In both cases, Armstrong doesn't really mention more literal interpretations of both the Torah and the Qur'an.... which are remarkably similar. Elements in both religions claim that their holy books existed before creation, and represent the will and word of G-d. Both were indescribably manifest in the physical realm. Like early Christianity, Armstrong represents Islam as the third iteration of the "TRUE" faith of Abraham. Religious tolerance is stressed over and over again in the Qur'an, and Muslims are called on to unify all human activity under the "aegis of the sacred" (p. 220). Why, then, did Muslims demand the dhimmi identify themselves with different clothing, or prohibit them from building houses of worship without permission or from riding on horses?
People have brought up how they can't understand how the State of Israel has strayed so far from the ideal Jewish morals and ethics. I find this question ignorant of historical context and I hope people react with similar amazement at the gap between doctrine and practice within Islam.
4 comments:
I learned one thing we share in common.. our hate for the way Karen Armstrong tries to frame and explain our respective religions.
I have some questions you might be able to answer.
- It was hinted in one of your posts that gaps are apparent between the doctrine and practice of Muslims, I was wondering if you could be a little more specific on this point.
- You may have read my post on the confusion different terms carry, could you help elaborate some more on what you perceive "religious tolerance" to be?
- on your point about the changing of the Qiblah (direction of prayer). A verse came as such.
[And We made the Qiblah (prayer direction towards Jerusalem) which you used to face, only to test those who followed the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) from those who would turn on their heels (i.e. disobey the Messenger). Indeed it was great (heavy) except for those whom Allâh guided. And Allâh would never make your faith (prayers) to be lost (i.e. your prayers offered towards Jerusalem). Truly, Allâh is full of kindness, the Most Merciful towards mankind. {2:1}]
It is in a sense blasphemous for a Muslim to say that the prophet ordered the Qiblah change because we believe he did not act on his own in these matters and only relayed God's words (the Quran).
- as for Christians sacrificing their lives for the Palestinian struggle I would like to bring to your attention a Palestinian group you may be familiar with. The Popular Front for the liberation of Palestine (PFLP). This group was founded by a member of the Christian Greek Orthodox Church. Just a little tidbit there..
- finally, your pairing of Islam and fascism together I take great offense to. Seriously, it's like me pairing Jewish and Nazi together.
you said:
-------------------------
Sup mang?
I don't really know where to respond to your comments...so...ill do it here.
On the qiblah- my qualms are with the writer, who described the change in direction as one of the prophet's most creative endeavors. I see how this could offend Muslims, since the change came from G-d. I was questioning Armstrong's analysis itself, not necessarily the act of changing the direction of prayer. She makes an absolute claim that such and such "is regarded as the most creative gestures." That seems to me like her personal opinion dressed up to sound scholarly. She wasn't clear as to why returning to the OLDER (purer) belief system of Abraham (symbolized by praying to Mecca) was some amazingly creative act? Would you describe the change in qiblah as creative? No you probably would see it as divine will or whatever you want to call it. It was revealed. That's just the way it is.
TIME called Habash the father of middle east terrorism. Resentment and hatred cuts across all religions. But can you find me a suicide bomber from 2000-2005 who blew him/herself up in the name of Jesus? If you can, then I'll eat my computer and feel really dumb at the same time.
If you think that I equated Islam with fascism, then you misread. I have great respect for Islam, just not Muslims who want to kill Jews or Muslims who raise children who aspire to be martyrs instead of doctors or statesmen.
---------------------
as we both agreed.. Armstrong is not exactly the best in explaining religion,
as for Christian bombers I don't think setting a time frame (2000 - 2005) is relevant to the nature of the act. I did find a Christian Kamikaze pilot-- who acted according to what he believes his faith entails. His name is Ichizo Hayashi. His diary is sold on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Kamikaze-Diaries-Reflections-Japanese-Soldiers/dp/0226619508/sr=8-1/qid=1158658286/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7017701-0295346?ie=UTF8&s=books
and finally on fascism, I took offense to the phrasing of Islamo-fascism. There's nothing "Islamic" about fascism, this phrase is a blatant paradox.
I guess I disagree with your initial reaction to Karen Armstrong. I don't think it's necessarily that she loves Islam, it's just that the story behind the birth of Islam is the best, most interesting and cohesive narrative. We discussed in class how Armstrong likes to take literary license. This seems easier to do with Islam.
Post a Comment