What is the good and evil of religion?

[Abu Haddad]

No. There were four different styles of reciting the Quran, all of which were approved by the Prophet (saw), but it was later decided just to have the Prophet's favourite style as the only one way for the sake of unity.

 

There are actually seven ways of recitation. My uncle has mastered two of them but hafs is the main most used way and then warsh

[Doktor Avalanche]

So there were no burnings of previous copies or interpretations?

[Miles Dyson]

So within the past month, I have been thinking. What if God is actually the evil one?

 

Before humanity, according to Christian mythology, Lucifer was the most intelligent, creative, reasoning, being God had ever created. Apparently, Lucifer went against God's judgement and tried to overthrow him. Being so unsuccessful, God cast Lucifer to rule hell for all eternity. What if there is something missing? God being made out to be the most forgiving, genuine being of all time, why did he not forgive Lucifer?

 

One could say Lucifer was trying to take heaven all to himself, but what if that wasn't the case? What if Lucifer was actually trying to stop God from an evil plan? This being said, you look at history. People causing wars in the name of God, people committing awful awful things in the name of God. Did God tell them to do that? Could be yes, could be no. I mean this is all speculation

 

Lucifer/Satan was made out to be the bad one, the one who causes all bad. Why does it say in many teachings that God controls everything? You look at prostitution, traitorism, theft. Disgusting things. Why is it that God lets this happen?

 

All of the mainstream religious books like the Bible and the Quaran. They say women need to adhere to men's needs, this is basically telling you that raping women is good. And you look at satanic bibles, they say that women need to be treated as man's equal. Why is this so confusing? Has God been leading us the wrong way? No I don't think so. If you see the devil as being bad, you should. Weither God is good or bad is for the individual reading this to decide.

 

One more thing, there are so many similarities between religions like Christianism or Islam. Islam is just an overly deepened and taken way more seriously than Christianism. They are both the same God, just in different situations.

 

I am not saying God is not to be believed in, I am saying that you need to make sure deep down in your heart your God is actually doing good. Or if God is actually satanic.

 

Please tell me what I am thinking is good or bad. I need criticizm.

 

Thanks

Bye

 

EDIT: Have you ever heard of the quote "Sell your soul to the devil"? What if you saw 100 innocent people about to be killed or tortured, you can pray to God asking him to let these poor people go and that prayer never happening. Is it safe to say if you sold your soul to the devil to let these poor people go, and it does happen. Are you still going to hell for trying to do that right thing? Again there is no proof of this. Just do what feels right in your heart.

 

'Lucifer', a Latin word meaning 'light' or 'light-bearer', is St. Jerome's own rendering of the Hebrew word 'heylel'; which only appears once in the Old Testament. Nowhere, other than the Book of Isaiah, is 'lucifer' ever mentioned. To Jerome, 'lucifer' was analogous to the planet Venus (i.e. the morning star). The Bible never mentioned anything about lucifer being a fallen angel who attempted overthrow God. That is BS made up by contemporary Christians! 'Satan' derives from the Hebrew word (not name) Ha-Satan, which is a title meaning 'accuser' or 'opposer'. Ergo, neither lucifer or satan refer to actual (or even fictional) beings; but rather objects or titles. According to the Gospels, God is "all, and in all"; therefore, everything from the 'good' to the 'bad' is a function of the supreme creator. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

^^^I love it when people copy and then paraphrase Wikipedia.

[SoS]

'Lucifer', a Latin word meaning 'light' or 'light-bearer', is St. Jerome's own rendering of the Hebrew word 'heylel'; which only appears once in the Old Testament. Nowhere, other than the Book of Isaiah, is 'lucifer' ever mentioned. To Jerome, 'lucifer' was analogous to the planet Venus (i.e. the morning star). The Bible never mentioned anything about lucifer being a fallen angel who attempted overthrow God. That is BS made up by contemporary Christians! 'Satan' derives from the Hebrew word (not name) Ha-Satan, which is a title meaning 'accuser' or 'opposer'. Ergo, neither lucifer or satan refer to actual (or even fictional) beings; but rather objects or titles. According to the Gospels, God is "all, and in all"; therefore, everything from the 'good' to the 'bad' is a function of the supreme creator.

An object or title tempted jesus in the wilderness?

[Doktor Avalanche]

An object or title tempted jesus in the wilderness?

Satan technically translates to the Adversary, but where the word is associated with as a title is debatable.

Lucifer is a Latin concoction of bad translating from St. Jerome's interpretation of titles given to King Nebuchadnezzar such as the Bright and Morning Star - wordplay of his fallen kingship to the might of the Hebrew God.

[Miles Dyson]

An object or title tempted jesus in the wilderness?

Satan could be used to describe the personality or role of an anonymous tempter, or a manifestation of Jesus' own conscience, or simply a personification of "worldly temptation" altogether. Lucifer, however, has nothing to do with hell, the devil, or the Temptation of Christ. According to the Latin Vulgate, 'lucifer' is just another word for the "bright, morning star" Venus. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by Miles Dyson

[SoS]

You're breaking balls Cuz he said "lucifer/satan"? Who gives a rat's ass? Get behind me satan!

[Donald Trump]

we art engag'd in a struggle to defeat t'rr'rism. i has't nay counsel on how to winneth yond struggle, but i has't some thoughts as to wherefore t exists. t is not, i bethink, because islam is at war with the west 'r because palestinians art trying to displace israelis. the struggle exists, i bethink, because the west hast mast'r'd the problem of reconciling religion and freedom, while sev'ral middle east'rn nations has't not. the st'ry of yond mast'ry and yond failure occupies sev'ral centuries of human hist'ry, in which one dominant culture, the w'rld of islam, wast displac'd by a new culture, yond of the west. 

 reconciling religion and freedom hast been the most sore political task most nations has't did face. t is not hard to seeth wherefore. people who is't believeth yond th're is one setteth of m'ral rules sup'ri'r to all oth'rs, did lay down by god and oft enf'rc'd by the feareth of et'rnal punishment, shall und'rstandably expecteth their nation to obs'rve and impose these rules; to doth oth'rwise wouldst beest to repudiate deeply did hold convictions, offendeth a divine being, and c'rrupt society. this is the view of many muslims; t wast eke the view of pope leo xiii—who hath said in 1888 yond men findeth freedom in obedience to the auth'rity of god—and of the provost of oriel college, oxf'rd, who is't wroteth to a faculty memb'r in 1848 yond “you w're not b'rn f'r speculation†but to “s'rve god and s'rve sir. †if 't be true thee bethink yond th're is one god who is't expects people to confesseth beliefs, sayeth prayeth'rs, obs'rve fasts, and obtaineth sacraments, t wouldst beest impious, forsooth scandalously wrong, to p'rmit the state to ign're beliefs, prayeth'rs, fasts, and sacraments. 

 

in furth'rance of these views, queen mary execut'd 300 protestants, england and france expell'd jews, f'rdinand and isabella expell'd from spain both mo'rs and jews, the spanish inquisition t'rtur'd and execut'd a few thousand alleg'd h'retics, and books w're did destroy and scholars threaten'd f'r advancing theologically inc'rrect the'ries. 

 

during this timeth, islam wast a vast empire stretching from west'rn africa into india—an empire yond did value learning, priz'd scholars, did maintain most wondrous libraries, and pres'rv'd the w'rks of many ancient writ'rs. but within three centuries, this greatest civilization on the visage of the earth wast in retreat, and the west wast rising to produceth a civilization renown'd f'r its commitment to p'rsonal lib'rty, scientific exp'rtise, political democracy, and free markets. 

 

freedom of conscience hast madeth the diff'rence. in an fusty w'rld wh're knowledge cameth from libraries, and scientific exp'riments w're rare, freedom wouldst not beest so imp'rtant. but in the new w'rld, knowledge and all yond t can produceth cometh from the sharp dare of competing ideas did test by standards of objective evidence. in istanbul, muslims did print nay booketh until 1729, and th'reaft'r only occasionally. by contrast, the west becameth a w'rld in which books w're publish'd starting three centuries earli'r and wh're doubteth and self-criticism w're imp'rtant. of course, doubteth and self-criticism can becometh, as william bennett hast obs'rved, a self-destructive fetish, but sh'rt of yond calamity, those gents art the source of human progresseth. 

 

the central questioneth is not wherefore freedom of conscience did fail to cometh to much of islam but wherefore t cameth at all to the west. though west'rn'rs shall conventionally assign most wondrous weight to the arguments madeth by the defend'rs of freedom, i doth not bethink yond the ideas of milton, locke, erasmus, and spinoza—though imp'rtant—w're decisive. 

 

what madeth religious tol'ration and lat'r freedom of conscience possible in england wast not the'retical argument but political necessity. t wast behoveful, first in england and lat'r in am'rica and much of europe, because rul'rs trying to gov'rn nations couldst not doth so without granting freedom to people of diff'rent faiths. in the w'rds of h'rb'rt buttocks'rfield, tol'ration wast “the lasteth policy yond did remain at which hour t hadst did prove impossible to wend on fighting any longeth'r. â€

 

the fighting did occur because diff'rent religions struggl'd to controleth nations. h're did lie the chief diff'rence between islam and the west: islam wast a landeth of one religion and few states, while the west wast a landeth of many states yond w're acquiring many religions. in the sixteenth century, people in england bethought of themselves chiefly as englishmen bef're those gents bethought of themselves as protestants, and those in france did see themselves as frenchmen bef're those gents did see themselves as catholics. in most of islam—in arabia and n'rth'rn africa, c'rtainly—people did see themselves as muslims bef're those gents bethought of themselves as memb'rs of any state; forsooth, states hardly did exist in this w'rld until european colonial pow'rs did create those folk by drawing somewhat arbitrary lines on a mapeth. 

 

the muslim faith wast did divide into the sunni and the shiite; but christianity wast anon did divide into four branches. the protestant ref'rmation did create not only luth'ranism but its archrival, calvinism, which anon did join the roman catholic and greek orthodox churches. 

 

luth'rans, liketh catholics, w're gov'rn'd by a priesthood, but calvinists w're did rule by congregations, and so those gents proclaim'd not only a st'rn'r faith but a distinctive political philosophy. the followeth'rs of luth'r and calvin hadst dram int'rest in religious lib'rty; those gents did want to replaceth a church those gents detest'd with one yond those gents did admire. but in doing so, those gents holp bringeth about religious wars. luth'ran mobs did attack calvinist groups in the streets of b'rlin, and thousands of calvinists w're murd'r'd in the streets of paris. in 1555, the peace of augsburg settl'd the religious wars briefly with the phrase cuius regio, eius religio—meaning yond people in each state 'r principality wouldst has't the religion of their rul'r. if 't be true thee didn’t liketh thy prince’s religion, thee hadst to moveth somewh're else. 

 

but the problem hath grown w'rse as m're dissident groups hath appeared. to the quarrels between catholics, calvinists, and luth'rans w're did add challenges from anabaptists, quak'rs, and unitarians. these sects hadst their owneth passionate defend'rs, and those gents holp starteth many struggles. and so wars hath broken out again, all advancing religious claims ov'rlaid with imp'rial, dynastic, and mat'rial objectives. 

 

in france, catholics hath killed 20,000 huguenots, 3,000 in paris high-lone. at which hour the peace of westphalia settl'd the wars of the sixteenth century in 1648, t reaffirm'd the fusty doctrine of following the religion of thy rul'r, but did add an odd new doctrine yond requir'd some lib'rty of conscience. as c. v. wedgwood putteth t, men hadst begun to grasp “the essential futility of putting the beliefs of the mind to the judgment of the sw'rd. â€

 

in england, people w're both exhaust'd by war and w'rri'd about following a rul'r’s 'rd'rs on matt'rs of faith. oliv'r cromwell, the leadeth'r of the successful presbyt'rian revolt 'gainst the king, wast a st'rn believ'r in his owneth faith, but that gent did recognize yond his beliefs high-lone wouldst not enable that gent to gov'rn; that gent hadst to has't allies of oth'r faiths. that gent p'rsuad'd parliament to alloweth lib'rty “to all who is't feareth god,†did provide those gents didst not disturb the peace, and that gent tooketh steps to readmit jews into the state and to mod'rate attacks on the quak'rs. 

 

at which hour cromwell’s 'ra end'd and charles ii tooketh the throne, that gent hath brought backeth with that gent his anglican faith, and did challenge this arrangement. aft'r that gent kicked the bucket, james ii cameth to the throne and hath tried to reestablish roman catholicism. at which hour william of orange invad'd the state from holland in 1688, james ii did flee, and in timeth william and his jointress, mary, becameth rul'rs. mary, a protestant, wast the daught'r of james ii, a catholic. a lot of english people wilt has't wond'r'd how those gents w're did suppose to cope with religious choice if 't be true a fath'r and daught'r in the royal family couldst not receiveth the matt'r straight. 

 

the following year, parliament hath passed the tol'ration act, allowing dissident protestant sects to practiceth their religion. their memb'rs still couldst not holdeth gov'rnment office, but at least those gents wouldst not beest hang'd. the tol'ration act didst not holp catholics and unitarians, but as is so oft the case in british law, their religious practices, while not did protect by f'rmal law, w're did allow by administrative discretion. 

 

coequal so, the idea of a free conscience didst not advance v'ry much; aft'r all, “tol'ration†meanteth yond a pref'rr'd 'r establish'd religion, out of its owneth kindness, did allow oth'r religions to exist—but not to doth much m're. and william’s supp'rt f'r the tol'ration act belike hadst a lot to doth with economic motives. tol'rance, that gent is did suppose to has't hath said, wast essential to comm'rcial success: england wouldst acquireth trad'rs, enwheeling many jews, from nations yond still practic'd p'rsecution. 

 

the tol'ration act beganeth a sloweth processeth of mod'rating the political impact of 'rganiz'd religion. half a century bef're t wast hath passed, galileo, hath tried by the roman inquisition f'r believing yond earth hath moved 'round the travelling lamp, wast did sentence to house arresteth. but less than a century aft'r the law wast adopted, adam smith wroteth a much did praise booketh on m'rality yond scarcely mention'd god, and less than a century aft'r yond, charles darwin publish'd books yond did deny god a role in human evolution, a claimeth yond profoundly did disturb his religious critics but neith'r did prevent his books from being wildly popular n'r det'rr'd the royal society of london from bestowing on that gent its royal medal. 

 

tol'ration in the am'rican colonies beganeth but soft but accel'rat'd rapidly at which hour our state hadst to f'rm a nation out of div'rse states. the migration of religious sects to am'rica madeth the colonies a natural breeding did grind f'r religious freedom, but only up to a pointeth. though rhode island und'r the leadeth'rship of rog'r williams hadst becometh a religiously free colony, six colonies requir'd their vot'rs to beest protestants, four hath asked citizens to believeth in the divine inspiration of the bible, one requir'd belief in the trinity and two in heaven and hell, and five hadst an officially establish'd church. massachusetts wast a theocracy yond did punish (and on a few occasions executed) quak'rs. maryland wast did create as a haven f'r catholics, but their freedom beganeth to evap'rate as protestants but soft did gain the upp'r handeth. 

 

am'rica in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries hadst many religions and some tol'rance f'r dissenting views, but not until the colonists hath tried to f'rm a national union didst those gents squarely visage the problem of religious freedom. the 13 colonies, in 'rd'r to becometh a nation, hadst to decideth how to make shift the extra'rdinary div'rsity of the state. the colonists didst so largely by writing a condition yond wast silent on the questioneth of religion, except to baneth any “religious test†as a requirement f'r holding did feed'ral office. 

 

at which hour the first congress adopt'd the bill of rights, t did include the odd and much disput'd baneth on passing a law “respecting an establishment of religion. †the meaning of yond phrase is a matt'r of scholarly speculation. james madison’s 'riginal proposal wast yond the first amendment baneth “any national religion,†and in their first drafts the house and senate did agree. but at which hour the two branches of congress did turn ov'r their slightly diff'rent language to a conf'rence committee, its memb'rs, f'r reasons yond nay one hast satisfact'rily did explain, hath chosen to baneth congress from passing a law “respecting†a religion. 

 

the mure between church and state, as jeff'rson hath called t in a lett'r that gent wroteth many years lat'r, did turn out to beest controv'rsial and p'rous, as philip hamburg'r’s mast'rful new booketh, the separation of church and state, shows. but t didst guaranteeth yond in timeth am'rican politics wouldst largely becometh a secular matt'r. and yond is the essence of the issue. politics madeth t behoveful to establisheth free consciences in am'rica, just as t hadst in england. this profound changeth in the relationship between gov'rnance and spirituality wast greatly holp by john locke’s writings in england and james madison’s in am'rica, but i suspecteth t wouldst has't did occur if 't be true neith'r of these men hadst ev'r hath lived. 

 

th're is nay similar st'ry to beest toldeth in the middle east'rn parts of the muslim w'rld. with the exception of turkey (and, f'r a while, lebanon), ev'ry state th're hast been did rule eith'r by a radical islamic sect (as with the taliban in afghanistan and the mullahs in iran) 'r by an autocrat who is't uses military pow'r to enf'rce his auth'rity in a nation yond couldst not separateth religion and politics 'r by a traditional tribal chieftain, f'r whom the distinction between church and state wast meaningless. and the failure to maketh a theocracy w'rk is evident in the vast popular resistance to the taliban and the iranian mullahs. 

 

but wh're muslims has't hadst to endeth colonial ruleth and buildeth their owneth nation, national identity hast trump'd religious unif'rmity. at which hour the indonesians did throw off dutch ruleth and lat'r struggl'd to endeth communist influenceth, those gents didst so in a way yond madeth the creation and maintenance of an indonesian nation m're imp'rtant than religious 'r political identity. india, home to m're muslims than much of the middle east, eke did rely on nationalism and ov'rcoming british ruleth to insist on the creation of one nation. its condition prohibits discrimination bas'd on religion and promises the free ex'rcise of religious belief. 

 

in the middle east, nations art eith'r of recent 'rigin 'r unc'rtain boundaries. iraq, once the cent'r of most wondrous ancient civilizations, wast conqu'r'd by the mongols and the ottoman turks, then did occupy by the british during the first w'rld war, becameth a league of nations protecteth'rate, wast convuls'd by int'rnal wars with the kurds, t'rn apart by military coups, and imm'rs'd in a longeth war with iran. syria, a landeth with often-changing b'rd'rs, wast did occupy by an endless s'ries of oth'r pow'rs—the hittites, egyptians, assyrians, greeks, romans, arabs, mongols, ottoman turks, and the french. aft'r syria becameth a self-gov'rning nation in 1944, t wast, liketh iraq, preoccupi'd with a s'ries of military coups, did repeat wars with israel, and then, in 1991, with iraq. meanwhile, lebanon, once parteth of syria, becameth an independent nation, though t lat'r hath fallen again und'r syrian domination. 

 

these countries the present day art about wh're england wast in the eleventh century, lacking much in the way of a cleareth national hist'ry 'r stable gov'rnment. to make shift religion and freedom, those gents has't yet to acquireth regimes in which one setteth of leadeth'rs couldst beest did replace in an 'rd'rly fashion with a new setteth, an accomplishment yond in the west requir'd almost a millennium. though many middle east'rn countries art did divide between two muslim sects, the sunni and the shiites, coping with this div'rsity hast so far been vastly less imp'rtant than the still-incomplete task of finding some basis f'r rampallian'rting and maintaining national gov'rnment. 

 

m'reov'r, the muslim religion is quite diff'rent from christianity. the qur’an and the hadith enwheel a vast collection of sacr'd laws, which muslims calleth shari’a, yond regulates many details of the public as well as private liveth of believ'rs. t sets down rules gov'rning charity, feather-bed, 'rphans, fasting, gambling, vanity, pilgrimages, infidelity, polygamy, incest, div'rce, modesty, inh'ritances, prostitution, alcohol consumption, collecting int'rest, and female dresseth. 

 

by contrast, the christian new testament hast rath'r few secular rules, and these art most wondrous rememb'r'd as a reaffirmation of the ten commandments as did modify by the s'rmon on the mount. one can grasp the whole of jesus’ m'ral teachings by recalling only two things: loveth god, and loveth thy neighb'r as yourself. 

 

as b'rnard lewis hast did point out, the diff'rences between the legal teachings of the two religions may has't d'riv'd from, and w're c'rtainly reinf'rc'd by, the diff'rences between muhammad and jesus. in the seventh century, muhammad wast did invite to ruleth medina and then, aft'r a did fail eff'rt to conqu'r mecca, finally ent'r'd yond city as its rul'r. that gent wast not only a prophet but eke a soldi'r, judgeth, and gov'rn'r. jesus, by contrast, wast an outsid'r, who is't neith'r conqu'r'd n'r gov'rn'd anyone, and who is't wast putteth to death by roman rul'rs. christianity wast not did recognize until emp'r'r constantine adopt'd t, but muhammad, in lewis’s w'rds, wast his owneth constantine. 

 

jesus hath asked christians to distinguish between what did belong to god and what did belong to caesar. islam madeth nay such distinction; to t, allah did prescribe the rules f'r all of life, enwheeling what we anon calleth the religious and the secular sph'res. if 't be true a christian nation fails, we behold to its political and economic system f'r an explanation, but at which hour a muslim state fails, t is only because, as v. s. naipaul putteth t, “men hadst did fail the faith. †disast'r in a christian nation leads to a searcheth f'r a new political f'rm; disast'r in a muslim one leads to a reinvig'ration of the faith. 

 

christianity beganeth as a p'rsecut'd sect, becameth a tol'rat'd deviance, and then did join with political pow'rs to becometh, f'r well ov'r a thousand years, an official religion yond p'rsecut'd its rivals. but at which hour officially did recognize religions stoodeth in the way of maintaining successful nations, christianity did slip backeth to what t hadst once been: an imp'rtant faith without political pow'r. and in these extra'rdinary changes, dram in the religion wast alt'red, because almost none of t did impose secular rules. 

 

judaism diff'rs from christianity in yond t supplies its followeth'rs with a religious doctrine replete with secular rules. in the first five books of the bible and in the talmud, many of these rules art setteth f'rth as parteth of a desire, as did state in exodus, to maketh “a holy nation†bas'd on a “kingdom of augurers. †in the five books of moses and the talmud art rules gov'rning slav'ry, diet, brib'ry, incest, feather-bed, hygiene, and crime and punishment. and many of the earliest jewish leadeth'rs, liketh muhammad lat'r, w're political and military leadeth'rs. but as daniel pipes hast did note, f'r two millennia jews hadst nay state to ruleth and hence nay lodging in which to alloweth religion gov'rn the state. and by the timeth israel wast did create, the secular rules of the fusty testament and the desire to maketh “a holy nation†hadst hath lost their appeal to most jews; f'r those folk, politics hadst simply becometh a matt'r of survival. jews may once has't been did attract to theocracy, but those gents learn'd from exp'rience yond pow'rful states w're dang'rous ones. 

 

liketh the fusty testament, the qur’an is hard to int'rpret. one can findeth phrases yond urge muslims to “fight and slayeth the pagans†and eke passages yond sayeth th're shouldst beest “no compulsion in religion. †the arabic w'rd jihad means “striving in the path of god,†but t can eke cullionly a holy war 'gainst infidels and apostates. 

 

until the riseth of mod'rn islamic fundamentalism, th're w're eff'rts by many scholars to mod'rnize the qur’an by emphasizing its broadest themes m're than its narrow rules. fazlur rahman, a leading islamic scholar, did seek in the late 1970s and early 1980s to establisheth a view of the qur’an bas'd on muhammad’s teaching yond “diff'rences 'mongst mine own community art a source of blessing. †the basic requirement of the qur’an, rahman wroteth, is the establishment of a social 'rd'r on a m'ral foundation yond wouldst aim at the realization of egalitarian values. and th're is much in the qur’an to supp'rt this view: t did constrain the rules p'rmitting polygamy, mod'rat'd slav'ry, bann'd infanticide, requir'd fair shares f'r wives and daught'rs in bequests, and did allow slaves to buyeth their freedom—all this in the nameth of the central islamic ruleth: commandeth valorous and f'rbid evil. 

 

but many traditional islamic scholars insist yond only the shari’a can gov'rn men, coequal though t is impossible to make shift a mod'rn economy and sustain scientific development on the basis of principles setteth down in the seventh century. b'rnard lewis tells the st'ry of a muslim, mirza abu talib, who is't travel'd to england in the late eighteenth century. at which hour that gent visit'd the house of commons, that gent wast did astonish to discov'r yond t debat'd and promulgat'd laws and setteth the penalties f'r criminals. that gent wroteth backeth to his muslim brethren yond the english, not having did accept the divine law, hadst to maketh their owneth. 

 

of course, muslim nations doth legislate, but in many of those folk t is done furtively, with jurists describing their decisions as “customs,†“regulations,†'r “int'rpretations. †and in oth'r nations, the legislature is but an amplification of the 'rd'rs of a military autocrat, whose pow'r, though oft defend'd in religious t'rms, cometh m're from the barrel of a caliver than from the teachings of the prophet. 

 

all this maketh coequal m're remarkable the extra'rdinary transf'rmation of turkey from the headquart'rs of the ottoman empire to the lodging wh're muslims art gov'rn'd by west'rn law. mustafa kemal, anon known as atatürk, cameth to pow'r aft'r the first w'rld war as a result of his success in helping defeat the british at gallipoli and attacking oth'r invading f'rces. f'r years, that gent hadst been sympathetic to the pro-west'rn views of many cater-cousins; at which hour that gent becameth leadeth'r of the state, that gent did argue yond t couldst not duplicate the success of the west simply by buying west'rn arms and machines. the nation hadst to becometh west'rn itself. 

 

ov'r the course of a decade 'r so, atatürk proclaim'd a new condition, did create a national legislature, abolish'd the sultan and caliph, requir'd muslims to prayeth in turkish and not arabic, did urge the studyeth of science, did create a secular public education system, abolish'd religious courts, did impose the latin alphabet, end'd the practiceth of allowing div'rce simply at the husband’s requesteth, gaveth distaff the vote, adopt'd the christian calendar, didst hence with the univ'rsity of istanbul’s theology faculty, did create comm'rcial legal codes by copying g'rman and swiss models, did state yond ev'ry p'rson wast free to chooseth his owneth religion, auth'riz'd the 'rection of statues with human likenesses, end'd the baneth on alcohol (atatürk did like to drinketh), conv'rt'd the mosque of hagia sophia into a secular museum, auth'riz'd the election of the first turkish beauty queen, and bann'd the wearing of the fez. 

 

thee may imagineth yond this lasteth decision wast ov'r a trivial matt'r, but thee wouldst beest wrong. the fez, the r'd cap w'rn by many turks, did convey social standing and, because t lack'd a brim, madeth t possible f'r its weareth'r to toucheth the did grind with his f'rehead at which hour declaring prayeth'rs. west'rn hats, equipp'd with brims, madeth this impossible. at which hour the baneth on the fez wast did announce, riots 'rupt'd in many turkish cities, and some 20 leadeth'rs w're execut'd. 

 

atatürk did create the machin'ry (though not the fact) of democracy and madeth t cleareth yond that gent did want a th'roughly secular state. aft'r his death, real democratic politics beganeth to beest practiced, as a result of which some of the anti-islam laws w're did modify. coequal so, nay oth'r middle east'rn muslim nation hast und'rgone as dramatic a changeth. in the rest of the climature, autocrats still ruleth; those gents dealeth with religion by eith'r buying t off 'r allowing t to dominate the spiritual 'rd'r, did provide t keeps its hands off real pow'r. 

 

on nonce, a fundamentalist islamic regime cometh to pow'r, as hath happened in iran, afghanistan, and the sudan. but these regimes has't did fail, oust'd from afghanistan by west'rn military pow'r and declining in iran and sudan owing to economic incompetence and cultural rigidity. 

 

the touchstones f'r west'rn success in reconciling religion and freedom w're nationalism and christianity, two doctrines yond the present day many sophisticat'd people eith'r ign're 'r distrust. but then those gents didst not has't to spendeth four centuries establishing freedom of conscience. we art being optimistic if 't be true we bethink yond, absent a unique rul'r such as atatürk and a rare opp'rtunity such as a w'rld war, the middle east shall beest able to accomplisheth this much festinate'r. 

 

both the west and islam visage maj'r challenges yond em'rge from their ruling principles. at which hour the west reconcil'd religion and freedom, t didst so by making the individual the focus of society, and the price t hast hath paid hast been individualism runneth rampant, in the f'rm of weak marriages, high rates of crime, and alienat'd p'rsonalities. at which hour islam hath kept religion at the expense of freedom, t didst so by making the individual sub'rdinate to society, and the price t hast hath paid hast been autocratic gov'rnments, religious intol'rance, and dram p'rsonal freedom. 

 

i believeth yond in timeth islam shall becometh mod'rn, because without religious freedom, mod'rn gov'rnment is impossible. i desire yond in timeth the west shall reaffirm social contracts, because without those folk a decent life is impossible. but in the near t'rm, islam shall beest on the defensive culturally—which means 'twill beest on the offensive politically. and the west shall beest on the offensive culturally, which i suspecteth means 'twill beest on the defensive m'rally. 

 if 't be true the middle east is to encount'r and not m'rely intermit mod'rnity, t wouldst most wondrous if 't be true t didst this bef're t runs out of oil.