h i r d e t é s

Foreign culture?

Olvasási idő
Eddig olvastam

Foreign culture?

2020. március 31. - 17:54


I was blamed that I am following a foreign culture, an Arab culture. Few people understand that Islam, Judaism and Christianity belong to one cultural circle if we use the word culture. Those are organic parts of each other. It is certain that the Quran is in Arabic and stabilized in this language, but nothing else binds Islam to Arabs.

As far as the prophets are concerned who are mentioned in the Quran, let's see the statistics:

Musa (Moses) mentioned 136 times
Ibrahim (Abraham) – 69 times
Nuh (Noah) – 43 times
Lut (Lot) 27 times
Yusof (Joseph) 27 times
Isa (Jesus) – 25 times
Adam 25 times
Harun (Aaron) 20 times
Sulayman (Solomon) 17 times
Ishaq (isaac) 17 times
Dawud (David) 16 times
Yaqub (Jacob) 16 times
Ismael (Ishmael) 12 times
Shuayb 11 times
Salih 9 times
Zakaria 7 times
Hud 7 times
Yahya 5 times
Muhammad 4 times

So, Islam is not alien to the "European cultural circle" at all. At least it is much closer to it than the relation between the "Hungarian consciousness" and Christian values. In fact, the peoples riding with horses on the steppes and living in the romantic nationalism of the Turanian ideology, and we have a common fate with them, are Muslims. The Hungarian consciousness is accompanied by shamanism, which is neither Christian nor Islamic, nor can it be attributed to any monotheistic view, nor to Europeanism. This is not a criticism because I don't know whether our origin or being European worth more, but rather a statement of a fact.

I received many books from Al-Azhar, later in Qum, Iran. I was interested in historiography and I had the chance to read the works of Ibn Khaldun and Al-Gharnati. The latter lived in Hungary between 1150-53. Before and after this period he traveled around the Volga region, recording the steppe world and registered many interesting reports. From these works I drew conclusions that it was partly the spread of Islam that in the 7th to 8th century so many peoples set off on the Asian steppes, which we call migration. Nomadic people are not governed by principles. They were not aspiring on the road of Lenin to the Carpathian Basin. They simply grazed their animals. They did not go where they saw the villages burning because of the wars, but they chose the direction where the grass was green. No other logic worked. When they encountered similar tribes on the way, they were intertwined with some of them, learned the names of their tools, their habits, and relied themselves on the events that ensured their nomadic life. So, we can't speak about such people who were called "Hungarians". We can speak of a nomadic group of peoples, consisting of different tribes, languages, whose collective name became Hungarian later on. So, Hungarian is not a special term, which means "pure race", but a diverse, colorful, all-encompassing mixture that is wonderful due to its nature. Let me note that Muslim peoples were also joined. They were called by our ancestors Bosormans, Ishmaelites or Saracens.

The spread of Islam, and now I'm not talking about the "Hungarian" migration, is much stronger among nomadic people than of Christianity or anything else. Why? Because of the simplicity of Islam met with the simplicity of nomads. There is no Holy Spirit, no Son of God, and no other abstract theory, just the simplest concepts. There is God, Who is unimaginable and human. And there is a pure relationship between the two. No ritual, no ceremony, no need to stop at a temple, no need for ornaments, no parade. The horseback is enough, or getting off the horse and giving for God the service in the nature what His right is. The Quran is not a storybook but a "collection of wisecracks"(sorry for the wording, but now I'm writing with the brains of wilderness peoples). About such a wisecrack one can ponder on the horseback and if he needs an explanation, the literate one on the neighboring horse can explain it. The wisecracks were then transformed into reverential revelations, and the explanatory riders turned into sheikhs, muftis and everything took a form as life shaped it. Islam was comprehensible for nomads and city dwellers as well. It didn't need a big ado. The Prophet Mohammed himself (peace be upon him) did not like ado. The mosque he built was also the simplest building, not like the horror mosque today in Mecca what does not reflect at all the ideals that were represented originally in the Islam. Today, millions of people go there to pretend how deeply they believe, tears, etc. This is nausea for me, as the wailing wall in Jerusalem, too with so many bowing Jews with earlocks, or Christian places of pilgrimage where ignorant masses are fainting by the emotions coming from “power of faith”. For me, faith does not exist in these holy places. In other words, the faith would be there if wouldn't be those many pretending people there.

What we consider to be Christian values today is a delusion of Orban. There is no specific knowledge associated with it, only the memories of St. Stephen soaring in the Hungarian soul, the crosses we saw in grandma's room, Christmas, and stuff like that. From the series of memories, politics forms a romantic world with heroes that is completely different from reality.

King Stephen, who I do not call saint, made the worst decision of his time when he chose Christianity. Let me emphasize: I am talking about the given age, the turn of the first millennium! This was one of the darkest periods of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the time when the Islamic world prospered, Cordoba and Baghdad poured the light of knowledge to the world. Stephen came and chose the barbarism. The only enlightened person in the Roman Catholic Church was Pope Sylvester II (938- 1003), who sent the crown for Stephen. Sylvester II, born under the name Gerbert d'Aurillac in SaintSimon, he mastered "Arabic sciences", mathematics, astrology and arithmetic in Córdoba and Seville. However, Stephen was fortunate enough. He made a political decision. Emotionally Christianity was very far from shamanism, but with a political decision he ensured our survival in the barbarian Europe, that is certain. His fortune is not that, but what he could not foresee to happen after four hundred and then seven hundred and eight hundred years. He could not see that the Christian barbarism will emerge from its dark age and can change its image. Rather, he could not foresee that the church will be overshadowed by the enlightened world of ideas that does not deny the doctrines of Jesus, but keeps the church on a short leash. There is no further inquisition, no persecution of sciences, but remains some loving preach without power. Now I do not enter into the internal troubles of the Church, the Reformation, etc. In parallel, we, the Islamic world, set off on the path that led us to the darkness and barbarism. Today we reached where the Roman Catholic Church was during the time of Inquisitions. So, that was Stephen's luck. In today's comparison, his choice at that time was as if a Kurdish leader would take oath for ISIS. He made the worst decision of his age, which over time proved to be the best, it must be admitted!

And after this chaos, I suggest to consider when making categorical statements about values and belonging.



h i r d e t é s