Western News Is Shamelessly Subjective Regarding Muhammad's Claim To Prophethood
 |
| Did democracy ever live or exist in the first place? Democracy's idea is, I think, based on objectivity. When one is unable, or suppressed, from making objective expression... they are not free. They are subject... and their obvious subjectivity is duly noted. |
Objective:
(as an adjective)
- (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
(as a noun)
- a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
The opposite of objective, is subjective:
(as an adjective)
- based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
To be influenced by one's feelings or opinions, or those of others, is a typical human trait.
The aim of objectivity is to find and express facts besides your feelings about the facts.
To rise above the opinions of men, often argued as fact, is also an aim of objectivity.
To be objective is to move beyond your opinions of what you suppose the facts are.
To allow yourself to be convinced by the facts and not what you previously believed was a fact, is utmost important.
Facts are sometimes hard to recognize.
This is why to be subjective and opinionated is typically human.
It is challenging to look past the surface of things.
Looking past the surface, we have to also look past ourselves.
For example, if someone is / was said to be 'great', and that claim is repeated for centuries by those who believed it, what happens?
One likely outcome is: a title / label likely sticks and enters popular vernacular.
Think of Alexander 'the Great' - to be mentioned later.
Consider when a threat of death accompanies a failure, or refusal, to attribute or acknowledge such a label or title to a name.
What a likely outcome of that?
You'll likely have people repeating that title with that name in order to avoid death.
Whether they believe it, or in their hearts acknowledge that person as 'great', is less important than staying alive.
Discourse explores and explains how people are motivated through fear and intimidation.
It is nothing new for people to accept something out of a compulsion to go along with popular sentiments.
Such forceful manners is typical for mankind, and history has many examples.
To go beyond the surface is to at least make an effort in objectivity.
For some people, this article's topic may seem like a non-issue, or noise, or perhaps a bit too suspicious and reading too deeply into things.
Some may ask: what does it matter if a particular title accompanies a certain name in the news in a subjective manner?
Does it make it true?
For people who believe the news as a fact-based source that is written objectively, as it is written, the claim is expressed as a fact.
Even the news is cited as a fact-based source, then that man's name and his capitalized title is used as fact.
This is very problematic for several reasons.
One reason is: religious sentiment has clouded at least the perspective of the two mentioned news sources.
Another reason: journalistic integrity has failed when looking at the way those news articles are written.
Besides the contradiction (which may be a slight way of making a point) by sharing high crimes and atrocities committed by those who are purveyor of Muhammad as a 'prophet'.
Seems like mixed messages are being sent.
If something is popularly accepted as 'true' or a 'fact', does its popularity make it true?
Not in this man's mind... but not everyone is me.
But something popularly believed to be a 'fact', or true, makes it that much more difficult to explore.
I can only imagine the difficulty in clarifying the notion of the earth circumnavigating the sun some generations ago.
For many centuries, an earth fixed in space, with all there celestial bodies circling it, was accepted as an undeniable truth by priest and peasant alike.
It was a popular notion derived from man's limited perspective and limited observation.
It was likely a notion long-believed ever since men began to ponder things beyond the horizon and the heavens.
From these perceptions arose a flat earth concept; a concept religiously supported by literal interpretations of the Bible (instead of metaphorical interpretations, which meets man's wider observation).
So with the discovery that the earth was in fact traveling in space and around the sun, this news was initially received as heretical and considered absolutely ridiculous.
Thus, to contest a popular belief believed to be a fact or true, was (and can still be) dangerous.
Yet, that discovery clarified man's initial and limited observation.
That discovery could be said to have been born out of objectivity.
Instead of forwarding popular notions as fact, men of all minds (religious and scientific) looked closer and found profound clarity.
The world, at that time was, it could be said, turned upside down.
It seems to be now a popular notion that the earth is spherical and travels around the sun.
This is not a big deal today, but in that time it was a wild idea... and considered anti-God and so forth.
The concept of a geocentric earth was steeped in religious notions.
Religious interpretations were made to support this popular notion, instead of letting facts formulate opinions.
If it was simply a matter of scientific discussion or philosophical meanderings or mathematicians battling out their numbered wits, then it is likely something people would have not lost their lives over.
But the centric-earth was very controversial due to a small group of men discovering undeniable facts to the contrary, or to open wider man's understanding of things around them.
Those needing to be convinced were mostly people ignorant of the details of such a discovery.
Those minds needing to come to terms with facts, besides the popular notions, were unable to conceptualize the discovery.
Since it was a significant religious matter at the time, emotions rang high and eventually people were killed.
It was an issue of previously interpreted religious texts, in a way, to make sense of man's observations.
When a clarification through scientific observation was attempted to support those religious interpretations, clarity was realized.
When the religious claim was unfounded, minds had to adjust.
Religious texts had to be reinterpreted.
A dogma was proven false.
Those who perceived themselves to have known the facts had a difficult time accepting the clearer facts.
Pride.
Arrogance.
Not an easy task for minds and hearts so fixated on popular notions to make room for new ideas... yet those new ideas turned out to be very much true.
Truer, at least, when compared to the notion of an earth being flat, or centric in the universe, and having four corners like a carpet.
I notice a similar issue on the horizon.
I wonder if a current dogma can be addressed, and corrected, similar to how the centric-earth misconception was corrected.
But many people have already died... and continue to die, unfortunately.
When we consider titles, it is understood a title defines not only a person but also their vocation or position.
(as an adjective)
- (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
(as a noun)
- a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
The opposite of objective, is subjective:
(as an adjective)
- based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
To be influenced by one's feelings or opinions, or those of others, is a typical human trait.
The aim of objectivity is to find and express facts besides your feelings about the facts.
To rise above the opinions of men, often argued as fact, is also an aim of objectivity.
To be objective is to move beyond your opinions of what you suppose the facts are.
To allow yourself to be convinced by the facts and not what you previously believed was a fact, is utmost important.
Facts are sometimes hard to recognize.
This is why to be subjective and opinionated is typically human.
It is challenging to look past the surface of things.
Looking past the surface, we have to also look past ourselves.
For example, if someone is / was said to be 'great', and that claim is repeated for centuries by those who believed it, what happens?
One likely outcome is: a title / label likely sticks and enters popular vernacular.
Think of Alexander 'the Great' - to be mentioned later.
Consider when a threat of death accompanies a failure, or refusal, to attribute or acknowledge such a label or title to a name.
What a likely outcome of that?
You'll likely have people repeating that title with that name in order to avoid death.
Whether they believe it, or in their hearts acknowledge that person as 'great', is less important than staying alive.
Discourse explores and explains how people are motivated through fear and intimidation.
It is nothing new for people to accept something out of a compulsion to go along with popular sentiments.
Such forceful manners is typical for mankind, and history has many examples.
Fear and intimidation are powerful tools.
Fear stifles discussion, obscures clarity, and casts confusing shadows over logic.
Intimidation ensures that demands are adhered.
These realities need to be considered when looking at how things are written.
When looking at how people are portrayed, or labeled, titled, etc..
Fear stifles discussion, obscures clarity, and casts confusing shadows over logic.
Intimidation ensures that demands are adhered.
These realities need to be considered when looking at how things are written.
When looking at how people are portrayed, or labeled, titled, etc..
It is not easy to write objectively and remove personal sentiments in one's work.
It is an art, I think, to remove one's self when approaching any topic.
So it is understandable when I recently found news articles failing to be objective.
I wasn't too surprised at this, for I find lack of objectivity in many places.
I notice lauded scholars lacking objectivity and integrity.
Objectivity is supposed to be the work of scholars, historians, journalists, and scribes.
So to find it missing in popular journalism is less of a shock, since journalists often cite historians and scholars.
Please take a look at the three following news articles.
Notice how Muhammad is subjectively titled "Prophet". (with a capital 'P' no less)
First this article from the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation).
Secondly this one from MSN (Microsoft News).
Lastly this article, also from the BBC.
It is not only improper, but imprudent, to attach religious titles to names of people from a journalistic perspective.
It is an art, I think, to remove one's self when approaching any topic.
So it is understandable when I recently found news articles failing to be objective.
I wasn't too surprised at this, for I find lack of objectivity in many places.
I notice lauded scholars lacking objectivity and integrity.
Objectivity is supposed to be the work of scholars, historians, journalists, and scribes.
So to find it missing in popular journalism is less of a shock, since journalists often cite historians and scholars.
Please take a look at the three following news articles.
Notice how Muhammad is subjectively titled "Prophet". (with a capital 'P' no less)
First this article from the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation).
Secondly this one from MSN (Microsoft News).
Lastly this article, also from the BBC.
It is not only improper, but imprudent, to attach religious titles to names of people from a journalistic perspective.
That is not journalism, but subjective pandering.
If you notice, the title and name is not written in quoting religious sentiment, but from the journalist's first-person perspective.
In other words, it is expressed as fact.
This is shameless, unless the claim has somehow been proven as a fact!
Or is this simply a way to identify this Muhammad from the millions upon millions of Muhammads that are similarly named?
News outlets are supposed to be independent, but here something has happened.
Journalism is not to be influenced by religious sentiments or pressures in favor (or in opposition) to religious claims.
This is the point of being objective and the point I'm making.
Have some people caved-in to fear?
Or have some people, in trying to honestly reach a religious expectation, begun writing in a religious vernacular?
Neither of these questions, I don't think, are answered when reading those three news articles.
This is why the surface of most things are largely subjective, and one has to be careful.
When I first read one of those news articles, I didn't notice this discrepancy and failure of journalistic integrity in their use of that title with that name.
I was focused more on the news story than the details of how it was written.
If you notice, the title and name is not written in quoting religious sentiment, but from the journalist's first-person perspective.
In other words, it is expressed as fact.
This is shameless, unless the claim has somehow been proven as a fact!
Or is this simply a way to identify this Muhammad from the millions upon millions of Muhammads that are similarly named?
News outlets are supposed to be independent, but here something has happened.
Journalism is not to be influenced by religious sentiments or pressures in favor (or in opposition) to religious claims.
This is the point of being objective and the point I'm making.
Have some people caved-in to fear?
Or have some people, in trying to honestly reach a religious expectation, begun writing in a religious vernacular?
Neither of these questions, I don't think, are answered when reading those three news articles.
This is why the surface of most things are largely subjective, and one has to be careful.
When I first read one of those news articles, I didn't notice this discrepancy and failure of journalistic integrity in their use of that title with that name.
I was focused more on the news story than the details of how it was written.
To go beyond the surface is to at least make an effort in objectivity.
For some people, this article's topic may seem like a non-issue, or noise, or perhaps a bit too suspicious and reading too deeply into things.
Some may ask: what does it matter if a particular title accompanies a certain name in the news in a subjective manner?
Does it make it true?
For people who believe the news as a fact-based source that is written objectively, as it is written, the claim is expressed as a fact.
Even the news is cited as a fact-based source, then that man's name and his capitalized title is used as fact.
This is very problematic for several reasons.
One reason is: religious sentiment has clouded at least the perspective of the two mentioned news sources.
Another reason: journalistic integrity has failed when looking at the way those news articles are written.
Besides the contradiction (which may be a slight way of making a point) by sharing high crimes and atrocities committed by those who are purveyor of Muhammad as a 'prophet'.
Seems like mixed messages are being sent.
If something is popularly accepted as 'true' or a 'fact', does its popularity make it true?
Not in this man's mind... but not everyone is me.
But something popularly believed to be a 'fact', or true, makes it that much more difficult to explore.
I can only imagine the difficulty in clarifying the notion of the earth circumnavigating the sun some generations ago.
For many centuries, an earth fixed in space, with all there celestial bodies circling it, was accepted as an undeniable truth by priest and peasant alike.
It was a popular notion derived from man's limited perspective and limited observation.
It was likely a notion long-believed ever since men began to ponder things beyond the horizon and the heavens.
From these perceptions arose a flat earth concept; a concept religiously supported by literal interpretations of the Bible (instead of metaphorical interpretations, which meets man's wider observation).
So with the discovery that the earth was in fact traveling in space and around the sun, this news was initially received as heretical and considered absolutely ridiculous.
Thus, to contest a popular belief believed to be a fact or true, was (and can still be) dangerous.
Yet, that discovery clarified man's initial and limited observation.
That discovery could be said to have been born out of objectivity.
Instead of forwarding popular notions as fact, men of all minds (religious and scientific) looked closer and found profound clarity.
The world, at that time was, it could be said, turned upside down.
It seems to be now a popular notion that the earth is spherical and travels around the sun.
This is not a big deal today, but in that time it was a wild idea... and considered anti-God and so forth.
The concept of a geocentric earth was steeped in religious notions.
Religious interpretations were made to support this popular notion, instead of letting facts formulate opinions.
If it was simply a matter of scientific discussion or philosophical meanderings or mathematicians battling out their numbered wits, then it is likely something people would have not lost their lives over.
But the centric-earth was very controversial due to a small group of men discovering undeniable facts to the contrary, or to open wider man's understanding of things around them.
Those needing to be convinced were mostly people ignorant of the details of such a discovery.
Those minds needing to come to terms with facts, besides the popular notions, were unable to conceptualize the discovery.
Since it was a significant religious matter at the time, emotions rang high and eventually people were killed.
It was an issue of previously interpreted religious texts, in a way, to make sense of man's observations.
When a clarification through scientific observation was attempted to support those religious interpretations, clarity was realized.
When the religious claim was unfounded, minds had to adjust.
Religious texts had to be reinterpreted.
A dogma was proven false.
Those who perceived themselves to have known the facts had a difficult time accepting the clearer facts.
Pride.
Arrogance.
Not an easy task for minds and hearts so fixated on popular notions to make room for new ideas... yet those new ideas turned out to be very much true.
Truer, at least, when compared to the notion of an earth being flat, or centric in the universe, and having four corners like a carpet.
I notice a similar issue on the horizon.
I wonder if a current dogma can be addressed, and corrected, similar to how the centric-earth misconception was corrected.
But many people have already died... and continue to die, unfortunately.
When we consider titles, it is understood a title defines not only a person but also their vocation or position.
The weightier the title, the weightier the consideration and litmus test needed to support or prove the title's claim.
The claim of being a prophet of God is not a silly matter, but of tremendous gravity.
Such a title evokes strong sentiments, emotions, thoughts, judgments, etc..
Let's take the short name of 'Joe'. (apologies to Joes, Joses, Josephs the world over).
What comes across your heart and mind when reading the following titles next to this name?
Joe the Bum.
Joe the Plumber.
Joe the Boss.
Prophet Joe.
King Joe.
Little Joey.
Pedophile Joe...
You get the idea.
We can see that titles and labels are very powerful, since they invoke thoughts beyond just the name.
One often assumes that governments and their official 'schools' of higher learning objectively disseminate information to the public.
But it is my estimate that mankind has always been very subjective. (again, geocentric / centric-earth)
I don't think men are subjective on purpose, but again, it is human to be nearsighted and subjective.
I think most people in high profile positions, both public and private (today as in the past), are fearful of instigating or offending others.
I can only imagine the joy of those scientists who were excited to share their findings of a spherical earth with the clergy... and their shock and dismay when the clergy couldn't or wouldn't hear about it.
The clergy of that time responded with religious fervor, ignorance, and hostile opposition.
Shame.
Those early scientists, like today's public and private high profiles, after all, would like to keep their jobs and, of course, their very lives.
Some public faces (whether in government or secular pursuits) have been trying to earnestly accommodate religious expectations.
Some have done a great job.
Others... I think they've capitulated to favoring legends while either ignoring the facts or being ignorant of the facts in the first place.
The case of an Arab named Muhammad who lived in the 7th century A.D., and the legacy built upon his claim of being a prophet, is a major controversy.
It was controversial when it first sprouted in that desert trading post.
It continues to be.
Only in places where the claim has been religiously repeated and its opposition threatened by death is there no controversy.
On one hand, there are millions upon millions of people who were born into a culture that promotes and honors this legacy.
For many centuries, there was no option to believe otherwise as this cleric keenly explains. (short video)
To mention that man's name without the title of 'prophet' (or another honorific title), may be considered disrespectful.
It may also be considered blasphemous... and grounds for punishment.
Similar to not honoring or acknowledging an earthly king as he passed before you.
Regardless of your personal thoughts about that king or his governance.
If you desired to keep on living, and have any kind of safe existence, you simply submitted to the king's demands and the public's expectation.
On the other hand, there is an effort to not be ignorantly offensive or insensitive to millions upon millions of people.
So an attempt to meet people's weakness, or expectations, or subjectivity, or narrow points of view, is likely made.
How difficult it must be to express information (news or otherwise) to millions upon millions of people who have strong religious expectations.
Failing to label / title a man as a prophet, may be in their minds or hearts, similar to denying God Himself.
Before the claim of prophethood can be substantiated (or simply accepted as the geocentric earth notion was because it was popularly repeated as fact), one needs to first reach those millions upon millions.
There was no such thing as a 'secular' life, historically, when considering Islam's legacy.
According to Islamic theology, there is no separation between God and this world and man's daily life.
To my heart, I find this notion very acceptable and agreeable. (that God is not separate from us, His humanity)
But my heart also understands that such an expectation cannot be made compulsory on another man for reasons of the Spirit which I thoroughly explain in many other articles.
There is no concept like 'separation of church and state' in Islamic ideology.
This is why attire is religiously instituted as is governance over all things human.
Thus, objectivity finds itself tippy toeing on a very short ledge along an uneven wall.
Upon such a precipice can objectivity be possibly found... and if found, it has little room to move.
It is not an easy task to meet everyone's expectation, no matter how incongruent or steeped in lore or whatever popular notions those expectations may be saturated in.
Objectivity's aim is not to offend, but to describe all possible points of view in digging out facts.
Presenting facts in a neutral manner so a reader / listener can decide.
Being led by the nose, as was the case with the centric-earth concept, is what one does with a child.
But adults eventually learn about their humanity, their condition, and then perhaps embark on a search for God.
Being told that something is 'true', as is the case with many religious claims, is unscientific or methodically incongruent when only looking at the surface of things.
When an idea or belief is demanded from you, or else you'll be punished, the human spirit automatically knows something must be wrong.
But are some people able to see past their cultural constants?
Can objectivity be cultivated in stringent cultures where dogmas demand full adherence?
Objectivity desires to speak outside of any single perspective and go much deeper.
And with this aim, to best find facts and possibly find the truth.
Interestingly, this may be the very issue when considering Islamic ideology and the attempt to legitimize the prophetic claim as a fact.
The is a task to speak in terms acceptable to popular expectations.
The task is to use expected vernacular.
How can messages and concepts that are found outside a particular worldview be conveyed into that mindset?
Perhaps with the use of analogy / parable / example.
I used the flat earth and geocentric earth example previously.
Analogy helps bring objectivity... and titles can be analogous in several ways.
Titles don't only define a person, but often times only their position.
For example, a 'king' may be understood as someone noble... or the most noble of men in the land.
But this is not always the case, since not all earthly kings have acted or have lived 'nobly'.
Thus in the case of an ignoble king, that title of 'king' only defines their position of power.
Perhaps for some minds, this is the manner 'prophet' is titled to that Arabian man.
That title likely best depicts the high station he rose to; the highest human position ruling over all other kings, nobles, merchants, and any other title during his time on that peninsula.
For some minds, the title of 'king' may invoke 'glory' and 'honor'.
Depending on how histories have been written, any time's king may be stamped with honorable attributes, or vilifying ones.
Depends on who you ask, their point of view, and what they've been taught to believe.
According to one side of history's storytelling, Alexander was 'great' (as that honorific claims).
The honorific attached to Alexander is a cultural constant (in the west), but is technically subjective.
It is considered subjective because it depicts 'glory' and 'preeminence'.
To other sides of history's storytelling, Alexander was someone who brought wrath and death and destruction to an entire region and people.
Thus in Persian writings, he is labeled 'the accursed'.
Perspective.
Motivation.
Politics.
It is possible to identify perspective (or the lack of it) and also motivation (what compels certain words to be used) in the writings of histories and the like that reveal political arguments.
But can an individual separate what they've been taught when considering other sides of the story?
Using the title 'the great' alongside Alexander's name is a political argument, a political claim.
When it comes to claims of a religious nature, the historian or journalist needs to be very careful.
In attempting to appease strong sentiments, the journalist or historian may be validating something unproven or non-factual.
Using the Alexander example, a writer is going to upset someone if either using an honorific title or by not using it.
This is why 'Alexander the Macedonian' (or similar) is a more palatable depiction for all readers.
Man's history is, after all, all of humanity's when we conclude our explorations.
The use of where Alexander was from instead of an honorific mentions the historical character in a neutral way.
It speaks a fact (he was from Macedonia) in sharing his exploits.
When it comes to religious ideas, it is even more important to express things as neutral as possible.
I don't do this in much of my writing since my work is primarily for believers in the risen Christ.
Some of my work I do execute an objective effort, in other works I don't.
To propose that Muhammad was indeed a prophet of God is to legitimize his legacy.
His legacy continues to be barbarous and violent since it is inspired from his words (his poetry - the Quran) and eye-witness accounts about what else he said and did (Hadith).
To legitimize him as a prophet is to legitimize his legacy.
Killing those who disbelieved or opposed this legacy is justified.
This method is still justified Today.
The rest of the world has matured away from such strictures and has embraced Grace.
The Church had to widen its position to allow for facts now better observed.
I wonder if Islamic theology is able to widen its position to allow for facts now better observed.
Although no allowance for violence is clearly evident in Yeshua's teaching, some in Church leadership digressed over the centuries.
At times, there were acts very hostile and wicked towards others.
Conversely, Muhammad's teachings, manners, and that of his cultural legacy are, in some places, fixed in stone it seems.
Since inception, Islam was violent and hostile in manner and method.
Imagine the Church reinstitute a geocentric and / or flat earth concept and call for the beheading of all who didn't accept this as true.
Sounds ridiculous.
Yet a similar demand is being ushered into the public space through the subjective manners those news articles and that video depict.
Such is a sign of the times for those aware.
Comments