" To say from whence I came, what I am, or where I am going, is above my comprehension. I am the watch that runs, but unconscious of itself."
These questions, which we are unable to answer, " drive us onward to religion; we rush forward to welcome her, for that is our natural tendency. But knowledge comes and we stop short. Instruction and history, you see, are the great enemies of religion, disfigured by the imperfections of humanity.
. . . I once had faith.
In Egypt I was a Mussulman; here I shall be a Catholic, for the good of the people. I do not believe in religions. The idea of a God ! " And then, pointing upward : " Who made all that ? "
December 2, 1804: Napoleon Bonaparte crowns himself Emperor of France
"At the moment of the crowning when the Pope said, 'Receive the imperial crown...' Napoleon unexpectedly turned and, forestalling the Pope, removed his laurel wreath and crowned himself and then crowned the kneeling Joséphine with a small crown surmounted by a cross, which he had first placed on his own head. At Napoleon's enthronement the Pope said, 'May God confirm you on this throne and may Christ give you to rule with him in his eternal kingdom'. Limited in his actions, Pius VII proclaimed further the Latin formula 'Vivat imperator in aeternum!' (May the Emperor live forever!), which was echoed by the full choirs in a Vivat, followed by 'Te Deum'. "
In 1804 Napoleon dropped any pretense of being just the First Consul, that is the leading minister of a republican France. Napoleon was at the peak of his success; his territories spanned most of Europe. And so it was fitting that his title should reflect the reality of his position. Napoleon proclaimed himself Emperor and persuaded or forced the Pope to crown him Emperor, and his first wife Empress. The ceremony took place in the presence of the elite of France and Europe and was a gala affair.
Description:
Pope Pius VII, decked in religious garb, stands at the forefront of this image. To his left is Napoleon who is depicted standing on a platform as he places a crown upon his head. To the pope’s right is Napoleon’s wife, Josephine. Unlike the other images in the book, Napoleon is not in his military uniform. Rather, he is wearing an elaborate blue robe with blue trim that trails onto the floor. Behind the three is a crowd of people, all formally dressed. Only one member of the audience is a woman. The room, like its inhabitants, is elaborately dressed. Red curtains adorn the Greco-Roman arches and golden chandeliers hang from them.
Copyright:
Copyright 2009, Department of Special Collections, Memorial Library, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
Not many know that Napoleon was an admirer of Islam. A willingness to embrace Islam, its values and its adherents is not new to Europe. As far back as the late 18th and early 19th centuries, French general and emperor Napoleon Bonaparte showed support for Islam that combined liberal ideals with political pragmatism.
The Enlightenment and the Pragmatist
Napoleon was born into an era when the Enlightenment was challenging old values and beliefs. The Enlightenment had pushed ideas of tolerance and diversity to the fore, and writers such as Rousseau rejected the old political and religious order. To some extent, at least, Napoleon bought into the values of this era, being an admirer from childhood of men such as Rousseau and Voltaire, and a supporter of the republican government that followed the French Revolution.
He was also a great pragmatist. His republicanism gave way when a strong government was needed and when he had the opportunity to become Emperor. He would tolerate any set of views that did not undermine his position or the strength the French state.
The Catholic church’s power in France was severely weakened by the revolution. Much of its political and economic power was taken by reforming governments in search of funds and influence. Expansion saw competing religions becoming more important in French territory, as Protestant parts of Europe were absorbed.
Rather than attempt to enforce a new ideology on these diverse people, Napoleon set out to integrate existing religious hierarchies into the power structures of the new empire. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish leaders all found a place in the organisation of Napoleon’s empire. And as he sought to expand eastwards, Islam also became important.
During Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign he seriously considered adopting the Muslim faith, years later telling a courtier’s wife that, since the hitherto Protestant Henri IV thought it was worth converting to Catholicism for the sake of ruling France, “Do you not think the Empire of the East, and perhaps the subjection of the whole of Asia, were not worth a turban and loose trousers?” He added that the army “would undoubtedly have lent itself to this joke”. After the battle of Mount Tabor on that campaign, he slept at the convent in Nazareth, where he was shown the supposed bedchamber of the Virgin Mary. When the prior pointed out a broken black marble pillar and told his staff, “in the gravest manner possible”, that it had been split by the angel Gabriel when he “came to announce to the Virgin her glorious and holy destination”, some of the officers burst out laughing, but as one of them recorded: “General Bonaparte, looking severely at us, made us resume our gravity.”
A Great Man of Religion
Like most Enlightenment scholars, Napoleon viewed history as something shaped by the actions of great men. He sought examples, he could study and follow. With his eye on the importance of Islam, the prophet Muhammad became one of these examples to him.
He referred to Muhammad as “a great man who changed the face of the earth”. He even dismissed the views of another of his heroes, Voltaire, on the subject of Muhammad, believing that the French philosopher had denigrated the achievements and character of a great leader.
It is hardly surprising that Napoleon saw a kindred spirit in Muhammad, more so than other religious figures. After all, the prophet had united the fractured Arabs to unleash a wave of conquest that swept through the Middle East. That was the sort of leadership Napoleon could admire.
Embracing Islam
The practical impact of all this could be seen in Napoleon’s behaviour in Egypt and Syria, which he tried to conquer in the campaign of 1798-9, one of his few major failures. There he sought to learn more about Islam and to support local religious leaders, as long as they did not oppose him.
In 1798, a revolt took place against the French in Cairo. The armed rebels, many based around the Great Mosque, proclaimed their intention to exterminate the French in the name of the Prophet Muhammad. Having put down such a revolt, many commanders would have punished the imams and sheikhs who had inspired this violent religious talk. But Napoleon was careful not to punish them, as they had not taken an active part in the revolt, instead beheading those who had led the action. The message was clear – rebellion was unacceptable, but the French would not harm the holy men of Islam.
Unlike the generals of so many previous Christian armies in the east, Napoleon made clear that his soldiers should not treat Muslims differently from the people of nations they had conquered in Europe. Citing the examples of Alexander the Great and the pagan Roman legions, he instructed them to treat all religions equally and to treat all religious leaders with respect. The crime of rape, common among soldiers in countries they considered barbarous, was singled out for attention, with instructions that any soldier who raped a Muslim woman would be shot.
Attempts to involve local Islamic leaders in running the region were more mixed. On the one hand, he tried to tap into local opinions and authority structures by using advisory councils called diwans. On the other hand, local knowledge was being accessed through hierarchies that were alien to Islam and put French leaders at the top of the power pyramid.
A Flattering Legacy
Some Egyptians responded by referring to Napoleon as Sultan Kebir, the Great Sultan, a title which left Napoleon feeling flattered. Having taken to studying Mohammad, the Koran and Islamic culture, he understood the compliment this represented.
Later in life, Napoleon stated that, if he had remained in the Middle East, he would probably have taken a pilgrimage to Mecca to kneel at the shrine there. It’s easy to dismiss this, but to have said it at all shows a great respect for Islam that was remarkable for a European of his time.
Is Secularism and Liberalism an Act of Deviance and of Defiance?
Secularism has to do with the position of religion in government and society; liberalism is a political or economic policy position. Secularism is the belief that government should be separate from religion.
Liberalism is a broad political philosophy that encompasses a number of items including Secularism. Broadly speaking, it's about freedom and equality for all members of society.
Secularism is simply the idea that government (and society in general) should function independently of any religious institutions. It promotes the idea that a person's religious belief should not influence their ability to function as a member of society.
Secularism is an important part of liberalism because religion has traditionally been used to segregate or discriminate against those who do not belong to the majority religion.
When the church refused to crown Napoleon the Emperor of France, he crowned himself emperor and then he crowned Josephine as his empress
Moderate or liberal Christianity and a secular state are what Napoleon introduced 200 years ago in the 1800s. And the reason he introduced moderate or liberal Christianity and a secular state was so that he could demolish the power of the church and take that power for himself.
The only way Napoleon could become the Emperor of France, and then the Emperor of Europe, would be to grab all that political power from the church. And that was why he introduced the separation of church and state, he wanted absolute power and not have to share power with the church.
Secularism is a concept that dictators such as Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, etc., introduced. Secularism is the enemy of Islam. Secularism compromises Islam and relegates Islam down to the second level. Of course, non-Muslims want a secular state because, in a secular state, Islam becomes secondary. But why Muslims also want a secular state is extremely puzzling.
Most people look at Napoleon Bonaparte mainly from his military achievements. Students of Napoleon, however, will know he is more than just a military genius. He was also a social engineer. He did a massive social re-engineering not only of France but of the entire Europe. He demolished the Hapsburg and Holy Roman Empires and planted the seeds of nationalism into the hearts and minds of the Europeans.
From the ashes of the empires rose republics. France was in the aftermath of the French Revolution and Napoleon wanted to export the spirit of the revolution to the rest of Europe. Napoleon’s mission finally ended 100 years later with the collapse of the Russian monarchy. During those 100 years many new countries were born all over Europe that transformed from absolute monarchies to republics (or constitutional monarchies) with the rule of the people, for the people, by the people.
But that was still not Napoleon’s main accomplishment. His main accomplishment was to introduce secularism, liberalism and progressivism to Europe. Before that, education was controlled by the church and education was religion-based. Napoleon took away the authority of education from the church and he set up public schools. Within 30 years Europe had been oriented away from theology and towards secularism.
In secularism, liberalism and progressivism, "One cannot force religion onto anyone or others and every person is free to not believe in God and to not have any religion. One cannot refuse to sell pork and liquor on the excuse that those products are not halal. You need not have a church or religious wedding to live together and married partners need not be of opposite sexes. And insulting Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Brahma, Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, Ganesha, etc., is not a crime".
Napoleon: Islamic Extremist
Napoleon was a true admirer of both Prophet Muhammad and his religion. As an aspiring world conqueror and legislator, Napoleon adopted Muhammad as his role model and claimed to be walking in his footsteps. Before his military excursion to Egypt he advised his soldiers and officers to respect the Muslim religion. “The people amongst whom we are going to live are Mahometans. The first article of their faith is this: "There is no God but God, and Mahomet is his prophet." Do not contradict them… Extend to the ceremonies prescribed by the Koran and to the mosques the same toleration which you showed to the synagogues, to the religion of Moses and of Jesus Christ.”
In 1798 Napoleon landed in Egypt along with his strong army of fifty five thousands to occupy Egypt and disrupt English trade route to India. He believed that “Whoever is master of Egypt is master of India.”
He addressed the Egyptians employing traditional Islamic vocabulary of God’s unity and universal mission of Prophet Muhammad. He publically confessed himself to be a true Muslim.
“In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful, there is no other God than God, he has neither son nor associate to his rule. On behalf of the French Republic founded on the basis of liberty and equality, the General Bonaparte, head of the French Army, proclaims to the people of Egypt that for too long the Beys who rule Egypt insult the French nation and heap abuse on its merchants; the hour of their chastisement has come. For too long, this rabble of slaves brought up in the Caucasus and in Georgia tyrannizes the finest region of the world; but God, Lord of the worlds, all-powerful, has proclaimed an end to their empire. Egyptians, some will say that I have come to destroy your religion; this is a lie, do not believe it! Tell them that I have come to restore your rights and to punish the usurpers; that I respect, more than do the Mamluks, God, his prophet Muhammad and the glorious Qur'an... we are true Muslims. Are we not the one who has destroyed the Pope who preached war against Muslims? Did we not destroy the Knights of Malta, because these fanatics believed that God wanted them to make war against the Muslims?”
Humberto Garcia observes that Bonaparte promised “to restore egalitarian justice in Ottoman Egypt under an Islamic republic based in Cairo.” The intended Islamic republic was to be based upon the egalitarian laws of “the Prophet and his holy Koran.” Bonaparte casted himself as a Muslim convert and took the Islamic name of “Ali”, the celebrated son in law and cousin of Prophet Muhammad. He expressed his desire to establish a “uniform regime, founded on the principles of the Qur’an, which are the only true ones, and which can alone ensure the well-being of men.” Garcia further observes that “supposedly, the French came as deist liberators rather than colonizing crusaders… and not to convert the population to Christianity…” Juan Cole states that “The French Jacobins, who had taken over Notre Dame for the celebration of a cult of Reason and had invaded and subdued the Vatican, were now creating Egypt as the world’s first modern Islamic Republic.”
Throughout his stay in Egypt Napoleon used the Qur’anic verses and Ahadith (Prophetic reports) in his proclamations to the Egyptians. “Tell your people that since the beginning of time God has decreed the destruction of the enemies of Islam and the breaking of the crosses by my hand. Moreover He decreed from eternity that I shall come from the West to the Land of Egypt for the purpose of destroying those who have acted tyrannically in it and to carry out the tasks which He set upon me. And no sensible man will doubt that all this is by virtue of God’s decree and will. Also tell your people that the many verses of the glorious Qur’an announce the occurrence of events which have occurred and indicate others which are to occur in the future…” Napoleon used the Muslim apocalyptic vocabulary and tradition to convey his political motives. Ziad observes that the “use of the Qur’an and Sunna in the remaining proclamations serves to consolidate further the image of Napoleon as not only a follower of Muhammad, but a Mahdi destined to conquer that region.” Napoleon truly infused his declarations with “an unprecedented degree of Qur’anic allusion and auto-deification. No longer a mere exporter of the Enlightenment, Napoleon is now the arm of God…”
Napoleon formed a “Directory” comprised of French officials, Cairo elites and Muslim clergy. He patronized mosques and the madrassas, the centers of Qura’nic studies programs. He participated and presided over the Muslim festivals and Egyptian holidays and “even tried converting the French army to Islam legally without undergoing the Muslim practice of circumcision and imposing the wine-drinking prohibition… Marriages between Frenchmen and Muslims women were common, accompanied by formal conversion to Islam. Indeed, French general Jacques Manou, governor of Rosetta, married a notable Egyptian woman of the Sharif cast and changed his name to “Abdullah” (Servant of Allah).” Manuo was a senior French general. He married Zubayda in the spring of 1799. “The adoption of an almost Catholic discourse of piety in an Islamic guise by a French officer in Egypt could scarcely have been foreseen by the Jacobins on the Directory and in the legislature who urged the invasion.”
Such a widespread conversion of French officers to Islam was not a blot out of the blue. Many of them had already lost faith in Christianity. Just before the French Revolution Baron d‟Holbach could write about Jesus and his Christianity in the following words: “A poor Jew, who pretended to be descended from the royal house of David, after being long unknown in his own country, emerges from obscurity, and goes forth to make proselytes. He succeeded amongst some of the most ignorant part of the populace. To them he preached his doctrines, and taught them that he was the son of God, the deliverer of his oppressed nation, and the Messiah announced by the prophets. His disciples, being either imposters or themselves deceived, rendered a clamorous testimony of his power, and declared that his mission had been proved by miracles without number. The only prodigy that he was incapable of effecting, was that of convincing the Jews, who, far from being touched by his beneficent and marvelous works, caused him to suffer an ignominious death. Thus the Son of God died in the sight of all Jerusalem; but his followers declare that he was secretly resuscitated three days after his death. Visible to them alone, and invisible to the nation which he came to enlighten and convert to his doctrine, Jesus, after his resurrection, say they, conversed some time with his disciples, and then ascended into heaven, where, having again become the equal to God the Father, he shares with him the adorations and homages of the sectaries of his law. These sectaries, by accumulating superstitions, inventing impostures, and fabricating dogmas and mysteries, have, little by little, heaped up a distorted and unconnected system of religion which is called Christianity, after the name of Christ its founder.”
The French Revolution ushered an era of de-Christianization of the French populace in general and the French elites in particular. From 1789 to the Concordat of 1801, the Catholic Church, its lands, properties, educational institutions, monasteries, churches, bishops and priests were all the victims of the revolutionaries. The Church which owned almost everything that was not owned by the monarchy in France was stripped of its lands, churches, schools, seminaries and all privileges. The crosses, bells, statues, plates and every sign of Christianity including its iconography were removed from the churches. On October 21, 1793, a law was passed that made all clergy and those who harbored them liable to death on sight. Religion, which in the pre modern old regime Europe meant Christianity with its multifarious branches and Churches, was itself the target. The famous Notre Dame Cathedral was turned into the temple of the goddess “Reason” on November 10, 1793.
Consequently, many French officers and soldiers by the time they put their foot on the Egyptian soil were already de-Christianized deists or atheists. Juan Cole explains that “Many French in the age of the Revolution had become deists, that is, they believed that God, if he existed at all, was a cosmic clockmaker who had set the universe in motion but did not any longer intervene in its affairs. Most deists did not consider themselves Christians any longer and looked down on Middle Eastern Christians as priest-ridden and backward.” They believed in a Supreme Being who imparted laws to the nature and let it run its course in conformity with those laws without intervention. This meant that Nature was rational and not irrational. Such a rational outlook at the cosmos was antithetical to the traditional Christian cosmology. The Christian God intervened and interfered in the cosmos at will and was supposedly persuaded by the Christian priests, his agents upon the earth. The deistic notions of divinity in reality were expressions of absolute anticlericalism, the hallmark of French society after the Revolution. Moreover, the deists of the eighteenth century imagined Muhammad as “earlier and more radical reformer than Luther.” The French Jacobins like their deists comrades believed that “Mahometans” were “closer to “the standard of reason” than the Christians…”
Therefore, it was not too difficult for Napoleon to ask his soldiers to convert to Islam. Some notable French thinkers, as discussed above, had already “tried to show how close Europeans could be to Islamic practice, without knowing it, as a way of critiquing religion.” They had already employed Islamic ideas to root out the priestcraft. Therefore, Napoleon was reaping the fruits of a long strand of French radical enlightenment where Islam and Muhammad were the known commodities. Bonaparte’s personal deistic disposition and the overall French propensity towards hatred of organized Christianity and its irrational dogmas combined with simultaneous appreciation of Islamic rational monotheism and medieval Islamic civilization were truly at play in Egypt. The political expediency added to the already existent seeds of the French radical enlightenment and caused them to flourish in a congenial Muslim Egyptian environment. The French were not accepting a new religion. They were accepting a reformed version of their deeply held religious convictions, something already present in their religious outlook.
There were some exceptions though. Some of them clearly disdained this supposed Islamization drama but kept quite so as not to offend their powerful and persuasive general, Ali Bonaparte. They went along with their admired general’s Islamization strategies.
Napoleon who was born and raised as a Catholic seems to have denounced his original faith and denied not only Jesus’ divinity but existence also. He is reported to have said: "I have dictated thirty pages on the world's three religions; and I have read the Bible. My own opinion is made up. I do not think Jesus Christ ever existed. I would believe in the Christian religion if it dated from the beginning of the world. That Socrates, Plato, the Mohammedan, and all the English should be damned is too absurd.” Napoleon substantiated his claims by historical perspectives. "Did Jesus ever exist, or did he not? I think no contemporary historian has ever mentioned him; not even Josephus. Nor do they mention the darkness that covered the earth at the time of his death."
He claimed to have studied Josephus’ writings. Josephus was a Jewish historian of Jesus’ times. "I once found at Milan an original manuscript of the 'Wars of the Jews’ in which Jesus is not mentioned. The Pope pressed me to give him this manuscript.” Here Napoleon insinuated a papal conspiracy to hide all historical evidences that went against the historical narrative of the Church.
On the other hand, he also said that "The Christian religion offers much pomp to the eye, and gives its worshippers many brilliant spectacles. It affords something all the time to occupy the imagination.” This did not mean that Napoleon appreciated the Christian incarnation theology and confusing dogmas such as the Trinity.
Napoleon believed that religion was necessary for law and order in a given society. “All religions since that of Jupiter inculcate morality.” He further stated that “Society needs a religion to establish and consolidate the relations of men with one another. It moves great forces; but is it good, or is it bad for a man to put himself entirely under the sway of a director? There are so many bad priests in the world." That is why he did not abolish any religion from any country which he conquered. It seems that he outwardly showed respect to almost every faith tradition including the Catholics but inwardly despised Christianity due to his deistic notions of the divinity. The same reasons made him respect the rational monotheism of Islam.
He believed that an encounter with Islamic logical monotheism did leave an impression upon people including the fanatic Christians such as the Crusades. "The Crusaders came back worse Christians than they were when they left their homes. Intercourse with Mohammedans had made them less- Christian.”
Napoleon entertained the same lofty ideas about Islam in the final years of his life. He said "The Mohammedan religion is the finest of all. In Egypt the sheiks greatly embarrassed me by asking what we meant when we said 'the Son- of God.' If we had three gods, we must be heathen." He was a staunch admirer of Islamic morality which he considered a prerequisite to the wellbeing of all societies. “A man may have no religion, but may yet have morality. He must have morality for the sake of society.”
The simple Islamic monotheism, its lack of burdensome ceremonies and strong emphasis upon morality were the keys to Napoleon’s admiration of Islam. "That is how men are imposed upon Jesus said he was the Son of God, and yet he was descended from David. I like the Mohammedan religion best. It has fewer incredible things in it than ours. The Turks call Christians idolaters." While denying the biblical miracles attributed to Moses, Napoleon confirmed the historical miracle of Muhammad, the stunning victories and sweeping social changes in a short span of ten or so years. "The Emperor dictated a note to me, to prove that the water struck out of a rock by Moses could not have quenched the thirst of two millions of Israelites."
John Tolan states that “Bonaparte's Muhammad is a model statesman and conqueror: he knows how to motivate his troops and, as a result, was a far more successful conqueror than was Napoleon, holed up on a windswept island in the South Atlantic. If he promised sensual delights to his faithful, it is because that is all they understood: this manipulation, far from being cause for scandal (as it had been for European writers since the twelfth century) provokes only the admiration of the former emperor.”
Democracy, Liberty, Equality...
Democracy merely means the rule of the majority. The critics of democracy also refer to it as the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
Students of political philosophy would understand the limitations and shortcomings of democracy and how democracy can actually be opposed to liberty. Democracy takes away your liberties because the minority has to abide to the wishes of the majority.
The renowned essay On Liberty that was written by English philosopher John Stuart Mill in 1859 explains this well. (Mill is part of the study on political philosophy run by Oxford). In his essay, Mill talks about the danger of democracy to liberty. Democracies, said Mill, are prone to the tyranny of the majority.
This is what Mill said in his introduction in On Liberty:
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries.
Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.
There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.
Plato, who was born in 427 BCE, is hailed as the greatest western philosopher of all time. In 377 BCE he published The Republic (De Republica), which basically talks about the failures of a democracy.
According to Plato, democratic self-governments do not work because ordinary people have not learned how to run the ship of state. They are not familiar enough with such things as economics, military strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of laws and ethics.
In their ignorance, the people tend to vote for politicians who charm them with appearances and vague statements. The people then inevitably find themselves at the mercy of the government and will be subjected to conditions over which they have no control because they do not understand what is happening around them. The people are guided mainly by unreliable emotions more than by careful analysis.
Freedom Of Speech & Expression???
Liberals of Democracy...
Why are we born naked underneath a hairless skin?
This is civil liberty. You may argue that this should not be allowed because it is harmful and deem immoral. But then harmful or immoral to whom? If one does not like to see naked men and women cycling then turn away and don’t look. OMG!!!
Only In Heaven Is everything Deem Fit.. Kosher or HALAL!!!
"Do whatever that deems fit to you"?
Love & Hate...
In Existence there Is a time of Creation and within that Creation there'll be a time for Destruction so as to be made Extinct!!!
Many people do many things all in the name of God. The irony is the very things which they do in the name of God are abhorred by God. Or even prohibited by Him.
Long before Islam the Arabs were fighting one another. When Prophet Muhammad died they continued fighting and even created ‘two Islams’, so to speak — the Sunni and the Shia (both calling each other heretics).
History will show us that human beings have tortured, maimed and killed each other, all in the name of God. Untold misery and cruelty have been inflicted all in the name of God. Yet, when they speak of God and their religion, they insist that God is most merciful, most compassionate and most forgiving. And their religion is a religion of peace, justice and fairness.
In Islam for example, history would show us all that right after the passing of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w., Muslims started arguing on who would be the right candidate to be the Caliph. Then they started killing each other. Until now that is.
Fighting is in the Arab DNA. Then you have the Arabian Arabs, the North Africans, the Turks, the Persians, and so on. And all hate one another. So the British were able to exploit this division to not only break up the Ottoman Empire but to create the state of Israel as well. So, don’t blame the west or the British. Blame the Arabs...
Some or the Arabs would say to blame the Jews. Is it wrong for the Jews to wanting their own homeland? Since long before Jesus Christ the Jews were persecuted. Of course, it was also partly their fault because they dominated the economy and this created a lot of resentment. Then they did not assimilate but kept to themselves and stayed apart from non-Jews.
But that leads to a problem in a way that the Jews were now considered as "foreigners" in every country they lived in as they had no interest in becoming ‘locals’. An Anti-Social act? Or is the Jewish Race a Superior Race by keeping to themselves for wanting God more then its mere creations?
Because the Jews had no nation of their own, they became insecure and were very sensitive to criticism. Any race or community that does not have its own country needs to 'fit or blend in' into other people’s country feels very insecure and cannot tolerate criticism, even in these modern times. They also become militant, which is what the Jews were like long before the time of Jesus Christ.
Now the Jews have their own country, Israel. But Israel is surrounded by enemies of the Jews, so the Jews need to continue to be militant. At the moment Israel is quite secure because it is more or less the 51st state of America. As long as America is still around Israel is safe. But if China ousts America as the policeman of the world, the entire scenario will change.
Jewish Prophet Abraham the Father of a Nation vs. Arab Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. the final prophets of God vs. Jewish Prophet Jesus aka Son Of God...
For god decide to get Fallen so as to partake into Creation by entering creation through a virgin birth... as opposed to Flooding the Romans / 'Evil Doers' out in the story of Prophet Noah... Hhhmmmmm..... For tat Perfect World...
Ruled By Law or Ruled By Faith...
Muslims, just like the Christians, are very vague about the history of the Islamic and Christianity movements before the so-called religious scholars took over and reinterpreted Islam and Christianity. Their understanding of Islam and Christianity is based on what they have been told in the Hadith and the New Testament.
And that is why the Muslim Hadith is in equivalent to the Christian New Testament. Both were written after Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ... That is both the Hadith & the New Testament is written at a later time after the death or so call rise of Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ. This supposedly holy books ie. Hadith & New Testament were written to ‘explain’ Islam and Christianity.
The Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs reinterpreted Islam after the time of Muhammad while the Roman Emperor Constantine reinterpreted Christianity after the time of Jesus.
Hence the Islam and Christian teachings we see today are not the original teachings of Muhammad and Jesus. Hence, also, the secular belief of separation of church and state are foreign to both Islam and Christianity.
The religion of Islam and Christianity were originally movements. And this was what they were, movements. They were not religions per se. They were a complete way of life and a system.
The Qur’an calls Islam an adeen while the early Christians called theirs the Jesus Movement. The word Christianity was never used and it was about a movement regarding the reformation and restoration of the original Jewish faith.
Muhammad’s mission was to establish an Islamic system while Jesus’ mission was to establish a Jewish system. It was not just about doctrine, prayers and rituals but also about an administrative and political system.
Islam and Christianity were political movements. And that was why Muhammad and Jesus were both considered seditious and a danger to the ruling government of their days.
Mekah already had 360 Gods and religions. So one more made no difference to the Mekah authorities. Mekah also had three religions amongst those 360 that propagated the concept of the One God. Hence there was no problem with Muhammad talking about his One God.
But Muhammad was not just talking about a new religion of the One God. He was talking about changing the system, the administrative and political system. And this was the danger that Muhammad posed.
If Muhammad had just propagated his doctrine and rituals, that would have been quite acceptable to the Mekah authorities. What is one more religion when they already had 360? But to talk about changing the administrative system and the system of government was not something the Mekah authorities could ignore.
Hence Muhammad was forced to go into exile or suffer the consequences of a death sentence.
The same thing happened to Jesus. He was arrested for treason and the punishment for treason is crucifixion. Jesus was not just preaching a new religion. He was proposing a change of system. And that was why they took action against him and punished him according to how those guilty of treason would normally be punished in those days.
Both Muhammad and Jesus propagated war, war against the system. In fact, the Jews had been at war with the Romans for quite some time. But Jesus was not only at war with the Romans. He was at war with those who collaborated with the Romans as well, the lackey of the Romans in the Jewish hierarchy.
A Joy Ride in Existence...
Paul, of course, disagreed with this. He was a Roman citizen so he felt that the church must work with the Romans. Others such as Peter, Paul, etc., disagreed. So there was a falling out between Paul and those from the original Jesus movement. Paul then moved to Rome to continue his compromising brand of Christianity, in opposition to Peter, who was also in Rome, who preached his more firebrand form of Christianity.
The same happened to Muhammad. The Mekah authorities negotiated with Muhammad for him to tone down a bit. They can allow a docile brand of a One God religion as long as this does not involve bringing down the government and changing the system.
But Muhammad was uncompromising so they planned to get rid of him and Muhammad had to leave Mekah and escape to Medina, what is known as the Hijrah.
Secularism was not acceptable to both Muhammad and Jesus. If Muhammad and Jesus had accepted the concept of separation of church and state the authorities would have left them alone. But Muhammad and Jesus disagreed that religion must be under the state and instead the state must be under religion.
Those who say that religion and politics should not mix and should be separated go against what Muhammad and Jesus taught. They can quote all sorts of verses from the Hadith and the New Testament to support this argument of separation of church and state but this was not what Muhammad and Jesus taught.
But then the Hadith and the New Testament were created by the powers-that-be of their time. They were created after the time of Muhammad and Jesus. And this was so that the power over religion can be taken away from the anti-authority scholars and placed in the hands of the government of the day.
And that was why many Muslim and Christian scholars were put to death over the last 2,000 years. Those who were militant and preached a militant brand of Islam and Christianity were killed. And the state took over the powers of religion so that secularism could be propagated.
Eventually, over 2,000 years, those who remained were those who agreed that religion and politics should be separated. Those who did not were not allowed to live.
Those who chose to remain in Christendom died. Those who escaped to pagan areas such as the Arabian Peninsula lived. And it was those Christians and Jews who did not accept the government version of their religion and who escaped to pagan areas who were the ones that Muhammad came into contact with.
So, to say that Islam and politics should not mix is wrong. Islam is politics, as is Christianity, although Christians would not admit this.
And this is why you should not just listen to imams and priests. They do not tell you the truth. They tell you what the government wants them to tell you. And was this not why Jesus was anti-priest?
I Want Out - Helloween
From our lives' beginning on We are pushed in little forms No one asks us how we like to be In school they teach you what to think
But everyone says different things But they're all convinced that They're the ones to see
So they keep talking and they never stop
And at a certain point you give it up So the only thing that's left to think is this
to live my life alone (I want out) Leave me be (I want out) To do things on my own (I want out) To live my life and to be free
People tell me A and B They tell me how I have to see Things that I have seen already clear So they push me then from side to side They're pushing me from black to white They're pushing 'til there's nothing more to hear
But don't push me to the maximum Shut your mouth and take it home 'Cause I decide the way things gonna be
To live my life alone (I want out) Leave me be (I want out) To do things on my own (I want out) To live my life and to be free
There's a million ways to see the things in life A million ways to be the fool In the end of it, none of us is right Sometimes we need to be alone
No no no, leave me alone
To live my life alone (I want out) Leave me be (I want out)
To do things on my own (I want out) To live my life and to be free (I want out)
Songwriters: Kai Hansen
I Want Out lyrics © The Bicycle Music Company