Theological problem

[Wij]

(I found this interesting. Your mileage may vary.)

I had my interest piqued in a bit of a theological problem for Islam by the lyrics and liner-notes to the song Iskander, D'hul Karnon, by Nile.

The problem arises from trying to identify who the King called D'hul Karnon in the Koran actually was. There's a reasonable summary on wikipedia:

Alexander the Great in the Qur'an - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically (although do read it) the deeds attributed to D'hul Karnon very closely match those attibuted to the fictionalised version of Alexander (Iskander) in the Syriac version of the 'Alexander Romances'. In the 7th century it wouldn't generally have been known that this version of Alexander's life (with him being a monotheist with no taste for men) was bullshit.

The main theological problem is not that Alexander was really a pagan who liked to be worshipped as a god and kissed boys, but that the Koran has incorporated a work a fiction as a revelation to Mohammed from Allah.

Some modern Islamic scholars have tried to propose the theory that D'hul Karnon was not Alexander but Cyrus the Great. Pointing out that the historic record of Cyrus much more closely resembele D'hul Karnon than the historic record of Alexander:

Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...but this misses the point. However closely the matches with Cyrus are, the matches with the FICTIONAL Alexander are much stronger.

Unless you happen to believe that the Koran is infallible then the simplest explanation is that in the 7th century people didn't realise that the version of Alexander's history was bullishit and so were happy to incorporate it into the distictly human-written Koran.

Anyway, I found it a fascinating little story and there's some interesting debates on the internet around it

 

[Mabs]

just thought id add this. thin ice and all that

Spoiler

Religion – I’m Scared Of Death | My[confined]Space

(its only a link, and its not rude per se, but MCS can have slightly dodgy adds on it, spoiler cos there isnt a NSFW bracket)

 

[Chilly]

/avoid

 

[mooSe_]

Nile are awesome

 

[nath]

Religion in being made of bullshit shocker! News at 11.

 

[Scouse]

You pose the interesting question:

The main theological problem is ... that the Koran has incorporated a work a fiction as a revelation to Mohammed from Allah

Yet answer it yourself:

the simplest explanation is that in the 7th century people didn't realise that the version of Alexander's history was bullishit and so were happy to incorporate it into the distictly human-written Koran

You're just itching for a fight, ain'cha Wij?

Well, you're not getting one from me. I'm in total agreement. I went to a school run by Christian Brothers (yep, an English branch of the paedo lot) and they took great glee in informing us of the above regularly. It's probably the only thing I remember about islam that I learned at school.

 

[Raven]

I kill your house infidel!

 

[MYstIC G]

Religion in being made of bullshit shocker! News at 11.

Everyone knows the news is on at 10 ffs.

 

[Wij]

Not expecting a fight on this one but I thought it was interesting. Maybe others have similar findings

 

[Shagrat]

Everyone knows the news is on at 10 ffs.

News at 10 in secret move to news at 11 Shocker! News at, erm?

 

[Ch3tan]

Most stuff in religious texts is bullshit, or simply what was believed at the time. It's irrelevant really, the point of stories in religious texts is usually to make a point about morals. It doesn't matter if they are true or not.

If people just accepted this then the world would be a happier place.

 

[Tom]

I can't wait until we meet aliens. That'll really put the cat amongst the pigeons.

 

[nath]

I can't wait until we meet aliens. That'll really put the cat amongst the pigeons.

They'll just retcon the Bible, Koran etc.

 

[Scouse]

If religious people just accepted this then the world would be a happier place.

Fixed.

It's not like religious people take all the nice and fluffy messages and none of the crusader/suicide bomber/killing in the name of X messages eh?

The rest of us non-religious types have a much harder time working ourselves up to a jihadi fervour, tbfh

 

[ECA]

Religion was a crutch of human development that lingers like an unpleasant relative.

 

[SilverHood]

Nothing wrong with spiritual religion. Political religion is the cause of a lot of the evils in this world though, and we'd be better off without it.

 

[old.Osy]

 

[Ch3tan]

Fixed.

It's not like religious people take all the nice and fluffy messages and none of the crusader/suicide bomber/killing in the name of X messages eh?

The rest of us non-religious types have a much harder time working ourselves up to a jihadi fervour, tbfh

Nope, as I said if people accepted this, religious and non-religous alike. The people that cannot accept that a story is only a relevant as it's message, and need to prove and argue it's historical accuracy are just as bad as the zealots who cannot accept their religious texts are not 100% true.

 

[DaGaffer]

Anyone who's read these boards will know I'm no fan of organised religion at all, but this is bollocks. The implication is that Christianity caused the Dark Ages, when in reality Christian monks were pretty much the only people who kept learning alive in the face of enormous difficulties. By the middle ages they were corrupt and rapidly became an impediment to scientific thinking, but that's not how they started out.

 

[old.Osy]

So you agree, but still object. Point noted.

 

[Scouse]

Nope, as I said if people accepted this, religious and non-religous alike. The people that cannot accept that a story is only a relevant as it's message, and need to prove and argue it's historical accuracy are just as bad as the zealots who cannot accept their religious texts are not 100% true.

I disagree.

Non religious people will have a hard enough time even bothering to read the text (after all - why the fuck should they, regardless of the fluffy preachy and ,I'd argue, over-simplistic and irrelevant messages inside?)

Only religious people have read the text and then gone on worldwide killing sprees.

Given those facts - how can the non religious people who don't give a fuck be as bad as the zealots who kill?

 

[DaGaffer]

So you agree, but still object. Point noted.

Actually I disagree with it at lots of other levels:

1. Its a particularly Eurocentric graph. Are only white guys allowed to do the intellectual heavy lifting?

2. The villain of the piece isn't "The Christian Dark Ages", its the Romans. The graph doesn't represent reality because the Romans didn't represent much of an upswing in science at all. Engineering, absolutely, but the bulk of Roman intellectual thought deferred to the Greeks, and it was the social and intellectually conservative Romans who invented "modern" Christianity anyway, and then ushered in the Dark Ages mainly through permanent in-fighting. So maybe if we took the Romans out of the equation we'd be exploring the galaxy by now.

 

[old.Osy]

So you still agree, yet choose to object, nitpicking on small details.

The point is about Christianity, you're arguing about where that actually started. Initially you speak of monks, thus advancing the start of the graph in the Dark Ages, then you say Romans started it, and that the blackhole should be represented including the Roman period.

Make up your mind?

 

[DaGaffer]

So you still agree, yet choose to object, nitpicking on small details.

The point is about Christianity, you're arguing about where that actually started. Initially you speak of monks, thus advancing the start of the graph in the Dark Ages, then you say Romans started it, and that the blackhole should be represented including the Roman period.

Make up your mind?

No I DON'T agree. Its not small details. The graph implies we were on some kind of exponential growth curve of science before the Dark Ages. Since the graph effectively went flat during the Roman period, the "Christian Dark Ages" (which were neither Christian or Dark in most of the world) are neither here nor there. Claiming we somehow lost a thousand years of advancement because of Christianity is nonsense. The graph should be:

 

[Bugz]

Average annual growth from 1000-1800 never peaked above 0.14% in Europe and 0.05% or something stupid in Africa, Asia, E.Europe etc.

So your growth would be near flat up until about 1800.

Most countries pre-1700 had periods of growth followed by periods of stagnation, where the 'leader' of the world changed hands many times.

So in terms of graphs, DaGaffer's is a lot more realistic if we take growth as some kind of indication of 'real scientific development' adjusted to pop. growth etc. We could back this up a bit further by looking at patent/secrecy activity pre-1700's and post-1700's but I can't be arsed to find the data on it.

 

[rynnor]

Shouldnt the graph have a spike during the greek period thats higher than the roman one - the romans were fair engineers and great soldiers but the greeks were far more than that and a fair bit was lost when Greece declined and the romans took over?

Oh and wheres Babylon gone and wheres the source for these graphs or are they plucked from the imagination?

Edit - oh and scientific method is pretty recent - there was no science per se back in the Greek/Roman times.

 

[mr.Blacky]

I disagree.

Non religious people will have a hard enough time even bothering to read the text (after all - why the fuck should they, regardless of the fluffy preachy and ,I'd argue, over-simplistic and irrelevant messages inside?)

Only religious people have read the text and then gone on worldwide killing sprees.

Given those facts - how can the non religious people who don't give a fuck be as bad as the zealots who kill?

err would communism and nazism now be classed as religion? I seem to recall that they killed millions, or colonialism not really religious. Or shall we look at the mongols?
The common thread behind all the mass killings is power: I have some and I want more power! by any means possible.

 

[MYstIC G]

The graph should be

Funny?

 

[Bugz]

Which exact time periods are we talking about here?

I can probably rustle up some data for the leading country in that time period as long as it isn't pre 1000 ish (I'll be honest - I have no idea when the christian wars were ;d)

 

[Scouse]

intellectually conservative Romans ...invented "modern" Christianity .... then ushered in the Dark Ages ... So maybe if we took the Romans out of the equation we'd be exploring the galaxy by now.

So guns don't kill people. Romans do?