Giving the Finger to Europe

[richyoung]

Obviously I need to flesh it out for you.
The discussion had to do with tolerance and rights in different societies.  The point was made that Muslim societies historically were much more tolerant than Christian ones.

No the point waws NOT made - it was ATTEMPTED - in error.  A few historical incidences of "tolerence induced by near military parity do NOT outweigh the bloody history of Islam.  Further, those few incidences were for "people of the Book" - Christians and Jews.  You conveniently leave out how OTHER religions were treated - IF they were allowed to live at all.  It was a few MONTHES ago that an Afghan man was threatened with DEATH for converting to Christianity.  Christians are still being sold into slavery or kidnapped for ransom by Muslims today in Africa.  Islam is a bloodsoaked religion of conquest with its roots in pagan moon worship - they are at war with anything NOT Islam - always have been (unless forced not to by superior might), and always will be.  What happened to the Jews living in Arab countries?  Kicked out or killed, that what.  So much for "tolerence"...

Someone took issue with that by mentioning the concept of "dhimmi."  Notwithstanding that idea, non-Muslims still had rights, especially under the Ottomans, that non-Christians could only dream about in Europe.  On the other hand, Christian Europe uniformly granted no rights to non-Christians and persecuted them terribly.  This was the general condition in societies.

You are refereing to a period in history when the Catholic Church either essentially WAS the secular government, oe exercised so much pull as to de facto be the government.  And it wasn't just "non-Christians" - plenty of Lutherans, Gnostics, etc were victims of the Inquisition.  The violence is more a reflection of Europe than the religion in charge at the time.  Just as the occasional intramural Sunni-Shi'ite-Wahabi-Kurd bloodfest is more indiciative of Arab tribalism than Islam itself.

Your response focuses on a few isolated incidents in Israel's history.

Seeing as how Israel has only existed this time around for 60 years, and that the list was not complete, that's a lot of "incidents" - ALL of which occured with the BLESSING of Israel's theocratic government.  This, of course, leaves out any number of worshipers of Ba'al and various and sundry peoples that the old Testament records Israel as wiping out, including children and livestock - but those don't count because "God told them to", right?

It is not general to any society.

I think any neutral observer would seee that it is general to the Jewish government of Israel.  You may feel free to believe whatever fantasy lets you sleep at night - just don't expect any one else to buy into it.

Indeed, non-Jewish citizens in Israel have full rights with Jewish citizens.

Yes - when the King David hotel is blown up, Jew and Gentile alike get to die.  Whee!

So, I have to ask, why bring up some isolated incidents affecting maybe 1000 people in all when the discussion has been about widespread societal and political practices that lasted for thousands of years?

Israel attempted to FORCE the United States into WAR with Egypt ONCE for certain (Levan Affair), and possibly TWICE (USS LIberty).  A war between Egypt and the US certainly would affect more than "maybe 1000" people.  When the first reports of the Liberty attack came in, it was assumed that our "ally" Israel couldn't have done it, so it MUST have been Egypt.  Cairo almost got nuked.  That could have triggered a nuclear WWIII.  Do you think that MIGHT affect more than a thousand people? The POINT, which you are ducking, is that the modern state of Israel, a Jewish theocracy, is showing a blood lust, intolerance, and disregard for other religions in its short history quite on a par with midieval Christianity or Islam.

And I am still asking this question.

...and you have been answered.  You just don't LIKE the answer.  Sometimes the truth hurts.

[The Rabbi]

So much for "tolerence"...

"Tolerance" wasnt the issue.  Rights were.  And painting everything in a broad stroke is convenient for those with limited thought capacity.

You are refereing to a period in history when the Catholic Church either essentially WAS the secular government, oe exercised so much pull as to de facto be the government.  And it wasn't just "non-Christians" - plenty of Lutherans, Gnostics, etc were victims of the Inquisition.  The violence is more a reflection of Europe than the religion in charge at the time.  Just as the occasional intramural Sunni-Shi'ite-Wahabi-Kurd bloodfest is more indiciative of Arab tribalism than Islam itself.

So now we can blame the evil Catholic Church as well.  As far as victims, you still have no grasped the point that we are not dealing with an isolated incident or two but with a general state in society.  I doubt you ever will.

Seeing as how Israel has only existed this time around for 60 years, and that the list was not complete, that's a lot of "incidents" - ALL of which occured with the BLESSING of Israel's theocratic government.  This, of course, leaves out any number of worshipers of Ba'al and various and sundry peoples that the old Testament records Israel as wiping out, including children and livestock - but those don't count because "God told them to", right?

I see we are slipping into incoherence here.  Where do you get the idea that Israel's gov't is theocratic?  My repeated criticisms of Israel generally revolve around the fact that it is NOT theocratic, whatever that means.  You clearly don't have a clue and have never followed anything going on there beyond what is on ABC.

I think any neutral observer would seee that it is general to the Jewish government of Israel.  You may feel free to believe whatever fantasy lets you sleep at night - just don't expect any one else to buy into it.

I think you are engaging in fantasies here.  You named 5 incidents or so (actually some of them weren't even incidents) and generalize that Israel's "theocratic" gov't is behind all of them.  That is errant nonsense.  I only hear some kinds of people spouting that. And I won't comment on who they are.

Indeed, non-Jewish citizens in Israel have full rights with Jewish citizens.

Yes - when the King David hotel is blown up, Jew and Gentile alike get to die.  Whee!

Was that an argument?  The King David was blown up when?  Israel became a state when?

So, I have to ask, why bring up some isolated incidents affecting maybe 1000 people in all when the discussion has been about widespread societal and political practices that lasted for thousands of years?

Israel attempted to FORCE the United States into WAR with Egypt ONCE for certain (Levan Affair), and possibly TWICE (USS LIberty).  A war between Egypt and the US certainly would affect more than "maybe 1000" people.  When the first reports of the Liberty attack came in, it was assumed that our "ally" Israel couldn't have done it, so it MUST have been Egypt.  Cairo almost got nuked.  That could have triggered a nuclear WWIII.  Do you think that MIGHT affect more than a thousand people? The POINT, which you are ducking, is that the modern state of Israel, a Jewish theocracy, is showing a blood lust, intolerance, and disregard for other religions in its short history quite on a par with midieval Christianity or Islam.

Merely throwing baseless paranoid charges around is not arguing.  It is raving.

And I am still asking this question.

...and you have been answered.  You just don't LIKE the answer.  Sometimes the truth hurts.

No, it is clear what the answer is.  And the continued presence of people espousing classic anti-semitic canards on this forum is one reason I will probably leave.  I have no problem with criticism of Israel on any number of issues.  But they should be based on fact rather than paranoia.

[Stand_watie]

Israel has a 'theocratic' government?

That's news to me. I thought a major point of contention in Israeli politics was some of the religious Israelis being upset at having a secular government.

[Strings]

I REALLY wanted to stay out of this...

>A few historical incidences of "tolerence induced by near military parity do NOT outweigh the bloody history of Islam.<

Odd... last time I checked, we were at a significant military disadvantage before the start of the crusades...

> Further, those few incidences were for "people of the Book" - Christians and Jews.  You conveniently leave out how OTHER religions were treated - IF they were allowed to live at all.<

And this is followed by:

>It was a few MONTHES ago that an Afghan man was threatened with DEATH for converting to Christianity.  Christians are still being sold into slavery or kidnapped for ransom by Muslims today in Africa.<

Ummm... incoherant much? What did/do Muslims do to those not "of the book"?

>Islam is a bloodsoaked religion of conquest with its roots in pagan moon worship<

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? By all means, give some evidence for this one!

>they are at war with anything NOT Islam<

Ok... gotta give you that one...

>always have been (unless forced not to by superior might), and always will be.<

Ummm... no. Nice try though...

[Stand_watie]

>It was a few MONTHES ago that an Afghan man was threatened with DEATH for converting to Christianity.  Christians are still being sold into slavery or kidnapped for ransom by Muslims today in Africa.<

Ummm... incoherant much? What did/do Muslims do to those not "of the book"?

Why are you asking if he's incoherent? The examples he cited are perfectly factual. Or are you saying that Islam is incoherent because it's practiced differently by different groups of people?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1746943&page=1

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 22, 2006  Despite the overthrow of the fundamentalist Taliban government and the presence of 22,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a man who converted to Christianity is being prosecuted in Kabul, and a judge said Sunday that if convicted, he faces the death penalty...

[Strings]

I made the comment because of how Rich phrased everything: he mentions "other reigions", then starts in about the man sentenced to death for converting to Christianity...

[The Rabbi]

I would hate to see this deteriorate into a "Islam-bad" thread.  I don't believe it.
Islam is about 1500 years old and has been practiced by groups as different as Afghans and Indonesians.  Given the sheer size of the historical sample it would be no problem to pull out some incidents and generalize to all of Islam from them.  We need to resist that temptation.  There is not either one Islam, any more than there is one Christianity.  Wahhabi Islam is very different from other branches in many respects and attributing to those branches the same values as Wahhabi has is historically wrong.
One example already mentioned.  Islam traditionally is very tolerant to "people of the book", i.e. Christians and Jews.  Wahhabi Islam redefined "People of the Book" to exclude christians and Jews from that category.  They redefined that to exclude other branches of Islam as well.  This is clearly a deviation from traditional teaching but because of many factors (OK, one factor, Saudi oil money) that doctrine became normative.
Extrapolating from the worst abuses to a general statement is obviously a wrong approach.

[Iain]

Hunter - there is probably an element of truth to it, that some post-Mohammed practices and beliefs do probably build upon or reintrepret older beliefs. I'm curious as to what we'd find out about Judaism (and so subsequently Christianity), Hinduism and all the others if we traced similar beliefs amongst early human cultures of those regions.

Whilst trying to avoid some revisionist history (of the dirty kind that seems to have defined the word for many)on the internet  I have discovered that there is even a small group of Jewish pagans in existence, that call themselves Hebrews and attempt to learn and practice pre-exile pagan beliefs of the Hebrew people. I'm not sure if the tag they attach to themselves is some sort of self-parody, but it is 'jewitches'. I'll call that my thing learned today.

[Strings]

Iain, I have no problem with the statement "the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) grew out of previous pagan beliefs". The whole thing of "Islam has it's roots in pagan moon worship", however, stretches thinga a bit for me. Especially when the person saying such has shown a problem with pagans in the past, too!

[Stand_watie]

I made the comment because of how Rich phrased everything: he mentions "other reigions", then starts in about the man sentenced to death for converting to Christianity...

O.k. Gotcha now. I went back and reread. It is a little dissonant. I don't know if I'd say 'incoherant', but then I've been known to drop a couple of sentences and so lose a thought in the middle of a paragraph, so I won't say I'm not biased

[Stand_watie]

Iain, I have no problem with the statement "the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) grew out of previous pagan beliefs". The whole thing of "Islam has it's roots in pagan moon worship", however, stretches thinga a bit for me. Especially when the person saying such has shown a problem with pagans in the past, too!

Read this. I have no problem with viewing this is anti-islam propoganda or that you could substitute all the muslim references in the  article for Jewish or Christian terminology and make the same conclusions about Judaism or Christianity (see the conotation of "El" and "Ba'al"), but it should help you understand how a person could go from 'a' to 'b'.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-moon-god.htm

I, personally, would say "the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)" all used distinct cultural influences of previous pagan beliefs to more effectively convert pagans. Eg, there is nothing whatsoever "Christian" about decorating evergreen trees on December 25, but that tradition is now very much  a part of a mostly Christian holiday.

[richyoung]

I REALLY wanted to stay out of this...
Odd... last time I checked, we were at a significant military disadvantage before the start of the crusades...

The state of "dhimi" wastypically a negotiated less-than-total surrender, somewhere between being ransomed, and being property.  It was usually only offered when the military cost of conquering the "infidel" was high enough that such a negotiated settlement made sense - otherwise, it was convert or die.

> Further, those few incidences were for "people of the Book" - Christians and Jews.  You conveniently leave out how OTHER religions were treated - IF they were allowed to live at all.<

And this is followed by:

>It was a few MONTHES ago that an Afghan man was threatened with DEATH for converting to Christianity.  Christians are still being sold into slavery or kidnapped for ransom by Muslims today in Africa.<

Ummm... incoherant much? What did/do Muslims do to those not "of the book"?

There is a difference under Islamic law as to how a conquered person who happens to have always been Jewish or Christain is treated, and how a Muslim who converts to one of those religions is treated - kind of like hte difference between an enemy POW and a traitor.  Not saying it makes sense, just observing.

>Islam is a bloodsoaked religion of conquest with its roots in pagan moon worship<

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? By all means, give some evidence for this one!

"Was Allah The Moon God of Ancient Arab Pagan?

 

By Syed Kamran Mirza

 

Historical evidences, impartial logic, well versed references and all available circumstantial judgments can very well prove that(a) Allah name of deity was pre-existed much before the arrival of Islam, (b) Pre-Islamic Pagan peoples worshipped Allah as their supreme deity (moon-god). Allahs name existed in pre-Islamic Arab. In ancient Arab the Allah was considered to be the supreme God/deity (as Moon-God) and Arab Pagans worshipped Allah before Islam arrived.

 

 Let us examine below some valid questions and answers :

Did the Pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times worship 360 gods? Yes

Did the pagans Arabs worship the sun, moon and the stars? Yes

Did the Arabs built temples to the Moon-god? Yes

Did different Arab tribes give the Moon-god different names/titles? Yes

What were some of the names/titles? Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh, Al-ilah.

Was the title al-ilah (the god) used as the Moon-god? Yes

Was the word Allah derived from al-ilah? Yes

Was the pagan Allah a high god in a pantheon of deities? Yes.

Was he worshipped at the Kabah? Yes.

Was Allah only one of many Meccan gods? Yes

Did they place a statue of Hubul on top of the Kabah? Yes.

At that time was Hubul considered the Moon-god? Yes.

Was the Kabah thus the house of the Moon-god? Yes.

Did the name Allah eventually replace that of Hubul as the name of the Moon god? Yes.

Did they call the Kabah the house of Allah?  Yes.

Were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat called the daughters of Allah? Yes.

Yusuf Ali explains in fn. 5096, pg. 1445, that Lat, Uzza and Manat were known as the daughters of God [Allah]

Did the Quran at one point tell Muslims to worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat? Yes. In Surah 53:19-20.

Have those verses been abrogated out of the present Quran? Yes.

What were they called? The Satanic Verses."

>they are at war with anything NOT Islam<

Ok... gotta give you that one...

>always have been (unless forced not to by superior might), and always will be.<

Ummm... no. Nice try though...

The Qu'oran spells it out as clearly as Mien Kampf outlined Hitler's plans....

[richyoung]

So much for "tolerence"...

"Tolerance" wasnt the issue.  Rights were.  And painting everything in a broad stroke is convenient for those with limited thought capacity.

Won't respond to personal slurs and attacks - I will let the faithful readers of both our ravings decide what that reveals about the merits of thelogic...

[So now we can blame the evil Catholic Church as well.

Until Protestantism became established, the Catholic Church, along with its Eastern and Greek off-shoots, WAS Christianity.  Did they not teach you this in history class?

As far as victims, you still have no grasped the point that we are not dealing with an isolated incident or two but with a general state in society.  I doubt you ever will.

You fail to grasp that as an advocate for Israel, a nations that constantly, and rightly, waves the bloody shirt of the holocaust, and constantly denounces terrorism,  that Israel must answer for : A. Paying tribute in a public museum to perpetrators of a war crime and murder; B.  Electing to office people that themsleves commited terrorsit acts prior to Israeli statehood.  C. Massacreing prisoners of war.

You fail to grasp that while you sling stones at other religions, yours has no clean hands.

I see we are slipping into incoherence here.  Where do you get the idea that Israel's gov't is theocratic?

This might lead one to think so..
"
Basic Guidelines of the 31st Government of Israel
 
4 May 2006
(translated from Hebrew)....

 2.  The Government will strive to shape the permanent borders of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, with a Jewish majority, ..."
 
 
 
 

You named 5 incidents or so (actually some of them weren't even incidents) and generalize that Israel's "theocratic" gov't is behind all of them.  That is errant nonsense.  I only hear some kinds of people spouting that. And I won't comment on who they are.

The Levan affair occured with the blessing of the government - the Liberty was attacked on orders from the Israeli military.  That poor waiter that was mistaken for one of the Munich terroists was executed on the orders of the Israeli government.  In fact ALL of the events I listed either occured with the blessing of the Israeli government, or by people who would become leaders of the government.

Was that an argument?  The King David was blown up when?

July 22, 1946.
 

Israel became a state when?

May 14, 1948.  Since you like quizs, here's mine, with answers...

How many were killed and injured?  92 dead, 45 injured.
Who orderd the attack?  Moshe Sneh, the head of Haganah.
Who carried out the attack?  Menachem Begin, as part of the Irgun.
Why does that name ring a bell?  Became Prime Minister of Israel.

Merely throwing baseless paranoid charges around is not arguing.  It is raving.

I can back up everything I've stated, mostly from U.S. intelligence officials.  your Jedi mind trick no workee.

No, it is clear what the answer is.  And the continued presence of people espousing classic anti-semitic canards on this forum is one reason I will probably leave.

I'll play...pick ONE assertion of mine that you think is false and I'll happily list the evidence in favor of it.  Otherwise, don't let the screen door hit ya where the good Lord/Allah/Yahweh/Ghia/Zeus/etc split ya...

[Guest]

name of deity was pre-existed much before the arrival of Islam

As I've mentioned before, my father's family called God Allah, and they were Christian. It's the Arabic word for God, not the name of God.

[Guest]

And El had a similar history.

[Perd Hapley]

Barbara, this is what I have read as well.  El and Allah are both words that mean "god," and Arab Christians call their god "Allah."  To my non-linguist eyes, they would appear to be cognates - variations on the same word.

[natedog]

I've noticed that trying to keep score cards of "my religions attrocities vs. your religions attrocities" is very difficult, and a futile excersise. All religions have their fair share of blood on their hands, and trying to justify your religions' past attrocities by contrasting them against other religions' seems somewhat juvenille.

As someone else said, men have been killing their neighbors for thousands of years, for a thousand reasons, no matter which god they bow to.

[richyoung]

Especially when the person saying such has shown a problem with pagans in the past, too!

I can't help it if reporting the facts about paganism is somehow "a problem" for you.  The facts are that modern paganism/wiccan ritual was at least partially written by Aleister Crowley - the degree to which he did is is still questioned.  WHY he did so is not open to question:  he publically avowed an intention to destroy Christianity - to that end, he supported Communism, claimed to be the second coming of Christ, and helped start modern Wicca - all to destroy or diminish Christianity.  You, for whatever reason, choose to follow a religion that was founded to replace and destroy Christianity.  As a Christian, I do, and always will, love YOU - but I don't have to love Wicca, and feel free to point out its roots - which are NOT in any pre-Christianity Druid or Wiccan rites.

[Strings]

Rich: Thelemic scholars (that's folks who follow Crowley's teachings) seriously dispute the "fact" that AC helped create Wicca (beyond the level that the Christian Bible "helped create" Tolkien's stories). And we've gone over this several times...

 I WILL agree though, that Crowley was an early influence, as was archealogy, and Christianity, and mythology. I'll also agree that Wicca has nothing to do with pre-Christian religions. However, there are a BUNCH of pagans out there who aren't Wiccan, and ARE attempting to re-create pre-Christian religions (they're called Celtic Reconstructionists)...

 Now, if you want to debate further, either start a new thread or go to email. I HATE hijacking a thread!

[richyoung]

Rich: Thelemic scholars (that's folks who follow Crowley's teachings) seriously dispute the "fact" that AC helped create Wicca (beyond the level that the Christian Bible "helped create" Tolkien's stories). And we've gone over this several times...

Not true...see new thread if you want to continue.