Posted on 09/27/2001 6:56:26 AM PDT by francisandbeans
The most sacred spot on earth to all members of the Islamic religion is the Holy City of Mecca, revered as the birthplace of Mohammed. It is one of the five basic requirements incumbent upon all Moslems that they make (if their health will allow it) a pilgrimage to Mecca once in their lives (the other four: recognize that there is no god but Allah, that Mohammed is Allah's prophet, ritually pray five times a day, and give alms to the poor).
The founding events of Islam are Mohammed's activities in Mecca and Medina, a city north of Mecca. The life of Mohammed, known as the Sira, is popularly accepted to be fully documented historically, that everything he did and said was accurately recorded. According to one hagiographer, although Mohammed "could not read or write himself, he was constantly served by a group of 45 scribes who wrote down his sayings, instructions and activities.... We thus know his life down to the minutest details."
The evidence for this is "the earliest and most famous biography of Mohammed," the Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of the Prophet of God) of Ibn Ishaq. The dates given for Mohammed's life are 570-632 AD. Ibn Ishaq was born about 717 and died in 767. He thus wrote his biography well over 100 years after Mohammed lived, precluding his gaining any information from eyewitnesses to the Sira as they would have all died themselves in the intervening years.
However, no copies exist of Ibn Ishaq's work. We know of it only through quotations of it in the History of al-Tabari, who lived over two hundred years after Ibn Ishaq (al-Tabari died in 992). Thus the earliest biography of Mohammed of which copies still exist was written some 350 years after Mohammed lived.
It is curious, therefore, that there seems to have been so little serious scholarly research of the historical evidence for how Islam came to be. Yet what seems to be isn't so. A number of professional academic historians, both Western and Moslem, have produced a large body of research on the origins of Islam. For reasons best known to the pundits and reviewers who should be aware of it, this research remains publicly unknown.
Interesting you should say that. I was with a supposedly Westernized, non-political, moderate Muslim when Challenger exploded. He was so thrilled about this tragedy to an American technological wonder that he could barely contain himself. I couldn't believe what I saw; It turned my stomach.
The author makes some wonderful points. Like, American Arabs are condemning the terrorist atrosities, but they should prove their position with actions, by helping to turn over the terrorists that are living in this country and in their communities.
Although the author's credentials are impressive, I'm not sure how much firsthand experience she's had with Islam and/or Muslims. For one thing, she didn't get the 5 pillars correct. One of them is to fast during the month of Rhamadan each year. Also, she thinks that Muslims can read the koran like some read the Bible, taking some passages as fact and others as nice stories, but not literally.
Muslims would NEVER do this. They are required by the koran to take it as literal. In fact, they only pray in Arabic (even Indonesian, American, European, etc. Muslims who don't even speak Arabic) because the words might get changed in translation if they pray in another language. Also, if they print a Koran in another language, it must be with the original Arabic next to it. They say they believe in Jesus and the Bible, but when inconsistencies are pointed out to them they say the translation of the Bible is wrong because the original translation has been lost. The Koran is correct, literal and untranslated, according to them. They consider it a miracle because Mohammed was illiterate and he brought a book to this world.
There really isn't a comparison with what this fellow is saying about the lack of criticism of Islam.
Islamic society is like a time capsule of 8th century tribalism. It can thrive only within sealed borders. Like many Christians, I pray that the flourishing of Christian culture, coupled with technological and communications breakthroughs, will undermine this oppressive system.
I recall talking with Ukrainians in 1992 who were at a loss. Their epistemelogical foundations had been destroyed when they learned the truth about Communist atrocities and propaganda. One English teacher wanted her son to have faith in something, and CHristianity looked good, but her own sense of deep betrayal made her reluctant to trust.
Can we be prepared, when Islam falls, to offer the suddenly disillusioned muslims a faith worth living for? A total world view that makes sense out of life?
Don't know the answer to #1. As for 2 and 3 -- legend has it that Suleiman the Magnificent conquered Constantinople in 1453 by the light of a slender crescent moon. A stronger possibility -- allah was the moon god of mecca, incarnated in the Ka'abah, that rock.
How's that relate to the sun revolving around the Earth?
"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:
1: The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
2: The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome."
"The myth of an original orthodoxy from which later challengers fall away as heretics, is almost always the retrospective assertion of a politically dominant group whose aim is to establish their supremacy by appeal to divine sanction."
Best and most pertinent component in the article.
I had no idea about any of this. That the historic origins point directly toward Israel are almost Biblically ominous. Information like this is so powerful that such an introspective turn as the article demands may instead induce implosion, the ultimate blowback. One might think that the mullahs would call the Jihad before their adherents learned the truth.
Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau... and here we are: a religion without a birthright, willfully headed toward what could well be a final battle.
Great post, thank you.
If Joshua maintains that the Earth stopped moving with repect to the Sun, physics dictates the oceans should come sloshing out of their basins. You can use your imagination to fill in all the other physical effects. (Picture the catastrophe!)
The alternative case is that the Sun is revolving around the Earth in this story.
In any case, the day "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" should stand as a seminal myth in the traditions of all peoples, should it not?
If you've ever lived smack in the middle of a desert where the sun beats dowm relentlessly on a sterile moonscape of rock and sand, day after day, month after month, you'll learn to start praying for rain. When it comes day by day you'll see a green haze grow along the contours of the land until it becomes a crop of nourishing grasses. The promise of food. Meat and milk. Some welcome water for the wadi that nourishes the date palms.
I believe that the color green has the same emotional resonance in African and West Asian cultures that the color red has in the Chinese culture. It means life, and good fortune.
To question the existence of Jesus or the twelve Apostles is to really question the existence of any ancient historical figure. Jesus' life is better documented than any other ancient person.
Off the top of my head, there's the relatively recent discovery of Peter's tomb and bones directly beneath the main altar in St. Peter's. There is also plenty of archaelogical evidence (i.e. graffitti) of contemporary Roman criticism and mocking of Christians. There is also the contemporary description of Christians by the Roman historian Josephus.
Also, there is no contemporary Jewish criticism of the claims of Christians regarding the existence of Jesus' miracles, never mind His existence and the Apostles' existence. If this was a hoax, surely there would be plenty of contemporary criticism. Then there are the corroborating, voluminous writings of the early Church Fathers, those closest to the historical events.
Secondly, people give their lives all the time in support of lies -- take, for instance, the belief of Moslem "martyrs" that they'll be feted in paradise if they simply kill themselves and take as many infidels with them as possible.
The difference is that they don't regard it as a lie. They really believe it.
If the 12 Apostles made up the story, why would they be willing to die for it? How many pranksters are willing to die for their joke?
The Galileo Controversy
"And yet, it does move." These alleged words of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) conjure images of science's first "martyr": an aged man forced to recant his own correct beliefs for the incorrect views of the Catholic Church--or this is the common belief of many anti-Catholics.
Galileo, it is commonly and quite incorrectly believed, was persecuted by the Catholic Church for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.
The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, proves the Churches abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is clearly not infallible. For Catholics the episode is often a source of embarrassment and frustration. It shouldn't be either.
This tract will provide a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo and will show that the Catholic Church was not "persecuting" him or making unreasonable demands on scientists in general.
"Anti-scientific"?
The Church is not anti-scientific. In fact, it has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. The Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists at the College in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church as well as from individual Church officials. The majority of scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.
Nicholai Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. This work was entrusted by Copernicus to Osiander, a staunch Protestant who knew the reaction of Protestants would be in line with Martin Luther's teaching of geocentrism and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander therefore wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory which would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did--something Copernicus did not intend.
Ten years piror to Galileo, Johannes Keppler published a heliocentric work which expanded on the work of Copernicus. As a result, Keppler was persecuted by Protestants, who deemed him a blasphemer, and he fled for protection to the Jesuits, who were commonly known to have great respect for science.
"Clinging to tradition"?
Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging dogmatically to a "tradition." What they fail to realize is that the judges who presided over Galileo's case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.
Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo's time nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. In fact, Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.
Many people are under the impression that Galileo proved heliocentricity, but he did not. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly 2000 years earlier by Aristotle and concerned the parallax shifts observed in the motion of the heavens.
Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the motions of the planets. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in as much trouble if he had he chosen to stay within the realm of scientists and out of the realm of theologians.
But despite the warnings of his friends, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
Galileo: Theologian?
In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain passages in scripture. Galileo's opponents pointed out that the Bible clearly states "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated passage. Psalms 103 and 92 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also indicate celestial motion and terrestrial stability. The literal sense of these passages would have to be abandoned if a heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this shouldn't have posed a problem. As St. Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.' For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."
Ignorance of history
Fundamentalist critics of the Catholic Church don't typically have a strong grasp of history, and some who do often ignore or conceal pertinent facts in their efforts to smear Catholicism. As you might expect, there is a lot of ignorance of the historical details surrounding the Galileo.
"Unfortunately, there are still today [as there were in Galileo's time] biblical [hyper-literalists], both Protestant and Catholic, who do not understand this simple point: The Bible is not a scientific treatise.
"When Christ said that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds (and it is about the size of a speck of dust), he was not laying down a principle of botany. In fact botanists tell us that there are smaller seeds. He was simply talking to the men of his time in their own language, and with reference to their own experience" (Lay Witness, April 1993, p. 5).
To the hyper-literalists, this was unacceptable. In 1616, the year of Galileo's first trial, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.
The theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on interpretation of a layman. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is no question that if he had kept the discussion in a purely scientific area the issue would not have escalated to the point it did.
Galileo "confronts" Rome
Galileo came to Rome to confront Pope Paul V. The pope, weary of the controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a stern condemnation of Galileo's theory.
This verdict was fortunately overruled under pressure of more cautious Cardinals and was not published until 1633, when Galileo forced a second showdown.
There is even a controversy about the genuineness of the document. At Galileo's request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, S.J.--one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day--issued a certificate which forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory. Years later when Galileo wrote his Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems, he was not in violation of Cardinal Bellamine's edict, but he was in violation of the Holy Office's controversial command,even though he was not aware of it until it was used against him in 1633.
The second trial, like the first, was a result of Galileo's lack of tact. In 1623 his long time friend Cardinal Barberini became Pope Urban VIII. Naturally, Galileo thought the ban of 1616 would be lifted, but he misjudged Urban's patience. His Dialogue made it clear that not only did he consider the defenders of Aristotelian thought fools, he named one of the characters in the Dialogue Simplicio ("Simpleton"), and made him a mouthpiece for Urban's personal views on cosmology. He mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long time supporters, the Jesuits, with violent attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous second trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.
Tortured for his beliefs?
In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not--as is commonly supposed--under threat of torture nor after a harsh imprisonment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.
As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted "we must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
Galileo's friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent back regular reports to the Court regarding the affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.
In one letter, Nicolini reveals the actual circumstances surrounding Galileo's "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan King: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (Letter dated Feb. 13, 1633), " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (Letter, April 16), and "[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (Letter, June 18).
Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would surely have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo's recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.
Having them displayed was a mere formality--sinister by our modern-day standards, perhaps, but certainly customary in those days. In fact, the records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.
As the noted scientist and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age which saw a large number "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Though even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that the condemnation of Galileo was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo in penance for his mistreatment.
Infallibility
Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Keep in mind, though, that his conviction and later rehabilitation does not an any way "disprove" the Catholic teaching of papal infallibility, as is often claimed by critics.
The Church has never infallibly taught any system of astronomy. It doesn't for a moment try to evade or obscure the fact that Galileo's tribunal was wrong, but that doesn't injur the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility. The Church has never claimed its ordinary tribunals to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible. Only a pope or an ecumenical council is infallible, and then only in special circumstances.
While the Holy Office's condemnation was ratified by Urban VIII, there are three conditions which must be present in order to a pope exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter, (2) he must solemnly define a doctrine relating to faith or morals, and (3) he must indicate the doctrine is to be held by all the faithful.
In Galileo's case the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo's day was under-informed in the field of science, just like the rest of the world.
"And yet, it does move"
As to the quote with which we began, there is no historical evidence to support it. "It was a French writer, writing more than a century after Galileo's death, who first put the words in the great scientist's mouth" (Paul Boller & John George, They Never Said It [1989, 30]).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1996 Catholic Answers, Inc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.