Islam As Pagan Monotheism

[Aloysius]

Let us first presume to exclude from this argument a number of things:

first, the teachings of the Church.
second, the actions of current leaders of the Church.
third, the teachings of the Bible regarding the gods of other religions.

Theologically and religiously, I see Mohammad as a heretic who focused towards our God and got most everything about Him wrong (so I can, in turn, not fault any Christian effort to say to them: yes, this is the same God, but let us tell you where you are wrong about Him). Anthropologically, I see the god he did promote by getting everything wrong about our God as a pagan god, and whilst reducing the pagan pantheon of the arabs down to one, he still remains pagan. And this is why I say: exclude Church teaching, exclude the sayings of the present or past magisterium: tell me what makes Allah different from any other pagan god on anthropological terms. I assert that there is nothing but number which makes this Allah of the Muslims different from any other pagan god.

There is a fundamental difference between a pagan god and the Christian God, and that difference is not merely number. Islam has imitated Christianity solely in the number it assigns to the amount of gods in existence, but it has not taken away any of the attributes which distinguish revolutionary monotheism as it occurred in the developement of Ancient Israel.

I will state the crux of my argument in brevity just to see how phatmassers will respond to it. Allah is said to be above reason, outside of reason, not bound to reason. He made mankind so that they would submit to him, be enslaved to him, do his bidding. A pagan god is not bound to reason, because a pagan god is a personality-- solely a personality-- and does what he pleases. A pagan god creates man for the service of himself and the other gods (Marduk, for example, in the story of Gilgamesh). Whereas our God is the Eternal Logos, Reason itself, and makes man in His own image. He is also a personality, but His personality and His will are tightly bound up in reason, logos, order. He doesn't just do things because it's what he wants; He does things because they make sense.

I have much more to say, but I would first like to see how phatmass will respond to this assertion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066343' date='Sep 18 2006, 08:38 PM']
Allah is said to be above reason, outside of reason, not bound to reason. He made mankind so that they would submit to him, be enslaved to him, do his bidding. A pagan god is not bound to reason, because a pagan god is a personality-- solely a personality-- and does what he pleases. A pagan god creates man for the service of himself and the other gods (Marduk, for example, in the story of Gilgamesh).
[/quote]


I agree with you. And the statement above also sounds like Satan, to me. Satan would like us to think he created us to submit to him, to be enslaved by him, and do his bidding. Satan also believes he is above and not bound by reason.

Well what do you think... and countiue with your first assertion.

[Aloysius]

I am inclined to agree with the similarities... which is why while I cannot fault the current leaders of the magisterium for their ecumenical efforts towards islam, I also do not fault the leaders of the past who say that they worship the devil... because that is not too unfair of an assessment.

In any event, Anthropologists use the term "monotheism" not merely to refer to a religion which decides that there is one God, but to describe a religion which decides in a God who is complete otherness, complete transcendence, whose power cannot be harnessed, whose temperments are not similar at all to human temperments, et cetera. Such things do not occur in the Near East except in the Tribe of Israel. But because the root of the word is nothing other than "mono" and "theism", or "one-god-ism", then there are other types of less revolutionary monotheisms which can come up and can imitate the revolutionary monotheism just enough to escape the solid philosopical argument which refutes the possibility of many gods.

In any event, the allah of islam is the last god left standing; not a radical departure from monotheism. It is as if all the gods had a big fight and only allah was left, they never made the leap which truly made him otherness, he is merely one god among no other gods the way a pagan god would be one god among many other gods. It is a continuation, not by inversion as Judaism continued the canaan god "el" and the chaotic stories of gilgamesh, but of direct continuation.

Is this god Marduk? Is this god the arabian moon god (I say in the title that it is not fundy moon god nonsense because I am not trying to disqualify allah by saying he is just the moon god, for well do I know that the god of israEL was taken from the pagan canaan god EL)? is this god all of the old arabian gods meshed into one? Well, it certainly is related to all of those things as a continuation of those things... but it does not come close the otherness of YHWH-- it is a continuation of pagan gods only reduced in number to one.

Because it did not reach that radical monotheistic otherness, it did not invert the whole spectrum of the old world. While it may be iconoclastic on the surface, the spirit of idolatry remains in it stronger than an icon-rich religion like Christianity (which did go through the monotheistic-otherness-inversion of the old ways revolution through its judaic roots and knows that God is so other, so logical, so reasonable, that He is not merely a name and a personality to serve, receive blessings from, and focuse against one's enemies). It has a personal god, not bound to reason but only to his own will and desire, with a name from which it draws power; it focuses the force of that god against its enemies boxing it up and using it like the magick of the old pagan religions.

I was surprised not to get a larger response from others on the phatmass phorum... perhaps I forbid all their usual ways of arguing for or against such an assessment of the allah of islam (or perhaps they just didn't see the topic, or thought my first post was too long). In any event, I have still other thoughts which I cannot now formulate into words... perhaps the stimulus of responses will help me draw form to these thoughts.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066343' date='Sep 18 2006, 09:38 PM']
Let us first presume to exclude from this argument a number of things:

first, the teachings of the Church.
second, the actions of current leaders of the Church.
third, the teachings of the Bible regarding the gods of other religions.

Theologically and religiously, I see Mohammad as a heretic who focused towards our God and got most everything about Him wrong (so I can, in turn, not fault any Christian effort to say to them: yes, this is the same God, but let us tell you where you are wrong about Him). Anthropologically, I see the god he did promote by getting everything wrong about our God as a pagan god, and whilst reducing the pagan pantheon of the arabs down to one, he still remains pagan. And this is why I say: exclude Church teaching, exclude the sayings of the present or past magisterium: tell me what makes Allah different from any other pagan god on anthropological terms. I assert that there is nothing but number which makes this Allah of the Muslims different from any other pagan god.

There is a fundamental difference between a pagan god and the Christian God, and that difference is not merely number. Islam has imitated Christianity solely in the number it assigns to the amount of gods in existence, but it has not taken away any of the attributes which distinguish revolutionary monotheism as it occurred in the developement of Ancient Israel.

I will state the crux of my argument in brevity just to see how phatmassers will respond to it. Allah is said to be above reason, outside of reason, not bound to reason. He made mankind so that they would submit to him, be enslaved to him, do his bidding. A pagan god is not bound to reason, because a pagan god is a personality-- solely a personality-- and does what he pleases. A pagan god creates man for the service of himself and the other gods (Marduk, for example, in the story of Gilgamesh). Whereas our God is the Eternal Logos, Reason itself, and makes man in His own image. He is also a personality, but His personality and His will are tightly bound up in reason, logos, order. He doesn't just do things because it's what he wants; He does things because they make sense.

I have much more to say, but I would first like to see how phatmass will respond to this assertion.
[/quote]

I agree with all of this. The only thing I would like to see is something, maybe from the quran or elsewhere that backs up your claims in the last paragraph. I agree with it, but would be interested to see it documented.

[Aloysius]

It is the impression I got when I read the Koran last... and as far as I see it is taught by the leaders in Islam now and always has been, and was part of the recent comments by the Holy Father (I believe he said something to the effect of islam's violent tendencies stem from their view of God as outside of/above reason, and thus whatever he sanctions goes and it needn't stand up to the test of reason), but I do not know that I could cite a specific example from the koran... I am now beginning to re-read the koran paying specific attention to the way allah acts. If I find any instances indicative of a god who acts apart from reason and only because of his personality, I will let you know. I am fairly certain, however, that islamic theology specifically places God as outside of reason... and in that zeal towards otherness they hit a brick wall which keeps their idea of God from ever actually transcending any anthropomorphism/personality.

now I know many will say: there are such instances in the Bible (such as moses convincing God to change his mind in his anger against the israelites). I agree, there are, and we explain them as anthropomorphisms generally, places where the sacred author had not yet grasped the total otherness of God... but muslims do not. from what I understand muslims explain that that is the way God wants it so that's the way it is, that you have to submit to him completely and that that is the way it is... though allah can be arrived at by reason, he needn't be reasonable if he doesn't want to.

again, from what I understand it is the complex whole of the koran which teaches this; from what I understand it is what is commonly believed by muslims; if my understanding is wrong I beg corrections from the more learned but until such a time I opperate under this premise: that Islam teaches a god who is not bound to be reasonable, a god who may do anything he wants as his personality wants it; and that Christianity teaches God is Reason itself and that any personality in God is directly connected to Reason; He does not do whatever he wants (well he does, but He only wants what is reasonable, whereas Allah may want anything and it would be up to those who submit to him to obey whatever he wants).

A muslim god can be arbitrary. A muslim god's power can be harnessed against one's enemies, by obtaining mercy and blessing (which does not, in islam, involve confession repentence and penance but merely submitting to him in the here and now never necessarily apologizing for anything but submitting to receive blessing) and calling upon a sacred name.

For any errors, I beg the more learned to correct me... but I still hold to all the stipulations above: this is not a discussion of what the Church's current or past position on islam is.

[Aloysius]

from the Pope:
[quote]The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[/quote]

Thus, Benedict XVI who has studied Islam, Ibn Hazn, and the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez are support for my assessment of Islam's teaching that God is not bound by reason.

From the Koran, the reason I got the sense of this sentiment is probably from the frequent phrases such as "if Allah had pleased He would certainly have taken away their hearing and their sight" (the cow 2.20) and "He will forgive whom He pleases and chastise whom He pleases" (the cow 2.284) et cetera... when the koran gives any reason for God's actions, it tends to simply go to "He does what He pleases" and ends it at that. But Christian Scripture binds Him to the Logos, and Jewish Scripture binds Him to His own word, and His own covenants.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I disagree with most of this. I've lived in Saudi Arabia for most of my life and I've studied Islam intensively. I was taught the Qur'an in its original language and encoured to use a variety translations. (As classical Arabic is so rich, with a multitude of possible meanings for each word, you could probably read the Marmaduke Pickthall and the Yusuf Ali translations one after the other and not realise that you're dealing with the same book - be careful and get a Qu'ran with a commentary if you can.) So while I accept the sacred primacy of Christianity and see Islam as being riddled with big theological mistakes (the chief one being denial of the Incarnation) I don't think that God as Muslims understand Him is pagan in essence.

[quote]Thus, Benedict XVI who has studied Islam, Ibn Hazn, and the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez are support for my assessment of Islam's teaching that God is not bound by reason.[/quote]

Are you familiar with the distinction between a Muslim and an Islamist? Islamists are the radicals, often violent, who adhere to a rigidly literal and dogmatic interpretation of the Qur'an. Show me a fundamentalist of any religious tradition who gets along well with logic.

[quote]It is the impression I got when I read the Koran last... and as far as I see it is taught by the leaders in Islam now and always has been[/quote]

There are no official leaders in Sunni Islam, the majority sect. This is one of the problems that Muslims have faced in the aftermath of September 11th. The world wanted a senior Muslim figure to denounce the attacks, a kind of Pope equivalent who could speak on behalf of the Muslim world. There is no such person. Most Sunni Muslims place emphasis on something called [i]ijtihad[/i], which can best be translated as 'independent reasoning'. Only the Islamists argue that the tradition of ijtihad is now outdated when it comes to Qur'anic interpretation, and all decisions - moral, philosophical and social - should be based on the decisions taken by 'scholarly predecessors'. (Naturally, the Islamists choose the 'scholars' whose precedents they want to follow and ignore the ones whose ideas they aren't too keen on.)

Regarding transcendence, Muslims don't believe that God operates outside reason - they believe that He created it, and consequently He defines what is reasonable or not. The laws of physics etc. belong to Him.

The following article gives a good summary on rationalism within Islam.

[url="http://uk.geocities.com/limerickphilos/AVERROES.htm"]http://uk.geocities.com/limerickphilos/AVERROES.htm[/url]

[Aloysius]

It is great to have someone with such expertise respond.

First addressing the link-- I already well know that the muslims have always engaged in philosophy and reason in approaching God; what your link still seemed to fail to answer for me was whether God is bound by reason. Maybe I missed it, I didn't sleep tonight so that is possible...

It is not that I think that the muslims do not approach God with reason; and it is not that I think the muslims do not engage in philosophy; it appears to me from my (admittedly translated, out of cultural context) reading of the Koran that it is perfectly in line with Mohammad's understanding of Allah to say that he has a temperment which is not bound to reason but merely bound to his own desires and temperments, and that reason itself would be bound to his own desires and temperments... and then in my attempt to put that in its cultural context I arrive at Islamisists. Now, I shall admit I thought the word was being used merely to reference someone who studied islam, does anyone have any informatioin on this "R. Arnaldez"? In the current news atmosphere, a google of his name produces nothing but that quote from the pope's speech in which he is referenced. Moreover, it is more Theodore Khoury's assessment that we ought to be interested in-- that the learned persian scholar of that error should be said to not agree with the understanding of god as reason is telling.

In any event, reason is not created by God, according to the Christian Tradition, Reason is God. "In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God". Thus, the Christian God cannot alter what is reasonable because to do so would be to alter his own nature (and God is unchangeable). It appears, however, that the muslim god can alter that, at least according to some prominent interpretations. The same seems implicit (to me) in the hebrew scriptures, God does not say that His creation is good, He sees that it is good, implying that reason about what is good is not merely what He says is good, but it is deeply connected to an objective standard which, of course, is bound up in His very nature. But the exact contrary seems implicit (to me) in the koran.

This is important, because it turns what is right and reasonable from an objective, unchangeable, fundamental part of the nature of God into the arbitrary decision of the person of allah. I suppose these more liberal interpretations as described in your link (re: Averroes, who was too radical/liberal for his own time) seek to remove the consequences which cause the muslim to, based upon the fact that reason is an arbitrary decision of allah, reject reasonable arguments and take the person of allah's decisions as the final say-so of things. But even with that, there remains the binding of reason to allah's temperments and desires.

That the muslims always approached allah and the world in some way with reason, there is no doubt. Aquinas and the Scholastics were scolded for being too much like the muslims in accepting Aristotle, one of the great philosophers of reason. But the nature of allah still remains uncertain to me: is he outside of reason, is reason solely the consequence of his decision/temperment/desire? or is it His very nature? It appears to me that islam holds it not to be of his very nature, keeping the allah of islam on the same playing field (perhaps slightly raised, actually, but not breaking through the revolutionary barrier)as any pagan god. if the allah of islam is transcendent of reason, and what reason itself is is merely a decision of allah, then I see the muslim cosmology as having a one-in-number pagan god.

and nota bene, my reference to islamic leaders was not seeking an authoritative document, but just what is generally agreed upon and taught by all the teachers and scholars of islam... i knew full well there was not going to be found some definitive source/quote as you could find in Christianity, but there are still leader[b]s[/b] all over the place teaching things... my question was basically what are all these folks teaching?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066343' date='Sep 18 2006, 08:38 PM']
[snip]

I will state the crux of my argument in brevity just to see how phatmassers will respond to it. Allah is said to be above reason, outside of reason, not bound to reason. He made mankind so that they would submit to him, be enslaved to him, do his bidding. A pagan god is not bound to reason, because a pagan god is a personality-- solely a personality-- and does what he pleases. A pagan god creates man for the service of himself and the other gods (Marduk, for example, in the story of Gilgamesh). Whereas our God is the Eternal Logos, Reason itself, and makes man in His own image. He is also a personality, but His personality and His will are tightly bound up in reason, logos, order. He doesn't just do things because it's what he wants; He does things because they make sense.

I have much more to say, but I would first like to see how phatmass will respond to this assertion.
[/quote]

Just jumping in here Aloy, not finish reading trhe rest of the posts.

My first thought is this;

Allah is above reason, outside of reason. While God (our God in the trinity) is reason itself. This is an important distinction, indeed a critical one.

However, I would ask are you certain you did not 'take out of context' the god of muslims; aka, can their teachings or doctrine be understood as Allah being above reason (of man), outside reason (of man) are beyond the bounds of reason (of man). Adding just those two words, which can be underscored possibly by context, would render this doctrine very close to that of the Catholic teachings of God where God's wisdom is so great no man can approach it.

Very interesting thread, I hope to have more time today to read more, and continue to comment (and ask questions... I have so much to learn).

God bless us, everyone (even Allah).

[Aloysius]

As it stands now, I am operating under Cathoholic's clarification that: "they believe that He created it [reason], and consequently He defines what is reasonable or not."

I argue that this view of God makes reason itself the choice of allah rather than his nature and thus still puts allah's temperment on the same playing field as a pagan god, whose personality and choice determine what reason itself is... contrasted to the Christian God whose nature as the Eternal Logos is by His very nature reason itself, and because He is by nature reason itself He cannot contradict or change reason and still remain God.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066429' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:08 PM']
[snip]

It has a personal god, not bound to reason but only to his own will and desire, with a name from which it draws power; it focuses the force of that god against its enemies boxing it up and using it like the magick of the old pagan religions.

[snip]
[/quote]

You seem to contradict yourself here Aloy.;

You say the Christian God is not bound by reason, yet before you allude to Him being bound to reason since you state Allah is himself undound and thus a false god.

I would state the above differently. God IS bound to reason as so far as He is bound to Himself and His divine nature which include logic, wisdom and reason and He will not and cannot betray His nature. But within this nature is also love, compassion and all te good stuff such that He is not a distant judging God (though He can udge), but He is at a deeper level a personnal God. (He knows everyone of His sheeps by their names)

___________________

I just re-read; got mixed up with the parentheses... sorry, my mistake. We seem to agree on the view of the Christian God.

I don't know much, I much admit, on Allah however. I will try to read more attentively in the future.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Didacus

[Aloysius]

I say that the Christian God is bound to reason because it is His very nature, and that the Allah of islam is not bound to reason, but reason is bound to his personal temperment.

Show me where I said the Christian God was not bound to reason and I can likely show you a typo or a mis-reading of what I said... for I never intended to say that at all and thought I was very careful not to. (*the quote you provide is referring to the allah of the muslims*)

[Didacus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066507' date='Sep 19 2006, 12:48 AM']
[snip]

I now I know many will say: there are such instances in the Bible (such as moses convincing God to change his mind in his anger against the israelites).

[snip]
[/quote]

Wouldn't the example of Moses apply to both Christians and Muslims?

[Aloysius]

yes... I cited Moses as an example in the Old Testament which is similar to the pagan tendency of viewing god (which I am proposing Islam did not completely do away with/invert by any form of revolutionary monotheism)... and said that whilst Christians and Jews tend to say God changing His mind here was anthropomorphic, I am not sure we can assume Muslims would say the same thing about such things. Perhaps some of the examples cited in Cathoholic's artical of more liberal/moderate islam would agree with it being anthropomorphic...but my overall sense of traditional islam especially as understood by Mohammad is that allah does what he pleases, and that if allah wants to smite a people one minute and not smite them the next then that is his perogative... whereas the Christian/Jewish God is required to be the very definition of reason, and would not change his mind but only dealt with moses in that way for a specific reason, and that the bible says he 'changed his mind' anthropomorphically.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066343' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:38 PM']
Theologically and religiously, I see Mohammad as a heretic who focused towards our God and got most everything about Him wrong...[/quote]
I'm pretty sure Mohammad was never a Christian. He can't be a heretic, by definition.