Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity and Islam, Compared

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 19, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

14:27

The Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity and Islam, Compared

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So I decided to go on BibleInfo.com and IslamQuestion and Answer to compare the seven deadly sins of Christianity with the seven sins that doom a person to hell of Islam.
	The first thing to point out is that these lists are not scriptural.
	They come from surrounding religious literature that built up in the centuries after these scriptures were written.
	In the case of the seven deadly sins, they were codified around the 4th century, whereas the Islamic seven sins that doom a person to hell are from the Hadiths, compiled in around the 9th century.
	But both have significant importance to believers from each religion, and are usually supported from quotations from the relevant holy text.
	So let's have a look at them.
	We'll start with the Christian ones.
	The first one is envy, the desire to have an item or experience that someone else possesses.
	The second is gluttony, excessive ongoing consumption of food or drink.
	The third is greed or avarice, an excessive pursuit of material possessions.
	The fourth is lust, an uncontrollable passion or longing, especially for sexual desires.
	The fifth is pride, excessive view of oneself without regard to others.
	The sixth is sloth, excessive laziness or the failure to act and utilise one's talents.
	And the seventh is wrath, uncontrollable feelings of anger and hate towards another person.
	I think that the most important thing about this list is that these are all character traits.
	Now that might sound, well, duh, of course they are, but they could have easily been just a list of actions that one had taken, instead of character flaws being driven by one's emotions.
	These sins can all be committed by a man who is taking no action whatsoever, because these sins are all about intent.
	They are about what the person wants to do, rather than whether they actually do it.
	Even gluttony and avarice are about the rapacious personality behind the actions, rather than the actions themselves.
	The purpose of these sins is to make the individual take responsibility for their own emotions before they are manifested as actions, because prevention is better than cure.
	And if you're thinking, well that sounds an awful lot like Stoicism, there's a good reason for that.
	The seven deadly sins were originally the eight cardinal sins, and were written by a Cappadocian anchorite in the 4th century called Ivagrius.
	He wrote a number of treaties on how to deal with what Origen, following the Stoics, had called first movements, and on how to work towards the Stoic ideal of Apatheo, which I'm probably pronouncing completely wrong, or freedom from emotion.
	Greek philosophy had a great influence on early Christians, and I think it really set the character of Christianity for the centuries to come.
	I'll leave a link in the description to an audiobook of a short Stoic text called The Encharidion of Epictetus that I narrated if you'd like to learn more about Stoicism.
	Personally, I think there's quite a lot of value that can be taken away from it, but it does go far too far in certain places.
	So let's now look at the seven Islamic sins that will doom a person to hell.
	So the first and greatest of these sins is shirk, associating others with Allah, which leads to doom with no hope of redemption, and if a person dies in this state, he will abide in hell for all eternity.
	Allah, may he be exalted, says, Verily, whoever sets up pardoners and worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden paradise for him, and the fire will be his abode.
	And for the Zalimun, Polytheus and wrongdoers, there are no helpers.
	Immediately we can see the difference in tone.
	This isn't a personal sin of someone acting from emotion and then committing a sin against Islam by putting another god as equal or greater than Allah.
	This preeminent sin is designed to protect Islam itself.
	It doesn't come as any surprise because this is the founding principle of Islam, and is summed up most succinctly in the Shahada.
	I testify that there is no God but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.
	This is also the first commandment from the Old Testament, and you'll notice that it does nothing for the individual.
	In fact, if anything, it appears that this is what God would say.
	Indeed, it is apparently what he did say, and in doing so demonstrated the Christian sins of envy and pride.
	But this isn't meant to be a preventative measure, this is meant to be a cure.
	This is why we know that the fire will be their abode.
	Which is interesting because according to Christian theology, the only sin that God won't forgive is a lack of belief in God.
	All of the seven deadly sins can be forgiven.
	But in the case of this first Islamic sin, this is not something that will make you a better person.
	To be a moral person, it doesn't matter whether you worship Muhammad alone or Muhammad with other gods.
	That only matters if you want to be a good Muslim.
	The second Islamic sin that will doom you to hell is rather amusing.
	Witchcraft involves shirk, because it is worshipping the jinn and seeking the help of the jinn to misguide people.
	The practitioner of witchcraft is the one who deals with that which causes harm to people by means of the jinn, and worshiping them instead of Allah.
	Sometimes he does things that harm them of words, deeds, and blowing on knots.
	Sometimes he does that by causing illusions, to such an extent that a thing may be seen as something other than what it really is, and Allah, may he be glorified, said concerning the sorcerers of Pharaoh, their ropes and their sticks, by their magic, appeared to him as though they moved fast.
	So magic, then.
	But not because magic and superstition isn't real, it's because it's not worshipping Allah, it's worshipping the jinn.
	Now, if you don't know what a jinn is, according to the Quran, they were made after man and out of a smokeless flame, and set to wander the desert, or something like that.
	But the Quran very definitely thinks that these things exist.
	It says, often, when humans and jinn, as if they are both real things and they both do real tangible things.
	And I suppose that if one actually believes jinn exist, then you would have a sin of, don't practice witchcraft to the jinn, because it's not worship of Allah.
	Now I'd like to say that, well, even if the intent was misinformed, then at least the effect is positive, and avoiding superstition is of course a good thing.
	But that's not really the effect either.
	The effect is just to transfer the superstitious belief from the jinn to Allah.
	And again, in comparison to the Christian deadly sins, you'll notice that they are entirely secular.
	You don't have to be a Christian to benefit from knowing what the seven deadly sins are, because the seven deadly sins are sins against the person, rather than something else.
	The third is killing a soul whom Allah has forbidden us to kill.
	This is a serious crime of which Allah says, And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is hell and to abide therein, and the wrath and curse of Allah are upon him, and great punishment is prepared for him.
	Killing a soul or murder is one of the most serious crimes, but it is a major sin of lesser degree than shirk.
	It is a major sin like fornication, adultery, theft, and so on.
	The one who does that is not a disbeliever, unless he regards it as permissible to do that.
	I find this very interesting that they specify kills a believer intentionally, instead of simply kills a person.
	If this is the delineation that Islam is going to make between believers and non-believers, and it's a major cardinal sin to kill a believer, the natural inference is that killing a non-believer won't doom you to hell, and can be forgiven.
	This reinforces the in-group-out-group dichotomy Islam has with the rest of the world.
	But not only that, this doesn't do anything for the moral character of the individual.
	If anything, I think it makes them worse, by thinking that there might be circumstances in which it's acceptable to kill a non-believer, because you might be forgiven and it might be necessary for Islam.
	The fourth one is consuming riba.
	This refers to dealing with riba which Allah has prohibited.
	Allah, may he be glorified and exalted, says concerning it, Allah has permitted trading and forbidden riba.
	Now, riba is essentially usury, the practice of making money through money.
	This was also outlawed for hundreds of years by the Catholic Church, so I'm not too surprised to see it here, but again, it doesn't really affect the moral character of a person.
	This sounds like an economic prescription out of a manual of statecraft, to protect the economy.
	It is designed to protect people, but it's not something that they can really apply in their day-to-day lives.
	Most people won't commit this sin, and again it seems more like a law than a sin.
	Number five is, quite specifically, consuming orphans' wealth.
	The orphan is the one whose father has died when he is small and has not yet reached puberty.
	What is required in the case of orphans is to treat them kindly, protect their wealth, make it grow, and handle it with proper care.
	The one who spoils an orphan's wealth and consumes it unlawfully is subject to a stern warning, because the orphan is weak and he has transgressed against him and consumed his wealth.
	This stern warning is addressed to him, but he is not a disbeliever, rather he is a sinner, so long as he does not regard that as permissible.
	I find this very odd, because this could be the Christian sin of avarice, except it's targeted very specifically at a certain segment of the community.
	Again, this does nothing for the moral excellence of the individual.
	It doesn't say don't consume other people's wealth, just not the wealth of people who don't have a father.
	Don't get me wrong, there is clearly a good and humanitarian intention behind this, but it's what it leaves out that I find most perplexing, instead of what it leaves in.
	Again, it's not a principle by which one can live their life.
	It sounds like a ruling or a commandment.
	I also find it very interesting that they have to specify that the person who does this is not a disbeliever.
	Because, again, it's the in-group-out-group dichotomy that Islam has with the rest of the world.
	You are either a believer or a non-believer, and to be a non-believer puts you several rungs lower than a believer.
	So when one Muslim wants to do something bad to another Muslim, the first thing they have to do is declare and demonstrate that this person is not a believer, by whatever rules Islam has set down.
	And that's the point of this sin.
	This is a rule that is being set down.
	It's not a principle by which to improve yourself as a person.
	Number six is fleeing from the battlefield.
	And I just want to take this opportunity to say that it was George W. Bush who coined the term Islam is a religion of peace.
	Muslims don't think that.
	Islam contains many, many, many prescriptions for war.
	Islam also contains a full set of prescriptions for conquered peoples, right down to a tax people can pay if they want to continue worshipping their own gods and not be forced to convert to Islam.
	When the Muslims meet the disbelievers in battle, the one who flees and deserts his brothers on the day of battle, when the disbelievers march against the Muslims or the Muslims march against the disbelievers, the one who flees and deserts his brothers is subject to this stern warning, unless it be a stratagem of war or to retreat to a troop of his own.
	That is, unless he is recruiting to prepare himself, bring his weapon and put on his armour in preparation for fighting, which does not do any harm or he is moving from one detachment to another, from one rank to another, or from one group to another, as part of a plan against the enemy.
	This is very clearly an ideological attempt to instill loyalty and discipline in soldiers in battle.
	This is very clearly for the benefit of Islam and not for the benefit of the individual.
	If an individual is in a battle and they get overrun and they need to retreat, it's entirely rational to drop your arms and run away.
	However, this could lead to the rest of the army losing the battle and losing territory to the enemy.
	Again, I would expect this to come out of a treatise of statecraft or war, rather than be a religious text.
	And number seven is slandering chaste, innocent, believing women.
	And again, I find this very bizarre.
	Instead of adhering to the principle, don't bear false witness, there is a specific subsection of the population against which you must not bear false witness.
	But what about the rest?
	I find it weird that there is a need to differentiate on these cases.
	For example, it may well be that bearing false witness is a sin in Islam, but it's obviously not an unforgivable sin, whereas slandering chaste, innocent, believing women is an unforgivable sin.
	So if you bear false witness against someone by saying they murdered or blasphemed or had another idol alongside Allah or something like that, this person could be executed and you would be forgiven by God for doing this unjustly to this person.
	Whereas if you were to slander a chaste innocent believing woman, you would never be forgiven, and yet you have still ended up getting two people unjustly killed.
	Anyway, these are apparently the seven sins that doom a person to hell because they are so evil.
	We ask Allah to keep us safe and sound.
	I hope this helps to highlight the tonal differences between Christianity and Islam.
	And I don't mean this as a defense of Christianity.
	If anything, this is a defense of Stoicism.
	Christianity doesn't really seem to demonstrate the same in-group-out-group dichotomy that Islam does.
	Islam has it deeply codified into the religion itself and into the ideology itself.
	There is a distinct difference in character between Christianity and Islam.
	And I think it's really important to note it.
	I think it's important to understand it.
	And I really do think it comes from collectivism.
	Islam is very well suited to create an us-versus-them frame of mind.
	And I think this comparison is a small window into how that happens and how it's reinforced.
	Just the general mindset that's encouraged by this sort of philosophy.
	The Christian deadly sins come from the Stoic tradition of the individual taking responsibility for themselves and their own emotions, whereas the Islamic deadly sins seem designed to protect Islamic society and Islam itself.
	And I think this is the deepest contrast between them.

▲