Zeyd prays:
"'Peace to the soul of Osman Tahir, greatest man of the Ahmaddiyah Movement since Abdus Salam. He inspired me to this, for Your glory." (p. 67)
See:
We, or at least I, marvel at the rich diversity of religious ideas. What I call imagination, many call revelation.
In the Roman Empire, displaced slaves wanted to believe that their god was omnipresent - that he had not been left him behind in their homeland - and rulers wanted one god for one empire so that monotheism became a powerful force. As a monotheist in the prophetic tradition, Zeyd believes that he will pray to the same God five thousand light years away.
We expect the same laws of physics and also to be able to meditate anywhere in the universe. If not one God, then at least one reality.
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
No matter how mixed the motives of believers in a religion might be, that does not necessarily mean it's a false cult a la the Cosmosophists of STARFARERS. I believe Christianity to be actually, literally, and truly of divinely inspired and supernatural origins. And I also believe things like Lourdes and the Shroud of Turin were meant by God to make it harder for secularist minded types to explain away Christianity the way you summarized above.
I have heard of Ahmaddiya Muslims, they seem to be the only branch of Islam which has rejected Jihadism and the "ideal" of a Muslim ruled theocratic caliphate. The fact so many Sunni and Shia Muslims regard the Ahmaddiya with anger and contempt seems to bear that out!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I find the Ahmaddiya take on Jesus interestingly different.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
If the Ahmaddiya view of Our Lord is that He was more than simply a man, then that won't sit well with Sunnis and Shias. The "orthodox" Muslim view of Christ is that He was only a man, even if also a prophet. IOW, a view much like that of the Arian heretics.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Ahmaddiyas say that Jesus survived the crucifixion, went to India and preached and died there.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That sounds a bit like the legends on St. Thomas the Doubter preaching in India.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is certain at least that Indian Christians received their Apostolic succession from Thomas.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I have no problem accepting that, at the very least, their orders came from bishops and priest ordained by St. Thomas. Most Catholics in India belong to the Syro-Malabar rite.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I did a bit of checking up on the Ahmaddiya, and they have not QUITE rejected Jihadism and a caliphate, merely redefined them in a more peaceful direction. But even that is an improvement on the standard Sunni and Shia view!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Most Muslims in democratic countries effectively practice mosque-state separation. I was at an election meeting where a young Muslim asked, "Why should we vote in elections when the Creator of the universe has told us how society should be organized?" A young imam berated this idea, saying that Muslims should participate in civil society on the same basis as everyone else. The imam obviously knew of some theocratic propaganda and attributed it to "stupid people."
People.
Kaor, Paul!
The problem still remains that too many Muslims continue to think like that young man. And such ideas about merging mosque and state into a caliphate continues to be a very strong ideal in majority Muslim countries. So I would remain skeptical and cautious!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Each religious tradition is one part of a changing society interacting with every other part. Current practice can move very far from the letter of the law - in every tradition.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That is true. But in the example under discussion, Islam, what I have observed in its history has been many and persistent "revivalist" movements unrelentingly demanding that "believers" return to the true path of orthodox Islam. Including MILITANT definitions of jihadism and a caliphate.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Because of social conditions. Militant revivalism is one way of responding to (what is perceived as) injustice and oppression.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't think it's that simple. My belief remains that the POTENTIAL for Muslim militarism is embedded in the most binding (to Muslims0 sources of Islamic doctrine and law. Such as the Koran, Hadiths, and the opinions of the jurists in the four main schools of Sharia law. "Social conditions" merely provides the fuel encouraging flareups of aggressive fanaticism within Islam.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't think that that is a simple explanation! In fact, it depends on far more historical knowledge than I personally have. The questions, "Why is there a Taliban in Afghanistan?" and "What have the great powers been doing in Afghanistan?" are clearly connected. There is nothing "mere" about "social conditions." They are the material circumstances in which people live. Without fuel, there would be no flareups. The doctrinal documents would not influence behavior any more than the Old Testament laws about stoning people to death etc influence anyone now (except a serial killer in a Stieg Larsson novel).
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree. Islamic fanaticism and aggressiveness existed long before the "recent" troubles in the Near East and Nearer Asia. Beginning with Mohammed himself. And Muslims don't have to be poor, feeling themselves humiliated or oppressed to be fanatical. The vast power, wealth, and territories seized by the successors of Mohammed and the Ummayad Caliphs during the first century of Islam shows that. And for centuries the Ottoman Empire was motivated by Muslim ideas and beliefs as a major driving force in its all too frequently successful wars of conquest.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Like European conquests.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And Mohammed himself authorized this waging of wars against all who disagreed with him and Islam. And is embedded in the most authoritative Muslim doctrinal sources. And made a start himself by conquering the Arab tribes. That cannot be denied.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Joshua led the conquest of the Promised land. Christians conquered other continents.
Paul.
Having said all that, Mohammed was clearly more directly involved in military activity than any other religious founder.
Jesus's attitude was a reversal. The Messiah was expected to be either a conquering Davidic monarch or a powerful supernatural humanoid being ("one like a son of man coming on the clouds of heaven...") Instead, he adopted the Suffering Servant model. His own vicarious suffering would initiate the kingdom. The US Cavalry/a host of angels would arrive... That did not happen.
Kaor, Paul!
What Joshua did more than 3,000 years ago cannot be blamed on the Jews of today. And there is not a word in the New Testament exhorting Christians to wage wars of conquest.
Yes, Mohammed was not content with being merely a preacher. If he had been Islam might have soon died out because of how the Meccans were hostile to him. So Mohammed became a warlord after he fled to Medina.
And I disagree with the last sentence of your 8 July 2021 at 2300 comment. The cavalry did arrive: Christ rose from the dead. The Resurrection is what matter, being the supreme proof of the supernatural assertions of Christianity.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment