It's pretty much part of the job description, really.
Printable View
It's pretty much part of the job description, really.
I don't think they're the people he meant. The name of the people you've referred to is "Yazidi", though. Bloody interesting bunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yezidi#Religious_practices
I guess thats one way to say UK?
Actually, Allah simply mean "God" in Arabic and was indeed used by pre-Islamic Arabs for their chief deity (remember that Zeus and Theos have the same origins in Greek, for instance), who was apparently associated with the moon. However, the crescent used nowadays in Muslim countries has nothing to do with pre-Islamic Arab paganism; it was originally a Byzantine device, a symbol of Artemis that remained associated with Byzantion/Constantinople throughout the Christian period and was finally adopted by the Ottoman Turks as their own, and has since become associated with Islam in general. Despite a persistent popular myth, the star often paired with the crescent does not represent the five pillars of Islam (in fact, a five-pointed star is not the norm).Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Artemis-Byzantine?Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
Did you mean pre-Nova Roma Greeks? Or are you beginning the Byzantines with Constantine I (AD 306–337), Theodosius I (AD 379–395), or Heraclius (AD 610–641)?
I believe the symbol you wrote about may actually have started with Selene and Luna? While, the Ottoman's usage may have influenced the shape and style of the current crescent, its initial use was indeed a usurpation of an ancient Arabic lunar symbol. Unless you're a true believer, it's a simple fact that Arab Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism all inspired and helped shape early Islam.
No, pre-Roman Byzantine--as in, the Megaran (IIRC) colony Byzantion, founded by Byzas.
Certainly all the religions you stated (especially Judaism and Christianity) influenced Islam, but that's not the problem. AFAIK the early muslims used solid coloured flags, later when the Muslim world became more fragmented and they needed a greater diversity of banners they used striped flags, then they starting writing stuff on them and drawing devices; but the Ottomans were (AFAIK) the first to use the crescent as their primary symbol.
Pre-Roman Byzantine, thats a bit of a leap isn't it? And... flags?Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
Actually Muhammad was born into one of the Quraysh tribes which overall was particularly devoted to Allah or Al-Ilah (other names include Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh), the moon god, and moreover to Allah's three daughters (called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat). These were viewed as intermediates between humans and Allah. The worship of three goddesses played a significant role at the Kabah (Abode of Hubul) shrine located in Mecca. Additionally, the names of Al-Lat, Al-Uzza appear to have included some female aspects or forms of Allah. The Arabic name of Muhammad's father was Abd-Allah and his uncle; Obied-Allah. These names indicate that Muhammad's family was particularly devoted to the moon god, Allah.
Yet, to the true believer talk or the written word is cheap. So then there is the archaeology...
Amaud, Halevy and Glaser recovered thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which have been more recently translated. Additional work was conducted by Thompson and Coon in the 1940s and in the 50s Phillips, Albright, Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (ancient Saba). Collectively, amoung these a moon-god is often memtioned. Thousands of inscriptions from northern Arabia have also been collected and again we have a moon-god. Reliefs and votive bowls dedicated to Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat often depicte Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. It appears clear that a moon-god was a principle pre-Islamic deity within Arabia.
I'm as certain that many in former eras understood this relationship, as I'm sure the true believers have been provided some comic-book explanation more recently.
But I thought the moon-god was actually named Allmaquh (Or however you're supposed to spell it) and that it later evolved to Allah, or am I misinformed?
See Ilumquh above. This is by the nature of how vowels appear in the script. It was actually a separate divinity that at some point began to merge with the Al-Ilah or Allah deity.Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Alco
The polytheism of ancient Arabia might be somewhat scarce. What can be found are reports of outside sources, reports of Islamic sources and archeology. However, I don't think they had the same gods in all of Arabia. For example, the Sabaeans didn't worship exactly the same gods as the Meccans.
However, outside of Arabia it is not too scarcely documented. Egyptian mythology is well-known, and to some extent Persian mythology as well, as many gods lived on as angels in Zoroastrianism.
Yeah, it's nothing wrong with crucifying or beheading non-Muslims, right? Muhammed never hurt anyone, right?:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphir
Have a look at what various ex-Muslims think about Islam:
http://www.faithfreedom.org
http://www.apostatesofislam.com
http://www.islam-watch.org
Let's not get nasty, as there are true believers on all sides. I've just been trying to cut through some of the propaganda and answer a few questions.
Calpyze, I have said it before and I'll say it again, I do NOT want this sort of thing going on in this topic. I thank you for answering some of my points, but please, I don't want anybody accusing any religion of anything, I just want some simple answers to my questions on pre-islamic religion in the middle east. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calypze
I don't think Stalin's Atheism had anything to do with his crimes. He was a ruthless dictator in an impoverished country. I think that had more to do with the amount of people he killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
J.Alco, for a well rounded view of the subject, please look up the Lakhmids, Ghassanids, Kindites, and Kahlan; Nestorianism and the Madinkhaye, as well.
Kinda OT for the main gist of the thread, but... wasn't the crescent moon a very popular symbol in the Asia Minor of Antiquity, associated with some moon-deity very popular in the region ? You know, like the crescent that appears in Pontic contexts in EB ? It would hardly seem strange that a settlement proverbially at the gates of Asia would have adopted such a common local symbol, especially as the Greeks no doubt had no particular trouble associating the local divinity with something from their own pantheon.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
As always you seem to be spot-on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Just a little correction :Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
"Allah" in Arabic means "The God", which is the monotheist God.
"god" in Arabic would be "Ilah".
But that's in modern classical Arabic, which could be different on this point from Quraysh Arabic at the time.
Given that that would be a date difference of almost one and half millenia, I'd say "could be" is something of an understatement. :egypt:
He did have quite a few people killed (or his regime had, depending on how you view it) precisely for the reason that they were religious, though. Pogroms, the things he/his regime did to the Orthodox comunnities...Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
@Watchman: IIRC that deity would be Ma?
Stalin would persecute anyone he figured might be trouble, disloyal, etc., and quite a few besides simply out of the nasty inherent logic of security-through-terror. The man was certifiably paranoid.
Do recall, after all, the numbers of card-carrying Communist Party members his purges killed too... up to and including surprisingly large numbers of the terror machinery itself; one reason he called off the infamous Thirties purge spree was that the security forces had begun eating themselves alive, and even he could tell the system would start coming apart soon.
Can I get a Trotsky?
Stalin terrorized anyone and everyone. He was certifiably insane, off his rocker, barking mad, doo-lally, batshit crazy. When somebody goes insane as he was, the motive for their crimes can be excused because they've lost all touch with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I would really like to continue to talk about the cancer of humanity we call Islam but this really isn't the forum. eBaumsworld for the win for religious debates.
I don't see why pre-Roman roots are a stretch. The symbol never went out of use, it was originally a symbol associated with Artemis but by the time the Turks got their hands on it, it simply meant Byzantium/Constantinople. If the Ottoman Sultan knew at the time it was (orginally) a symbol for a pagan goddess, then I doubt he'd have used it. The story of Osman's dream is probably due to later hagiography, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Quote:
Actually Muhammad was born into one of the Quraysh tribes which overall was particularly devoted to Allah or Al-Ilah (other names include Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh), the moon god, and moreover to Allah's three daughters (called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat). These were viewed as intermediates between humans and Allah. The worship of three goddesses played a significant role at the Kabah (Abode of Hubul) shrine located in Mecca. Additionally, the names of Al-Lat, Al-Uzza appear to have included some female aspects or forms of Allah. The Arabic name of Muhammad's father was Abd-Allah and his uncle; Obied-Allah. These names indicate that Muhammad's family was particularly devoted to the moon god, Allah.
Yet, to the true believer talk or the written word is cheap. So then there is the archaeology...
Amaud, Halevy and Glaser recovered thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which have been more recently translated. Additional work was conducted by Thompson and Coon in the 1940s and in the 50s Phillips, Albright, Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (ancient Saba). Collectively, amoung these a moon-god is often memtioned. Thousands of inscriptions from northern Arabia have also been collected and again we have a moon-god. Reliefs and votive bowls dedicated to Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat often depicte Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. It appears clear that a moon-god was a principle pre-Islamic deity within Arabia.
I'm as certain that many in former eras understood this relationship, as I'm sure the true believers have been provided some comic-book explanation more recently.
I knew most of that, thanks for the detail though. I just haven't found any evidence of the crescent as a symbol of Islamic power, until the Ottomans take Constantinople.
That's probably how the Byzantines got the crescent, and they associated it with Artemis because that was the goddess they associated with the moon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I usually just use capitalisation to mark the difference, so Allah I would render "God" and Ilah "god". But it is a fair reminder.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosam
I vowed to myself not to participate in this thread. I think most of you already are familiar with my antagonistic view on Islam, Islamic history and the character of Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah, warlord of Arabia and founder of Islam. I have earlier stated how Islam is a dreadful, communalistic, fascist, and intolerant ideology in the guise of a religious facade. Basically a cult of death aiming for worldly domination. I haven't changed my mind. I have to agree with Dayve about it being a cancer to society. I even used to frequent the forums of Faith Freedom International, as an honourary member some years back. I'm very familiar with the polemic corpus on the debate of this religion.
Foot is a man worthy of utmost respect; He has essentially carried the whole EB team, and next to Steppe_Merc and Keravnos, I'd only entrust to him the matters of the obscure East due to his maturity and his understanding of the technical aspects. It takes a great understanding of historiography to have such a profound effect on my sensibilities. We have agreed many times in the past, but here we put an end to the parade and face the reality of occasional dissensus; What Dayve stated in his first entry is a reality in many countries with Islamic jurisprudence and Shariah laws. Apostasy is punishable by death and heresy grants harsh punishment. Iran is a superb example of this fallacious symbiosis of "allowing studies of pre-Islamic history" and Islamic censorship. During the heyday of Khomeini, there was virtually no support whatsoever from the government in funding or maintaining the programmes that were online during the Shah's regime; This caused an inevitable decay to historical heritage. Furthermore, vandalism was encouraged, and sometimes supported by the state, many monuments faced the threat of bulldozing; A fate sealed for many monuments. Now, I shall continue with a general addressal to anyone who reads this entry, so that no one shall feel individually targetted, even if inevitable, at least not intentionally.
"Reading the Qur'an" is not a feasible answer. I can pull at least hundreds of verses encouraging violence, misogyny, and utter nonsense, only to have them shrugged away as "Taken out of context". The hadith and Sirat Rasul'allah are even worse, because they directly describe through narratives the conduct and examples of Mohammed. Apologists will pull out arrogant nonsense such as "There must be no compulsion in religion", or "Speak good to men", without realizing that Mohammed underwent a shift of character after his exodus, or hidjra. Every good muslim loves to quote the pre-Hidjra passages of the Qur'an, making an example or a straw-man of Mohammed as some sort of a poor prophet who lived only to be scorned by his peers; Effectively forgetting that after his exodus, he participated in no less than twenty battles, assassinated numerous critics, including a 120-year old poet, and levies himself with rape and pedophilia, due to his self-designated title of "Timeless example of mankind and muslims". The conduct of Mohammed is comparable to that of Attila. He killed. he raped. He violated himself on children. He quashed his critics. Hell, he even dies while in the midst of sexual intercourse! Was this man better than me? How? Muslims are told to emulate his behaviour, and taken verbatim, that is not something to be shrugged away so easily.
The Qur'an is full of contradiction in terms of tolerating minorities; There is the "Ahl-Kitab", or "People of the Book", and then there's the "Ahl-Dhimma", those who pay the Jaziya, or poll tax. Even the "protected" minorities of Christians, Jews and "Sabians" (Mandâeans) are subject to the relegation of being second class citizens, and especially Mandâeans are treated badly, both in Iraq and Iran. This gains a second dimension when the wrteched concept of "Diyya" or blood-money is included; There are even charts on the worth of a human life, depending on how far down the nut-case scale the jurisprudence has sunk. I will not delve that much into the contradictions and abrogations of the Qur'an, but it is a well-known fact that Jews specifically are called "descended from apes, pigs and swine".
One of the greatest absurdities, apart from "Qur'anic science", taking the geocentric and flat-Earth perspective to new comical heights, there is the ridiculous postulate on how Arabic is the divine language; We know from linguistics and basic anthropology that Arabic is a fairly young Semite language, a very human language, sharing many aspects with the elder Aramaic. Islamic sensibilities consider it the purest language in the world by religious basis. This in itself opens up a can of worms, and any man schooled in basic philosophy will quickly recognize the problem. It questions God's omnipotence, omniscience and supposed timelessness.
The fact that there are Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians and even Mandâeans in Iran, is not a testament of Islamic tolerance; Islam on the contrary constantly dodges away from historical crimes, including the deliberate destruction of Partho-Sassanian literati; A crime that I will not levy upon Arabs, but a crime, as much as it was ordained by Islam, will forever be levied against Islam. What Islam has done to Iran is indisputable, and has brought Iranology of modern times much pain. You cannot state these obvious facts in Iran; Zarrinkub's "Two Centuries of Silence", by many authorities acclaimed as a highly professional outline on the whole conflict, and the Islamic entrance into Iran, is a banned literary piece. As is Dr. Shoja'eddin Shafa's work "Rebirth" and "After 1400 Years". They are not unique; Dr. Ahmad Kasravi, one of the founders of modern Iranology, was not only murdered, but his books also are banned. His criticism on Islam carries even greater merit, for in his youth, he had educated himself into becoming a cleric. Speaking of which, another cleric, who was sent to prison, Ali Dashti, wrote an antagonistic biography of Mohammed, briefly titled "23 years", which has not passed the Iranian censors; He ultimately died in prison, aged well over eighty years. Even the usually very reserved, but highly distinguished Iranologist, Hagop Kevorkian Professor Ehsan Yarshater ascribes Islam's entrance into Iran as a destructive effect upon the Iranian historical heritage. Not too long ago, that lizard-eating shit for brains mullah Jannati called non-muslims and specifically Zoroastrians as "descended from animals". When the Zoroastrian representative in the Majlis, Kouroush Niknam responded to the insults, he was charged with slander and jailed, all the while sacks of putrid fecal matter like Jannati get to walk away; Zoroastrians are not able to raise enough funds to maintain their own fire-temples all the while mosques are built in series; The earthquake victims of Bam, and the destroyed citadel have not seen squat of the promised funds, all the while millions of dollars are wasted on restoring mosques in Karbala and Najaf.
I want to at least be able to talk about this issue; Not be shrugged aside as if I was some sort of a racist or someone who incited hatred. Why do muslims go to the defensive when I speak of atrocities recorded in Islamic sources? Why has this audacity prevailed? When people speak of the fall of Carthage, at the hands of the Romans, authorities nod in agreement, but when someone speaks of the destruction of perhaps eight centuries of post-Achaemenid Iranian history, everyone starts to go all "No, no, no Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, surely you are mistaken". It is an insult to history, and the minorities in modern Islamic countries, to be so jaded and naïve into thinking that tolerance and respect is a simple-lane street. Muslims demand mosques to be built, and get outraged beyond any sane rationale when requests occasionally are denied, while the Western world wouldn't even dare to ask if a church or a Jewish temple could be built in Saudi Arabia. I mean for crying out loud, didn't these wretched monsters wreak havoc upon the world for mere caricatures? When a rally was arranged in Brussels for commemorating 9/11, due to fear of muslim reaction, the mayor denied the permission, putting months, upon months of planning into the gutter.
Quite frankly, this is bullshit and I'm fed up with it. Completely. I've had it with freeloading prima donnas. I immigrated to Sweden in order to avoid persecution and the war that was going on between Iran and Iraq. Now spies from the Islamic regimes are crawling in my backyard, all the while Sweden is steadily turning all the more submissive in appeasing an increasingly more cocky muslim population. This is betrayal, in my eyes. The Swedish government has not only betrayed me, but they have lost my confidence and trust. I lead a successful petition against the construction of a mosque in my city of residence some years ago, for everyone's sanity and respect for lack of sleep, and ever since, I've been under security police protection. I happen to like my freedom of speech. I value it infinitely more than the freedom of faith. Especially when there is a conflict between the two.
Those who have been offended by my writings, well, tough shit. I'm not going to change. After all, I do not call myself "Marzbân-î Jundîshâpûr" without a reason, and I would only betray myself if I did not stand for my own thought and opinion.
CirdanDharix there can be but one reason you persist in promoting this line. This appears to be yet another case of a moon split in half!
Err... TPC ? Allow me a rhetorical question: all that makes Islam different from other religions, nevermind the monotheist Abrahamic ones, how exactly ? Especially in instances where the hardliners, revivalists, conservatives, zealots and suchlike anal-retentives were dominant ?
Huh? If you have historical evidence of the crescent as an Islamic symbol prior to the fall of Constantinople, please share. I never said it was impossible for that to be the case, just that it seems to be, at best, guessing due to prior use of the crescent in the same area. I think it more likely the early Muslims tried to separate themselves deliberately from polytheistic symbols, and the crescent was only brought back later.
Well yes, but therein these all have a certain nail on which to hang their hats. And...
i think PC hit that nail square on the head.
Symbols are objects, characters, or other representations of ideas, concepts, or other abstractions, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
I thus submit to the court, the Islamic Calender as exhibit 'A.'
Of course lets not forget exhibit 'B', the use of Allah or Al-Ilah.
Them varmits tried to cover their tracts, but good, but I sees tem.
Allow me to answer your rhetorical question: I believe the problem to be in the formalization of the literal corpus of Islam; Specifically the Qur'an suffers froma unique problem, as the verbatim, arbitrary, uncorrupted "Word of God". This is a problem not apparent in the Bible, the Talmud (The Old Testament) or the Torah; Let alone the Easternly monotheist/dualist religions, such as Mithraism or Zoroastrianism. In accordance to the praxis in Islamic jurisprudence, or "figh", this puts an entirely much narrower tolerance in the very argument of interpretation; In fact, when this argument is voiced, whenever one verbatim quotes passages from the Qur'an, it slips by as a very convenient fallacy in rather typical stages in the polemic. The first problem would be "How could a human being judge the 'Word of God'?". This is an immense philosophical problem, which should not be overlooked by any means. How could it allow anything but a literal interpretation?
The more immediate problem becomes very obvious when one learns of the first situation: The Qur'an by itself is useless. Though it claims itself to be perfect and clear-as-crystal (Which I'd beg to differ, it's almost impossible to make out what's written without ample cross-refences), surprisingly, and obviously by fallacious grounds, it demands "tafsîr" and Hadith to make out anything from the passages therein. This is a huge problem; Tafsîr may by the definitions and parameters set by the central corpus be deemed heresy. At the same time, without it, Islam is simply the embodiment of a book of random gibberish, with absolutely no historical value by itself. The divine representation is a factor that plays against apologists. That is one way of answering your question.