Are The Major World Religions More Different From Each Other Or Alike?

I've been reading Stephen Prothero's book God Is Not One which argues that religions have really little in common. In contrast to Huston Smith (The World's Relgions) which argues that despite their differences religions are fundamentally alike and are on different paths to the same destination, Prothero argues that they're fundamentally different, on different paths to different destinations. So which is it?

 

Prothero's thesis is that the world's religions have different goals with different solutions for different problems using different techniques and following different exemplars:

Christianity: Problem is sin; solution is salvation; techniques are faith (right belief) & for some, good works; exemplars are saints

Judaism: problem is exile, solution is return, technique is obedience to God's law; exemplars are prophets

Islam: Problem is Pride, solution is submission, technique is Five Pillars; exemplar is the Prophet Muhammad

Hinduism: Problem is samsara (cycle of rebirth), solution is moksha (release; oneness), technique is devotion; exemplars are deities

Buddhism: problem is suffering, solution is nirvana, technique is Eightfold Path; exemplars are arhats (Theravada), bodhisatvas (Mayhayana) or lamas (Vajrayana)

Confucianism: Problem is disorder, solution is propriety, techniques are ritual and etiquette; exemplar is Confucius

Taoism: problem is artificiality, solution is harmony with nature, technique is the Dao (the Way); exemplar is sage or "genuine person"

Yoruba religion (Santeria, Voodoo): problem is being lost, solution is connection to sacred power, techniques are sacrifice and divination; exemplars are orishas.


Simplistic? I think so, but it's a place to start. I'd also like to consider Prothero's asseertion: "Denying the differences is a recipe for disaster." Do you agree?

 

I'm a perennialist at heart, and I'd agree with you about the "simplistic" character of some of the characterizations (which are Prothero's, not mine). For instance, I'm a Christian, but like most who consider themselves "Progressive" Christians, I don't consider sin-salvation to be the central focus of my faith. And as you say, this classification focuses on "religion" emphasizing doctrine and ritual, above the inner spiritual journey. Even for religion, I think most of these have important subdivisions that are very different in their emphases.

 

I dont have much time to talk about this atm however I will state something my mother used to say which could be construed as either simplistic or ful of color and depth depending on how you look at it. Everyone is searching for deeper meaning to their life. The religious organisations of life are just one mode of transportation to that meaning

 

Wise mother! Someone once said that the philosopher is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. The theologian finds it! I think there's some truth to that. Religions offer answers to life's most basic questions. They may not be the right answers. They couldn't all be right, because they're saying different, sometimes contradictory, things. But they get some of us through rough times. Karen Armstrong distinguishes between two different forms of knowledge: logos and mythos. Logos is about science and reason; it's very practical, got us to the moon, and may even cure the common cold some day. Mythos is about meaning, the sacred, the numinous, what's it all about--questions science can't really answer directly. Religion has stepped in to try to fill this void, and of the two, religion is probably more popular because it provides definite answers. And they might even be right!

 

One problem I have with Prothero's schema is his minimization of concepts of divinity as a basis for religious differences and similarities. I know the Abrahamic religions best, so I'll start with those. Basic to Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the idea of monotheism. They all believe in one God, and it is the same God. Judaism expresses this in the Shema Yisrael, the section of the Torah that is the centerpiece of Jewish morning and evening devotions: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the L[SIZE=83%]ORD[/SIZE] is one". Likewise, Muslims affirm in their daity prayers that "There is no God but the God." Christians also insist that they believe in one God, despite Trinitarian complications. And all three religions believe that putting anything else before God is idolatry, or what Muslims call shirk.

The other religions on the list are different. It's my understanding that Hindus believe that all gods are manifestations of an Ultimate Reality called Brahman or "the One": "the eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, spiritual source of the universe of finiteness and change." Encyclopedia Britannica Online (2007). Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are often considered "godless religions"--although that characterization can be misleading. Yoruba religion seems to be genuinely polytheistic.

 

I used to own one of those shirts that says:

Taoism: Shit happens.
Zen: what is the sound of shit happening.
and so on and so forth,

Its really pretty accurate if you ask me but, otherwise, mainstream religions are all pretty mainstream wherever you go. They appear to serve a variety of purposes including not least of all a traditional opposition to secular institutions which can become just as corrupt as religious ones.

 

I wouldn't come down strongly on either side. There are similarities and there are differences. Most religions have a mystical side, and they may be closer in that context than in the way they are popularly portrayed or practised.

But I think that the definitions given are not wholly accurate. In the case of Hinduism for instance, I don't think the deities or gods are exemplars. That would be more the function of a guru or avatar. Also devotion is only one side of it. There are also Hindu schools that rely much more on various kinds of yoga and meditation.

The connection between what monotheists believe and the beliefs of Buddhists or Taoists seem rather tenuous.

To me Pothero's definitions looks like a bit of an over simplification. Good perhaps for rhetorical purposes, but lacking real depth.

 

I think it's patently obvious that almost every religion has very little to do with any other religion. This becomes especially stark when comparing say, Abrahamic religions as a group to say, the eastern traditions of buddhism, taoism, and hinduism. Vastly different systems of thought with vastly different aims; they are "similar religions" in the way that Chess and Boxing are "similar sports".

They all have some unique properties, for example, Taoism and Buddhism are both capable of existing while being wholly atheist.

Islam has some dualistic properties within itself which are the source of great conflict in the world:

The Ten Commandments is a good place to start looking at Islam. They fall into two categories—religious and ethical. Ten Commandments—Religious

1. Do not have any other gods before Me.
2. Do not make an image or any likeness of Me.
3. Do not swear falsely by the name of the Lord.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Ten Commandments—Ethical
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. Do not covet your neighbor’s property.

The only religion that follows all the religious commandments is that of the Jews. Christians do not follow the Sabbath commandment and some would argue that the Catholics and Orthodox sects use images that violate the image commandment. Hindus, Buddhists and atheists don’t follow any of the religious commandments. There are no two religions that agree on the Ten Commandments. Humanity can not agree on religion. But let’s look at the ethical commandments. Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and most atheists agree that lying, theft, murder, sanctity of family, and lusting after other people’s property is bad behavior. Upon reflection, all of these prohibitions prevent harm to others. We don’t harm others and we don’t want to be harmed. We all want to be treated well and this is the best way to treat others, hence the Golden Rule: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you . The Golden Rule is an ethic of unity. Everyone is treated the same. One ethical system for all people. This has been said in many ways in many religions and cultures. But there is a religion and culture that does not agree with these ethics—Islam.
Islamic Ethics
What are Islamic ethics and where do we find them? Everything in Islam is based upon the Koran (what Mohammed claimed that his god, Allah, said) and the words and deeds of Mohammed (called the Sunna). A Muslim repeats endlessly, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.” The Koran repeats again and again that Mohammed is the model or pattern for the ideal Muslim. A Muslim is not someone who worships Allah. A Muslim is someone who worships Allah exactly like Mohammed worshipped Allah. So every Muslim is a Mohammedan. There are absolutely no exceptions. And where do we find Mohammed’s words and deeds?

1. The Traditions (or Hadith) are collections of everything Mohammed did and said. The best and most honored Hadith is by Al Bukhari.
2. The Sira is the biography of Mohammed and is written by Ibn Ishaq. The Sira is to Mohammed as the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are to Jesus.

There was not enough information in the Koran to create Islam. The Sunna (Hadith and Sira) define almost all of the doctrine of Islam. The collection of Koran, Sira, and Hadith is called the Islamic Trilogy. The Trilogy contains the complete political doctrine of Islam. Christians have two sacred texts—Old and New Testament. Muslims have three sacred texts.

The Trilogy overflows with ethical statements such as these from Bukhari’s Hadith.)
A Muslim should be a brother to other Muslims (not the rest of humanity). A Muslim should not kill another Muslim. A Muslim may lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam. So for Islam the ethical statements are: Do not kill another Muslim. Do not steal fromanother Muslim. Do not deceive another Muslim. Islam divides the entire world into Islam and nonbelievers and has two sets of ethics, one for Islam and another for the rest. The Golden Rule has the equality of all humanity as its basis. It is not: Do unto somepeople, as you would have them do unto you, but do unto all people as you would have them do unto you. Islam denies the universality of the Golden Rule because Islam starts with the division of the entire world, all humanity, into two different groups—Islamic and non-Islamic. Every aspect of Islamic ethics is based upon this separation. Having two distinct groups leads to two different ethical codes. Said another way, Islam has dualistic ethics. Deceit, violence and force are optional actions against the unbelievers. Believers are to be treated as brothers and sisters. Islam’s ethics are based upon: Good is whatever advances Islam.Evil is whatever resists Islam.
B9,85,83 Mohammed: “A Muslim is a brother to other Muslims. He should never oppress them nor should he facilitate their oppression.”
B8,73,70 Mohammed: “Harming a Muslim is an evil act; killing a Muslim means rejecting Allah.”
B5,59,369 Mohammed asked, “Who will kill Ka’b (a Jewish poet), the enemy of Allah and Mohammed?” Bin Maslama rose and responded, “O Mohammed! Would it please you if I killed him?” Mohammed answered, “Yes.” Bin Maslama then said, “Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed.” Mohammed replied, “You may speak falsely to him.”

(https://www.politicalislam.com/an-ethical-basis-for-war/)

 

Like whiskey, rum or vodka, they are different but they accomplish the same thing.

 

So you've stooped to feeding us the "wisdom" of one of the U.S's leading Islamaphobes, Dr.Bill Warner (aka, Bill French), a physicist and mathematician with virtually no credentials in religious studies, Islamic studies, or legal studies who has become a self-taught, self-styled "expert" on Islam and Sharia. The subtleties of the religion are too much for his ossified technocratic mind, so he tries to boil it all down into terms he can understand and then goes around the country warning everybody about the figment his imagination has created. He totally ignores the vast interpretative tradition that has modified Qur'anic teachings over the centuries. or the different schools of Sharia that are fluid and subject to different interpretations. Warner tells us that Islam has "dualistic" ethics, in which the Golden Rule applies only to fellow Muslims but makes non-Muslims fair game for abuse. But the Qur'an says (60:8):"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes--from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly." Hadith #13 of An-Nawawi states that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said "None of you [truly] believes until he loves for his brother that which he loves for himself", and An-Nawawi makes clear that "It is better to interpret this as brotherhood in general, such that it includes the disbeliever and the Muslim." [Sharh Arba’een An-Nawawi, Hadith Number 13] An-Nawawi is one of the most respected authorities on Shari'ah. Likewise,Sheikh Shabrakhity Al-Malky, explaining the 40 ahadith of An-Nawawi, says that brotherhood extends to the whole world, to the entire human race. So the "dualism" of the ethic is by no means clear. I'd trust the judgments of An-nawawi and Al-Malky over Warner's any day concerning the meaning and application of Islamic law and ethics.

 

I don't find blowing up a bus of schoolchildren and learning the mechanics of consciousness to be the same thing. Nor are striving to be saved by Jesus Christ and properly understanding one's Self as God to be similar. Religions don't aim to accomplish the same things, and they tell you this explicitely.

 

Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Actually it's worse, it's a word created by the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, to keep the Dhimmi like you down, and silent.

Let's do an experiment, right now. I'm opening google, and searching these words, and displaying the number of search results:

Christophobia: 36.5 k

Christianophobia: 41.9 k

Judaeophobia: 6 k

Buddhaphobia: 0 results

Buddhismphobia: 0 results

Mormonphobia: 0 results

Hinduphobia: 21 k

Taophobia: 0 results

Islamophobia: 5,350,000 results.

Interesting that it appears it is only possible to be bigoted against Islam. Interesting that it doesn't appear to be very possible to be "irrationally afraid" of any other world religion except Islam. I would love to hear your reasons on why Bill Warner is an "islamophobe", when his work is meticulously referenced and he uses objective, scientific approaches to textual analysis of the trinity of Islamic works. I would love to hear how Bill Warner, in his imagination, has created the illusion of an Islamic history of rape, genocide, slavery, and conquest, which to this day is rocking our world, threatening civilization, and dominating our news headlines.

I would love to hear what makes someone an expert on Islam, and what makes Bill, not an expert. Despite the fact that he has read more of the Islamic texts than the vast majority of muslims, and more times, and has devoted decades of his life to teaching the actual teachings of Allah and Muhammad as written in Quran, Hadith, and Sira.

Here's Bill's response to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV7PdAhVs1w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6IAYa7Wuo&spfreload=10

I'd like you to quote for me, from these videos, the exact words that Bill uses which you find to be racist, or devoid of fact, or inspiring violence against people, or anything at all having to do with what you perceive as "islamophobia". Until then you are engaged in a of slimy slander of a most foul kind, and you do it at your own peril, in ignorance.

 

very definately more alike, in as much as they're all based on the idea of getting people to WANT to not screw everything up for each other.

i know that's almost an exact opposite of what fanatics use them as an excuse for, but fanatics always miss the point, because they're just looking for excuses and really don't give a shit about anything other then finding them.

 

As per Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, an enlightened master of the east, all religions are but different paths to the same goal.

He was born in the Hindu faith and practiced Shaktaism, or worship of the Divine Mother Kali along with Advaita Vedanta. He proceed to practice Islam and Christianity rigorously and found through his own experience that all these religions lead to the same path. That had been his gospel in life as well, the unity of all religions.

 

...

 

Instead of addressing my points, you feed us some more bilge from your favorite hate monger. None of the religions on your list have recently come under quite the virulent right wing attack that Islam has. I think Islamophobia is an entirely appropriate label for his diatribe. Bill says that "Islamophobia" isn't a "real" word. It's as real as "homophobia" and it accurately describes a pattern of hatred directed against a particular group. Bill says he doesn't fear Muslims, just "Political Islam". Yet he tells us that no "real" Muslim can reject the message of Political Islam, so there you have it. You tell me that I must listen to two videos of a guy I've heard many times before, and then quote for you "the exact words" I perceive as Islamophobicor be forever branded a "slimy slandrer of a most foul kind." I listened to both videos. When you can present written transcripts I might quote "the exact words". But in my opinion the whole pitch and the guy's numerous speaking tours are an example of the phenomenon. It presents a distorted picture of what the religion is about, and uses it for the obvious purpose of stirring up fear and hatred against it. It's very similar to the kinds of arguments I used to hear against Catholics and Jews, and that I hear from you and other atheists in these forums. The basic message is that we must fear and never trust those Muslims because of violent passages in the Qur'an and hadith. How often have I heard that Christianity is a violent religion, because look at those passages in the Old Testament and the Crusades, the Inquisition and the witch trials, and didn't Jesus Himself say He brought "not peace but a sword"? Well I , like most Christians, consider those to be aberrant chapters in distant history, while the atrocities of atheist regimes are more current and massive. Bill says Muslims are out to get kafirs. But contrary to his usage of the term, not all non-Muslims are regarded as kafirs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzZdNBmoa7A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKTj1E8u4r0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKTj1E8u4r0
The Qur'an tells us (5:48):"To every one have We given a law and a way...And if God had pleased He would have made [all humankind]one people [of one religion]. But He hath done otherwise, that He might try you in that which He hath severally given unto you: wherefore press forward in good works." (Qur'an, 5:48)

Ol' Bill tells us Muhammad was a rotten person because he decapitated Banu Qurayza Jews who had supported the Meccans against him. I won't defend that action, just as I won't defend the atrocities reported for Moses and Joshua against the Canaanites, which would make Muhammad's pale in comparison. For the most part Jews under islamic rule were well -treated, especially in comparison to the way Jews were treated in Christendom. They thrived in Moorish Spain, before the Christians took over and kicked them out. Bill tells us that a Muslim who doesn't want Sharia is not a "real" Muslim, just as I've been told that a Christian who doesn't believe in the virgin birth is not a real Christian. Fortunately, most believers don't think or behave the way their critics think they should. Bill asks why persecuted Christians aren't invited to the United States like the Muslims. Hey, I'm all for it, and to my knowledge they're at least as welcome, if they're refugees or seeking asylum. And he tells us, in the first video, that jihad in the hadith is "primarily about killing kaffirs". Jihad is struggle, and it applies to struggle within as well as without. As Muhammad told us, the greatest struggle is within. I often say the Muslim prayer: God, give me the power to conquer myself." Yes, Jihad is also holy war; Islam is not a turn the other cheek religion (but neither is Christianity in practice). But a holy war is a just one--either defensive or to right a wrong. "God hates the aggressor." (Qur'an 2:190) Muhammad asked ""Will you then force men to believe when belief can come only from God?" It is not clear that Islam's record of aggression is greater than that of secular regimes.

The biggest problem with Bill's message is what he leaves out, namely why anyone would want to be a Muslim. I can only speak from observation of the Muslims I know. Like other religions, Islam brings meaning and morality to their lives. It brings order to their lives, instructs them to care for the poor, to be equals under God, and to be fair and just in their dealings. Most whom I know would say that the presiding ideal of their religion is affirmed in their greeting "as-salamu alaykum" (Peace be upon you). That's the side of Islam Bill misses.

For now, I think an appropriate reply is the one given by Khizer Khan to Donald Trump at the DN Convention.
msn.com
nbcnews.com

 

You and Bill are engaged in a fundamentally different exercise. See, you are engaged in something called Muslimology; the study of muslims and what muslims say about Islam.

But Muslimology has a fundamental error in it, it mistakes the order of causality of psychology and religion. You see, the problem is that muslims don't create Islam, Islam creates muslims.

If you want to study what muslims says about Islam, go right ahead, this is what most of the world is doing instead of studying Islam.

How do we know what Islam is without hearing it from muslims? Well, we go straight to the only muslim who's opinion actually matters on the topic, the one muslim of whom no muslim can dispute authority; Muhammad. Muhammad is the ideal muslim, held up as the most perfect example of mankind upon which to model our lives. Everything Mohammad said and did is the Quran, Suna, Sira, and Hadith. This is Islam.

So when Muhammad says, in his early life, "there is no compulsion in religion", we nod in agreement. When he later gathers more military clout and is able to change his tune to "cut off the heads of the unbelievers whereever you find them", we shake our heads in disapproval, and wish that people would ignore the second statement and follow the first.

Unfortunately for us, Muhammad himself, the only muslim who's opinion matters in Islam, explained to us what to do in case we find a contradictory statement in his opus. He is very clear, and this is laid out in the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation; where two verses contradict, we are to follow the later verse. This is incredibly vexing, because the later verses are where we find all the most violent passages.

When mohammad lived in Mecca and preached the peaceful verses, he only gathered a following of about 150 in THIRTEEN YEARS. He was evicted out of Mecca by the way, for a very apropos crime: for incessantly slandering and disrespecting the pre-islamic religions of that place. When he came to Medina, him and his group began robbing caravans to build their forces, and soon after, all of Arabia was converted to Islam on pain of torture and death (or the Jizya for jews and christians, which at Khaybar was a 50% tax), and Muhammad averaged an act of terrorism every 6 weeks for 9 years.

That is the legacy of the one muslim ever who lived according to Islam's teachings; the Prophet Muhammad.

Here is a transcript of the first video I typed up for you, I'd like you to show me where he's being unreasonable, much less islamophobic.


****
Well it happened again. They wrote a newspaper article about me again, and they called me an Islamophobe, again. Sometimes I feel I ought to have it tattoed on my forehead so we could just skip calling me that, but I'm not an "Islamophobe" because you see, "Islamophobe" is not really a "real" word. It was made up by the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 90s, and its purpose is to suppress free speech; because after all, what an "islamophobe" is, is someone who says something that muslims don't like. So . . it's a fascist term meant to suppress. See what it says, is that I'm a little crazy, or perhaps neurotic, or perhaps even psychotic, because it's a "phobia". This is all about a feeling. But here's the odd thing; I'm all about facts. So it doesn't apply to me at all; it's just meant to smear me and slur me and make me shut up; good luck on that.

So we're supposed not to offend a "minority" of 1.5 billion people (that's a big minority!). We're not supposed to offend it because actually, that's about Sharia law. Under Sharia law, a muslim may not be offended, nevermind if it's true or not. So what it attempts to do is to suppress facts and truth.

I am not an islamphobe; I am a man who fears Islam. And I have a good reason to fear it. I know what's in the Sharia law text, and I know what the Sharia does to people like me. I should be a "dhimmi", one who is suppressed by Islam and does everything the muslims want, but instead it just says that I'm a "kafir". You know there's another thing I don't like about that Sharia law too and that's that "Jihad" stuff. I don't like Jihad, because it's all directed at me, the kafir.

Now, let's get something out of the way. Everytime you bring up Jihad around muslims they say "Oh, well the Greater Jihad is the inner struggle, which all religions share!". No. Let's talk about Jihad from the standpoint of the Hadith. In Bukhari, which has about 7,000 traditions that Mohammed gave, roughly 20% of them are about Jihad; that's a lot. That says there's 1400 hadith about Jihad. And if you go through and sort them all into "greater jihad" and "lesser jihad", you discover that it's over 98% about killing kafirs. And only less than 2% about that wonderful inner struggle that we all share in all religions. Jihad is primarily about killing kafirs, and we've already established that I'm a kafir, so do you see why I'm a little uncomfortable? And yes, I FEAR Islam.

But that's NOT being an islamophobe!

What else am I afraid of? Well, I'm afraid of the suppression of women's rights. Once again, Islam is heavily biased towards women, because a woman either belongs to her husband, or to her father. I don't want women to belong to anybody. There's supression of free speech, and that really bothers me. Also, "Islamophobia" is about not ever talking about the history of Islam. And it's the history of Islam that frightens me the absolute most. Over 270 million kafirs have died over 1400 years, and then I also see the annhiliation of civilizations; Christian civilizations in Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, Iraq.... I see the suppression and destruction of Hindu culture, in Afghanistan, Buddhist culture in Afghanistan. This frightens me when I see civilizations disappear, and it scares me even more when I'm told by otherwise "good people" that for me to mention this, means I'm crazy, I'm an Islamophobe.

I'm not crazy, and I'm not an Islamophobe.

I'm a man who fears Islam because of it's proven history. I'm also afraid of what I see as a creeping fascism in our government today which attemps to tell me what I should say and not say.

But.

The real reason we hear so much about "islamophobia" is this: most people are decent, kind people. and they have something called a "reputation", and they don't want their reputation smeared by this smear term. It therefore cows people, it takes otherwise good people, and makes them silent in the face of oppression. Let me come back to something; fear is good, phobia means you're crazy. I'm afraid of islam, but I am not crazy.

Thank you.

****