafsir and history of each verse, to include its isnad, chain of transmission, it can be like attempting to naviagate a minefield blind-folded.

Fourth, comparing Islam and Christianity- or any two religions, is a broad topic. So broad, Comparative Religious Studies is a field unto itself and scholars focus specifically on a particular point of commonality. If you have questions, I'd be glad to try and answer them, but you've got to give me something more specific to work with or else you're going to get a very general answer.

[Sarajevo071]

The original question was because I think there are a lot of moral similarities between the 2 religions, and those similarities can be used for peacekeeping. Just wondering if Sarajevo would agree.

And Sarajevo wonders why didn't you ask him that directly!?

To save you that hassle of talking to me (obviously you are not big fan of it) let me answer... Do I agree? Yes, I do. But how, when and under which circumstances?! That's something else.

[marct]

Do I agree? Yes, I do. But how, when and under which circumstances?! That's something else.

I agree, it really does change things. So, when do you think it would be a good idea, and when not?

[Sarajevo071]

Generally speaking (we are speaking generally, right?) it will depend who is in question, where, when and why? But I would say not before killings are stooped, invasions are halted, fair reparations are made and respect and trust is gain back... Without that you will have just bunch of people screaming on each others, accusing them for this and that, defending they of guilty sides and spiting on opposites.

This is just my personal opinion from top of my head this night. For something more precise or deeper (!?) I will need to get back to you. Sorry.

[marct]

Generally speaking (we are speaking generally, right?) it will depend who is in question, where, when and why? But I would say not before killings are stooped, invasions are halted, fair reparations are made and respect and trust is gain back... Without that you will have just bunch of people screaming on each others, accusing them for this and that, defending they of guilty sides and spiting on opposites.

Yup - I think we are best off using the general right now. Hmm, okay, I can see why you would say that. I was thinking that it has been used during actual conflicts (I'll try and get the refs, but a couple of places in Africa and Northern Ireland come to mind) as a way to stop the conflict.

This is just my personal opinion from top of my head this night. For something more precise or deeper (!?) I will need to get back to you. Sorry.

No worries - I'm pretty much done for the night myself (too much work, too little sleep), Take care,

Marc

[Sarajevo071]

Yup - I think we are best off using the general right now. Hmm, okay, I can see why you would say that. I was thinking that it has been used during actual conflicts (I'll try and get the refs, but a couple of places in Africa and Northern Ireland come to mind) as a way to stop the conflict.

No need to go far like Africa. Stay closer. Bosnia? Or, since you mention Northern Ireland... Didn't they need for talks to start (and results to shown) new people in charge, different mentalities and let down in fighting (attacks)? IMO, generally speaking something need to really change so people will start thinking about peace and not about revenge for they killed and wrongs they suffer. Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.

[skiguy]

Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.

That's probably when it's the most important time to have talks.

[marct]

No need to go far like Africa. Stay closer. Bosnia? Or, since you mention Northern Ireland... Didn't they need for talks to start (and results to shown) new people in charge, different mentalities and let down in fighting (attacks)? IMO, generally speaking something need to really change so people will start thinking about peace and not about revenge for they killed and wrongs they suffer. Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.

I do agree with Skiguy that that is when they have to start (if not earlier). Over the years, I've done a fair bit of research on how one group stigmatizes another - usually with little or no basis in reality. For example, 2nd century ce Roman authors accused Christian cultists of exactly the same things that later Christian groups accused other groups of - e.g. stealing children to sacrifice hem and drink their blood, casting evil spells (malleficium in Roman Law), seducing youths away from what is "right and proper" (i.e. the official religion), etc.

These types of accusations are really simple to make against almost any group but, when aimed by one religious group against another, they tend to heighten the emotional divide while, at the same time, portraying each other in line with the "demonic" of their own conceptions. BTW, this shows up much more in monotheistic religions than in others - not surprising since their are Manichean elements in all of the major monotheistic religions.

I suspect that Bosnia is, in many ways, a particular type of a special case. Bear with me for a moment, because I know that it is a very personal case for you .

Most mountainous areas tend to hold groups that "lost" in their bids to get better land. In some ways, the areas tend to contain an incredible number of different ethnic groups - think about the Caucuses, the Balkans, the Highlands of Scotland before the Highland clearances. Even when you have only a single ethnic group, it is usually because they "lost" (e.g. Ethiopia, Swaziland). This is one strand that plays out in the creation and maintenance of very strong ethnic identities.

The second strand that tends towards the creation and maintenance of strong ethnic identities is the very nature of most mountainous areas. Think about how food is produced and, also, what other economic activities are followed (e.g. mining, lumber, etc.). All of these activities require both strong teamwork and control over access to scarce resources - a situation that tends to promote strong lineage systems which, in turn, leads to the development of feud cultures with honour systems based around blood vengeance and long memories. Even in the US you can see this in the rather infamous Hatfield-McCoy feud.

This gives us a situation where the social structure and the economic base of the cultures in mountainous areas, such as the Balkans, are predisposed towards conflict and, also, to the use of any symbol system that allows for a) justifications for feuds and b) differentiation between ethnic groups.