![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhy is the figure of the prophet Muhammad who lived in the 7th century still so important and why does his life define the life of Muslims throughout the world in the 21st century to such an extent? And why are they so sensitive to everything that's even remotely related to him? Many of us might've asked themselves these questions.
First off, the followers of the prophet don't call themselves Muhammedans, they call themselves Muslims. And that's because Muhammad is not a god but just a prophet - one among many. And still, to every act that they interpret as an insult to Muhammad, they react in a way that many people from other religions would deem unacceptable, even if their own religious feelings do get hurt occasionally.
There's a huge set of examples for this - from The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to the outcry about the Muhammad cartoons, to the Pakistani law against blasphemy, which is practically used for persecuting religious minorities. The recent attacks on the US embassy in Cairo, the assassination of the US ambassador in Libya and the protests and flag burning throughout the Muslim world are examples of such reactions on a massive scale. Because here we're not talking of Muhammad the historic person, but rather his image that the people of the Muslim faith have created for themselves.
This book, The Truth About Muhammad, is an attempt to dig a bit deeper under the surface of these issues. The main question there is why the prophet still has such a huge impact on the Muslims' lives. The author Rainer Brunner has searched through the three main sources of info about Muhammad's life (the Quran, the Sunnah and the chronicles of Ibn Ishaq), and explores the way Muhammad's image has evolved through the centuries, becoming one of the pillars of the Muslim identity. The reverence for the prophet is now being used as a political weapon. There's a law in Pakistan against blapshemy, which says that "Whoever desecrates the holy prophet either by word of mouth or written word, or through a concealed mentioning of his holy name, they shall be punished by death or life prison".
The argument that's being made in the book is that Muhammad is so extremely important for the Muslims for two reasons. On one side, he is present in all 5 pillars of Islam. #1, the Islamic creed (Shahada) even explicitly begins with, "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God". On the other hand, Muhammad is a projection of the Muslims' hope for a better life. And hope is a powerful motive.
In fact, a religion is what its adherents make it to be, the author concludes. The history of most religions is a story of people's hopes. And the prophets are the earthly projection of these hopes. That's why the Muslims are so extremely sensitive and they're prepared to resort to violence at every attempt to place the prophet Muhammad in a context that's different from the one they've chosen to see him in. No matter how well educated, how highly positioned, and from how advanced a society they may come, the believer doesn't need to trust any scientific arguments. They don't necessarily want to hear arguments like the one that you need evidence in order to firmly believe in something, or in the case of Islam, that today many of the writings of early Islam may have a problem passing the test of critical historic examination. In other words, chances are that the Muhammad of the 7th century may've been a different person from what he's now imagined to have been, and yet he's what his followers choose him to be, and that's the image that defines their identity, even in the 21st century.
And when we think about it, that kind of approach is not solely a prerogative of Islam.
Why am I saying this? How many times have you heard the words "Hurting one's religious feelings"? It's a concern that's become very fashionable these days, and that's proven not just by the Muslim protests against that offensive movie, or the reaction to the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark.
A few weeks ago there were some far-right protests in Berlin against the mosques. There was a big uproar on both sides, because some of the protesters were holding depictions of Muhammad while protesting. That was interpreted as a deliberate provocation, an attempt to hurt the feelings of the Muslims. There were concerned voices that this wouldn't end well and it would lead to violent clashes.
Fortunately, that didn't happen there, unlike what's happening throughout the Middle East at the moment, ironically, especially in countries whose liberation from dictators the US had supported. But no doubt, in recent years the notion that "We shouldn't hurt people's religious feelings" has gained momentum. In 2006, the whole cartoons outcry was doubled down by the Berlin authorities who at some point banned the staging of a Mozart opera (Idomeneo), just because the director had dared to decapitate Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and Poseidon (nobody seemed to be too concerned about Poseidon, by the way). If we skip through a few other such similar incidents, we'd eventually turn the page on the episode where Pussy Riot's "heroic" act in that Russian cathedral is now printed in golden letters. Those girls dared insult the precious religious feelings of the Orthodox Christians in a country that doesn't seem willing to tolerate deviation from the norm in any shape or form. The scandal quickly spread beyond the Russian borders.
So let's be clear. The protests against the mosques are stupid taken by themselves, because what are they protesting against, actually? Against a religion? Or against some pieces of architecture? Maybe the minarets somehow disturb the futuristic 21st century skyline of Berlin? Muhammad's cartoons in most cases look silly and boring, full of cliches and all in all, not worth much attention but the occasional smirk. In other words, they were made just for the sake of provocation. And the political protest of Pussy Riot against Putin was only remotely related to Orthodox Christianity (as Dear Comrade himself has ascertained). Choosing a church to do it was only the excuse that the Russian state found very convenient in order to explain the harsh punishment that was handed to them.
So in all of these stories and episodes one could find all sorts of aesthetic and/or political problems, we could question the intelligence and the common sense of the protesters or their methods of making their case... But meanwhile the dramatically hysterical and often violently threatening reaction of those religious communities and people who are feeling "deeply offended and disturbed" is as absurd and inappropriate, not to mention how hypocritical.
In all the above mentioned scandals and conflicts there's one thing present - the free expression of opinions and positions. The protesters themselves (whether they're waving stupid cartoons or making shitty punk music against Putin), are not infringing on anybody's right to believe in this supernatural invisible friend or the other, they're not insisting on political repressions against the believers, and certainly not on banning any faith. And yet, the religious people instantly recognize a profound insult in the very act of expressing an opinion itself, and say things like "Anyone who puts our faith in question is offending us". And obviously I'm not solely talking about Muslims.
Well hello, if we're to accept such an argument without reservations, that would mean we'd have to scratch off a huge chunk of the history of knowledge, science, and the progress of the human civilization overall, because it's exactly the healthy amounts of questioning, critical thinking, and constant search for new explanations due to curiosity and distrust in the social dogma that has driven this progress over the ages. And since this is the case, shouldn't the largest group on Earth in terms of faith (probably 2nd in the US), that of the non-religious, be also claiming hurt feelings? But who would ever think of protecting the emotional comfort of atheists, agnostics or other non-believers from all sorts of religious fundamentalists who are constantly yelling anathemas at them from all sides, in almost all corners of the world?
Of course this stunning asymmetry between the "emotional" tuning/tolerance of believers and non-believers (or should I call it, the discrepancy in the thickness of their skins), has a very long history and a very complex explanation, for which I don't have the time right now (moreover, I'm sure most of us would be able to provide it for themselves). But at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that we all live on the same planet, and from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would've been a bit more recommendable if we tried to live together, each with the little quirks and occasional moments of douchebaggery, without resorting to head-rolling and stoning to death, or burning the house of thy neighbor just because he said something that plucks a painful chord inside your precious soul.
It's impossible to prove who's right and who isn't, as far as gods and deities are concerned. So why not just leave that stuff to the theologians and philosophers, and do something more useful, like, you know, sitting side by side with a bowl of popcorn while watching football or the latest reality show? ;)
First off, the followers of the prophet don't call themselves Muhammedans, they call themselves Muslims. And that's because Muhammad is not a god but just a prophet - one among many. And still, to every act that they interpret as an insult to Muhammad, they react in a way that many people from other religions would deem unacceptable, even if their own religious feelings do get hurt occasionally.
There's a huge set of examples for this - from The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to the outcry about the Muhammad cartoons, to the Pakistani law against blasphemy, which is practically used for persecuting religious minorities. The recent attacks on the US embassy in Cairo, the assassination of the US ambassador in Libya and the protests and flag burning throughout the Muslim world are examples of such reactions on a massive scale. Because here we're not talking of Muhammad the historic person, but rather his image that the people of the Muslim faith have created for themselves.
This book, The Truth About Muhammad, is an attempt to dig a bit deeper under the surface of these issues. The main question there is why the prophet still has such a huge impact on the Muslims' lives. The author Rainer Brunner has searched through the three main sources of info about Muhammad's life (the Quran, the Sunnah and the chronicles of Ibn Ishaq), and explores the way Muhammad's image has evolved through the centuries, becoming one of the pillars of the Muslim identity. The reverence for the prophet is now being used as a political weapon. There's a law in Pakistan against blapshemy, which says that "Whoever desecrates the holy prophet either by word of mouth or written word, or through a concealed mentioning of his holy name, they shall be punished by death or life prison".
The argument that's being made in the book is that Muhammad is so extremely important for the Muslims for two reasons. On one side, he is present in all 5 pillars of Islam. #1, the Islamic creed (Shahada) even explicitly begins with, "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God". On the other hand, Muhammad is a projection of the Muslims' hope for a better life. And hope is a powerful motive.
In fact, a religion is what its adherents make it to be, the author concludes. The history of most religions is a story of people's hopes. And the prophets are the earthly projection of these hopes. That's why the Muslims are so extremely sensitive and they're prepared to resort to violence at every attempt to place the prophet Muhammad in a context that's different from the one they've chosen to see him in. No matter how well educated, how highly positioned, and from how advanced a society they may come, the believer doesn't need to trust any scientific arguments. They don't necessarily want to hear arguments like the one that you need evidence in order to firmly believe in something, or in the case of Islam, that today many of the writings of early Islam may have a problem passing the test of critical historic examination. In other words, chances are that the Muhammad of the 7th century may've been a different person from what he's now imagined to have been, and yet he's what his followers choose him to be, and that's the image that defines their identity, even in the 21st century.
And when we think about it, that kind of approach is not solely a prerogative of Islam.
Why am I saying this? How many times have you heard the words "Hurting one's religious feelings"? It's a concern that's become very fashionable these days, and that's proven not just by the Muslim protests against that offensive movie, or the reaction to the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark.
A few weeks ago there were some far-right protests in Berlin against the mosques. There was a big uproar on both sides, because some of the protesters were holding depictions of Muhammad while protesting. That was interpreted as a deliberate provocation, an attempt to hurt the feelings of the Muslims. There were concerned voices that this wouldn't end well and it would lead to violent clashes.
Fortunately, that didn't happen there, unlike what's happening throughout the Middle East at the moment, ironically, especially in countries whose liberation from dictators the US had supported. But no doubt, in recent years the notion that "We shouldn't hurt people's religious feelings" has gained momentum. In 2006, the whole cartoons outcry was doubled down by the Berlin authorities who at some point banned the staging of a Mozart opera (Idomeneo), just because the director had dared to decapitate Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and Poseidon (nobody seemed to be too concerned about Poseidon, by the way). If we skip through a few other such similar incidents, we'd eventually turn the page on the episode where Pussy Riot's "heroic" act in that Russian cathedral is now printed in golden letters. Those girls dared insult the precious religious feelings of the Orthodox Christians in a country that doesn't seem willing to tolerate deviation from the norm in any shape or form. The scandal quickly spread beyond the Russian borders.
So let's be clear. The protests against the mosques are stupid taken by themselves, because what are they protesting against, actually? Against a religion? Or against some pieces of architecture? Maybe the minarets somehow disturb the futuristic 21st century skyline of Berlin? Muhammad's cartoons in most cases look silly and boring, full of cliches and all in all, not worth much attention but the occasional smirk. In other words, they were made just for the sake of provocation. And the political protest of Pussy Riot against Putin was only remotely related to Orthodox Christianity (as Dear Comrade himself has ascertained). Choosing a church to do it was only the excuse that the Russian state found very convenient in order to explain the harsh punishment that was handed to them.
So in all of these stories and episodes one could find all sorts of aesthetic and/or political problems, we could question the intelligence and the common sense of the protesters or their methods of making their case... But meanwhile the dramatically hysterical and often violently threatening reaction of those religious communities and people who are feeling "deeply offended and disturbed" is as absurd and inappropriate, not to mention how hypocritical.
In all the above mentioned scandals and conflicts there's one thing present - the free expression of opinions and positions. The protesters themselves (whether they're waving stupid cartoons or making shitty punk music against Putin), are not infringing on anybody's right to believe in this supernatural invisible friend or the other, they're not insisting on political repressions against the believers, and certainly not on banning any faith. And yet, the religious people instantly recognize a profound insult in the very act of expressing an opinion itself, and say things like "Anyone who puts our faith in question is offending us". And obviously I'm not solely talking about Muslims.
Well hello, if we're to accept such an argument without reservations, that would mean we'd have to scratch off a huge chunk of the history of knowledge, science, and the progress of the human civilization overall, because it's exactly the healthy amounts of questioning, critical thinking, and constant search for new explanations due to curiosity and distrust in the social dogma that has driven this progress over the ages. And since this is the case, shouldn't the largest group on Earth in terms of faith (probably 2nd in the US), that of the non-religious, be also claiming hurt feelings? But who would ever think of protecting the emotional comfort of atheists, agnostics or other non-believers from all sorts of religious fundamentalists who are constantly yelling anathemas at them from all sides, in almost all corners of the world?
Of course this stunning asymmetry between the "emotional" tuning/tolerance of believers and non-believers (or should I call it, the discrepancy in the thickness of their skins), has a very long history and a very complex explanation, for which I don't have the time right now (moreover, I'm sure most of us would be able to provide it for themselves). But at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that we all live on the same planet, and from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would've been a bit more recommendable if we tried to live together, each with the little quirks and occasional moments of douchebaggery, without resorting to head-rolling and stoning to death, or burning the house of thy neighbor just because he said something that plucks a painful chord inside your precious soul.
It's impossible to prove who's right and who isn't, as far as gods and deities are concerned. So why not just leave that stuff to the theologians and philosophers, and do something more useful, like, you know, sitting side by side with a bowl of popcorn while watching football or the latest reality show? ;)
