Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet v0.1

Preface:

 

I have been toying with the idea of writing this article for a long time. You will soon notice that it still reads at least unrefined if not utterly unfinished. But given my limited writing abilities, I realized that even an unlimited wait would not lead to any significant improvement.

Also ours is the age of growing impatience. While the latest desi Shabbas Goy Pankaj Mishra authored "Age of Anger", it is more impatience than anger. Impatience with not mere "elite" but "elite suspected of wilful treason against, and callous indifference towards suffering of, people.

I have titled this v0.1 in an arbitrary manner. It only means that it is work in progress. However the progress might happen so slowly that you might never get to read any future versions. Also, the essence of the message of this article is unlikely to undergo any significant change.

Some Background:

By population, jews are about 0.2% of world population. If we assume that they were much more numerous about 2k years ago, may be they would have been (say) 5% of world population? Anyway, that is not the main point. About 2k years ago Christian and Moslem populations of the world were 0% each.

Now consider Abrahamism (jews plus christians plus moslems), their population is about 54%. If we add "secular, atheist, etc" into this (because Secularism, Atheism, as practiced in modern times are largely Abrahamic "atheism", while secularism is indeed "Judeo-Christian western" concept. Thus, post this addition, the Abrahamic population totals about 70%.

If a similar calculation is done in terms of land area. The percentage might add up to like more than 80% of inhabitable land area under control of Abrahamics. Compare that to say less than 1% land area that Judean kings might have controlled prior to 2k years ago.

Quite a feat, no? 

Yes, yes, I know, you would say that "Science/Technology practicing persons" in the sense of "modern Sci-Tech" were nearly 0% and have become nearly 100%, so don't read too much into it. But we MUST read into it. SciTech is being used by people everyday in their daily life, and it "works". If there are problems, theories and solutions are discarded. Nay, even if a guild of some practitioners goes somewhat askance (like modern cancer-treatment, psychiatry, etc) there is often a powerful counter push. Last but not least, if Sci-Tech too becomes a "propaganda" rather than remaining something that "works", it will also decline, nay it will also have to be shown the door. The "climate science" fiasco has already shown hints of that.

On the other hand, Abrahamisms insist that notwithstanding whether they "work" or not, they must be accorded a special privilege as "religion" coz it is their "faith" which must be deemed sacred, no matter what. And if you notice carefully, the notion of "Secularism" is more concerned about forcing non-Abrahamics into accommodating Abrahamisms, than anything else.

So, from this perspective, it seems interesting to investigate what Abrahamisms are all about and how and why they have had such massive percentage gains.

It is in order to study this, I have chosen the personalities of Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet.
 

My Usual Routine:


However, let me begin with my usual disclaimers and caveats.

Group-0

You might be wondering, what on earth has made me write this article. And that if i am writing this will I be heaping loads of well researched insults on these "prophets". Well, I am sorry to disappoint you.

However, this in no way must be taken even as a remotest hint of advice that we can drop our guard against the  abominable ideologies run after the names of these persons. Though in this article I am not touching upon the abomination aspect at all.

Just as a woman must be cautious regarding approaching men, for on one hand it indeed is plausible that they will eventually fall in love, marry and live happily ever after, it is not ruled out that the man will turn out to be a serial rapist, would rape her, impregnate her, and move on! In our case, we know for sure that notwithstanding whatever fair understanding we might accord these "religions", they have been rabid plunderers, and the only reason they havnen't moved on yet is because they feel their plundering is not yet finished.

Group-1

I am not writing this as a student of comparative religion or philosophy as that stupid ass Zakair Naik might claim for himself.

I am not a "scholar" either.

I began with an initial appreciation of the fact that Islam itself is a problem not what the apologists term as radical Islam, Islamofascism and such balderdash.

I could understand that notwithstanding its white-washed face, underneath Christianity also lay horrible past and even at present an ever continuing basket of subterfuge and stratagems.

I realized that the usual critics and exposers of Chrislamism always fell short of taking things to their logical end.

Thus I naturally ended up noticing that there were fundamental problems with Judaism (the parent of Islam and X) itself, and that things should not be brushed under the carpet for deference to terms like "Israel is our natural ally" and such levity.

Since these ideologies run in the name of these personalities, I wanted to understand them. Not from the point of view of admiring them, insulting them, or even evaluating them "objectively", but from the perspective, that If we give them generous benefits of doubt, can we find some take-home useful essence? Something? I have tried to find mine, though this need not be the all.

This article is some kind of summary of what I understand of the trio. While I must unabashedly declare that I am (in my writings) trying to be pro-Hindu, or at least trying not to be anti-Hindu, this article is more from a somewhat neutral perspective. At least, I am not writing this to grind any axe (though that can be, should be, and surely be a legitimate purpose in itself, just that I am not doing it in this article) against the trio.

Group-2

While there are numerous studies investigating and doubting the historicity of Moses, Jesus and Mahomet (and they are legitimate too), I am not undertaking any such revision here. As a non (jew, christian, moslem) I realise that the effect these "persons/prophets" have on us, especially on our survival, it is better to consider them "real threats" even if they are "fictional persons". Though, however, in this I am not critiquing their persona either.


However, I am not going to pull any punches, when I comment on the "followers" of these prophets. I am gut-sick and bone-tired of incorrigible fools shouting "Manuwadi brAhmaNical Patriarchy". I am not stupid enough to wish that someday they will also accord some semblance of benefits of doubts to each among Manu, brAhmaNas, and Patriarchs. This in no way means that legitimate, or even "hate-filled" criticism of these should be forbidden. Just that, I am not going to consider the sensitivities of anti-M-b-P in this article.

I have chosen Moses in a somewhat arbitrary manner, though he is important for the "ten commandments" which supposedly (notice the term supposedly) form Judeo-Christian Civilization. The choice of Jesus and Mahomet must be obvious.

So I am writing this assuming Moses, Jesus, Mahomet did exist; they were real people, they were good people, and they tried to identify cause of suffering, and proposed corrective measures. Likewise, further, they possibly loved the whole world too, identified some problems in their context, and likely tried to provide some timeless solutions to ever-standing problems.

And then I will present my thoughts on why certain other things happen despite their teachings.


Moses:

Jews believe that they were (are) Yahwe's chosen people, who once thrived and prospered; but did something wrong, fell from the grace and were exiled. A savior (Moses) was born, who led them to their freedom/salvation.

However, he did not merely save them. He went further. He told them that the cause of their fall from grace was some kind of immorality, and that they had to regain their morals, and that they must rebuild their lives on Ethics (given by ten comamndments).


My View:

Jews pride in being "the chosen people" often forgetting that the term "chosen" can (and should) also mean that they must be measured against "higher standards" (compared to the unchosen ones). Further, pre-Moses fall and exile must ever remind them that they too are fallible, and that their suffering is not always merely because others hate and/or victimize them. They may be inflicting their own downfall on themselves by compromising on their own "Ethics".

It is for them to judge themselves if they are living by even lower standards. The rest of the world could be having a different opinion to theirs.


Jesus:

Jesus of Nazarene was born (immaculate conception) to (virgin) Mary and Joseph and grew up to be a fine gentleman.

Jesus's teachings were "revolutionary" for his times. Replacing the typical Judaic prescription of "Jealous and harsh-judge" G-d (jews prefer to spell G-d I am told), the G-d of the "jewish scriptures", he presented a loving and compassionate "Father" in his "gospels" to people.


My View:

Jesus has been the most respected among these three, especially even by the non-Abrahamics.

I won't mock "immaculate conception" for I believe that such a thing could be at the very least plausible. In the case of Jesus, whether it did happen or not could be debated though. I emphasize that I have nothing against those who question immaculate conception on the basis of "science" or whatever. A simple and pure hatred of Christianity can also be a legitimate basis for questioning IC (just as Judeo-Christian-Muslims do to Hindus in particular and pagans in general). Just that I am not doing it in this article.

My small point is, we can focus on what Jesus did and said (even if it only a myth, we in this article take it to be real as explained before) rather than how he was born (though Christians consider the process of birth as one of the most crucial "proof" of his divinity). Also, since "immaculate conception" can not be proven to be impossible (however unlikely "laws of biology" might render it) we might as well, for the sake of nicety (at the very least) take it as plausible.

I did not mention the splitting of Red Sea by Moses earlier, but regarding that also, I would in this piece take a similar stand. What matters is that Moses saved his people, and actual splitting or not of the sea is not critical to that aspect. Or even the fact whether they were exiled to Egypt, or a town in (present) Yemen, then also known as Misr.

Coming back to the point that Jesus, seems the most respected among these three especially by Abrahamics. So much so, that (for example) Vivekananda likened Jesus to Siddharth-Gautam Buddha. But while Jesus and his early followers may have suffered, later Christians perpetrated horrible atrocities on "sinners". In fact one needs to merely look at what Portugese (Catholic) X-ians did to Syrian Christians in Goa, and the Shia-Sunni conflict among muslims will appear to be a child's play. And then imagine the plight of "heathens and pagans".

Now, re' Jesus, it seems that Rabbis and priests were exploiting the masses in the name of "G-d" and wielding the "fear of God's punishment". Jesus allayed such fears and declared that God was (like a) Father and loved people. This must have been a great relief to toiling populace of his times who might have been reeling under exploitation by the then "clergy". And there is also the aspect that Jesus, in fact, came to save people from Rabbinical (and other priestly classes) horrors.

In terms of the content of his message, we might even conjecture that Jesus's message was towards "realization" rather than "textual authority" (take a look at what he replied to a questioner who asked whether one could divorce one's wife by writing a certificate since Moses allowed so).

Notwithstanding any or all of this, Jesus has been used as a mere shield by Christans/Church to inflict untold miseries upon non-Christians.

Jesus' teachings, termed gospels, themselves underwent a lot of supposed "cleaning" (or should we say doctoring?). Various "gospels" were removed and only a select few were incorporated in the "authentic" King James version. As far as I understand, the very chasm between Eastern and Western Europe seems as much based upon differing Church scripture, as much on race. Eastern Church retained certain "gospels" which were removed by the Catholic Church. Also, never forget that while Bolshevism was against Russian Church (Eastern Orthodox), the saviors from Russian empire were propped by Pope, Catholic/Western Church (Recall Lech Walesa of Poland) etc.

Further, Jesus's life/teachings were sandwitched between Old Testamant (jewsih bible) and some early Church writings. It looks as if Jesus' influence was reduced to mere someone who died for the sins of others, whereas the main teachings were to be obtained from Old Testament and Church writings.

In that sense, Christianity (and much more so the Church) as we know now, may have much less to do with Jesus (and his teachings), and more to do with those who "control" Christianity/Church and their lust/greed for power and money.



Mahomet:

Mahomet's case seems the weakest. For in his own life, he committed awful plunder and subjected people (read his enemies) to mind numbing brutalities.

His canon message was that Allah is the only God, and Mahomet is Allah's final prophet.

My View:

We can still salvage some honor for him by assuming that may be his life story has been distorted and manipulated. May be he (like Jesus) saw the exploitation by "religious authorities" and wanted to end it once and for all. He probably noticed that common people who are not endowed with much intellectual power were being fooled over and over again by complexities perpetrated by the intelligent and cunning using "religion". He tried to plug the hole by emphasizing that there was only one God Allah, who was merciful and kind, you needed no intermediaries to pray to him, and you must consider this to be the final message.

So the question arises, that if Moses wanted his people to be moral, Jesus taught God loved all, and Mahomet abolished middlemen between men and Allah, why did such blood bath ensue the spread of their ideologies? A Jiddu Krishnamurti will dismissively say that all ideologies are utterly idiotic and violent. But that is simplistic generalization, and I suspect it to be even a deceptive generalization, for it merely provides a stick to beat up "all religions". Further, while I disagree, I surely accept that what JidduK said does indeed apply to those who consider what JIdduK said as new "ideology". But I digress.

A Remark:

It is important to say all this, for there are many well meaning Hindus (pagans) who get sentimental emotional about any criticism of Moses/Jesus/Mahomet.

This is highly common among especially "alleged educated hindu women". With due apologies to Rani Lakshmibai and Goddess Durga, I must mention that modern woman, much more so modern feminist woman often displays such utter lack of any political sagacity that one wonders whether they are even equipped to make any worthwhile political decisions. But yes, if we can have Rahul Gandhis, why not others. But understand, that while RG is, in most likelihood, treasonous (don't go by his foolishness/innocence charms that he is charading); many of these educated women seem non-treasonous in intent, so one wonders what makes them so vulnerable to such deep foolishnesses. But I digress again.

An Analysis: 

So, what was the cause that messages by these seemingly well meaning wise people led to endless wars? The answer seems to lie in the peculiar tendency prevalent among all the three. It is the wont of all Abrahamisms that, no sooner has a message been given, the "text keepers" enter the scene. The "authenticity of text" is quickly made to base upon "true copy of original" rather than any reasonable sense of the "realizability" of the message. Further, the "authentic message" always includes a call to "tell the whole world" (read conquer, convert or kill the rest). And then begins, first the evangelical imperialism, and then the eternal cleansing of the "impure" by the "pure".

Please contrast this "obsession" with "authentic text", with (say) a Socratic (pagan) teaching, other versions here and here.:

". . . Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded. . . ."

I have deliberately chosen as "western" and "phoren" quote. This is because I think usually normal Hindus instinctively understand this and need no "quotes". However the "educated" will be convinced only by "phoren" wisdom. Thus.

Further more, there is an even more sinister "unity" among these three. Recall that the ten commandments contain commands to prohibit theft, adultery, killing etc etc. However, notice that none of the "followers" among these are ever bothered by blatant flouting of these dictats by their peoples. Their focus is centered upon one and their only obssessive dictat: Thou shalt not worship God in any image. I used to wonder why this was so. I suspect that this is because this is the easiest stick that can be used to beat pagans with, and also gives heavy leeway to ignore on the one hand all other goodnesses that might be prevalent among the supposed adversaries, and on the other hand excuse all perfidies that the Abrahamics commit on the "unbeliever". This also provides them with the Marxist-like obsession with "destroying the old to build the new". Bertrand Russel likely had this mind also when he called Communism a Christian heresy. These days, Christains likewise call Communism "Islam without Allah". A better way to understand might be to see Marxism as "Judeo-Atheism".

The important point to understand is that, owing to this obsession with "God without image", "authentic text", "only one true God", "evangelical zeal", and carte blanche against "pagans/heathens/idolators", Judaism and its children remain an existential treat to any semblance of "religious freedom". The freedom they allow seems to be the freedom that Henry Ford once said re' his mass-produced cars: "You can get any color so long as it is black".

Now, I would also like to give some examples of fundamental structural differences between Abrahamics and non-A, in particular Hindus:

Hindus also believe that ultimately there is one Ishwara. [The word God of Abrahamics is quite different from Hindu word Ishwara, though just for once we can let it pass here to simplify the example]. But a typical Hindu construct is: If there is one Ishwara then all these multiplicities of gods must somehow be related to Ishwara (Unification)

In contrast, the typical Abrahamic construct is: If there is one God, then "only one" among these many gods must be true and the rest must be false, and therefore must be eliminated. (Exclusion and Extermination).

Swami Chandrashekhar Bharati, who was shankarAchArya of sRingEri math, in some place contrasted these aspects like so: Ishwara alone IS (no matter what name(s) you give Ishwara} versus There is only one (true) God (ours!). I have hardly seen anything that summarizes this fundamental aspect (Unification vs Exclusion) so well.

Another crucial difference seems to be:

The Abrahamic teacher would insist: Have "faith in the book", and this faith will lead you to rewards (usually only) in afterlife.

In contrast, Hindu guru would say: Do this sAdhana (Eg. Chant/Do-japa-of this name (say rAma, etc). There can be many other ways too, I have used this as a simple illustrative example) and you CAN realize "rAma, etc., and the whole truth" in this very life itself.

So does it mean that Hindus don't believe in afterlife? Not at all so. Hindus do believe in afterlife, rebirth, and the whole shebang. Afterlife, etc., mean that you can not get away with pApa (commiting sins) and "Law (of karma)" will catch up with you; also that your sAdhanA (even if you do not succeed in this life) would not go waste, and that you will begin from where you left off.

So, for example, Abrahamics would mention that the proof that Moses existed is that "the book" says he parted the Red Sea. If you say you doubt its veracity, you are an abominating unbeliever who must be eliminiated by torture. While a Hindu guru would say that the proof that rAma (and like wise others) "existed" is that you can chant his name and can realize in this very life itself.

Of course, mere pragmatism is not the test of "truth". But then what IS the test of "truth"? I need to digress here a little. After Hume's empiricism, and logical positivism of the Vienna circle, philosophy of Science (or of scientific truth) was taken to be Popperian proposal of "Falsificationism". That is, (scientific) conjectures must be subject to testing. Kuhn critiqued Popper, and proposed "Paradigms and their shifts". The current status seems to be (approximately) Feyerabend's Epistemic Relativism. Feyerabend proposes "Truth" as what "works". Of course, we need not take Feyerabend, or any other as the "only final" authority. But I would surely like to mention that Adi Shankara too declared re' knowledge: "sAvidyA yA vimuktayE" meaning (approx) "truth (or knowledge) is that which liberates you".

At the very least, the SciTech paradigm of "experiment and filter out what does not work" and "sAdhanA and aparOkshAnubhUti" seem closer than "Faith in Only true book and reap reward in (only) afterlife" paradigm. In fact, often the insistence on (only) "afterlife" betrays Abrahamic infiltration. That is one reason why I call Indian brAhminism as Judeo-brAhminism. We might also call it Abrahminism! This stands in stark contrast with the message of brAhmaNas (the spontaneously ethical) about sAdhanA and aparOkshAnubhUti (loosely translated as spiritual practices and relization of truth). I would also like to mention that I am NOT using Hindu-system's proximity to SciTech paradigm as proof of correctness of Hinduism. Rather, it only strengthens the case for SciTech paradigm as it can draw strength from its similarity to time-tested praxis of Hinduism. Emphasizing the aspect of truth as something which is ancient as well as enduring.


I must mention here that I have been told by many that Jesus's teachings were along the lines of sAdhanA and realization (in this life itself, a la Kingdom of Heaven within you, etc); but that such aspects have been subverted by the Church lest their hold (social, political, wealth control) on population should be compromised. I don't know enough to comment on its veracity. I think it surely is plausible, even if not highly probable. However, I would insist that no such consideration should lull Hindus into underestimating the existential threat(s) posed by Church and Christianity. It is just that we could remain intelletcually open to the possibility that in future some Jesusism might emerge which honors such aspects of Jesus, and gets rid of the threats-to-Hindus part.


(Might add some more)