I was raised as an Evangelical Christian and for years I was taught what could only be described as a black and white view of faith and what religion was supposed to be. As I grew older, and began to explore the world on my own (this includes a short stint at a Bible college), I have come to understand that much of religion really is a cultural construct much like art or music. I am not an atheist (though I have been tempted to go down that route), but I have a more humble view and no longer do I pretend that faith can be so simply described or understood.
Same dude, even me now seeing Islam more on teaching filled with arabic culture and it's own respective biases (especially jew) rather than seeing it as absolute true with no negativity....
Could you maybe tell me more about your religion-religious views?That would help me a lot since I am trying to understand religion more and I think that I am kind of going down the same path as you are.
Can i just say, this channel is so underrated. Not only is his content scholarly but his narration is on point and calming it allows one to think deeply and appreciate world religions. I introduced my mentor to this channel and now hes using it to teach Religious Studies at his school. Great Work!!!!
It's too bad your mentor did not already grasp these concepts.This is the problem with so many teachers - they do not have enough insight, experience, or knowledge to be teaching others.
As a practicing Catholic I think we do a disservice by simply saying someone isn't "really insert religion here". By saying that we ignore a part of our faith that is allowing fanaticism or the like to grow within us. If we ignore them we shut down the questions raised and allow them to grow. Addressing the issues & clarifying doctrine/dogma through discourse is something we need to recover. Ignoring questions neither answers them nor dissuades them so sects within a greater religion can grow. In short actual discussion needs to take place internally & externally. Really love your channel man, it's really good to learn about religions that aren't my own. Keep up the good work!
Even the so-called "fanaticism" of any good faith is honourable, especially for the devotees. I am no Catholic, but I assure you that it is the Catholic Church that kept the west alive for millennia. The faith of the west ought not to castrate itself.
@@samisiddiqi5411 I'd agree a healthy fanatic devotion can lead to great fruits, monasticism itself is pretty radical. I think the issue comes when groups within the faith become so insular that no world exists outside of their walls. It creates a distorted view of the complexities of life & culture. I'd describe myself as a traditionalist in that I believe the church needs to restore some of the more taxing practices as they call people to take their faith more seriously. With that though I believe healthy discussion & dialogue is vital in not succumbing to an echo chamber that stagnates the faith in an ever changing world.
If there are no fences there is also no Catholics. There must be something to define the thing or else I might as well say I am a Catholic. Clearly, the guy drinking alcohol and chewing some swine is NOT a practicing Muslim as judged by most practicing Muslims.
I once commented in one of your videos Religion is known by it's followers It doesn't matter how great the idea of religion is untill it's followers are practicing it.
I think I needed this video tbh Coming from a muslim background, I always found it so rigid and off to say that Islam never changed and never will. That it applies to all times. But the very reason why it "applies" to all times is due to how much it changes through time itself. That's why there's so many branches of Islam, different ways of celebrating certain holidays and different point of view on the same verses you find in the Quran. All that to say, I really enjoyed your video :)
religions do change; right in front of our eyes; today's Islam is far more backward looking than it was 50 years ago (look at a picture of a street in Istanbul 50 years ago and today and count the number of veiled women); the same can be said for evangelical Christianity (being anti-abortion and pro-gun was not a defining tenet of faith 50 years ago)
@@kc9337 I think everything which is transcendental in a human is related to his actual being, his psyche, his self, his ego, like he has an eye to see but the vision and the light which he is able to perceive and even reflect at times this portion of us is the soul. And of course, this soul is actually making the decisions and this soul will bear the burdens of the actions and consequences of those decisions on eath. This body is just a vessel. In a way, 'soul' can be summed up as all the good that we find in ourselves and everything which prompts us to be virtuous. While everything negative in this sense can be attributed to the animalistic nature in us. So if one is in search of truth and the essence of religion then obviously he will reach there with the help of his soul and by the will of God (indeed).
Verily the symbols marking the path are numbered with religions and sciences and philosophies, many seeming different to senses. As the Mystery is the Soul, One in essence, divine in aspect, everthing betwixt the Alpha and Omega, yet One with them.
I'm so happy I found your monsters of the middle east video (or something to that extent) you are very erudite in your knowledge about islam and you are very balanced in your approaches. Usually non muslims looking from the outside in have orientalist approaches (not in a hostile or deliberate intention, its just the mainstream understanding of islam) you are very thorough and cautious to avoid common issues. You are right, im a sunni muslim. Maliki in fiqh and athari in aqeedah. I would be deemed technically a "salafi" but I loathe isis and alqaeda. I cannot say they aren't the real undertsanding of islam. What I can say is that their interpretations are very nuanced and lack nuance to a dangerous extent to the point they hold a manichaen position which totally bastardizes the essence of the shariah rulings. What I would say about neo salafism and sufism is that they are reactionary husks of what they used to be. They lack the essence and substance of the original movements and are merely mimicking them to somehow reclaim the heritage and prestige and associate themselves with the masters of these traditions. You have people like isis which are enslaving people under the name of islam while at the same time, you have intellectual giants like ibn ashur, the leading intellectual authority of the maliki school of thought in the late 19th to late 20th century in his maqasid ash shariah pgs 154-164 saying that according to the modern environment, slavery ij the islamic context would be forbidden because the modern environment has no need for such an institution. And ibn ashur was no modernist. Look him up What I've realized is that people are not satisfied with the mundane traditional approaches and want extremely narrow approaches to make themselves feel more authentic in their tradition. Its a major flaw of most if not all revivalist movements of religion and/or politics
[1:15] We tend to define religion based on our own conceptions and preconceived notions [1:45] But all religions are internally diverse [2:00] And religions change and evolve over time (generalisations will turn out false somewhere, at some time) [3:05] No-one can define what the "true" version is. That's a matter of faith (subjective) not objective truth [3:25] Adherents make it what it is [3:38] The problem of "essentializing" = claiming there is an essential version of religion, an unchanging, monolithic thing that can be definitely defined [6:40] social, political and economic factors also affect a person's worldview and relationship to it [8:40] although there are still some common referents [10:30] Can we still speak of Religion? From an academic perspective it's an amorphous collection of phenomena, for which religion is a shorthand. We can speak of religion as long as we keep all of the above in mind. [11:14] Theological discussion about orthodoxy and heterodoxy are questions of faith (i.e. subjective) - not amenable to academic discussion which aims to be as objective as possible
I have been a silent follower for this channel for a while now, thank you for sharing your thoughts, thank you for the effort you put into these videos, a person like you seems like the ideal conversationalist anyone could ever have. Love from Morocco.
When discussing “religion” I find it helpful to always separate the scripture and its followers. Always. And that followers merely have interpretations which they conveniently call their interpretations as “simply what the scripture says.” So there’s no such thing as a single “Christianity” or “Islam”. That’s how yo can have a discussion on a religion, by discussing the objective aspect of it: its scripture. There’s no such thing as a absolutely neutral or unbiased understanding of it. Even academics inject a “secular materialist” approach on any topic. Which is fine. Let’s just not pretend we’re the central pivot of neutrality and objectivity. We just need to openly acknowledge our biases and try to be as objective as we can, knowing it’s impossible to be completely unbiased in our methodology and approach.
Yeah, I think, at least in the case of Islam, that’ll help people understand that just because many *muslims* seem to do awful things, it doesn’t mean they’re following a mainstream, sensible, or even valid (as determined by Muslim scholars) interpretation of Islam.
Was born to a Christian sect, was raised ultra religious. In early age rebelled and dived deep into occult and hermetism. What those year taught me is extreme curiosity. Can't stop absorbing religious content.
Thank you so much for this excellent talk. It seems to me that the trouble with religions is that people make the mistake to take their own religion for the truth when in reality it is only a culturally adapted path to the truth/God. Most religious people I have come across have only very vague ideas about the teachings of their own religion but nevertheless they are prepared to staunchly defend their religion as the only true religion, and I guess they do so only because religion is an essential part of their cultural identity. Isn't it obvious that as long as we defend our own religion as the only true one we are still very far from the truth/God, as the truth is one and there are many paths leading to this truth.
No path can lead to the truth. This is only an intellectual idea. Truth, in order to be truth, must be present and within us at all times, not "out there" or available by way of a method or a path. Promising a way to find truth is one of the absurdities of religious teachings.
Great video. I've definitely done my fair share of essentializing. Thanks to this video, however, I can make sure to be more mindful of that in the future.
Thank you very much for this interesting subject! I don't think your video was dry. This is a complex topic and you managed to present a compact and meaningful overview. Keep up the good work!
I feel like the beauty of religion stems from not only the diversity in thought of the multiple religions themselves but the diverse thought that comes from the boundless interpretations of the individuals involved in their religions. Great video, keep it up!
boundless interpretation when kept under right critical analysis yields only what's right. thus, whenever interpretation are rightly analysed never there's change in religion. this is how religion could be never-changing. the beauty of religion is not at all in its coming/evolving from anything. if it comes from anything other than God, how can it be a true religion! therefore, beauty of religion is in how it even stays same after many different interpretation been put forward.
This is something that I have encountered a lot. As someone who is studying Medieval religion, I get endlessly frustrated at academics judging peasant or common religion as "basically paganism" even though these people would undoubtedly identify as Christians (they pray to God, go to church and respect the authority of priests who themselves often get labeled pagans by these same academics!). This is largely due to the fact that they are often being compared to either modern Christianity or the beliefs outlined by medieval theologians, which makes their religiosity seem deviant. Thankfully, modern historians are starting to question these practices and seeing the diversity of religious expressions as legitimate rather than dismissing them.
This channel is why I have become more interested in getting a better understanding of all religions, and why I don't feel any need to attack another religion. I think by actually communicating between different religions is better than holding hatred in our hearts.
Not the most exciting?! Less dry videos coming?!?! How dare you! This is the most intellectually engaged I've felt in *too long* 😩 Am I in perpetual boredom since I finished my undergrad in philosophy some two years ago? Yes... Are you helping me a lot? DEFINITELY. More of this "dry" stuff, please 🤩
Thank YOU, again Philip. You put my thoughts into words in the most pragmatic, beautiful and understandable way. I only wish more people around me and in the world generally share this perspective. Brilliant, as usual ❤ Elena Funny I didn’t come across this video earlier.. I thought I had seen all of them so far !
Great video, I do agree in some points and also disagree on others. Firstly on the issue of inherently labelling of a religion just because it encourages some conducts in some instances. I believe a creed should be labelled according to its foundation. Counter arguing this type of generalization with another type of generalization, that is "people are the ones who make a faith" is not unrestrictedly true. Of course, there is diversity within Islam, like many other different faiths. But it has some basic unchangeable tenets, which all diverse sects within it agree. For example, existence and worship of one God, believing in Muhammad ﷺ as the last prophet etc. And also, there are explicit texts and muhkam ayah which cannot be interpreted and redefined. These parts of the religion are concrete. Explicitness of these things leaves no room for its followers to reshape them. This is not something typical to Islam. I mean having a concrete foundation that defines the creed and its followers. Every creed or a notion has certain pillars which it stands upon and a mission it propagates. If we imagine, for example, communist party of a region embracing capitalist system, there can be three possible conclusions drawn from it: 1. Communism/communist is a label devoid of any value. 2. Communism consists of scattered values and beliefs which do not have an "essential idea", thus it evolves continuously as the set of people who ascribe themselves to it [i.e. communists] come across new ideas and absorb whatever they may see befitting. Just as cultures do. 3. The communists of that region have deviated from the idea itself. We know that communism is a political idea which revolves around quest for common ownership of property and a system that can ensure equal distribution of wealth. This cancells out first and second possibilities, and we are left with the third. However, had we concerned ourselves with a race or a culture or an ethnicity, we couldn't have said just because a person or a set of people have different lifestyle or ideas, they will be stripped off from their own respective race/culture/ethnic backgrounds. Since their is no essential element that shapes these labels. This is where we can rightfully use the "no true scotsman" fallacy argument. To recap, a creed or a notion is followed by submitting to its basic ideas and believing in them. You may have different approach in its propagation or different interpretations in subsidiary issues, but none of these will effect its essence. That being said, error or lapses in areas other then the foundational aspect of creed, from the followers of a religion will not strip them off from their religious lables either. However, ascribing lapses of the followers of a religion, to the religion itself to make it appear as if something is religiously permitted or shunned, is bizzare; same way it is bizzare to argue that a religion can be inherently "peaceful" or "violent" because there are some instances where they expounded peace or violence.
@@wizardmongol4868 yes they r explicitly mentioned. I won't mention u the ayyahs. let me tell me its juice. like belief in one God is said repeatedly. different attributes of God is said repeatedly. almost all surah of Quran praises or mention God as one (except kafirun, & other small surahs). there r other things too which r explicitly mentioned but this is most important. for more information u can visit : th-cam.com/video/5MalbWPmXJ4/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/TlXS1RuoJLM/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/mjw6XB5M3is/w-d-xo.html
Hmm - not sure I agree with your point of view. Who gets to define what are the 'foundational aspects' or 'basic unchangeable tenets' (to use your expressions) of a given religion? I'm not familiar with Islam except in the vaguest of ways, but as far as Christianity or Judaism go, history is either full of changes to those 'basic unchangeable tenets', or those are very few indeed; possibly none other than belief in the existence of one single, revealed God and the status of Jesus - and to add Islam to the trio, then one only needs to add the status of Muhammad. Differences on apparently minor points (which seem to be very far from the philosophical tenets underlying the 'parent' religion, and are often related to a political power structure that existed at one point in the history of the religion) have created great schisms and an apparently "minor point" becomes _the_ point of difference and contention, and it is - sometimes suddenly - elevated to 'basic, unchangeable tenet' (one example for all in Christianity: the primacy of the Bishop of Rome) for one part of the dispute. Yet both parts still claim to belong to the original religion that spawned the split... The link to 'foundational' aspects is also something that I don't agree with - in the sense that not all religions have a clear founder (e.g. Muhammed) or foundational figure (e.g. Jesus or Buddha). Defining 'foundational' aspects of (e.g.) Hinduism, Judaism or Shinto is far more problematic, though if one reinterprets 'foundational' as 'basic, shared tenet' some of the issues disappear - to be however replaced by the problem that I pointed out above: the 'basic shared tenets' are so few that they don't leave much room for characterisation. I also _totally_ disagree with your use of the terms 'lapse' and 'error' in areas that are "not foundational" (again to use your expression; whatever "foundational" or "basic tenet" may come to mean). Again, who gets to define what is a 'lapse' or an 'error'? With respect to what, if it doesn't affect the "basic tenet"? In any case, both terms have a negative connotation that I strongly believe should be avoided when discussing people's beliefs.
With the impact of learning and understanding that I picked up, I am very impressed with this video... I believe that I have walked away a bit better for it.
Hi! I'm new to your channel. Great content, I like how eloquent and insightful you are. I'm a student of Anthropology, Religions and Eastern Cultures at the University of Bologna and I'm learning from and enjoying more this videos that I do classes. I also appreciate that you don't push ideologies. I couldn't find your patron link.
Interesting video. One thing that stood out to me, is that the scholar presenting this video states (and I'm paraphrasing here) that a religion is shaped by the people following this religion, maybe even more so than that those people are shaped by the religion; and as a result, the religion changes, evolves. In other words, religion is very much a man-made, cultural construct.
Do you think that theology becomes ‘simply’ an amalgamation of various disciplines, or discourse with the bubble of a particular group of qualities which called a religion? I ask as a prelude to considering are comparative or ethical judgements possible between discreet ‘religions.
People will project their culture, history, countries politics on their religion, which is why Islam in Lebanon is completely different from Islam in Saudi Arabia. People will find ways to justify their actions by using religion.
@AutoDriver4000 none of this is true, The Quran recognize Iseael as the land of the Jews, but god then says they were punished from it and not allowed to return. This is also what the Jews believe happened to themselves. Also, Muslims know the land belonged to the Jews, but they also understand that we live in the 21st century where you cant take a country because it used to be yours in the past.
@@LetsTalkReligion They can be seperated sometimes? For example, I live in Saudi Arabia where alot of people believe in tribalism because of the bedwin culture. Muslims here will try to twist the religion to fit their bedwin culture that has nothing to do with their religion. From my experience, I find culture more powerful than religion as religion and religion changes based on peoples culture.
@AutoDriver4000 Some youtube channels can ban certain words, if you use it your comment can me deleted automatically. Which is what I think is happening? Try again with different wording..?
@AutoDriver4000 I dont use the Quran or my religion to be against Israel. Me being anti Israel comes outside of my religion. People who use their DNA and religion to invade other countries are Nazis. I simply use 21st century logic of not invading other people based on religion and DNA. Did Saudi and Lebanon did it? yes but not in the 21st century where this is not accepted. You also only used one verse but there is many many verses. But again, I dont use my religion to attack other humans so it doesnt matter what the Quran says.
It‘s obvious that it‘s important to shift one’s, lets say, „framework“ of thinking about religion (or of thinking about anything, really, but that‘s not what this is about) once in a while. One might naturally get stuck in a simplifying analysis that might be of great help to understand a problem initially („Muslims are...“, „The characteristics of Hinduism is...“) but is of little help when one is trying to further investigate such topics. And an approach such as „start from the people, not from the religion“ might be helpful. However, as you too pointed out, there is great danger in that way of thinking. And that is relativism. If you follow these postmodern thoughts and ideas to their logical conclusions you end with absolutely nothing. And that, too, is of little help to further the aforementioned investigation. In fact it stultifies and nullifies it. Perhaps that is not what these authors intended when they put their ideas forward. Still, it is what seems to be happening. The discourse on all sorts of topics in the humanities has become so absurdly abstract and self-centered that it no longer serves the purpose of aiding investigation but rather has developed into some kind of katechism. We got to a point where talking about talking about something, and discussing discussions is of central importance, rather than the topic itself that the subject claims to be named for/after.
What a great video!! After watching this I feel I must have to treat you one day, a modest lunch or dinner. If you happen to visit Cairns, Australia pls let me know. Or I'll find you one day and offer my proposal regarding buying u a lunch or dinner.
I adhered to a sunni/salafy understanding of Islam, and then apsotated. but still hold the view that Salafy branch is the most authentic Islam. your video was very challenging, I will contemplate on your points. great video.
I think one of the reasons why Islam is the most intriguing religion is because its Holy book mentions it by name and its Prophet called it by that name instead of its followers choosing one after. It is the only religion which as a whole doesn't have an "-ism" at the end, but when it comes to divisions or subgroups it has as many isms (or in arabic "iyya"-s) as any other religion (Sunnism, Shiism, Salafism, Sufism, Mu'tazilism, Ibadism, "The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account." [Qur'an Ali Imran 03. 019]
Interesting analysis. However, while Islam may seem to have many ‘isms’, but it does at least seem to have a much larger majority ‘ism’ (sunnism) than many/most/all other religions. Also, another interesting point about the name ‘Islam’ is that it doesn’t refer to a name or place, but rather the idea and way of life that the religion is actually based on (submission to God’s will would be a rough, simple translation), again unlike many/most other religions
It is also the only religion that distinguishes between Revelation (the Qur'an in in this case) and the life of the Prophet who received it and his community (which take up Hadith). I find this infinitely remarkable and seeing a religion that does that makes it very hard to take Judaism and Christianity seriously, from the point of authority and scripture essentially
@@MotorStorm66 "ism" is just englishishing of course. In Arabic is just Sunni and Shi'i. Not "Sunnism and Shi'ism". Must Muslims of either angle still just refer to themselves as "Muslims" and also consider each other as "Muslims" equally despite their differences. The trend of Salafi takfirism is not indicative of traditional layman discourse or society.
I mean, just for the sake of discussion, many scholars (myself included) don't think the Qu'ran is referring to "Islam" as a name but to the meaning of the word itself. So the verse can be translated in two ways: "...and I have approved Islam as your religion (din)" OR "...and I have approved submission to my will as your religion" I personally tend to favor the latter, and that the name Islam for the religion was later taken from that verse rather than the other way around.
@@LetsTalkReligion Salaam yes brother you are absolutely true. When both the Qur'an and earlier Hadith refer to the term Islam it is meaning "submission or acquiescence towards the divine (Allah/God)" It's also very important to also outline how there are three layers of Deen too: Islam (submission to God), Iman (translated often as "faith" but also entailing an assimilation of knowledge and practice) and Ihsan (which translates to Perfection, commonly, and entails someone who has entered deeply into the inner, the Batin, of the Deen, and now apprehend the realities/haqq experientially and inwardly. It also furthermore corresponds with gnosis in the essential meaning). Historically the designation of the term "Islam" as the collective title and self-designation of the "followers of Prophet Muhammad" was a later evolution of the use of the word. Any Muslim who is acquainted well enough with the Qur'an and Islamic history wouldn't deny that. Actually when we get deeper into the Qur'an's own semantics and arguments there, it's worth noting that the Qur'an self-designates the Deen in relation to the concept of the Hanif (NOT the Maddhab) or follower of Prophet Abraham. This idea (combinded with Paul's notions in his epistles) basically gives rise to the notion of an "Abrahamic tradition". Nonetheless the Qur'an is pretty adamant a primordial Deen that stretches through Adam to Abraham to Jesus and fully encompassed in the Revelation (Qur'an) revealed to Prophet Muhammad. I'm very interested in the term Islam itself a lot actually, much like with Dharma which I mentioned before. There is far more to it than just that of course.
The problem is, however, that essentializing is so difficult to get around. This goes not only for religion, but for pretty much everything. I have studied both philosophy and religion at university and there, it seemed to me that all the professor's were sp embedded in post-structuralism along the lines of for example Pierre Bordieu, that it hindered their way of thinking about things. They all seemed to endorse the famous line by Jonathan Z. Smith in "Imagening Religion". "There is no data for religion. Religion is solely the creation of the scholars study.". And all of that without considering any of the big discussions between philosophers going back to the problem of universals in the middle ages. At least, if they did, that did not take them seriously. There is a good case to be made for non-essentializing for sure, but it does have profound problems as well, which are sorely lacking whenever the case against essentializing is made.
I like to remind ppl that the concept of "religion" itself is fairly new. In antiquity (when most of our current religions arose) there was no such idea. Ones metaphysical beliefs were all enmeshed into a fluid category of culture. Which includes both divine beliefs or more benign philosophical beliefs.
Well there are many ways of doing things too. A sounding essentialzation is better than a quasi preaching of nothing! You guys are the everyday selection which provides ground of discussion!
as a muslim i can give the example of a font and a document ,as you write a document in a font ,life is a document and islam is a font. islam is a lifestyle rather than an aspect of life.we are not capitalists or comunists but muslims whwn it comes to economics. we are neither conservative or or liberal but muslims. islam has its own economics ,idelogy ,laws . it is a whole package .a guide for life or a lifestyle
I love this channel. I did my undergrad in Religious Studies and Psychology at Indiana University, and my Masters in Theology at Notre Dame. I consider myself to hold views about religion similar to John Hick, William James, Carl Jung, Paul Tillich, etc (yes, I suppose that this also includes Joe Campbell and the infamous Jordan Peterson) Anyway, my son decided to enlist in the Air Force instead of going to university three years ago. He's got a sharp, curious mind, and this was a difficult decision. He's been asking me to create a kind of syllabus for an informal Religious Studies curriculum. You channel has officially made that job EASY. THANK you. Looking through your list of videos made me feel like a kid in a toy store. I added so many videos to my Watch Later playlist that I was getting frustrated that TH-cam only allows you to add one at a time.
I'm a solo polytheist for the reason that I interact with my deities directly in trance and dream, then explore such interactions in the textural resources that are available to me. I've found, however, that this practice has completely separated me from any form of fellowship in my faith except idle discussion. I find that most times, with the exception of the most general of polytheistic reconstructed rituals, I can't even participate. And all of this is totally okay. It just means that my religion, as it is known to me, will likely remain with me. And unless someone else works directly with Brighid and is urged to work in the same manner as me, it will likely die with me when I die. I can, however, opt to leave behind a record of my journey, and intend to do so. But I wouldn't expect someone else to have the same experiences as me, because they are different people. Documenting all of this is reason enough to pursue this faith. A "Brighid wuz here" graffitied on time
I couldn't agree more. I had the interesting experience of growing up in a variety of Christian tradition (Quakerism) that is just so different to the stereotype for both Christianity AND religion that it meant even when I described myself as a 'militant Atheist', I did so understanding that religion doesn't have to be ANY of the things many of its critics believe it is. The list of things Quakers don't do is just so astoundingly long and quite shocking at times e.g. they're very religious Christians that WON'T swear on the bible! The law in the UK actually had to be changed to accomodate this!
I'm a big fan of this channel. I also feel like a cheat benefiting valuable knowledge over breakfast without doing any of the reading or analytical work. Would like to see more discussions on topics like religion v spiritualism. Organically formed practices v text / teaching based practices. About saints and divinity, physical worship v divinity through thoughts. Concepts of salvation in different religion. I am currently reading the text written by Saint Vallalar who rejected religion and claimed compassion as the only key to salvation.
Now I realize how very valuable and expensive what in Islam called "hidayah", but anyway I like your TH-cam to give me different perspective in religion #thumbs up
3 ปีที่แล้ว
This subject should be in the facebook of every content about religion. Thanks because I didn't know that word!
It's interesting how some religions try very, very hard to be monolithic, but still end up failing and schisming. Scientology in particular comes to mind. The most litigious religion in history, but that hasn't stopped the Free Zone.
It is important to look at individuals as individuals. Even within an individual there are various conflicting opinions. Humans change and evolve with newer information all time.
I had a question for my college religion course that involved essentialism. Hadn't a clue what the word meant or how to answer the question until I found your video. I looked through a lot of videos till I came upon yours. Thank you
@@LAILA-2816 so then, if you're saying that one religion is from God and the other is not, that means that there are qualitative differences between religions. Which is what I said.
I need some explanation please. How the followers/believers are different from the religion if what they make is written and demanded in the scriptures? I mean if the strictures tell you to kill certain person or do particular action, even against your will, how can that not be consider a clear definition of the religion or at least what are the base motivation for the believers. In the case of habraamic faiths, a lot if not everything is in the scriptures with a clear path/action. It seems that the concept of religion is so vague that creates an ideological vacuum responsible for the separation of (scriptures - believer actions). Any thoughts?
When/where/how did you get a start as a comprehensive religion scholar? I, of course, cannot verify your information completely personally, but I have found demonstrable pan-religious truth within your analysis and historical recounting. ❤
Essentialization may occur in particular religious groups. Sunni Muslims who believe in the true Islam may consider Ismailis or Shias as not following "true Islam". Sufis may see Salafi as a reform movement, whilst Salafis will see themselves as followers of the Salaf aka the Original Islam. The idea of gnostics will be seen as not the true Christianity. Protestant Christians who haven't read scripture may consider themselves Christian. Essentialising in scripture that that is the complete expression of a religion and not considering the social, anthropological aspects of religion is also problematic - as it doesn't take into account the living practice.
Great video. Religion reminds me of a corporation, which exists and does not exist. If the corporation's headquarters burned down then the corporation would nevertheless still exist. If the owners of the corporation and the board were to die or resign, the corporation exists anyway. If a corporation moves across the country or world, the corporation is still said to exist. If the corporation lost all of its money and could not operate, it would still exist. If the corporation completely changed its philosophy, goals, and products or services offered, it would still exist. So we ask what a corporation actually is - its owners, its operations, its building, its location, etc.?
I know it sounds weird, I do hope one day you would cover the works of Talal Asad. He's so influential yet, I find him together with the late Saba Mahmood hardly spoken outside of academia.
Fantastic and interesting video! I've recently discovered your channel I've found all of the subject matter and discussions in your videos fascinating. If I may, I wanted to debate one point you've made around 11:38--in relation to 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' with respect to the internal discussion within a religion on what teachings are or are not true, etc. vs. an academic discussion on religion which refrains from making those judgments. I think there may be a problem in saying that the former is necessarily 'subjective' in nature and that the latter is 'objective.' Part of the issue I see in this is that it assumes that the academic discouse on religion looks at religion from a perspective that either is objective or strives for objectivity, whereas the arguments that a religious person would produce (as a religious person) on what teachings are true vs. untrue does are necessarily subjective, or do not strive for objectivity. I think it's fine to say that the academic perspective looks at religion from a set of epistemological values (e.g. neutrality towards the ontological views of religions, neutrality towards truth-claims of religions, etc.) that have been identified over time by the community of academics over time as the proper perspective through which academics ought to take religion. But to say that this an actually 'objective' position, or a position that actually strives 'towards objectivity' contra the perspective of someone speaking from the perspective of religion which does not strive for objectivity, may be problematic because it's presumably reasonable to think that there are, and have been many religious people who would see themselves as making 'objective' arguments, or striving for objectivity in the arguments that they advance to demonstrate the truth of religious claims. I think that another way to put this, might be to say that the questions of 'what is objective'? and 'who is objective?' are resolved -- and I think there's reason to doubt that the answer to this is as simple as 'academic discours=objective', 'religious discourse=subjective'. I hope this makes sense, and I'd be interested to hear your perspective on this! Looking forward to watching more content on this channel!
Does ecumenism include religions other than one's own? I've only ever heard the idea in the context of various Christian denominations getting together. I'd better go and look it up in a dictionary!
I want to point out an obvious point (or, at least I think it is obvious). When Marranci writes that "it is not Islam that shapes Muslims but rather Muslims who... shape Islam in different times and places". (1) This is also to essentialize Islam: "Islam" is simply whatever Muslims make of it. That's a _definition_ of Islam. (2) Marranci no doubt criticises something called "Orientalism" and yet here he is defining Islam in a way that is not going to be acceptable to Muslims. Of course Muslims will recognise that the Umma has shaped Islam to an extent but to reduce Islam to that would be offensive to them and the imposition of a Western narrative. The Qur'an and Sunnah has shaped Muslims far more than Muslims have shaped (or interpreted) those sources.
Hi. I wonder if you could help me with something: I am looking for an authoritative source on the Islamic veil. I am writing an essay about it and would like to be very sure I can speak knowledgeably about the topic. But sources are not extremely helpful. I recognize that the oblgation to veil (let alone veil completely) is not directly and clearly established in the Qoran, but rather inferred from references to modest dress or separation of the genders. It is not the source of the clear obligation that I look for, I look for a clear, thorough, discussion on the topic written by someone from within, which might help me explain why some people feel bound to wear it and some don't, and - more importantly - how it is not a symble. Any recommendations???????? Would much appreciate it.
I deeply respect your detached attitude: but I have questions about where the confessional and the scholarly approaches meet. As a (kind of) believing Christian, I have to face the fact that one of the major features of the religion as practised is a thousand years of murderous anti-Semitism. I also am, surely, entitled to claim that this is absolutely contrary to all that is best in the belief system. It is appealing, and useful, to assert a distinction between a description and an evaluation; but it doesn't quite work out. So, what you're doing is very difficult, and I really appreciate it.
Yes, the internal diversity of religion is a perpetual problem in academic Art History (which is what I do). I skirt it in my own research and writing by focusing on social and technological history, but i still need to teach sacred art traditions in the classroom. It's hard to do this true justice in that context. Sure we can narrow the historical interpretations of sacred works to the particular religious institutions for which they were made, and narrow that again to the dominant theological discourses of that institution at that time. Standard fare. But I'm often struck that this leaves out entirely a whole range of unheard voices that surrounded those artefacts - often in worship - in the past. There are a few art historians (typically medievalists) who have attempted to find ways to contend with this problem in their own way. (Michael Camille comes to mind). But it is a tough nut to crack.
I'm currently reading a Harry Turtledove book which reverses the roles of Islam and Christianity as 'fundamentalist and rational' I suspect he's trying to challenge perceived notions and challenge commonly held ideas, however so far it's being quite polemic. I'm hoping it gets better
Why didn't it really sound as objective as I hoped it would!!! For the best part of this video you were trying so hard to defend one religion!! And If this is about looking at any religion from academic point of view, could that mean you're only going to look at it's book!! Cause these book tend to have many contradictions! And yes, religions do evolve, and we can observe that process and make a visible line either towards civilized evolvement or not so peaceful or civilized one. What I am saying is that this particular topic is so deep and nearly impossible to handle, and to achieve objectiveness you truly need to distance yourself from all believes. And it's easy to say that something isn't truly as violent as people say, when you mightbe living in a place where you have the freedom to talk about religion! And not in a middle eastern country where you would basically be in jail or worse for talking.
I feel like you can define a religion especially much easier then other cultural movements because there are more often then not fundamental aspects of a religion that are written and consistent no matter what even if most of it is up to interpation like tawhid in Islam. There’s reason why there’s different sects of a religion not considered different ones. Different from a culture with no real foundation and is constantly changing at least idealy
can i ask, why you do these video?what brought the inspiration. i find them really interesting and challenging. After all these tehological research what religions are you adept if any? sorry if its a personal question.
Even the doctrine of "evolution" (not darwinian evolution, but the notion of "evolving") is itself a result of western notions of "linear progress," and a hegelian belief in "the end of history." A religion, more clearly is something that can't be "essentialized," not due to "principles" but because if turned to an identity it kills it. Just as how analysis kills everything it looks at, dissecting an organic unity as if it were nothing but a cadaver. To "name" a thing in many religions is itself considered a "spell" that tries to "capture the essence" of something important, hence why some Jews are against saying the Lord's name. Religion also isn't some "ice cream flavor" one chooses, but rather a set of tradition one initiates themselves in, or is initiated into. In truth, there is no "religion" but religion itself and faith is for those who're capable.
It's a great video and it's very hard to make a video such a complex topic to a general audience. Having said that I found Gabrielle Marranci to be somewhat underestimating the normative thrust within any religious tradition and its dynamics, and instead tend to lean more on the side of 'people making religion'. This might also have some political implications in presenting 'everyday Islam' to be more real and genuine than, say, normativizing Salafi Islam. There is an article about this issue, if I remember correctly, by Mayanthi Fernando if you want to check out.
But a religion can stay true and consistant to itself but people tend to practice it in a way that benefits them and here is where faith comes for beilevers . different people have different faith and that what makes the difference .
It's much easier and probably more truthful to say that religions only change when they are forced to, in order for the priestly class to survive. It's like a puppy, when it starts to feel neglected, it starts to whine and try to make us feel bad.
Yes Filip, this is also a discussion I'm having a lot with our course directors and professors about whether we can really speak about any religion as a whole. In a sense, as you say, no, "true Islām" or "true Christianity"are not existent somewhere as objective ideals to be lived up to but are essentially shaped by their followers. Ibn 'Arabî speaks for Islām and Ibn Taymiyyah speaks for Islām but they couldn't be more different! Religions are largely shaped by their adherents. Still, I feel you need at least some essentials to be there. You can't really have Christianity without the Bible and Jesus Christ and you can't really have Islām without the Qur'ān and Muhammad. Maybe this is an easier "conundrum" to solve for Dharmic religions, especially Hinduism, since its focus is not really on beliefs, but more a spiritual social order in which a lot of internal diversity is generally accepted and normative. An interesting thing to think about for us for sure, also catching our own biases in the study of this.
But who decides what those "essentials" are? :) I'm not disagreeing with you, but it could be deemed a little christian-centric to boil the essentials of a religion down to "The Man and The Book". Although in the case of Islam it does fit quite well. You are right in the sense that as soon as we move outside the Abrahamic framework (not just Dharmic religions) things become a lot harder.
Religion is a social agenda and as such is always a creation of the world. The source of religion is Transcendent Consciousness but religion is always a selling of that which can not be sold.
Great video on an important topic. Essentializing is so common, but it is difficult to address succinctly in the moment.
Definitely! It can be hard to strike a good balance between being as nuanced as possible and still remaining somewhat coherent.
Wow, my two favorite religion youtuber chatting together. Awesome.
@@h.johariabul4574 I was literally thinking the same thing. Would love to hear these guys just talk for hours.
@@barnardthomas1411 as long as they keep a bibliography to take home.
Oh how glad to see you here. What a surprise.
I was raised as an Evangelical Christian and for years I was taught what could only be described as a black and white view of faith and what religion was supposed to be. As I grew older, and began to explore the world on my own (this includes a short stint at a Bible college), I have come to understand that much of religion really is a cultural construct much like art or music. I am not an atheist (though I have been tempted to go down that route), but I have a more humble view and no longer do I pretend that faith can be so simply described or understood.
Same dude, even me now seeing Islam more on teaching filled with arabic culture and it's own respective biases (especially jew) rather than seeing it as absolute true with no negativity....
@@Peanuts76 So much of what we believe has to be taken in context.
Could you maybe tell me more about your religion-religious views?That would help me a lot since I am trying to understand religion more and I think that I am kind of going down the same path as you are.
This is exactly the point where i am standing after spending years to figure out and learn what s'd be true or wrong and where s'd i stop myself.
@@acedia129research on every religion deeply then let your heart decide what's right or wrong?
Can i just say, this channel is so underrated. Not only is his content scholarly but his narration is on point and calming it allows one to think deeply and appreciate world religions.
I introduced my mentor to this channel and now hes using it to teach Religious Studies at his school.
Great Work!!!!
It's too bad your mentor did not already grasp these concepts.This is the problem with so many teachers - they do not have enough insight, experience, or knowledge to be teaching others.
As a practicing Catholic I think we do a disservice by simply saying someone isn't "really insert religion here". By saying that we ignore a part of our faith that is allowing fanaticism or the like to grow within us. If we ignore them we shut down the questions raised and allow them to grow. Addressing the issues & clarifying doctrine/dogma through discourse is something we need to recover. Ignoring questions neither answers them nor dissuades them so sects within a greater religion can grow. In short actual discussion needs to take place internally & externally. Really love your channel man, it's really good to learn about religions that aren't my own. Keep up the good work!
Even the so-called "fanaticism" of any good faith is honourable, especially for the devotees. I am no Catholic, but I assure you that it is the Catholic Church that kept the west alive for millennia. The faith of the west ought not to castrate itself.
@@samisiddiqi5411 I'd agree a healthy fanatic devotion can lead to great fruits, monasticism itself is pretty radical. I think the issue comes when groups within the faith become so insular that no world exists outside of their walls. It creates a distorted view of the complexities of life & culture. I'd describe myself as a traditionalist in that I believe the church needs to restore some of the more taxing practices as they call people to take their faith more seriously. With that though I believe healthy discussion & dialogue is vital in not succumbing to an echo chamber that stagnates the faith in an ever changing world.
If there are no fences there is also no Catholics. There must be something to define the thing or else I might as well say I am a Catholic. Clearly, the guy drinking alcohol and chewing some swine is NOT a practicing Muslim as judged by most practicing Muslims.
@@RestingJudge A very thoughtful and, for me, thought provoking comment; thank you.
I once commented in one of your videos
Religion is known by it's followers
It doesn't matter how great the idea of religion is untill it's followers are practicing it.
That definitely resembles some Religions
I think I needed this video tbh Coming from a muslim background, I always found it so rigid and off to say that Islam never changed and never will. That it applies to all times. But the very reason why it "applies" to all times is due to how much it changes through time itself. That's why there's so many branches of Islam, different ways of celebrating certain holidays and different point of view on the same verses you find in the Quran. All that to say, I really enjoyed your video :)
religions do change; right in front of our eyes; today's Islam is far more backward looking than it was 50 years ago (look at a picture of a street in Istanbul 50 years ago and today and count the number of veiled women); the same can be said for evangelical Christianity (being anti-abortion and pro-gun was not a defining tenet of faith 50 years ago)
"There are as many paths to God as there are souls on earth." -old Sufi proverb
Wow
Your soul is your path toGod, it’s your soul that will be the only way to any faith of any religious truths. Is it not so?
@@kc9337 I think everything which is transcendental in a human is related to his actual being, his psyche, his self, his ego, like he has an eye to see but the vision and the light which he is able to perceive and even reflect at times this portion of us is the soul. And of course, this soul is actually making the decisions and this soul will bear the burdens of the actions and consequences of those decisions on eath. This body is just a vessel. In a way, 'soul' can be summed up as all the good that we find in ourselves and everything which prompts us to be virtuous. While everything negative in this sense can be attributed to the animalistic nature in us. So if one is in search of truth and the essence of religion then obviously he will reach there with the help of his
soul and by the will of God (indeed).
Verily the symbols marking the path are numbered with religions and sciences and philosophies, many seeming different to senses.
As the Mystery is the Soul, One in essence, divine in aspect, everthing betwixt the Alpha and Omega, yet One with them.
A nice proverb.
The utter lack of nuance in the discussion surrounding islam drives me crazy. Thank you for this. Its like a breath of freah air.
islamophobia islamophobia islamophobia islamophobia islamophobia islamophobia islamophobia islamophobia islamophobia islamophobia
@@matmirza5376 islamophobia is nonsense term tbh
I'm so happy I found your monsters of the middle east video (or something to that extent) you are very erudite in your knowledge about islam and you are very balanced in your approaches. Usually non muslims looking from the outside in have orientalist approaches (not in a hostile or deliberate intention, its just the mainstream understanding of islam) you are very thorough and cautious to avoid common issues.
You are right, im a sunni muslim. Maliki in fiqh and athari in aqeedah. I would be deemed technically a "salafi" but I loathe isis and alqaeda. I cannot say they aren't the real undertsanding of islam. What I can say is that their interpretations are very nuanced and lack nuance to a dangerous extent to the point they hold a manichaen position which totally bastardizes the essence of the shariah rulings. What I would say about neo salafism and sufism is that they are reactionary husks of what they used to be.
They lack the essence and substance of the original movements and are merely mimicking them to somehow reclaim the heritage and prestige and associate themselves with the masters of these traditions. You have people like isis which are enslaving people under the name of islam while at the same time, you have intellectual giants like ibn ashur, the leading intellectual authority of the maliki school of thought in the late 19th to late 20th century in his maqasid ash shariah pgs 154-164 saying that according to the modern environment, slavery ij the islamic context would be forbidden because the modern environment has no need for such an institution. And ibn ashur was no modernist. Look him up
What I've realized is that people are not satisfied with the mundane traditional approaches and want extremely narrow approaches to make themselves feel more authentic in their tradition. Its a major flaw of most if not all revivalist movements of religion and/or politics
As a muslim..i really love all your videos..wish all the happiness in the world for you..
This is a phenomenally underrated channel
[1:15] We tend to define religion based on our own conceptions and preconceived notions
[1:45] But all religions are internally diverse
[2:00] And religions change and evolve over time (generalisations will turn out false somewhere, at some time)
[3:05] No-one can define what the "true" version is. That's a matter of faith (subjective) not objective truth
[3:25] Adherents make it what it is
[3:38] The problem of "essentializing" = claiming there is an essential version of religion, an unchanging, monolithic thing that can be definitely defined
[6:40] social, political and economic factors also affect a person's worldview and relationship to it
[8:40] although there are still some common referents
[10:30] Can we still speak of Religion? From an academic perspective it's an amorphous collection of phenomena, for which religion is a shorthand. We can speak of religion as long as we keep all of the above in mind.
[11:14] Theological discussion about orthodoxy and heterodoxy are questions of faith (i.e. subjective) - not amenable to academic discussion which aims to be as objective as possible
I have been a silent follower for this channel for a while now, thank you for sharing your thoughts, thank you for the effort you put into these videos, a person like you seems like the ideal conversationalist anyone could ever have. Love from Morocco.
When discussing “religion” I find it helpful to always separate the scripture and its followers. Always. And that followers merely have interpretations which they conveniently call their interpretations as “simply what the scripture says.” So there’s no such thing as a single “Christianity” or “Islam”. That’s how yo can have a discussion on a religion, by discussing the objective aspect of it: its scripture. There’s no such thing as a absolutely neutral or unbiased understanding of it. Even academics inject a “secular materialist” approach on any topic. Which is fine. Let’s just not pretend we’re the central pivot of neutrality and objectivity. We just need to openly acknowledge our biases and try to be as objective as we can, knowing it’s impossible to be completely unbiased in our methodology and approach.
Yeah, I think, at least in the case of Islam, that’ll help people understand that just because many *muslims* seem to do awful things, it doesn’t mean they’re following a mainstream, sensible, or even valid (as determined by Muslim scholars) interpretation of Islam.
"There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger."
Not true
You have no idea about how Islam, foundational, differs from Christianity, then.
Was born to a Christian sect, was raised ultra religious. In early age rebelled and dived deep into occult and hermetism. What those year taught me is extreme curiosity. Can't stop absorbing religious content.
it is rather simple. Humans in fact describe themselves when they interpret the contents of any religion.
Thank you so much for this excellent talk. It seems to me that the trouble with religions is that people make the mistake to take their own religion for the truth when in reality it is only a culturally adapted path to the truth/God. Most religious people I have come across have only very vague ideas about the teachings of their own religion but nevertheless they are prepared to staunchly defend their religion as the only true religion, and I guess they do so only because religion is an essential part of their cultural identity.
Isn't it obvious that as long as we defend our own religion as the only true one we are still very far from the truth/God, as the truth is one and there are many paths leading to this truth.
No path can lead to the truth. This is only an intellectual idea. Truth, in order to be truth, must be present and within us at all times, not "out there" or available by way of a method or a path. Promising a way to find truth is one of the absurdities of religious teachings.
Great video. I've definitely done my fair share of essentializing. Thanks to this video, however, I can make sure to be more mindful of that in the future.
Beautifully, sanely, objectively presented. Thank you. I enjoy your channel a lot.
Thank you very much for this interesting subject! I don't think your video was dry. This is a complex topic and you managed to present a compact and meaningful overview. Keep up the good work!
This channel is best thing happened to internet ever.
I feel like the beauty of religion stems from not only the diversity in thought of the multiple religions themselves but the diverse thought that comes from the boundless interpretations of the individuals involved in their religions. Great video, keep it up!
That's a very nice way to look at it!
boundless interpretation when kept under right critical analysis yields only what's right. thus, whenever interpretation are rightly analysed never there's change in religion. this is how religion could be never-changing. the beauty of religion is not at all in its coming/evolving from anything. if it comes from anything other than God, how can it be a true religion! therefore, beauty of religion is in how it even stays same after many different interpretation been put forward.
@@LetsTalkReligion that's what u said differently. hmm appreciating ur own view.
How can beauty stem from thought?? Thought is only of the past and is limited and from a skewed perspective.
I love your academic approach to religion. Thank you. I’m an atheist, but I find religion fascinating.
This is something that I have encountered a lot. As someone who is studying Medieval religion, I get endlessly frustrated at academics judging peasant or common religion as "basically paganism" even though these people would undoubtedly identify as Christians (they pray to God, go to church and respect the authority of priests who themselves often get labeled pagans by these same academics!). This is largely due to the fact that they are often being compared to either modern Christianity or the beliefs outlined by medieval theologians, which makes their religiosity seem deviant. Thankfully, modern historians are starting to question these practices and seeing the diversity of religious expressions as legitimate rather than dismissing them.
Yes the research is getting better but there is a lot of old biases that still needs to be worked through!
This channel is why I have become more interested in getting a better understanding of all religions, and why I don't feel any need to attack another religion. I think by actually communicating between different religions is better than holding hatred in our hearts.
I agree.
Not the most exciting?! Less dry videos coming?!?! How dare you! This is the most intellectually engaged I've felt in *too long* 😩 Am I in perpetual boredom since I finished my undergrad in philosophy some two years ago? Yes... Are you helping me a lot? DEFINITELY. More of this "dry" stuff, please 🤩
You are so knowledgeable in this young age mashallah
Your channel deserves more views!
I appreciate your humility and interest in academic thoroughness. Your work has been most enlightening.
Thank YOU, again Philip. You put my thoughts into words in the most pragmatic, beautiful and understandable way.
I only wish more people around me and in the world generally share this perspective.
Brilliant, as usual ❤
Elena
Funny I didn’t come across this video earlier.. I thought I had seen all of them so far !
Great video, I do agree in some points and also disagree on others. Firstly on the issue of inherently labelling of a religion just because it encourages some conducts in some instances. I believe a creed should be labelled according to its foundation.
Counter arguing this type of generalization with another type of generalization, that is "people are the ones who make a faith" is not unrestrictedly true.
Of course, there is diversity within Islam, like many other different faiths. But it has some basic unchangeable tenets, which all diverse sects within it agree. For example, existence and worship of one God, believing in Muhammad ﷺ as the last prophet etc. And also, there are explicit texts and muhkam ayah which cannot be interpreted and redefined. These parts of the religion are concrete. Explicitness of these things leaves no room for its followers to reshape them. This is not something typical to Islam. I mean having a concrete foundation that defines the creed and its followers. Every creed or a notion has certain pillars which it stands upon and a mission it propagates. If we imagine, for example, communist party of a region embracing capitalist system, there can be three possible conclusions drawn from it:
1. Communism/communist is a label devoid of any value.
2. Communism consists of scattered values and beliefs which do not have an "essential idea", thus it evolves continuously as the set of people who ascribe themselves to it [i.e. communists] come across new ideas and absorb whatever they may see befitting. Just as cultures do.
3. The communists of that region have deviated from the idea itself.
We know that communism is a political idea which revolves around quest for common ownership of property and a system that can ensure equal distribution of wealth. This cancells out first and second possibilities, and we are left with the third.
However, had we concerned ourselves with a race or a culture or an ethnicity, we couldn't have said just because a person or a set of people have different lifestyle or ideas, they will be stripped off from their own respective race/culture/ethnic backgrounds. Since their is no essential element that shapes these labels. This is where we can rightfully use the "no true scotsman" fallacy argument.
To recap, a creed or a notion is followed by submitting to its basic ideas and believing in them. You may have different approach in its propagation or different interpretations in subsidiary issues, but none of these will effect its essence. That being said, error or lapses in areas other then the foundational aspect of creed, from the followers of a religion will not strip them off from their religious lables either. However, ascribing lapses of the followers of a religion, to the religion itself to make it appear as if something is religiously permitted or shunned, is bizzare; same way it is bizzare to argue that a religion can be inherently "peaceful" or "violent" because there are some instances where they expounded peace or violence.
i have a question what are the "explicit texts and muhkam ayah which cannot be interpreted and redefined." are they explicitly mentioned in Quran etc?
@@wizardmongol4868 yes they r explicitly mentioned. I won't mention u the ayyahs. let me tell me its juice. like belief in one God is said repeatedly. different attributes of God is said repeatedly. almost all surah of Quran praises or mention God as one (except kafirun, & other small surahs). there r other things too which r explicitly mentioned but this is most important.
for more information u can visit :
th-cam.com/video/5MalbWPmXJ4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/TlXS1RuoJLM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/mjw6XB5M3is/w-d-xo.html
Thanks, Mehdi.
Hmm - not sure I agree with your point of view. Who gets to define what are the 'foundational aspects' or 'basic unchangeable tenets' (to use your expressions) of a given religion?
I'm not familiar with Islam except in the vaguest of ways, but as far as Christianity or Judaism go, history is either full of changes to those 'basic unchangeable tenets', or those are very few indeed; possibly none other than belief in the existence of one single, revealed God and the status of Jesus - and to add Islam to the trio, then one only needs to add the status of Muhammad.
Differences on apparently minor points (which seem to be very far from the philosophical tenets underlying the 'parent' religion, and are often related to a political power structure that existed at one point in the history of the religion) have created great schisms and an apparently "minor point" becomes _the_ point of difference and contention, and it is - sometimes suddenly - elevated to 'basic, unchangeable tenet' (one example for all in Christianity: the primacy of the Bishop of Rome) for one part of the dispute. Yet both parts still claim to belong to the original religion that spawned the split...
The link to 'foundational' aspects is also something that I don't agree with - in the sense that not all religions have a clear founder (e.g. Muhammed) or foundational figure (e.g. Jesus or Buddha). Defining 'foundational' aspects of (e.g.) Hinduism, Judaism or Shinto is far more problematic, though if one reinterprets 'foundational' as 'basic, shared tenet' some of the issues disappear - to be however replaced by the problem that I pointed out above: the 'basic shared tenets' are so few that they don't leave much room for characterisation.
I also _totally_ disagree with your use of the terms 'lapse' and 'error' in areas that are "not foundational" (again to use your expression; whatever "foundational" or "basic tenet" may come to mean). Again, who gets to define what is a 'lapse' or an 'error'? With respect to what, if it doesn't affect the "basic tenet"? In any case, both terms have a negative connotation that I strongly believe should be avoided when discussing people's beliefs.
mate... you are essentializing Islam here.
With the impact of learning and understanding that I picked up, I am very impressed with this video... I believe that I have walked away a bit better for it.
I can’t click “like” enough
Hi! I'm new to your channel. Great content, I like how eloquent and insightful you are. I'm a student of Anthropology, Religions and Eastern Cultures at the University of Bologna and I'm learning from and enjoying more this videos that I do classes. I also appreciate that you don't push ideologies. I couldn't find your patron link.
Its not the religions changing and evolving, but how people perceive them through the ages.
Interesting video. One thing that stood out to me, is that the scholar presenting this video states (and I'm paraphrasing here) that a religion is shaped by the people following this religion, maybe even more so than that those people are shaped by the religion; and as a result, the religion changes, evolves. In other words, religion is very much a man-made, cultural construct.
That is the great freedom of Free Will, Free Thought, Free Service and it is God given (however you choose to view him in spirit and truth) *
Do you think that theology becomes ‘simply’ an amalgamation of various disciplines, or discourse with the bubble of a particular group of qualities which called a religion? I ask as a prelude to considering are comparative or ethical judgements possible between discreet ‘religions.
People will project their culture, history, countries politics on their religion, which is why Islam in Lebanon is completely different from Islam in Saudi Arabia. People will find ways to justify their actions by using religion.
@AutoDriver4000 none of this is true, The Quran recognize Iseael as the land of the Jews, but god then says they were punished from it and not allowed to return. This is also what the Jews believe happened to themselves.
Also, Muslims know the land belonged to the Jews, but they also understand that we live in the 21st century where you cant take a country because it used to be yours in the past.
I agree! Although it is also important to remember that, for example, "culture" and "religion" aren't necessarily categories that can be separated.
@@LetsTalkReligion They can be seperated sometimes? For example, I live in Saudi Arabia where alot of people believe in tribalism because of the bedwin culture. Muslims here will try to twist the religion to fit their bedwin culture that has nothing to do with their religion. From my experience, I find culture more powerful than religion as religion and religion changes based on peoples culture.
@AutoDriver4000 Some youtube channels can ban certain words, if you use it your comment can me deleted automatically. Which is what I think is happening? Try again with different wording..?
@AutoDriver4000 I dont use the Quran or my religion to be against Israel. Me being anti Israel comes outside of my religion. People who use their DNA and religion to invade other countries are Nazis. I simply use 21st century logic of not invading other people based on religion and DNA. Did Saudi and Lebanon did it? yes but not in the 21st century where this is not accepted.
You also only used one verse but there is many many verses. But again, I dont use my religion to attack other humans so it doesnt matter what the Quran says.
It‘s obvious that it‘s important to shift one’s, lets say, „framework“ of thinking about religion (or of thinking about anything, really, but that‘s not what this is about) once in a while. One might naturally get stuck in a simplifying analysis that might be of great help to understand a problem initially („Muslims are...“, „The characteristics of Hinduism is...“) but is of little help when one is trying to further investigate such topics. And an approach such as „start from the people, not from the religion“ might be helpful. However, as you too pointed out, there is great danger in that way of thinking. And that is relativism. If you follow these postmodern thoughts and ideas to their logical conclusions you end with absolutely nothing. And that, too, is of little help to further the aforementioned investigation. In fact it stultifies and nullifies it. Perhaps that is not what these authors intended when they put their ideas forward. Still, it is what seems to be happening. The discourse on all sorts of topics in the humanities has become so absurdly abstract and self-centered that it no longer serves the purpose of aiding investigation but rather has developed into some kind of katechism. We got to a point where talking about talking about something, and discussing discussions is of central importance, rather than the topic itself that the subject claims to be named for/after.
Who is “Maranji” @ 06:20, please?
What a great video!! After watching this I feel I must have to treat you one day, a modest lunch or dinner. If you happen to visit Cairns, Australia pls let me know. Or I'll find you one day and offer my proposal regarding buying u a lunch or dinner.
I agree! The same if you ever come to Charleston, South Carolina
That's such an awesome video that simplifies ALOT of concepts when it comes to religious research
I adhered to a sunni/salafy understanding of Islam, and then apsotated. but still hold the view that Salafy branch is the most authentic Islam. your video was very challenging, I will contemplate on your points. great video.
It is true to say that large numbers of believers cluster around certain points along the ideological spectrum.
I think one of the reasons why Islam is the most intriguing religion is because its Holy book mentions it by name and its Prophet called it by that name instead of its followers choosing one after. It is the only religion which as a whole doesn't have an "-ism" at the end, but when it comes to divisions or subgroups it has as many isms (or in arabic "iyya"-s) as any other religion (Sunnism, Shiism, Salafism, Sufism, Mu'tazilism, Ibadism,
"The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account." [Qur'an Ali Imran 03. 019]
Interesting analysis.
However, while Islam may seem to have many ‘isms’, but it does at least seem to have a much larger majority ‘ism’ (sunnism) than many/most/all other religions.
Also, another interesting point about the name ‘Islam’ is that it doesn’t refer to a name or place, but rather the idea and way of life that the religion is actually based on (submission to God’s will would be a rough, simple translation), again unlike many/most other religions
It is also the only religion that distinguishes between Revelation (the Qur'an in in this case) and the life of the Prophet who received it and his community (which take up Hadith).
I find this infinitely remarkable and seeing a religion that does that makes it very hard to take Judaism and Christianity seriously, from the point of authority and scripture essentially
@@MotorStorm66 "ism" is just englishishing of course. In Arabic is just Sunni and Shi'i. Not "Sunnism and Shi'ism".
Must Muslims of either angle still just refer to themselves as "Muslims" and also consider each other as "Muslims" equally despite their differences.
The trend of Salafi takfirism is not indicative of traditional layman discourse or society.
I mean, just for the sake of discussion, many scholars (myself included) don't think the Qu'ran is referring to "Islam" as a name but to the meaning of the word itself. So the verse can be translated in two ways: "...and I have approved Islam as your religion (din)"
OR "...and I have approved submission to my will as your religion"
I personally tend to favor the latter, and that the name Islam for the religion was later taken from that verse rather than the other way around.
@@LetsTalkReligion Salaam yes brother you are absolutely true.
When both the Qur'an and earlier Hadith refer to the term Islam it is meaning "submission or acquiescence towards the divine (Allah/God)"
It's also very important to also outline how there are three layers of Deen too: Islam (submission to God), Iman (translated often as "faith" but also entailing an assimilation of knowledge and practice) and Ihsan (which translates to Perfection, commonly, and entails someone who has entered deeply into the inner, the Batin, of the Deen, and now apprehend the realities/haqq experientially and inwardly. It also furthermore corresponds with gnosis in the essential meaning).
Historically the designation of the term "Islam" as the collective title and self-designation of the "followers of Prophet Muhammad" was a later evolution of the use of the word. Any Muslim who is acquainted well enough with the Qur'an and Islamic history wouldn't deny that.
Actually when we get deeper into the Qur'an's own semantics and arguments there, it's worth noting that the Qur'an self-designates the Deen in relation to the concept of the Hanif (NOT the Maddhab) or follower of Prophet Abraham. This idea (combinded with Paul's notions in his epistles) basically gives rise to the notion of an "Abrahamic tradition".
Nonetheless the Qur'an is pretty adamant a primordial Deen that stretches through Adam to Abraham to Jesus and fully encompassed in the Revelation (Qur'an) revealed to Prophet Muhammad.
I'm very interested in the term Islam itself a lot actually, much like with Dharma which I mentioned before. There is far more to it than just that of course.
The problem is, however, that essentializing is so difficult to get around. This goes not only for religion, but for pretty much everything. I have studied both philosophy and religion at university and there, it seemed to me that all the professor's were sp embedded in post-structuralism along the lines of for example Pierre Bordieu, that it hindered their way of thinking about things. They all seemed to endorse the famous line by Jonathan Z. Smith in "Imagening Religion". "There is no data for religion. Religion is solely the creation of the scholars study.". And all of that without considering any of the big discussions between philosophers going back to the problem of universals in the middle ages. At least, if they did, that did not take them seriously. There is a good case to be made for non-essentializing for sure, but it does have profound problems as well, which are sorely lacking whenever the case against essentializing is made.
I like to remind ppl that the concept of "religion" itself is fairly new. In antiquity (when most of our current religions arose) there was no such idea. Ones metaphysical beliefs were all enmeshed into a fluid category of culture. Which includes both divine beliefs or more benign philosophical beliefs.
Well there are many ways of doing things too. A sounding essentialzation is better than a quasi preaching of nothing! You guys are the everyday selection which provides ground of discussion!
May your channel grows more and more.it would be nice to have subtitles with other languages. Specifically italian
as a muslim i can give the example of a font and a document ,as you write a document in a font ,life is a document and islam is a font. islam is a lifestyle rather than an aspect of life.we are not capitalists or comunists but muslims whwn it comes to economics. we are neither conservative or or liberal but muslims. islam has its own economics ,idelogy ,laws . it is a whole package .a guide for life or a lifestyle
I love this channel. I did my undergrad in Religious Studies and Psychology at Indiana University, and my Masters in Theology at Notre Dame. I consider myself to hold views about religion similar to John Hick, William James, Carl Jung, Paul Tillich, etc (yes, I suppose that this also includes Joe Campbell and the infamous Jordan Peterson)
Anyway, my son decided to enlist in the Air Force instead of going to university three years ago. He's got a sharp, curious mind, and this was a difficult decision. He's been asking me to create a kind of syllabus for an informal Religious Studies curriculum.
You channel has officially made that job EASY. THANK you. Looking through your list of videos made me feel like a kid in a toy store. I added so many videos to my Watch Later playlist that I was getting frustrated that TH-cam only allows you to add one at a time.
I'm a solo polytheist for the reason that I interact with my deities directly in trance and dream, then explore such interactions in the textural resources that are available to me. I've found, however, that this practice has completely separated me from any form of fellowship in my faith except idle discussion. I find that most times, with the exception of the most general of polytheistic reconstructed rituals, I can't even participate.
And all of this is totally okay. It just means that my religion, as it is known to me, will likely remain with me. And unless someone else works directly with Brighid and is urged to work in the same manner as me, it will likely die with me when I die.
I can, however, opt to leave behind a record of my journey, and intend to do so. But I wouldn't expect someone else to have the same experiences as me, because they are different people.
Documenting all of this is reason enough to pursue this faith. A "Brighid wuz here" graffitied on time
I couldn't agree more. I had the interesting experience of growing up in a variety of Christian tradition (Quakerism) that is just so different to the stereotype for both Christianity AND religion that it meant even when I described myself as a 'militant Atheist', I did so understanding that religion doesn't have to be ANY of the things many of its critics believe it is. The list of things Quakers don't do is just so astoundingly long and quite shocking at times e.g. they're very religious Christians that WON'T swear on the bible! The law in the UK actually had to be changed to accomodate this!
I'm a big fan of this channel. I also feel like a cheat benefiting valuable knowledge over breakfast without doing any of the reading or analytical work.
Would like to see more discussions on topics like religion v spiritualism. Organically formed practices v text / teaching based practices. About saints and divinity, physical worship v divinity through thoughts. Concepts of salvation in different religion.
I am currently reading the text written by Saint Vallalar who rejected religion and claimed compassion as the only key to salvation.
Now I realize how very valuable and expensive what in Islam called "hidayah", but anyway I like your TH-cam to give me different perspective in religion #thumbs up
This subject should be in the facebook of every content about religion. Thanks because I didn't know that word!
It's interesting how some religions try very, very hard to be monolithic, but still end up failing and schisming. Scientology in particular comes to mind. The most litigious religion in history, but that hasn't stopped the Free Zone.
Great video! Many good points to keep in mind as I teach ancient religions this year.
It is important to look at individuals as individuals. Even within an individual there are various conflicting opinions. Humans change and evolve with newer information all time.
I had a question for my college religion course that involved essentialism. Hadn't a clue what the word meant or how to answer the question until I found your video. I looked through a lot of videos till I came upon yours. Thank you
Wonderful video. As an academic myself I appreciate your attempt at keeping the discussions objective in nature.
Such an interesting topic!! Thank you!!
I didn't find it dry at all. Thank you!!!
A religeon is as good as the heart carrying it.
That would mean that there's no qualitative difference between religions. That evidently isn't true, so this statement is hollow babble
@@celticwinter your right there isn't fundementaly any qualitative differnce religeons are built on same principles god worship.serve the people.
@@LAILA-2816 I said that there is a fundamental difference
@@celticwinter then it's not a religeon of god which you are talking about.
@@LAILA-2816 so then, if you're saying that one religion is from God and the other is not, that means that there are qualitative differences between religions. Which is what I said.
Thank you so much for your work. Excellent discussion.
I need some explanation please. How the followers/believers are different from the religion if what they make is written and demanded in the scriptures? I mean if the strictures tell you to kill certain person or do particular action, even against your will, how can that not be consider a clear definition of the religion or at least what are the base motivation for the believers.
In the case of habraamic faiths, a lot if not everything is in the scriptures with a clear path/action. It seems that the concept of religion is so vague that creates an ideological vacuum responsible for the separation of (scriptures - believer actions). Any thoughts?
Lovely reminder. Thanks❤
A pleasure to listen to your analysis.
When/where/how did you get a start as a comprehensive religion scholar? I, of course, cannot verify your information completely personally, but I have found demonstrable pan-religious truth within your analysis and historical recounting. ❤
Essentialization may occur in particular religious groups. Sunni Muslims who believe in the true Islam may consider Ismailis or Shias as not following "true Islam". Sufis may see Salafi as a reform movement, whilst Salafis will see themselves as followers of the Salaf aka the Original Islam. The idea of gnostics will be seen as not the true Christianity. Protestant Christians who haven't read scripture may consider themselves Christian. Essentialising in scripture that that is the complete expression of a religion and not considering the social, anthropological aspects of religion is also problematic - as it doesn't take into account the living practice.
Individualism is the enemy of every religion but also the most quintessential feature of religions.
Great video. Religion reminds me of a corporation, which exists and does not exist. If the corporation's headquarters burned down then the corporation would nevertheless still exist. If the owners of the corporation and the board were to die or resign, the corporation exists anyway. If a corporation moves across the country or world, the corporation is still said to exist. If the corporation lost all of its money and could not operate, it would still exist. If the corporation completely changed its philosophy, goals, and products or services offered, it would still exist. So we ask what a corporation actually is - its owners, its operations, its building, its location, etc.?
I know it sounds weird, I do hope one day you would cover the works of Talal Asad. He's so influential yet, I find him together with the late Saba Mahmood hardly spoken outside of academia.
Oh no, when did Saba Mahmood pass away? I love her work.
Talal Assad’s work is great too.
@@Ulriquinho , I think she passed away in 2018. May The One bless her in His limitless mercy.
Are you familiar with the works of Ninian Smart? I think his scheme of religions is something you should do a video about.
Fantastic and interesting video! I've recently discovered your channel I've found all of the subject matter and discussions in your videos fascinating.
If I may, I wanted to debate one point you've made around 11:38--in relation to 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' with respect to the internal discussion within a religion on what teachings are or are not true, etc. vs. an academic discussion on religion which refrains from making those judgments. I think there may be a problem in saying that the former is necessarily 'subjective' in nature and that the latter is 'objective.'
Part of the issue I see in this is that it assumes that the academic discouse on religion looks at religion from a perspective that either is objective or strives for objectivity, whereas the arguments that a religious person would produce (as a religious person) on what teachings are true vs. untrue does are necessarily subjective, or do not strive for objectivity. I think it's fine to say that the academic perspective looks at religion from a set of epistemological values (e.g. neutrality towards the ontological views of religions, neutrality towards truth-claims of religions, etc.) that have been identified over time by the community of academics over time as the proper perspective through which academics ought to take religion. But to say that this an actually 'objective' position, or a position that actually strives 'towards objectivity' contra the perspective of someone speaking from the perspective of religion which does not strive for objectivity, may be problematic because it's presumably reasonable to think that there are, and have been many religious people who would see themselves as making 'objective' arguments, or striving for objectivity in the arguments that they advance to demonstrate the truth of religious claims.
I think that another way to put this, might be to say that the questions of 'what is objective'? and 'who is objective?' are resolved -- and I think there's reason to doubt that the answer to this is as simple as 'academic discours=objective', 'religious discourse=subjective'.
I hope this makes sense, and I'd be interested to hear your perspective on this! Looking forward to watching more content on this channel!
thanks for teaching me the language that explains my ecumenical heart... wow
Does ecumenism include religions other than one's own? I've only ever heard the idea in the context of various Christian denominations getting together. I'd better go and look it up in a dictionary!
@@Cellottia lol I was using the word more loosely than usual to be sure
I want to point out an obvious point (or, at least I think it is obvious). When Marranci writes that "it is not Islam that shapes Muslims but rather Muslims who... shape Islam in different times and places". (1) This is also to essentialize Islam: "Islam" is simply whatever Muslims make of it. That's a _definition_ of Islam. (2) Marranci no doubt criticises something called "Orientalism" and yet here he is defining Islam in a way that is not going to be acceptable to Muslims. Of course Muslims will recognise that the Umma has shaped Islam to an extent but to reduce Islam to that would be offensive to them and the imposition of a Western narrative. The Qur'an and Sunnah has shaped Muslims far more than Muslims have shaped (or interpreted) those sources.
Hi. I wonder if you could help me with something: I am looking for an authoritative source on the Islamic veil. I am writing an essay about it and would like to be very sure I can speak knowledgeably about the topic. But sources are not extremely helpful. I recognize that the oblgation to veil (let alone veil completely) is not directly and clearly established in the Qoran, but rather inferred from references to modest dress or separation of the genders. It is not the source of the clear obligation that I look for, I look for a clear, thorough, discussion on the topic written by someone from within, which might help me explain why some people feel bound to wear it and some don't, and - more importantly - how it is not a symble. Any recommendations???????? Would much appreciate it.
True, in that sense actually countries, race or tribe cannot be generalized. What remains is individual with his own concepts and behaviour.
I deeply respect your detached attitude: but I have questions about where the confessional and the scholarly approaches meet. As a (kind of) believing Christian, I have to face the fact that one of the major features of the religion as practised is a thousand years of murderous anti-Semitism. I also am, surely, entitled to claim that this is absolutely contrary to all that is best in the belief system. It is appealing, and useful, to assert a distinction between a description and an evaluation; but it doesn't quite work out. So, what you're doing is very difficult, and I really appreciate it.
Yes, the internal diversity of religion is a perpetual problem in academic Art History (which is what I do). I skirt it in my own research and writing by focusing on social and technological history, but i still need to teach sacred art traditions in the classroom.
It's hard to do this true justice in that context. Sure we can narrow the historical interpretations of sacred works to the particular religious institutions for which they were made, and narrow that again to the dominant theological discourses of that institution at that time. Standard fare.
But I'm often struck that this leaves out entirely a whole range of unheard voices that surrounded those artefacts - often in worship - in the past.
There are a few art historians (typically medievalists) who have attempted to find ways to contend with this problem in their own way. (Michael Camille comes to mind). But it is a tough nut to crack.
I'm currently reading a Harry Turtledove book which reverses the roles of Islam and Christianity as 'fundamentalist and rational' I suspect he's trying to challenge perceived notions and challenge commonly held ideas, however so far it's being quite polemic. I'm hoping it gets better
Why didn't it really sound as objective as I hoped it would!!!
For the best part of this video you were trying so hard to defend one religion!!
And If this is about looking at any religion from academic point of view, could that mean you're only going to look at it's book!! Cause these book tend to have many contradictions!
And yes, religions do evolve, and we can observe that process and make a visible line either towards civilized evolvement or not so peaceful or civilized one.
What I am saying is that this particular topic is so deep and nearly impossible to handle, and to achieve objectiveness you truly need to distance yourself from all believes.
And it's easy to say that something isn't truly as violent as people say, when you mightbe living in a place where you have the freedom to talk about religion! And not in a middle eastern country where you would basically be in jail or worse for talking.
I feel like you can define a religion especially much easier then other cultural movements because there are more often then not fundamental aspects of a religion that are written and consistent no matter what even if most of it is up to interpation like tawhid in Islam. There’s reason why there’s different sects of a religion not considered different ones. Different from a culture with no real foundation and is constantly changing at least idealy
can i ask, why you do these video?what brought the inspiration. i find them really interesting and challenging. After all these tehological research what religions are you adept if any? sorry if its a personal question.
Sir I'm a new subscriber here your topics and explanation are really amazing. Please keep it up. 💜❤
Even the doctrine of "evolution" (not darwinian evolution, but the notion of "evolving") is itself a result of western notions of "linear progress," and a hegelian belief in "the end of history."
A religion, more clearly is something that can't be "essentialized," not due to "principles" but because if turned to an identity it kills it. Just as how analysis kills everything it looks at, dissecting an organic unity as if it were nothing but a cadaver. To "name" a thing in many religions is itself considered a "spell" that tries to "capture the essence" of something important, hence why some Jews are against saying the Lord's name. Religion also isn't some "ice cream flavor" one chooses, but rather a set of tradition one initiates themselves in, or is initiated into.
In truth, there is no "religion" but religion itself and faith is for those who're capable.
Your first point is very important!
Did you just essentialize the Western Worldview?
@@bobofthestorm Read Spengler. Particularly his description of the "Faustian" Civilization.
@@bobofthestorm lol
thanks alot
it's very important topic actually you amazing discusing this topic
This seems to be mixing the concept of religion and religiosity. One is a thing, the other the practice of the thing, which is very diverse
Does religion have a wave function, a probability of a location, like a particle?
It's a great video and it's very hard to make a video such a complex topic to a general audience. Having said that I found Gabrielle Marranci to be somewhat underestimating the normative thrust within any religious tradition and its dynamics, and instead tend to lean more on the side of 'people making religion'. This might also have some political implications in presenting 'everyday Islam' to be more real and genuine than, say, normativizing Salafi Islam. There is an article about this issue, if I remember correctly, by Mayanthi Fernando if you want to check out.
Hey so I have come to love your videos and would like it if you would do a Video on Ibn Al Haythum the worlds first "True Scientist".
But a religion can stay true and consistant to itself but people tend to practice it in a way that benefits them and here is where faith comes for beilevers . different people have different faith and that what makes the difference .
Right when I get out, they pull me back in.
It's much easier and probably more truthful to say that religions only change when they are forced to, in order for the priestly class to survive. It's like a puppy, when it starts to feel neglected, it starts to whine and try to make us feel bad.
Yes Filip, this is also a discussion I'm having a lot with our course directors and professors about whether we can really speak about any religion as a whole. In a sense, as you say, no, "true Islām" or "true Christianity"are not existent somewhere as objective ideals to be lived up to but are essentially shaped by their followers. Ibn 'Arabî speaks for Islām and Ibn Taymiyyah speaks for Islām but they couldn't be more different! Religions are largely shaped by their adherents. Still, I feel you need at least some essentials to be there. You can't really have Christianity without the Bible and Jesus Christ and you can't really have Islām without the Qur'ān and Muhammad. Maybe this is an easier "conundrum" to solve for Dharmic religions, especially Hinduism, since its focus is not really on beliefs, but more a spiritual social order in which a lot of internal diversity is generally accepted and normative. An interesting thing to think about for us for sure, also catching our own biases in the study of this.
But who decides what those "essentials" are? :)
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it could be deemed a little christian-centric to boil the essentials of a religion down to "The Man and The Book". Although in the case of Islam it does fit quite well.
You are right in the sense that as soon as we move outside the Abrahamic framework (not just Dharmic religions) things become a lot harder.
I've grown to think that you're like Dan Brown's Robert Langdon, i like religious academics.
Gold! The essentials of Religion 😎
Religion is a social agenda and as such is always a creation of the world. The source of religion is Transcendent Consciousness but religion is always a selling of that which can not be sold.