Is the muslim faith/way of life in the middle east as similar to when it started?

Sidhe said:
yes it's stupid really, but that's religous ignorance and a general will to disosciate our technology from Islamic research, I always wondered how the slide from the Islamic golden age into very slow research actually happened, was it a gradual decline in education or just a will to move towards God and away from science?
QUOTE]

My friend what you have asked can be answered by many books:). We cannot relate backwardness of muslims only to religion or the decline of education after 11th century but I can give several examples so you can build an overall picture:

1. Imam Ghazali is one of the most influential Islamic scholars and still today, in a case of religious dilemma, modern theologs refer to him. According to Ghazali (he lived in 11th century) all sciences except ilim(note that science in Turkish is bilim) which is science of religion are unworthy to be interested. Especially Ghazali points out ilahiyyun scientist, whom we may think as philosophers, are totally unnecessary. So what is special with this? Ghazali's ideas directly struck the intellectuals and philosophers of Islamic world who were enthusiasticly researching deep into Greco-Roman and Hellenistic ideas and sythesizing them with Islam. What happened? The lively intellectual world that was discussing many topics disappeared and what scientist(!) was left were now only interpreting Quran and Muhammed's words(hadith) Eventually Islamic societies became closed into their very own traiditons and what they took from others were only technical innovations.

2.With the light of first example, I will tell about the destruction of observatory in Istanbul in 16th century. When Galilei and Kepler were making breakthroughs in astronomy, Ottoman government was ordering destruction of the single observatory in the city by the fetva (religious advise but it is a binding advise) of Seyhk-ul Islam (head of clergy). What is so special with that? 2 centruies ago, in the Central Asia, again Muslim-Turks build one of the most advanced and impressive observatories in the known world under Ulug Bey (a Turkish astronomer as well as ruler of Samarkand.) At that moment Europeans were advancing to the enlightenment age, while we were going even back from our current level.

3.Decline of education is of course another important issue. What happened in Europe so that science and education never declined to that day? First of all education and science in Europe institutionalized and those institutions were supported. I believe many intelligent muslim scientists came into being while Faraday or Pascal were making their experiments and research. and I believe they found support from their Sultans but! They, themselves were supported, not an institution that would spark continuity of scientific approach.

To these point also I can add socio-economic factors, like decline of the importance of trade-routes, ongoing wars like Mongol invasion or Ottoman-Safavid struggle and etc... I think I was able to draw a basic picture about the decline of the Islamic community compared to Europeans and clarified some question marks.:)
 
It helps that there were so many European states in competition with each other, spurring on research, whereas in the Middle East there were just a few large empires like the Ottomans and the Safavids.
 
Sashie VII said:
Mohammadean is an incorrect term. Muhammad was a messenger, a prophet sent by God. He did not found Islam, only spread word of it.

And Osama has like, how many wives? definitely more than four. By what do you mean orthodox? Islam has not changed over the centuries, only the interpretation by the people


When I used the term mohammadean , I meant it . It refers to the law established and based on the life of Mohammed ( from the Hadith ) .


@ Sidhe

It is unfortunate that the more orthodox you become in Islam , the more horrible things you have to do . For example , according to orthodox opinion , the attacks of 9/11 were justified , because the people killed were mainly infidels in an infidel land , which had no covenant with the Muslims .
 
aneeshm said:
When I used the term mohammadean , I meant it . It refers to the law established and based on the life of Mohammed ( from the Hadith ) .


@ Sidhe

It is unfortunate that the more orthodox you become in Islam , the more horrible things you have to do . For example , according to orthodox opinion , the attacks of 9/11 were justified , because the people killed were mainly infidels in an infidel land , which had no covenant with the Muslims .

Not orthodox, that's extreme misinterpretation and a misguided evereagerness. Making war on infidels, is not something that is sought to be done all the time. War is always a last resort. Heck, the very word "Islam" means peace.
 
Sashie VII said:
War is always a last resort. Heck, the very word "Islam" means peace.

Incorrect . "Islam" means "submission" . Also , the conservative orthodox interpretation is that war is mandated on infidels until the whole world is Muslim . This is not my opinion , but the opinion of the clergy .
 
aneeshm said:
Incorrect . "Islam" means "submission" . Also , the conservative orthodox interpretation is that war is mandated on infidels until the whole world is Muslim . This is not my opinion , but the opinion of the clergy .

Which clergy, if I may ask?

It is mandated to always try to spread Islam, yes. But not necessarily through war. A conversion to Islam must be of free will, and Islam forbids the use of force to get converts.
 
aneeshm said:
It is unfortunate that the more orthodox you become in Islam , the more horrible things you have to do . For example , according to orthodox opinion , the attacks of 9/11 were justified , because the people killed were mainly infidels in an infidel land , which had no covenant with the Muslims .

That's the point of view of a psycopath Named Osama Ben Laden who thinks he reprensents the Islamic religion, not the point of view of the actual Muslim authorities.

I'll give you an exemple :

A KKK priest profanes tombs of Islamic people. On AlJazira, a videotape of said priest profanating the tombs and saying baaad things 'bout Islam is beeing difused. Muslims watch AlJazira, nothing else. What opinion do you think they would get ??

I've met a coupla' true Muslims. They never endorsed 9/11...





Inqvisitor said:
No other religion on earth has such a strong central authority which maintains unity of faith like no other.
... and that's how Orthodox, Protestant, Mormon, etc... faiths appeared...
We got a central power, OK. It's good to have it, OK. But please... It's like when the pope talks about disencouraging use of condoms while AIDS is propaging like hell in Africa... Catholics make mistakes too, not only Muslims or Mormons...






Inqvisitor said:
The Crusades by Hilaire Belloc, an actual Catholic source. Not your local high school campus ministry director...
Well I just read the book description : I'm sorry to say that (I know it's kinda appealing to bashing...) but in 2 words : *Catholic Propaganda*.

"Makes history come alive and gives a rare, true appreciation of Christendom and of our Catholic forefathers!"
?? LOL

"the Turk," savage Mongols
I'm sorry for Turkish people reading this thread... This does not reflect the opinion of all posters...
Crusades = a biiiiiiiiiig war for a parcel of terrain 1000km away, killing Muslims to get there. Enough said. Now if you want to tell me the Christians were right to do it 'coz it was their holy land and they wanted to control it, ok, but please, by saying "we are going to fight the infidels and reclaims what is Holy from their barbaric hands who threatens us all" you're no better than Al Qaida.
I might not be answering th OP ('has Islam evolved?'), but i would say that Christianity, on other hand, didn't so in many aspects.



/OT off : I think Islam has really evolved, maybe not too much, but I think it's still adapting. The problem with it I think, is that Islamic "rules" and recommandations are too specific, while Christianity's stay larger and can more easily be aplicated under different occasions. It's like the "don't eat pork' thing: back to Mohamed days, it was a good recommendation indeed, as it helped people stay healthy. Nowadays, becoming obsolete. But smart Muslmis don't stop on details like that, and know the true essence of their religion.

Sure you still get some mentally disturbed persons from time to time (good ol' Benny Laden) that make claims of faith opposed to the actual Islamic ideology... But that doesn't represent the majority at all (even though on CNN these times, when you see a Muslim it's most likely an infidel-bashing terrorist...)

Cheers, and I hope I didn't hurt anyone

ZiP!

EDIT : typos and grammar. Sorry for my bad english.
 
Thanks for that concise breakdown Favorius.

@aneeshm:

Sounds like orthodox isn't ironically anything like the religion Islam I know or the original religion, that is indeed sad, profoundly so.

I have seen some Islamic forums, they appear to be unlike anything I would say would be orthodox based on your definition, that at least is some comfort.

The orthodox Muslims sound like they should reread the Quran to me? I think there missing the point by an enormous margin. I always thought it was abhorent to Islam to force your belief on non believers, this appears though to be what they are advocating by military means? Sound like a bunch of religous heretics to me. I'm not sure how to phrase it exactly I think the word breakaway sect would be better.

or maybe cult would be better you decide:-

cult Audio pronunciation of "cult" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klt)
n.

1.
1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
 
Sashie VII said:
@ZiP!

Islam's not that rigid, in a sense there are always ways to aplly it's morals and values and teachings anywhere anytime. I can attest to that as a muslim.

I totally agree. I just meant that AFAIK, in general, it's still a bit more rigid than some other faiths. Some pple are still afraid of eating pork 'coz traditionally they are forbidden. I respect their point of view, 'coz they're just respecting their traditions. Others get the real intention behind the rules, and know wich ones to trespass, and "really know how to apply Islam's moral meanings anywhere anytime" : I respect them even more.
It's like Christians not eating meat on Fridays or on Holy Friday...
 
It's appears to be so, ZiP!. And yes, there are muslims out there who follow blindly without ever understanding the rationale behind some things in Islam. This kind of blind obedience is actually shunned in Islam, we are encouraged to understand our religion and life so that we can see it's true meaning and wholeheartedly accept it as our way of life. It saddens me to think of this kind of ignorance, in truth.
 
I have met Muslims in this country who drink alcohol? I wonder if that's a step too far then? The guy I'm referring to seems in every other way to be an Ideal Muslim, faithful spirtual and respectful. Mind you it's no different really than a devout protestant indulging in fornication which I bet happens all the time.
 
Sidhe said:
I have met Muslims in this country who drink alcohol? I wonder if that's a step too far then? The guy I'm referring to seems in every other way to be an Ideal Muslim, faithful spirtual and respectful. Mind you it's no different really than a devout protestant indulging in fornication which I bet happens all the time.

Alcohol is still forbidden is Islam. Granted, there are benefits of drinking alcohol. However, there are even more cons for drinking it, thus it is forbidden altogether.
 
Sashie VII said:
It's appears to be so, ZiP!. And yes, there are muslims out there who follow blindly without ever understanding the rationale behind some things in Islam. This kind of blind obedience is actually shunned in Islam, we are encouraged to understand our religion and life so that we can see it's true meaning and wholeheartedly accept it as our way of life. It saddens me to think of this kind of ignorance, in truth.

Now you're the one bashing 'conservative' Muslims and I'm the one protecting them :lol:

I didn't say it ironically when I said I respect them. As long as they respect other people, it's totally their own choice to choose to eat pork or not...
I come from a Catholic family. Most of them go to church every sunday. I'm not a beleiver, never go to chuch unless obliged to (occasions), I'm even anti-clerical in many ways too often, but doesn't mean I don't respect people who go to church... (and for the little story my hobby is Church organs lol)

Same goes about obsolete Christian or Muslim traditions.
 
Sashie VII said:
Alcohol is still forbidden is Islam. Granted, there are benefits of drinking alcohol. However, there are even more cons for drinking it, thus it is forbidden altogether.
This is what I meant by rigid. In Christianty, they wouldn't forbid alcohol, just disencourage it.
Ohh wait... I forgot about the Pope and the condoms...
Bah. Who listens to him anyway :lol:
 
Sashie VII said:
Alcohol is still forbidden is Islam. Granted, there are benefits of drinking alcohol. However, there are even more cons for drinking it, thus it is forbidden altogether.

Well every faith has it's opium of choice be it scripture or chemicle, I agree I'd much rather society smoked Hashish and made alcahol forbidden but I'm stuck with alcahol:) , 1/3 or all violent crime is perpetrated under the influence of alcahol, I doubt you could say the same about Marijuana :D For me though I am a happy drunk who has never been involved in a fight since I left school and certainly not gotten into difficulty because of it, at least in a harmful sense. Some people should never drink though, it turns them into colossal arses, agressive, stupid, petty and argumentative.

@Zip: Precisely :) now some cardinal is considering making it ok in marriages to prevent infection I guess soon all those poor Africans will be able to live without the fear of infection, because of course that's what god wants, even if the Catholic church doesn't, Fortunately few people listened to the Popes forbidding Condoms anyway, at least in Africa which is mostly I believe either Islamic or protestant or other, although I'm not sure on exact figures.
 
Sashie VII said:
Plus IMO discouraging is not really effective. Who's to say when to drink and when not to? IF the option's there, people who wants to will always find an excuse. Better safe than sorry.

I totally agree with you. But I personally think, that should be the state authorities' role, not the religious ones. I know a religion is a way of living. But I think, a religion has to suggest a way of living, while the state authorities have to put regulations on the way of living.

It's a bit tricky, I know. Even more when you have a state religion / religious state... In fact I'm quiet against those because they restrict people from other religions more than people from the state religion. Sometimes decisions are a no brainer (like, forbid to kill) but sometimes they can be tricky (marijuana anyone?). The main advantage of laicity here is that you can actually vote your leaders, while in religion, a small group of people have to regulate everything and have total control. I can't simply systematically trust them to be smart and wise enough (I think such ideal people don't exist, and even if they did, there wouldn't be enough of them to constitute a strong enough assembly. Much easily corruptible.), that's why I tend to have problems with this type of governing/law emitting. (call it Fatwa if you want:p)
Voting is just a protection for the people (I mean, supposed to be :lol: )

Again, I don't want to bash or hurt. Just giving my opinion, if you're against it, please respond.

ZiP!
 
You're fun to talk to :lol:

I can see what you're trying to say. But understand that Islam in itself is more than a religion; it's a way of life, it's teachings encompasses every aspect of life and not just spiritual aspects.

While voting is good, the problem that might arise is that majority is not always correct (think "world is round"vs "world is flat" in the old days ;)).
 
That's of course something the Western world finds hard to understand that the religous leaders can be political leaders? What? We fought long and hard in the west to rid ourselves of religous chains that bound politics an lead to a great deal of human life wasted. We look East and we say Religion in a society nay it cannot be it will not work it is backward it is abhorrent we must bring a government that is secular and devoid of religous complications.

Sadly people from the West just do not comprehend that divorcing religion from the state is intolerable to many Muslims, it leads to a lot of ill will between west and East and bloodshed but hey since when has it been expedient to take into account the religous or cultural ideas of your suposed enemy?

Democracy, as the west knows it, wont work in all of the Arab countries where it doesn't already exist. If it would they would have adopted it or would eventually adopt it. It's so very hard for some Westerners to understand this, in fact for some it's impossible.
 
Back
Top Bottom