Arab/Middle Eastern Paganism

So we're clear, by the middle east I'm referring to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Iran, etc. Just a few general questions about pre-islamic religion in those regions, really.

1-How come there doesn't seem to be as much information on Middle-eastern pagan religions as there is on Western European pre-christian religions? (I mean, obviously, apart from Egyptian paganism, the Saba religion, and Zoroastrianism, which seem to be pretty well-documented)

2-If there is more information on other middle-eastern pagan religions, where can I find it?

3-Has there been much research done into this area? Only most academic research into ancient religions seems to be centred around western Europe, or at least, that which I've read and seen.

4-This might be a bit of a risky question to ask, but how come there isn't (or at least I haven't heard of) a resurgence of pagan reconstructionist religions in middle eastern regions, unlike in Europe? (In western europe there's already greek and Roman reconstructionism, Druidism and Wicca, etc. I've heard of similar movements in eastern europe, but am not as well informed about that)

5-If there hasn't been that much research done into middle-eastern pre-islamic religion, how come? Is it due to lack of surviving evidence and research material?

I'm asking this out of curiosity because I can't seem to find much info on Arabic countries before the rise of Islam. There's plenty of info on Egypt, Iran, turkey (basically the area of the Sassanid empire) but not much else on anything else. Why's that?

I can't answer most of those, but as for number 4, and this might be a little risky to say although true... Nobody in muslim countries would dare study any other religion, even if that religion is ancient and dead, for fear of having their head cut off with a rusty bayonett to cries of "Allahu akbar!"

Risky indeed. Braver man than me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

I can't answer most of those, but as for number 4, and this might be a little risky to say although true... Nobody in muslim countries would dare study any other religion, even if that religion is ancient and dead, for fear of having their head cut off with a rusty bayonett to cries of "Allahu akbar!"

---

Actually thats essentially false. Not only can you study other religions in muslim countries, but you can practice others as well. This is a verifiable fact, your assertion on the other hand is not, and as it is contradicted by my own statement can be safely assumed to be a bigoted opinion formed from ignorance and possibly fear - which may, of course, say something about you.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Actually thats essentially false. Not only can you study other religions in muslim countries, but you can practice others as well. This is a verifiable fact, your assertion on the other hand is not, and as it is contradicted by my own statement can be safely assumed to be a bigoted opinion formed from ignorance and possibly fear - which may, of course, say something about you.

Foot

---

You can study other religions in a select few muslim countries, Egypt is the only one i know of where you can openly practice other religions (albeit at your own risk, they get frequent death threats and discrimination, i know because i knew an Egyptian Christian) but in most it's forbidden.

The Koran even says, i'm unsure of the exact words, that other religions and other cultures should not be tolerated or accepted, they should be conquered or destroyed.

I'm not bigoted or misinformed, although i do find islamic culture vile and barbaric, but that's because of their behaviour as of the last 1000 years and their worship of a pedophile, rapist murderer named Mohammed.

I once met a Saudi Arabian muslim through World of Warcrack, knew him on Teamspeak for about 6 months. When we first met i wanted to ask some very frank and possibly offensive questions about Islam, and i was the first Atheist he had ever met so he had questions too. I showed him various videos of beheadings, executions, women being stoned to death for 'crimes' we wouldn't even consider crimes over here, suicide bombings, torture, all the nasties from the religion of peace and love.

He told me the people committing those crimes were rebels and were following a corrupt version of Islam that they have created themselves. He told me he would never approve of killing even if the condemned had done something to really deserve it, such as rape or murder or whatever, and that prison is a more civilized and favourable punishment. He said that religion is secondary and personal and nobody has the right to interfere with somebody else because of what they believe in, and especially no right to kill or discriminate against somebody because they don't believe in the same god or gods.

He was possibly the nicest and most polite person i have ever met, if only more were like him. One night his father heard him laughing with his friends from the evil and barbaric west and destroyed his computer. He emailed me from a friends computer a few weeks later and that's the last we ever saw of him.

---------------------------

However, this conversation doesn't belong on a forum like this. Perhaps eBaumsworld or some other such forum where swearing and offensive content is allowed. If any mods want to delete my posts that's perfectly fine by me, i'd fully understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

You can study other religions in a select few muslim countries, Egypt is the only one i know of where you can openly practice other religions (albeit at your own risk, they get frequent death threats and discrimination, i know because i knew an Egyptian Christian) but in most it's forbidden.

---

Lebanon has practicing christians. So does Iraq (they also have that really old, odd sect can't remember their name). Iran has a small Jewish population, a long with the remnants of the Zoroastrians. I'm not saying that they aren't discriminated against, but to say that you end up with your head cut off is about as unfair a generalisation as you can get.

Quote:

---

The Koran even says, i'm unsure of the exact words, that other religions and other cultures should not be tolerated or accepted, they should be conquered or destroyed.

---

Not true. The Koran explicity says that no harm must come to members of other monotheistic religions (though it may be more specific and talk of Abrahamic). They got around this when at war with Christians by a rather clever interpretation of the Holy Trinity as proof that Christians are polytheistic.[/quote]

Quote:

---

I'm not bigoted or misinformed, although i do find islamic culture vile and barbaric, but that's because of their behaviour as of the last 1000 years and their worship of a pedophile, rapist murderer named Mohammed.

---

As you seem to have only a passing knowledge of Islam and the Koran, I would say any opinion you have must be taken with a grain of salt. Do you hate Christians with the same vehemence, their history has been just as bloodthirsty, if not more so. What about Atheists? Stalin was one and he had several million people put to death in just a few short years. Or do we not generalise when it comes to other belief systems?

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

(they also have that really old, odd sect can't remember their name).

---

Would that be those poeple who worship he devil (only they don't think he is the devil), and build shrines of dried mud that look like an a upside-down badly made clay mug?

Katamites?

Or is that something completely different?

It is interesting, although the author clearly has a genuine intention not to create hostility, this thread within 4 posts became an opinionated argument.

To the comment that no one studies other religions in Islamic countries for fear of "getting their head" cut off. How do you know that? Can you give evidence that depicts this happening? Even before answering those, what exactly is a Islamic country? Are all Islamic countries equal? Please inform us with more concrete information to understand your comment.

To the poster that clearly took office to the above comment. Please do not take this as an attack on you or Islam. Besides for the study of history I personally do not care to delve into religious viewpoints. What I find interesting is that you responded with a similar heavily opinion based post. What passages in the Koran speak about other religions and cultures? What exactly do they say? How are they interpreted? ARe there persecutions in certain Islamic countries that study religion outside of Islam? ARe all Islamic countries equal? What are the differences between certain countries?

This thread started as a serious intellectual investigation/discussion on Eastern paganism. If you must revert to attacking certain religions today, no matter what they are, at least use some evidence to support your claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Do you hate Christians with the same vehemence, their history has been just as bloodthirsty, if not more so.

---

Yes i do. Not Christians, just the religion.

Quote:

---

What about Atheists? Stalin was one and he had several million people put to death in just a few short years.

---

Islam and Christianity killed in the name of their religion. Stalin killed in the name of communism and political beliefs. Atheism is neither a religion nor a political belief, it's merely a disbelief in god. Find me an article of anybody that has killed in the name of Atheism and i'll be impressed. Find me proof that systematic murder of millions occured in the name of Atheism (as they have occured under other Islam and Christianity) and i will cease calling myself an Atheist and say Agnostic. (I'm already a little bit Agnostic anyways)

As for the minor religion whose name you can't remember, i believe it is Yezhidi, i probably butchered the spelling of that though. They're the ones that recently stoned to death a 19 year old girl in the street for marrying a muslim and converting to Islam and released the video on the internet. Nasty stuff. I'll PM the link to anybody that wants to see it for whatever reason but i wouldn't recommend it, it's rather depressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

As you seem to have only a passing knowledge of Islam and the Koran, I would say any opinion you have must be taken with a grain of salt. Do you hate Christians with the same vehemence, their history has been just as bloodthirsty, if not more so. What about Atheists? Stalin was one and he had several million people put to death in just a few short years. Or do we not generalise when it comes to other belief systems?

Foot

---

The funny thing about Stalin was that he was studying to becoming a Christian Greek Orthodox priest. I guess being rejected really peeved him off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

3-Has there been much research done into this area? Only most academic research into ancient religions seems to be centred around western Europe, or at least, that which I've read and seen.

---

Yes, research is done in that area. The problem is, not a huge amount, since most attention is on the effects local religious trends had on Christianity/Islam, and outside that not many have a vested interest in now lesser known religions. Research would tend to be rather esoteric, or closely linked to nationalist/ethnic interpretations, let alone that (first-party) sources are rare.

One problem in researching such things in the Arabian peninsula is that some people, and particularly those in charge and closely affiliated with upholding Islamic faith, are probably rather worried that discoveries could be made which contradict parts of the Koran, or present new views on how it developed into what is now considered more or less dogmatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

The funny thing about Stalin was that he was studying to becoming a Christian Greek Orthodox priest. I guess being rejected really peeved him off.

---

The Orthodox Christianity that was the majority religion in Georgia at the time was and is hardly "Greek". Every predominantly Orthodox country has their own "national" church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

1-How come there doesn't seem to be as much information on Middle-eastern pagan religions as there is on Western European pre-christian religions? (I mean, obviously, apart from Egyptian paganism, the Saba religion, and Zoroastrianism, which seem to be pretty well-documented)

2-If there is more information on other middle-eastern pagan religions, where can I find it?

3-Has there been much research done into this area? Only most academic research into ancient religions seems to be centred around western Europe, or at least, that which I've read and seen.

4-This might be a bit of a risky question to ask, but how come there isn't (or at least I haven't heard of) a resurgence of pagan reconstructionist religions in middle eastern regions, unlike in Europe? (In western europe there's already greek and Roman reconstructionism, Druidism and Wicca, etc. I've heard of similar movements in eastern europe, but am not as well informed about that)

5-If there hasn't been that much research done into middle-eastern pre-islamic religion, how come? Is it due to lack of surviving evidence and research material?

---

Question 1- I assume all of your questions pertain to EB. For example; 'How come there doesn't seem to be as much information on Middle-eastern pagan religions in EB?' If yes, search for the following; Baal, Ahad/Hadad/Haddu, Dagon, Mot, Set, Ishtar, Assur, El, Bel, Belos and Belus. This should get you started.

Question 3- yes. Actually Saka/Scyth is Central Asia. Little on their believes as they seem to have had no written Language. What is present was recorded by Greeks and a little by Persians. Check those sources.

Questions 2 and 5 are simply in error, and need not trouble anyone hereafter.
I'm not sure what question 4 implies, please clarify.

Ok. I see this thread has,as I feared it would, rapidly derailed into a theological argument which hasn't had the most gentle language that I can say.

Please, I don't want to start a flame war or get anyone insulted. If you have issues to discuss regarding faith please discuss them on another topic on this forum or via PMing.

As has been pointed out, this thread was not meant to insult anyone or start any flame war. I'm just for some answers with regards to what happened. If the topìc of conversation in this thread deteriorate into a hurtful flaming, I will ask for this thread to be locked.

And as to the above poster, my question was actually referred to information on pre-islamic religion in general, AND on EB. My point being: Can you name a book, or a work, that you have read that dealt specifically with Arab/Middle Eastern Paganism (That wasn't the Egyptian Religion or Zoroastrianism)

EDIT:
I'd like to thank Geoffrey S for answering point no.3. When you say that research would be influenced by nationalist/ethnic interpretations, What do you mean exactly? That the research would be biased from day 1 and would not construct the most accurate picture of the religion? Or that the research would be used for a particular group's agenda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

I'd like to thank Geoffrey S for answering point no.3. When you say that research would be influenced by nationalist/ethnic interpretations, What do you mean exactly? That the research would be biased from day 1 and would not construct the most accurate picture of the religion? Or that the research would be used for a particular group's agenda?

---

Well, what interest remains in 'smaller' religions is largely confined either to academics or to people in the direct area where such religions dominate(d) and their ties to modern ethnicities/groups inside larger nations. Living religions generate more general interest outside such groups, and while I wouldn't say it's less biased (far from it!) that does mean a larger amount of views and interpretations are available.

That said, pre-Christian and pre-Islamic religions in the Middle East and Arabia certainly have been researched, in particular their effect on said religions; mainly the effect of the various forms of Christianity on the formation of Islam. Just that it's not likely to be mainstream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

Yes i do. Not Christians, just the religion.



Islam and Christianity killed in the name of their religion. Stalin killed in the name of communism and political beliefs. Atheism is neither a religion nor a political belief, it's merely a disbelief in god. Find me an article of anybody that has killed in the name of Atheism and i'll be impressed. Find me proof that systematic murder of millions occured in the name of Atheism (as they have occured under other Islam and Christianity) and i will cease calling myself an Atheist and say Agnostic. (I'm already a little bit Agnostic anyways)

As for the minor religion whose name you can't remember, i believe it is Yezhidi, i probably butchered the spelling of that though. They're the ones that recently stoned to death a 19 year old girl in the street for marrying a muslim and converting to Islam and released the video on the internet. Nasty stuff. I'll PM the link to anybody that wants to see it for whatever reason but i wouldn't recommend it, it's rather depressing.

---

Your logic seems to say to me that people make wars and not religious or political views. In that case there is no argument. Islam doesn't kill people nor does Christianity. People kill people and claim they do it "insert religion."

Therefore a so called saying that an Islamic country cuts heads off of people is a moot point. People in power may do this, but it is not Islam doing the action.

Sorry, just saw it was Saba and not Saka. Never mind. However, the same will apply. Check Greek and Persian sources.

Hey first post for this long time lurker!

Alco: don't worry, there is still hope for this thread, especially given the straightforward and objective manner in which you posted your intellectual questions. I don't actually know any material about the pagan religions of the pre-Islamic Arab world, but I do know that large areas the Arabian Peninsula were Jewish and Christian for several centuries before Muhammed. Some of the Jewish rulers of Yemen strongly persecuted the Christians under their rule. It might be possible to say that Jewish connection goes back to King Soloman because of the Queen of Sheba (Saba), and the influence Soloman had on her and subsequently her people.

Davye: to say that you hate religions because some members of those religions have commited terrible acts seems rather irrational. I don't want to start another flame war so please don't take offense to this. I just want to point out that any and every nation has commited horrendous acts at least proportional to their size. I don't hate the Tutsi because they killed thousands of Hutu, or the Turks against the Armenians, the Mongols against, well ... everyone, or any other nation for that matter. It is not right to hate a group because some of the members don't fully understand the rules of their group.

Foot: I agree with you on most of your reply. Their are indeed many of religions represented in Islamic countries. For instance, a family I know from Indonesia (the largest Islamic nation by # of people), told me that the schools honor the religous holidays from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism and maybe even some others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Question 1- I assume all of your questions pertain to EB. For example; 'How come there doesn't seem to be as much information on Middle-eastern pagan religions in EB?' If yes, search for the following; Baal, Ahad/Hadad/Haddu, Dagon, Mot, Set, Ishtar, Assur, El, Bel, Belos and Belus. This should get you started.

Question 3- yes. Actually Saka/Scyth is Central Asia. Little on their believes as they seem to have had no written Language. What is present was recorded by Greeks and a little by Persians. Check those sources.

Questions 2 and 5 are simply in error, and need not trouble anyone hereafter.
I'm not sure what question 4 implies, please clarify.

---

Thanks for answering. I'll look up the names you listed in answering Question 1 as soon as I can.

What do you mean by questions 2 and 5 being in error? Do you mean that they contradict the other questions asked? That they are unclear? Or that asking where I can find such information, and why more research has not been done, is incorrect, since there IS information and research HAS been done.

Question 4 simply means why aren't people in predominately Islamic countries in the middle-east once again worshipping Pagan religions (Like, for example, people in Yemen going back to the Saba religion) like is being done in European countries (i.e People worshipping Reconstructionist Paganism in Greece, which is a predominately Greek Orthodox nation)?
Hope that clarifies things a bit.

BTW Thanks for clarifying Geoffrey S.

There is plenty of info on early eastern religions. In Babylonia and Assyria, they essentially worshipped the same gods from the time of the Sumerians to the time of EB. In Phoencia, the worshipped all of the Baals that you see with Carthage, who were in some way related to the Sumerians. Zoroastrianism took off in Persia and spread with the Persian Empire and even into the Roman Empire. And obviously there is a lot of info on Egyptian religions, which existed since the beginning of Egyptian culture through the Persian empire, merging (in some cases) with Greek gods, then being mostly killed by Christianity.

As for Arabian gods, there is info out there on pre-Islam, but it is harder to find and I personally know little. There was Allah, god of the moon (represented by a crescent shape), though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

What do you mean by questions 2 and 5 being in error? Do you mean that they contradict the other questions asked? Or are you referring to the theological debate they seem to have started? Or that asking where I can find such information, and why more research has not been done, is incorrect, since there IS information and research HAS been done.

---

Right, yes to all reasons. There's a lot more to that theological debate, yet I'm sure too many here have heard it too many times before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

.Question 4 simply means why aren't people in predominately Islamic countries in the middle-east once again worshipping Pagan religions (Like, for example, people in Yemen going back to the Saba religion) like is being done in European countries (i.e People worshipping Reconstructionist Paganism in Greece, which is a predominately Greek Orthodox nation)?
Hope that clarifies things a bit.

---

Well, I'm sure the answer to the last part (question 4) is actually very simple, but this will no doubt set off a fire-strom. I may add, a fire-storm I have neither the Time nor Inclination to Ignite.

Well,

I certainly know that in Turkey, far off from major cities such as Istanbul and Ancara, that people still practice a mix of Pagan believes with Islamic influence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To answer question 4), you must understand that many countries in the middle-east have not yet accepted the relatively open-minded thinking that Europe has.

And for all you people that attack Islam, I'd suggest going out there, or just visit a Mosque in your surrounding, and ask about Islam. Or heck, just read the Koran before you start calling it a bad religion.

For all you interested, I am not a muslim. I am a Celtic reconstructionist Pagan, with influences from Hellenism. My father however, is a muslim and my mother is a reformed Christian, so I consider myself to be pretty neutral.

I have a way of thinking about religion. It's that religion itself doesn't call to violence, but as soon as it starts getting organized, with people telling other people what to do (e.g. Catholic priests, Imams, Rabbis) it is going the wrong way.

TPC is gonna rape you thats all I'm gonna say .

Well, I really have no intention of turning this into a flame-war discussion again, so if it makes you feel better, I'll edit my post

The Koran?
What is this Koran?

As you all may know, the Koran was, by its very name and nature, never meant to be written down.

How could one read, that which was never written? Or better still, read that which was never meant to be, written by pretenders to a throne?

And...

in truth this Dissertation was only meant to be spoken in Arabic. As only the true believer, consider Arabic the only sacred language. Thus, in the eyes of the all mighty, the only tongue of any consequence.

I kanna read Arabic even if'n wrote down.

I was under the impression there was no problem translating that book per se; the translation just isn't a religiously valid holy text anymore.

I understand the Caliphs threw that bit in because they could, looking at the Christians, well see just what kind of trouble religiously valid translations could be...

I worry that I may have been dragged into this somewhat dubious situation of racism because I posted at the start, and it has gone downhill somewhat towards racial stereotypes and anti-muslim bias.

I'm not one of these people that feels the need to quantify his lack of racism by how many black or asian friends he has. In the part of England I live in, there aren't that many immigrants compared to other places in the country. Although we do have a dispropitionate amount of Poles.

I have one "muslim" friend. His name is Cyrus and he is from Iran. He follows Islam in much the same vein that I follow Christianity; which is very haphazardly to say the least. Cyrus is one of the most sound guys I have ever had the pleasure to meet. My life is enriched by me considering him a friend.

As an ardent atheist, I have already fallen out with my mother over my religious stance (or lack of it). I will probably fall out with my girlfriend and her family (and mine) when I announce my dissapproval of my coming child to be Christened.

I think Islam has got a bad crack from the western media since 11th September 2001. I disagree with Dayve's view of Islam, I find it to be as peaceful and caring as any other religion I have come across. You cannot judge all muslims by the actions of the few! Christianity is one of the most violent and repressive religions ever known by man over the years. Not everything that is bad in the world can be blamed on muslims or immigrants.

If these words are not 'Prophetic Pronouncement,' what value would they hold for the true believer?

For far different reasons I've a lot of experience with this sad subject; 'Prophetic Pronouncement.' Talk of kith or kin have no bearing herein. Yet, in rational terms this is the only glue that holds everything together. All else given to an apparent spontaneous emergence is little more than trimming on the cake. There are other examples and similar methods and claims, and they are always the same. Magical Words, in a Sacred Language, within a 'Prophetic Pronouncement.' This is why the true believe can always be right, and all others can always be wrong.

Personally, I just settle for detesting all zealots and suchlike more or less equally.

I the same. Yet, like the child that cries to get attention, these have an annoying way of getting in your face.

It's pretty much part of the job description, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

Would that be those poeple who worship he devil (only they don't think he is the devil), and build shrines of dried mud that look like an a upside-down badly made clay mug?

Katamites?

Or is that something completely different?

---

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yezidi#Religious_practices

I guess thats one way to say UK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

As for Arabian gods, there is info out there on pre-Islam, but it is harder to find and I personally know little. There was Allah, god of the moon (represented by a crescent shape), though.

---

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 CirdanDharix

it was originally a Byzantine device, a symbol of Artemis

---

Artemis-Byzantine?
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CirdanDharix

No, pre-Roman Byzantine--as in, the Megaran (IIRC) colony Byzantion, founded by Byzas. flags

---

Pre-Roman Byzantine, thats a bit of a leap isn't it? And... flags?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elphir

And for all you people that attack Islam, I'd suggest going out there, or just visit a Mosque in your surrounding, and ask about Islam. Or heck, just read the Koran before you start calling it a bad religion.

---

Yeah, it's nothing wrong with crucifying or beheading non-Muslims, right? Muhammed never hurt anyone, right?:laugh4:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calypze

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:

Have a look at what various ex-Muslims think about Islam:

http://www.faithfreedom.org
http://www.apostatesofislam.com
http://www.islam-watch.org

---

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 Foot

What about Atheists? Stalin was one and he had several million people put to death in just a few short years. Or do we not generalise when it comes to other belief systems?

Foot

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Pre-Roman Byzantine, thats a bit of a leap isn't it?

---

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 Watchman

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.

---

As always you seem to be spot-on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CirdanDharix

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).

---

Just a little correction :
"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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

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.

---

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...

@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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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...

@Watchman: IIRC that deity would be Ma?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Pre-Roman Byzantine, thats a bit of a leap isn't it? And... flags?

---

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

---

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 gosam

Just a little correction :
"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.

---

I usually just use capitalisation to mark the difference, so Allah I would render "God" and Ilah "god". But it is a fair reminder.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CirdanDharix

evidence of the crescent as an [early] Islamic symbol

---

Symbols are objects, characters, or other representations of ideas, concepts, or other abstractions, yes?

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.

The crescent and star/sun predates the conception of Islam by centuries; It used to be the symbol of Mithraism, and has been seen in Iranic representation of the Chaldaean pantheon equivalent to Mêhr and Helios, Shamash. The Sûrên-Pahlavân clan's badge is that of a crescent and a sun in lapis lazuli.

So ? Any Scripture always requires interpretation, doubly so if you're going to start deriving practical stuff like legislation out of it (something not exactly confined to Muslims). The Muslims at least purported to base very considerable parts of their laws on it; which naturally necessitated a whole lot of de facto "active reading" of the holy texts to see if there was something there that could be used as a guideline in the first place, and then determine what the fig it meant in practice. They had a whole class of literati whose one main job was specifically this, although I understand the institution decayed somewhat at some point.

And of course two sages could come to completely different rulings from the exact same passages. That's people for you.

As a minor reminder, one would point out that the Catholic Church once fought tooth and nail against the Bible getting translated... There have also been attempts at basing state laws on literalist readings of the Bible, chiefly by hardline Protestants (Cromwell's Puritans tried something like that, as well as Carolus XI of Sweden) for that matter.


Scriptures are nothing more than texts, and nigh invariably rather cryptic in meaning at that. The meaning of their contents, and any practical policies based on such, are supplied by the readership - whatever they might like to think. The Church didn't fight to keep the Bible in Latin just for shit and giggles, after all; it had a bit of a monopoly to maintain.

Yes, your right, but the Koran was never meant to be written in the first place. As a certain person didn't want to share power, it was designed to always be an oral tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

So ? Any Scripture always requires interpretation, doubly so if you're going to start deriving practical stuff like legislation out of it (something not exactly confined to Muslims). The Muslims at least purported to base very considerable parts of their laws on it; which naturally necessitated a whole lot of de facto "active reading" of the holy texts to see if there was something there that could be used as a guideline in the first place, and then determine what the fig it meant in practice. They had a whole class of literati whose one main job was specifically this, although I understand the institution decayed somewhat at some point.

And of course two sages could come to completely different rulings from the exact same passages. That's people for you.

As a minor reminder, one would point out that the Catholic Church once fought tooth and nail against the Bible getting translated... There have also been attempts at basing state laws on literalist readings of the Bible, chiefly by hardline Protestants (Cromwell's Puritans tried something like that, as well as Carolus XI of Sweden) for that matter.


Scriptures are nothing more than texts, and nigh invariably rather cryptic in meaning at that. The meaning of their contents, and any practical policies based on such, are supplied by the readership - whatever they might like to think. The Church didn't fight to keep the Bible in Latin just for shit and giggles, after all; it had a bit of a monopoly to maintain.

---

This does not address the purported absolute divine representation of the Qur'an. You are comparing apples with oranges, put mildly. That muslims revolve their entire legislation, and jurisprudence upon Islamic principles does not negate the fundamental weaknesses of the Islamic literal corpus. It's not just "So?" as you so succinctly put it, it should rather trigger the reaction of "How the hell did those buggers justify overlooking this obvious blunder?". I can easily spot a thousand other ways of conveniently putting the more embarassing aspects of Islam under the rug. That people do have the natural distinction (At the individual level) of interpreting things differently is not exactly breaking any grounds in my perception of Islam. I'm pointing out the philosophical problem which arises whenever the divine representation of the Qur'an is mentioned. Do you think the Qur'an, touting itself clear as glass and the ultimate source of the truth would allow for the natural human breadth of interpretation in finding truth? Then what is then the purpose of a religious book that purports itself the moral roadmap and compass of ethics and morality? Now of course, I'm not stupid in basing my entire criticism of Islam on mere polemics of the religious literary core, but I take upon myself many facets.

Like I said before, there are many ways of responding to your previous rhetorical answer; Perhaps the more powerful way is to address the conduct of Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah, as a far much more unique aspect of Islam, if the philosophical problems in the divine representation of the Qur'an does not convince you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Yes, your right, but the Koran was never meant to be written in the first place. As a certain person didn't want to share power, it was designed to always be an oral tradition.

---

I'm under the impression the Prophet himself didn't much pay attention to the whole idea of writing the faith down in the first place (he was sort of busy with other stuff anyway). His successors had the book compiled and set in stone when they realised there were already something like three different takes on the whole faith afoot in their realm, and one look at their Christian neighbours and subjects (plus some Realpolitik commonsense) told them everything they needed to know about how potentially Bad Thing this was.

Well, they were succesful inasmuch that Islam then split along (originally) political lines... :dizzy2:
That's people for ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

This does not address the purported absolute divine representation of the Qur'an. You are comparing apples with oranges, put mildly. That muslims revolve their entire legislation, and jurisprudence upon Islamic principles does not negate the fundamental weaknesses of the Islamic literal corpus. It's not just "So?" as you so succinctly put it, it should rather trigger the reaction of "How the hell did those buggers justify overlooking this obvious blunder?". I can easily spot a thousand other ways of conveniently putting the more embarassing aspects of Islam under the rug. That people do have the natural distinction (At the individual level) of interpreting things differently is not exactly breaking any grounds in my perception of Islam. I'm pointing out the philosophical problem which arises whenever the divine representation of the Qur'an is mentioned. Do you think the Qur'an, touting itself clear as glass and the ultimate source of the truth would allow for the natural human breadth of interpretation in finding truth? Then what is then the purpose of a religious book that purports itself the moral roadmap and compass of ethics and morality? Now of course, I'm not stupid in basing my entire criticism of Islam on mere polemics of the religious literary core, but I take upon myself many facets.

---

Er... is there a single Scripture that did not claim to posses some kind of Ultimate Truth ? Just take one look at how doggedly the Bible has been used to shore up conservative ideas and stall fresh ideas and progess, and how stubbornly the Vatican and diverse true-believers still drag their heels on assorted modern issues for a parallel example.

My problem with your take on the issue is that it seems to tendentiously ignore the factors you mention being pretty much universal and inherent to any Scripture and organised/hegemonic religion, and instead regards them as somehow particularly characteristic to the Islamic faith itself (nevermind now failing to account for the influence of factors external to the religion itself on ideas and policies claimed, naturally enough, by adherents to be drawn from it).

I also find your take on the matter somewhat difficult to reconcile with the rather flexible and opportunistic manner Muslims have in practice handled the matters historically; they were no worse at circumventing inconvenient doctrines with often grossly transparently half-assed excuses and creative interpretations than anyone else. ("Thou shalt not kill", anyone...?)
Nevermind when put into perspective with the praxis of other faiths.

Quote:

---

Like I said before, there are many ways of responding to your previous rhetorical answer; Perhaps the more powerful way is to address the conduct of Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah, as a far much more unique aspect of Islam, if the philosophical problems in the divine representation of the Qur'an does not convince you.

---

I'm not actually terribly interested in whatever issues you may have with the man. I've seen enough of that line of rhetoric in other contexts, and its gross similarities with the character assasination pamphlets of Medieval European clergy, to know a smear campaign when I see it.
(Besides, since Islam recognizes the earlier prophets of the Abrahamic lineage as legitimate and wholesome, it could be argued this merely gives the faith a moral high ground, on the basis of good manners already, in the issue... :beam: )

Right, that's it. I've had enough, and I already gave two warnings on this thread.

I'd like to thank everybody who contributed to the topic, especially Cmaq, Geoffrey S, and anyone else who suggested I look up names and places. I will check out the stuff you reccommended as soon as I can (which, given that my exams are now over, will be pretty soon).

Don't say I didn't give you all fair warning back on page 1, when Dayve and Foot had their debate.

If anyone wants to contribute to the thread in answering the questions I posed, please do so quickly, as I am now going to ask Teleklos Archelaou to lock this thread.

I was researching polytheistic religions in the Middle East, when I found this thread. I am delighted with some of the information, but horrified by some of the views. All together I found this enlightening enough to join this forum just to let all the participants I am grateful for your input, the information and opinion about various religious groups, stretched me. For those who participate in such forums with such honesty, I can relate with you even if I can't agree. Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roosterfire

I was researching polytheistic religions in the Middle East, when I found this thread. I am delighted with some of the information, but horrified by some of the views.

---

Indeed, the ignorance and haughty attitude dispayed by some team members on this thread is shocking. To their defence I can only say that the discussion happened five years ago and we were all much younger and sillier back then.

Now back on topic, and perhaps you might find this interesting: There actually are neo-Pagan and non-Abrahamitic movements in the "Middle East", for example a kind of neo-Shamanism seems to be popular among Turkish nationalists (themselves mostly being a group of genocidal hypocrites, but that is another issue really). Also, Zoroastrianism seems to be gaining followers among young people in Iran, who were disappointed by Islam in general and the Islamic Republic in particular. Yazidis have already been mentioned, their faith is essentially a poor man's Zoroastrianism (their negative attitude towards intermarrying with Muslims and other non-Yazidis is a big problem, especially among those who have emigrated).
Some Islamic sects such as Alevis are also very likely strongly influenced by "pagan" customs.

what Athanaric said about modern traces of paganism in the near east.

I'd also add that the Arabs when they practiced polytheism had a religion that was centered on a few deities: The first place I'd recommend--not knowing any better, would be the book of idols, written by Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi al-kalbi. I'll tell you it's not the world's most objective book, but it's a start.

the religion itself is no longer practiced (AFAIK), but it has some imprint on Arab culture (superstitions particularly) and religious beliefs as well.