/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17306134]

What did Zizek mean by this?

>With Islam, it is no longer possible to ground a community in the mode of Totem and Taboo, through the murder of the father and the ensuing guilt as bringing brothers together – thence Islam’s unexpected actuality.

[Anonymous No.17306138]

[Anonymous No.17306350]

>>17306138
Its has an to say that the world is round

[Anonymous No.17306356]

>>17306350
*Haram

[Anonymous No.17306359]

>>17306356
Source?

[Anonymous No.17306383]

>>17306134
Are, based?

[Anonymous No.17306413]

>>17306134
Just my two cents:
He is trying to connect the idea of community with oedipus. Conspiracy to murder the father to access the mother -> community of brothers. Then an analogy between christ, (and his disciples?) And oedipus, usurping his father through fulfillment of the trinity and redemption of humanity. But Christ isn't a part of the trinity in Islam, he's a prophet, that doesn't join the trinity, so the "murder" of the father doesn't happen, and no post-oedipal community can be formed.
Keep in mind that in "Totem and Taboo" Freud describes Taboo as the precursor to law. So a community needs law, or taboo, and that is formed from guilt, but there is no usurpation that produces guilt in Islam, so no taboo

Sent from my iPhone.

[Anonymous No.17306433]

>>17306413
Zizek says Allah is not identified with fatherhood at all in Islam

[Anonymous No.17306444]

>>17306433
Oh, then it could be an even "earlier" short circuit of oedipus. Where does he say that? Archives of Islam?

[Anonymous No.17306530]

>>17306444
Yes

>In contrast to both Judaism and Christianity, the two other religions of the book, Islam excludes God from the domain of the paternal logic: Allah is not a father, not even a symbolic one – God is one, he is neither born nor does he give birth to creatures.

[Anonymous No.17306580]

>>17306433
I don’t know anything about Zizek but he is correct if/when he said that.
Christianity is huge in the whole idea of God as a father figure. Jesus is considered to be the literal son of God the Father, begotten eternally from the first person of the trinity. Christians are considered children of God, and when we pray we are to say “our Father in Heaven.”
Islam views the idea of Jesus as the Son of God to be paganism. They view Jesus as a mere man, a human prophet, and the Christian view to be idolatry. The worst sin in Islam is associating partners with God, and so the Quran constantly emphasizes that God has no son. Driving this point further, one cannot call God the Father, or call themselves children of God, as that also is associating partners with God
Incidentally, since early Muslims didn’t fully understand Christianity or Judaism, the Quran and Hadiths often make mistakes when describing their beliefs. The Quran says in one verse that Christians are in error cause they say Jesus is the Son of God, and Jews are in error cause they say Ezra is the Son of God. That last point is not a belief of any sect of Judaism though
The tl;dr is Allah is not a father or the Father

[Anonymous No.17306616]

>>17306134
This shit again? Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.17306617]

>>17306580
The Hebrew Bible uses the language of God having and even begetting sons in several places. In the Talmud when the rabbis overrule God he is portrayed as laughing saying my children have defeated me

[Anonymous No.17306634]

>>17306134
>The critic Harold Bloom asserted in The American Religion (1992) that Totem and Taboo has no greater acceptance among anthropologists than does the Book of Mormon, and that there are parallels between the two works, such as a concern with polygamy.

[Anonymous No.17306659]

>>17306134
>>/lit/thread/S16665481#p16667354

[Anonymous No.17306676]

>>17306580
I think the Islamic conception of monotheism as being so comically stringent prevents Allah from having anything approaching a fatherly relationship with anyone or anything. If Allah isn't even allowed to have hands because of Tawhid, I don't think fatherhood is acceptable either.

[Anonymous No.17306688]

>>17306580
Fazlur Rahman argued that this Judeo-Christian obsession with the divine fatherhood analogy makes Jews and Christians into manchildren, and from my experience, I am inclined to agree with him. For example, there have been several popular Christian preachers who have tried to get people to call God "Daddy" based on a false understanding of the meaning of the Aramaic abba.

[Anonymous No.17306694]

>>17306676
>If Allah isn't even allowed to have hands because of Tawhid
Salafis believe Allah has hands.

[Anonymous No.17306704]

>>17306688
>>17306694
The anthropomorphism of god has always been a contentious topic among Muslims, and I don't know if there is a unified opinion

[Anonymous No.17306716]

As much as I like seeing this discussed, can we get some original posts on this board instead of the same copypastas? This thread is a literal photocopy of several others that are being posted every few months. And this thread isn't even the most egregious example of the lack of creativity among users of this board. Please make a unique thread if you want to discuss something, and most importantly this is a literature board so discussion should always be focused on a book

[Anonymous No.17306723]

>>17306580
Following up on this, Islam does not use the imagery of the father much if at all. Instead, Islam uses the image of the servant or slave; in fact, the word Islam itself means "submission to God". The two most common names for Allah are Ar-Rahman and Ar-Raheem, the Most Gracious and Most Merciful.

[Anonymous No.17306724]

>>17306716
The OP quote is from one of Zizek's books.

[Anonymous No.17306735]

>>17306724
Yes, and his point is this thread consistently gets regurgitated with the same bait-tier "what did he mean by this?" when it's obvious the OP's just trying to stir shit.

[Anonymous No.17306738]

>>17306704
All Sunnis believe Allah has hands, none of them believe they are anthropomorphic hands. The Salafis think they are actually hands hands, the others think hands refers to something real but they don't know what

[Anonymous No.17306778]

>>17306138
>Muslims worship nothing except God and mohammed is his messenger
>Literal chimp outs over slandering mohammed or drawing a picture of him

Also Tolstoy never said this lmao, but it's really good bait.

[Anonymous No.17306847]

>>17306704
I don’t remember who, but there was a Muslim scholar who used to, during debates, say slap his thigh and say “allah has hands like these, and allah has thighs like these”

[Anonymous No.17306853]

>>17306634
>Harold Bloom
Ahh yes, the renowned anthropologist.

[Anonymous No.17306867]

>>17306847
That's really funny. I read a book called The Flowering of Muslim Theology by Josef van Ess, he's a German professor and the book is a collection of some of his lectures organized into sections that discuss issues of early Islamic theology. The section that I was most interested in was the section where he discussed the anthropomorphism of god in Islam.

He said many people died over debates about this topic, and the debates were centered around what Muhammad saw during the miraj. According to van Ess some people contend that god appeared to Muhammad as pure light, as if one were to look at the sun up close. The farthest acceptable human form people were willing to give to god was appearing to Muhammad as a man wearing a crown of light.

The fact that some people would think god has a literal body with hands and thighs just makes me laugh

[Anonymous No.17306876]

>>17306867
That's what everyone believed before Plato.

[Anonymous No.17306887]

>>17306867
>The fact that some people would think god has a literal body with hands and thighs just makes me laugh
Yeah, it really gets ridiculous there amirite?

[Anonymous No.17306893]

>>17306876
Do you know how Plato influenced those perceptions of god one way or the other? And what exactly of Plato's thoughts was the impetus for that change in reasoning?

[Anonymous No.17306948]

>>17306893
See R. Renehan, "On the Greek Origins of the Concepts Incorporeality and Immateriality." In short, it was because of Plato's situating incorporeal ousia as the supreme object of ontology. This was very quickly adopted by Christians (though some such as Tertullian had a corporealistic ontology, influenced by Stoicism), but corporealism lingered longer in Judaism and Islam. The Hanbalis were not explicit corporealists, but they thought it was improper to debate whether God has a body (jism). The Ash'aris and the falasifa embraced incorporealism on the other hand.

[Anonymous No.17306963]

>>17306948
Thanks for the info, I'll check it out

[Anonymous No.17307045]

>>17306867
Do you think God is a virgin?

[Anonymous No.17307069]

>>17306847
That's considered apostasy by all three creeds.

[Anonymous No.17307073]

>>17306867
Sunnis don't think Muhammad ﷺ has ever seen Allah and don't believe anyone ever will until after the resurrection

[Anonymous No.17307076]

>>17306433
Allah is Job's God. That's the impression I got when reading the Quran

[Anonymous No.17307082]

>>17307073
Explain the miraj

[Anonymous No.17307094]

>>17307073
Actually, this issue is quite controversial. Muhammad's companions themselves disagreed over whether he actually saw God.

[Anonymous No.17307095]

>>17306134
Evidence suggests that Allah is a demon propped up to diminish the Christian faith, and most scholars are operating from a corrupt foundation.

[Anonymous No.17307125]

>>17307082
The miraj involved Muhammad ﷺ talking to Allah, not seeing him. That he never saw Allah is confirmed in Hadiths. Moses asked to and Allah showed himself to a mountain and it obliterated it. Beatific vision in Islam is reserved until after the resurrection. Even Gabriel said between him and Allah are 70,000 veils of light and to touch the first would incinerate him

>>17307094
No they didn't. Because he never said he did and they wouldn't presume it. Someone asked A'isha if he did and she made it very clear he didn't and that it was a ludicrous question

[Anonymous No.17307142]

>>17307125
You're wrong in that the issue isn't as cut and dry as you think it is. Josef van Ess even said that Islam was seen as a progression from Abraham being the friend of god, Moses being the man who spoke to god, and Muhammad being the man who saw god.

There isn't a clear answer to this question and you thinking there is just shows your hubris. You can believe and assert that it never happened, but the fact is that there is serious debate and not everyone agrees with you

[Anonymous No.17307150]

>>17307125
Yeah, that was Aisha's opinion. There are multiple hadith as well which say he saw God. They're contradictory on this issue. See for example the "I saw my Lord in the most beautiful of forms" hadith which was vociferously defended by Ibn Hanbal.

[Anonymous No.17307166]

>>17307142
>Josef van Ess
Literally who? Is he even a Muslim?

>>17307142
>There isn't a clear answer to this question and you thinking there is just shows your hubris
The fact is it's denied by Ash'ari, Athari and Maturidi creed. I don't know if the Shia deny it but since they're subscribe Mutazilla theology in a lot of things I think it probable that they too deny. Some people say Muhammad ﷺ did see Allah but you can find some people saying anything at some point, there is zero evidence for this belief and it is not taken seriously by any such afaik. If some western scholar wants to be idiosyncratic he can maintain it and also that aliens built the pyramids

[Anonymous No.17307171]

>>17307150
>Yeah, that was Aisha's opinion.
I don't know what you mean her opinion, she didn't speak from opinion except in jurisprudence

That Hadith is about a dream

[Anonymous No.17307186]

>>17306134
>With Islam, it is no longer possible to ground a community in the mode of Totem and Taboo, through the murder of the father and the ensuing guilt as bringing brothers together – thence Islam’s unexpected actuality.
What about Shia Islam? Guilt is a pretty big deal for that sect

[Anonymous No.17307196]

>>17307166
He's a professor who writes about the history of early Islam. If you read my earlier post you'd know that since I referred to him before. He documents that many many early Muslims did believe that Muhammad saw god, and there's no real consensus. You can believe one way or the other but don't act like your opinion is final, especially because Islam isn't monolithic so it's not like the opinion of some random retard on the internet is going to change centuries of discourse

[Anonymous No.17307210]

>>17307196
Oh yes but you can find any opinion you want at some point. Likewise you can find those who tried to rationalize the Qur'an and explain miracles all as natural phenomena. All sorts of eccentric beliefs were articulated as some point or another but whether they gained traction is another story

[Anonymous No.17307230]

>>17307210
As if your meaningless babble has any impact on the discussion at hand. Acting as if something like the anthropomorphism of god is an issue so easy to solve. You relegating it to the level of an "eccentric belief" is ridiculous and disingenuous

[Anonymous No.17307248]

>>17307230
Anthropomorphiism (tajsim) is considered apostasy by every single extent school afaik unless it's by a child or someone very ignorant or limited mental faculty

[Anonymous No.17308141]

>>17306778
>>Literal chimp outs over slandering mohammed or drawing a picture of him
t. emasculated white male too afraid to slay his sworn enemies

[Anonymous No.17308155]

>>17306134
Holy shit anon I was just about to post a thread about this. Though I was more fixated on Zizek's understanding of Cain and Abel in Islam.
>Which, then, is the repressed Event which gives vitality to Islam? The key is provided by the reply to another question: how does Islam, the third Religion of the Book, fit into this series? Judaism is the religion of genealogy, of succession of generations; when, in Christianity, the Son dies on the Cross, this means that the Father also dies (as Hegel was fully aware) – the patriarchal genealogical order as such dies, the Holy Spirit does not fit the family series, it introduces a post-paternal/familial community. In contrast to both Judaism and Christianity, the two other religions of the book, Islam excludes God from the domain of the paternal logic: Allah is not a father, not even a symbolic one – God is one, he is neither born nor does he give birth to creatures. There is no place for a Holy Family in Islam. This is why Islam emphasizes so much the fact that Muhammed himself was an orphan; this is why, in Islam, God intervenes precisely at the moments of the suspension, withdrawal, failure, “black-out,” of the paternal function (when the mother or the child are abandoned or ignored by the biological father). What this means is that God remains thoroughly in the domain of impossible-Real: he is the impossible-Real outside father, so that there is a “genealogical desert between man and God”(320). This was the problem with Islam for Freud, since his entire theory of religion is based on the parallel of God with father. More importantly even, this inscribes politics into the very heart of Islam, since the “genealogical desert” renders impossible to ground a community in the structures of parenthood or other blood-links: “the desert between God and Father is the place where the political institutes itself”(320). With Islam, it is no longer possible to ground a community in the mode of Totem and Taboo, through the murder of the father and the ensuing guilt as bringing brothers together – thence Islam’s unexpected actuality.

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.17308160]

>>17308155
>In contrast to Judaism and Islam, in which the sacrifice of the son is prevented in the last moment (angel intervenes to Abraham), only Christianity opts for the actual sacrifice (killing) of the son. (268) This is why, although Islam recognizes the Bible as a sacred text, it has to deny this fact: in Islam, Jesus did not really die on the Cross: the Jews “said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them”(4.157). There is effectively in Islam a consistent anti-sacrificial logic: in the Quran version of Isaac’s sacrifice, Abraham’s decision to kill his son is read not as the ultimate indication of his willingness to do the God’s will, but as a consequence of Abraham’s wrong interpretation of his dream: when the angel prevents the act, his message is that Abraham got it wrong, that God did not really want him to do it.(275)
>Insofar as, in Islam, God is an impossible-Real, this works both ways with regard to sacrifice: it can work against sacrifice (there is no symbolic economy of exchange between the believers and Gods, God is the pure One of Beyond), but also in favour of sacrifice, when the divine Real turns into the superego figure of “obscure gods who demand continuous blood”(Lacan-XI). Islam seems to oscillate between these two extremes, with the obscene sacrificial logic culminating in its redescription of the story of Abel and Cain – here is how Quran reports on “the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: ‘Be sure I will slay thee.’ ‘Surely,’ said the former, ‘Allah doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds. For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong.’

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.17308167]

>>17306778
Western materialist pigs disrespect Allah and his messenger, so they get the sword.

[Anonymous No.17308172]

>>17308141
There is no such real thing as “white”

[Anonymous No.17308177]

>>17308160
>The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones.” (5:27-30)
>So it is not only Cain who wants the killing: Abel himself actively participates in this desire, provoking Cain to do it, so that he (Abel) would get rid of his own sins also. Benslama is right to discern here traces of an “ideal hatred,” different from the imaginary hatred of the aggressivity towards one’s double (289): the victim itself actively desires the crime whose victim it will be, so that, as a martyr, it will enter Paradise, sending the perpetrator to burn in hell. From today’s perspective, one is tempted to play with the anachronistic speculation on how the “terrorist” logic of the martyr’s wish to die is already here, in Quran – although, of course, one has to locate the problem in the context of modernization. The problem of Islamic world is, as is well known, that, since it was exposed to Western modernization abruptly, without a proper time to “work through” the trauma of its impact, to construct a symbolic-fictional space/screen for it, the only possible reactions to this impact were either a superficial modernization, an imitated modernization destined to fail (Iran Shah regime), or, in the failure of the proper symbolic space of fictions, a direct recourse to the violent Real, an outright war between Islam Truth and Western Lie, with no space for symbolic mediation. In this “fundamentalist” solution (a modern phenomenon with no direct links to Muslim traditions), the divine dimension reasserts itself in its superego-Real, as a murderous explosion of sacrifical violence to pay off the obscene superego divinity.
I don't really think is comparison between modern suicide attacks are apt, as this has more to do with modernity than anything else in my opinion, but it's extremely interesting how Zizek lays this all out. Here's a link to more if anyone's interested https://www.lacan.com/zizarchives.htm

[Anonymous No.17308183]

>>17308172
I don't know if you're more deserving of pity or contempt.

[Anonymous No.17308220]

>>17308183
So in your mind are we including Irish and Russians and Spaniards and Portuguese this time around? My point is that “white” is a wholly philosophically devoid phrasing of the issue. It’s literally a superficial and skin deep conception that all types of equivocation is played with even on other peoples who have pale skin.

I would take you more seriously if you at least talked about Western man because that is a shared philosophical tradition rich with nuance and thought whereas “white” is meaningless by its shallowness.

[Anonymous No.17308236]

>>17308220
>My point is that “white” is a wholly philosophically devoid phrasing of the issue.
pseud

[Anonymous No.17308237]

>>17308177
>I don't really think is comparison between modern suicide attacks are apt, as this has more to do with modernity than anything else in my opinion,

I don't really agree. People make much of suicide bombing as based on modern ideology but this is grossly incorrect, suicide bombing is simply a natural tactic for people hit heavily with air support and artillery but unable to afford any of their own. It was used to great effect for example by the Viet Cong. The tactic obviously is predicated on modern war conditions, the ideology behind it is actually nothing new, from the very beginning death in battle was actively craved by Muslims, Khalid Bin Waleed told the enemy when meeting then he brought men who love death as they love life. Another Muslim general told the Persians my men love death like yours love wine. This ideology was the engine of the jihad against the USSR, two million died in it and it would not have been possible except for this ideology. That it would work very well with kamikaze is predicable. The idea that it's based on modernity seems predominately the opinion of clerics who don't fight and oppose fighting, which seems to me to be what is truly modernist about Islam which though features different opinions about when there should be fighting, would no doubt support it in the current climate as something every able-bodied Muslim should be doing since their lands are under attack or occupation everywhere

[Anonymous No.17308246]

>>17308237
>The idea that it's based on modernity seems predominately the opinion of clerics who don't fight and oppose fighting, which seems to me to be what is truly modernist about Islam which though features different opinions about when there should be fighting, would no doubt support it in the current climate as something every able-bodied Muslim should be doing since their lands are under attack or occupation everywhere
I disagree, while there may be clerics who oppose suicide attack due to pacifism, and I agree that that is a result of modernity, suicide itself is a major sin in Islam and this has applied to suicide attacks for a majority of Islam's history. The concept o suicide in Islam is just "willingly entering any situation in which death is assured". There is a difference between a warrior culture and a suicidal attack culture.

[Anonymous No.17308250]

>>17308236
I’ll accept your concession

[Anonymous No.17308259]

>>17308246
>The concept o suicide in Islam is just "willingly entering any situation in which death is assured".
This is objectively false and extremely modernist, there are numerous Hadiths of Muslims doing just that and being praised for it and fatwas always supported it. It was only considered disliked if there was no gain, but if it did harm to the enemy in the process it was regarded as laudable martyrdom

[Anonymous No.17308265]

>>17308259
Once again there is a difference from those situations in which it was thought that victory was unlikely, and situations in which death is assured. This is part of the reasoning behind why in Islam fleeing battle is an unforgivable sin, unless it is a tactical retreat.

[Anonymous No.17308293]

>>17308265
Martyrdom is not *obligatory* of course, but for example when tactical retreat is permissible it's not obligatory either. Everyone fighting at the battle of Mutah was certain he was going to die. They fought actively seeking it, the top three commanders were killed and Khalid took over seeking death throwing himself into the enemy over and over and breaking several swords. At night he switched the flanks so in the morning the Romans thought fresh troops were brought and decided fighting wasn't worth it but the Muslims thought for sure they would die and chose to fight

[Anonymous No.17308309]

>>17308293
>Everyone fighting at the battle of Mutah was certain he was going to die
Once again there is a clear difference here as they were against outrageous odds, not certain they were going to die. In such a battle projecting strength is a necessity to live to fight another day. Someone who blows himself up is in no way going to live, someone who sallies out in a battle that is looking to be a loss isn't.

[Anonymous No.17308321]

>>17308309
Rationally speaking they had no chance and it is considered a literal miracle. People in that battle certainly knew and one man was eating dates being very hungry then reprimanded himself and said he should be seeking death and broke ranks and fought until he was killed. In another instance a group of people who had memorized the Qur'an were slaughtered by a tribe. Some scouts saw it and we're going to report back but one said they will get the news, as for me I will not let my companions be alone there, I will join them in martyrdom and went and got killed so his companions said we cannot let him have all the reward and followed. This was the first generation of Muslims

[Anonymous No.17308347]

You're using Tolstoys name, which carries much weight in the west, to buttress your case for Islam. The reason his name is so big are his novels, from which he distanced himself in his later years, at the same time as he made these comments about Islam. It stands to reason then, that when you then use Tolstoys name in a case for Islam, that name no longer has the weight of his genius novels behind it.

[Anonymous No.17308400]

>>17306134
Why does he write in a convoluted manner

[Anonymous No.17308425]

>>17306634
>Scientists say work is bad
>Authority figure confirms it

[Anonymous No.17308662]

>>17308155
>>17308160
>>17308177
>tfw cain knows sacrifice cannot sate or defeat the sacrificial demiurgic INTER- and instead introduces absolute INTRA-: sacrifice ended precisely by giving the one thing it did NOT want
>tfw the "esoteric" marxist idea of things only being their real selves by interacting with each other is preemptively refuted: INTER- and INTRA- are and produce nothing together

[Anonymous No.17308835]

>>17306138
Kinda makes sense that a violent rapist like Tolstoi would embrace Islam.

[Anonymous No.17308963]

>>17308167
You know the Prophet used to send poets to do poetry battles with the poets who mocked him? You can’t be that ignorant, right?

[Anonymous No.17309610]

bump

[Anonymous No.17309785]

>tfw marcion was the first muslim

[Anonymous No.17309842]

>>17308662

To elaborate:

The Marxist idea that something only inasmuch as it is literally sacrificed on the altar of the actual, a radical Demiurgic INTER-, is subjected to a radical INTRA- wherein Cain not so much removes the sacrificial object from the field of the altar but folds the latter with the former still inside of it in on itself which dispels their mutual non-being - the Old Testament is Ontologically identical to nightmares of the "primordial" - and individuates the parties proper: per radical INTRA-, which radical INTER- perfidiously claims to contain but would rather tear itself in half when facing it, the field implodes and the objects explode, the former itself being "objectified", the face of Yaldabaoth is visible now that one is no longer inside his stomach.

[Anonymous No.17309914]

>>17308662

To elaborate:

The Marxist idea that something only is inasmuch as it is literally sacrificed on the altar of the actual, a radical Demiurgic INTER-, is subjected to a radical INTRA- wherein Cain not so much removes the sacrificial object from the field of the altar but folds the latter with the former still inside of it in on itself which dispels their mutual non-being - the Old Testament is Ontologically identical to nightmares of the "primordial" - and individuates the parties proper: per radical INTRA-, which radical INTER- perfidiously claims to contain but would rather tear itself in half when facing it, the field implodes and the objects explode, the former itself being "objectified", the face of Yaldabaoth is visible now that one is no longer inside his stomach.