The New Islam

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

a little sigh of relief there, i thought they were going to reinterpret islam to fit their needs.

But Asad, we do that anyway. The different schools of thought follow different Hadith. There are also some obscure Hadith completely contrary to the message of the Quran, and some people believe in them as if they are "Gods Word". I think the role of the Hadith needs to be marginalized. The Quran is enough.

 

[mujahideen]

But Asad, we do that anyway. The different schools of thought follow different Hadith. There are also some obscure Hadith completely contrary to the message of the Quran, and some people believe in them as if they are "Gods Word". I think the role of the Hadith needs to be marginalized. The Quran is enough.

I totslly agree with you. We and this also includes me follow Islam or interperate Islam the way we want to follow it. This really must stop, if I go to three mosques, I can say that the meaning of the same line I will find three different meanings. Let us just take the meaning of the word "Jihad." Now I am not going into what I think it means, on this forum this is already being discussed on another thread, we all have different interpertuations on this issue. The question is why? If we are all Muslim and I am talking only about Muslims, why the difference? I thought we all are reading the same Quran? The questions must be answered and answered fast before its too late.

 

[Samudra]

A few months ago a couple of members harangued me for having suggested that there are many many interpretations of any books. All facts and phenomena are bi-polar or multipolar or relative. There are many possible views about any fact or phenomena. That is the answer and the challenge.

There was a time when I believed education would bring in enlightenment. But radicalism is more prevalent in the literate circles than the illiterate areas. If the literature Mullah who can read the Hadiths or whatever doesn't go to a village most Muslims in a village at the bottom of the hill won't know and care about what is correct and not. In the place of religion they'd adopt cultural and native practices.

The infallibility of religion shall have to go. There is only a certain limit to interpreting and re-interpreting. The gross intolerance towards anything remotely critical of religion shall have to go. The religious superiority complex shall also have to go. More importantly the insecurity and paranoia about religion and jews shall have to be dumped. Wait, what is the source of all of the above things that have to go ? Religion. If I had a choice, that shall also have to go.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Samudra:

The infallibility of religion shall have to go. There is only a certain limit to interpreting and re-interpreting. The gross intolerance towards anything remotely critical of religion shall have to go. The religious superiority complex shall also have to go. More importantly the insecurity and paranoia about religion and jews shall have to be dumped. Wait, what is the source of all of the above things that have to go ? Religion. If I had a choice, that shall also have to go.

Agreed with all the above except that "religion" as a source has to go. Man will continue to find ways to denigrate fellow man - if not for religion, narratives of another sort, based on perceived cultural, racial superiority and/or injustice, would have and/or will take place.

Secular or religious - the goal needs to be the synchronization of societal/cultural/religious values with axiomatic rights as much as possible. Where religion holds strong, needed change can be achieved much quicker through it, and therefore it should not be marginalized.

 

[Samudra]

Man will continue to find ways to denigrate fellow man - if not for religion, narratives of another sort, based on perceived cultural, racial superiority and/or injustice, would have and/or will take place.

I'm very skeptical nay disappointed about the claim that religion keeps man away from denigrating another man. I look at all these proclaimed Islamic nations the legal discrimination of the non-Muslim is a reappearing feature of their written constitutions. One look at history - the persecutions of Jews in Europe, Hindus in India, Pagans by early Christians, the Christians themselves persecuted earlier, the continuing persecution of non-Muslims by Malaysia, the legal and very inhuman, ugly discrimination of most Middle Eastern countries, the persecution of the lower castes in India all prove religion is in fact a *source* of denigrating another man not a solution.

We cannot grant religion immunity. I see no reason why religion won't and can't take the blame as much as racial and ethical issues have to. Religion with its claim of divine origins has not helped mankind anymore than ethnicity, nationality or even monarchy.

Where religion holds strong, needed change can be achieved much quicker through it, and therefore it should not be marginalized.

I'll draw a parallel to that in the Communists ruthlessly crushing religion. They believed eliminating or suppressing religion and other factors such as ethnicity could help them achieve change quicker. When religion holds strong we see the above examples of persecutions of minorities. I'm very welcoming of an example that would show the domination of religion has indeed brought about so many positive developments in a nation. The domination of religion has eliminated to a relatively large extent the native cultures of many places like Arabia, Persia and Mesopotamia. If anything was positive it happened to the conquering forces behind the dominating religion not to the victims.

Religion at the end of the day is merely another factor exploited to the advantage of few over many. The divine and spiritual aspects does not take one bit of guilt away from the original entity.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Samudra:

I don't think that religion keeps man away from denigrating fellow man at all - I am arguing that in its absence man would simply find other means of doing so. I think what is important, from either an atheistic or theistic perspective, is to acknowledge that we can be limited in terms of our understanding of ethical and moral issues - and that we must continuously analyze and reinterpret our values to better sync with a changing world that brings about situations and challenges not seen before.

Religion can be a tool, but so can anything else, the idea is to keep religion limited to the personal rather than the political sphere - I would argue that any ideology, once it permeates the political, has the same potential for harm that religion does - and to validate that I would point to your example of communism, where one section of people, who disagree with the dominant political ideology, are being persecuted.

 

[Samudra]

don't think that religion keeps man away from denigrating fellow man at all - I am arguing that in its absence man would simply find other means of doing so

Ah I get it. I misread you last nite. Lack of sleep.

Religion has rarely been kept confined to personal sphere. It would be a very hard thing to do in the case of Islam because the religion is quite political and generally speaking more outward oriented than say Hinduism. It has passed down personal laws, criminal laws, a political setup in the form of the Caliph etc.It seeks to be a complete overwhelming all encompassing set of codes. I'm pessimistic about the vast majority of Muslims being able to get past the Islamic code to adopt the modern codes for the reason that God's word is well, God's word and as you had previously mentioned there is this hope of utopia associated with the religion. One can hope religiosity declines over time. But harbor no hope for the immediate future. Merely keeping a lot of people away from radicalism and reforming the many Islamic government systems of the world is biggest challenge of this age.