Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 20:28 Post subject: Muslim Slavery
Hi,
Now that many people who is part of the African Diaspora in the Americas identify with the Muslim world, perhaps is time to remember the history of Black African slaves in the Islamic countries of the past. Moors, Egyptians, Arabs, and other people treated Subsaharian Africans very badly, as this article show. However, is a biassed "Christian" article, it shows a lot of true.
Take a look
Quote:
The Scourge of Slavery
THE REST OF THE STORY
Over 28 Million Africans have been enslaved over the Muslim world over the past 14 centuriesWhile much has been written concerning the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, surprisingly little attention has been given to the Islamic slave trade across the Sahara, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. While the European involvement in the Trans Atlantic slave trade to the Americas lasted for just over three centuries, the Arab involvement in the slave trade has lasted fourteen centuries, and in some parts of the Muslim world is still continuing to this day.
CONTRASTS IN CAPTIVITY
A comparison of the Islamic slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts. While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic slave trade. Two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims.
While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade was between 80 and 90%!
While almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, most of the slaves destined for the Muslim Middle East were for sexual exploitation as concubines, in harems, and for military service.
While many children were born to slaves in the Americas, and millions of their descendants are citizens in Brazil and the USA to this day, very few descendants of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East survive.
While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were castrated, and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Fri 28 Jul 2006 15:32 Post subject: Re: Muslim Slavery
Yes, its true, I'm guilty of not learning enough about the ravages of the the Arabian Slave Trade. I'd feel this must be even more problematic for black followers of orthodox Islam.
Part of the being blind to the Arabian trade may come down to the lack in black identified populations in Muslim nations. Like in Sudan, black Africans see themselves as Muslims, yet they get slaughtered by their Arab Muslim brothers.
Posted: Fri 28 Jul 2006 16:02 Post subject: Re: Muslim Slavery
oevega wrote:
Hi,
Now that many people who is part of the African Diaspora in the Americas identify with the Muslim world, perhaps is time to remember the history of Black African slaves in the Islamic countries of the past. Moors, Egyptians, Arabs, and other people treated Subsaharian Africans very badly, as this article show. However, is a biassed "Christian" article, it shows a lot of true.
Take a look
Quote:
The Scourge of Slavery
THE REST OF THE STORY
Over 28 Million Africans have been enslaved over the Muslim world over the past 14 centuriesWhile much has been written concerning the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, surprisingly little attention has been given to the Islamic slave trade across the Sahara, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. While the European involvement in the Trans Atlantic slave trade to the Americas lasted for just over three centuries, the Arab involvement in the slave trade has lasted fourteen centuries, and in some parts of the Muslim world is still continuing to this day.
CONTRASTS IN CAPTIVITY
A comparison of the Islamic slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts. While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic slave trade. Two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims.
While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade was between 80 and 90%!
While almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, most of the slaves destined for the Muslim Middle East were for sexual exploitation as concubines, in harems, and for military service.
While many children were born to slaves in the Americas, and millions of their descendants are citizens in Brazil and the USA to this day, very few descendants of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East survive.
While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were castrated, and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth.
Black Americans ( or others of the "African Diaspora" I'm sure) that convert to Islam could care less about the Trans Saharan Slave Trade that occurred centuries ago.
Islam brings order into Black Americans lives. She address the struggles and social ills facing her. All Christianity does is tell some poor kid under constant threat of violence to go get f-ked over. All Secularism does is tell some poor kid unloved to get more money, get more money, and get more money.
Islam brings hearth, fraternity, and warrior values.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 28 Jul 2006 16:09 Post subject: Re: Muslim Slavery
e harmoni wrote:
..Black Americans ( or others of the "African Diaspora" I'm sure) that convert to Islam could care less about the Trans Saharan Slave Trade that occurred centuries ago.
Islam brings order into Black Americans lives. She address the struggles and social ills facing her. All Christianity does is tell some poor kid under constant threat of violence to go get f-ked over. All Secularism does is tell some poor kid unloved to get more money, get more money, and get more money.
Perhaps Protestantism is not the way to go, anyways. And the consumer society is not a very spiritual source either.
Quote:
Islam brings hearth, fraternity, and warrior values.
I doubt that. As a descendent of Spaniards (and others) I have hardwired in my mind that the only way to stop Islam is to kick them at the back way out of where one lives. And after the killings of 200 Spaniards in the Madrid train bombings, I believe that Islam is not a religion that spread fraterity at all.
Joined: 03 Jun 2005 {Posts: 274 } Location: California
Posted: Fri 28 Jul 2006 20:12 Post subject: Re: Muslim Slavery
e harmoni wrote:
Omar,
Black Americans ( or others of the "African Diaspora" I'm sure) that convert to Islam could care less about the Trans Saharan Slave Trade that occurred centuries ago.
Islam brings order into Black Americans lives. She address the struggles and social ills facing her. All Christianity does is tell some poor kid under constant threat of violence to go get f-ked over. All Secularism does is tell some poor kid unloved to get more money, get more money, and get more money.
Islam brings hearth, fraternity, and warrior values.
I was very interested in Islam in my youth.
I am by no means an expert, but Islam takes much of its' teachings (and prophets) from Judaism and Christianity. But it picks and chooses what to use based on the cultural times of when it was founded by Mohammed. And it was all for Muhammed's personal benefit. (Aisha comes to mind.)
Islam will dictate one's day from sunrise to sunset, which appeals can appeal to a debased and oppressed population who needs order. It can be comforting to be told what to do and how to think. (I do admire the discipline that Islam gives to incarcerated individuals.)
"Hearths" are destroyed though senseless sectarian violence. "Fraternity" occurs along, economic, racial and ethnic lines. And "warrior values" are no way for progress in a modern world (see: terrorism).
Islam (especially Arabism) also destroys other cultures and seeks to turn the whole world Muslim. While Muslims can live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors, Islam's goal is to cover the earth (jihad).
Islam does not encourage free thought or dissent (see: fatwa), and it encourages and nurtures class oppression ('getting f-ed over', as you put it, especially by other Muslims). Greed exists, and wealth is not distributed. Alms for the poor is tolken. Where's the progress in Muslim societies?
And don't get me started on sharia law and the oppression of women. Women should not be abused for not covering their hair or wearing a burqa. And women should have equal rights.
Posted: Fri 28 Jul 2006 23:50 Post subject: Re: Muslim Slavery
femmedecouleur wrote:
e harmoni wrote:
Omar,
Black Americans ( or others of the "African Diaspora" I'm sure) that convert to Islam could care less about the Trans Saharan Slave Trade that occurred centuries ago.
Islam brings order into Black Americans lives. She address the struggles and social ills facing her. All Christianity does is tell some poor kid under constant threat of violence to go get f-ked over. All Secularism does is tell some poor kid unloved to get more money, get more money, and get more money.
Islam brings hearth, fraternity, and warrior values.
I was very interested in Islam in my youth.
I am by no means an expert, but Islam takes much of its' teachings (and prophets) from Judaism and Christianity. But it picks and chooses what to use based on the cultural times of when it was founded by Mohammed. And it was all for Muhammed's personal benefit. (Aisha comes to mind.)
Islam will dictate one's day from sunrise to sunset, which appeals can appeal to a debased and oppressed population who needs order. It can be comforting to be told what to do and how to think. (I do admire the discipline that Islam gives to incarcerated individuals.)
"Hearths" are destroyed though senseless sectarian violence. "Fraternity" occurs along, economic, racial and ethnic lines. And "warrior values" are no way for progress in a modern world (see: terrorism).
Islam (especially Arabism) also destroys other cultures and seeks to turn the whole world Muslim. While Muslims can live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors, Islam's goal is to cover the earth (jihad).
Islam does not encourage free thought or dissent (see: fatwa), and it encourages and nurtures class oppression ('getting f-ed over', as you put it, especially by other Muslims). Greed exists, and wealth is not distributed. Alms for the poor is tolken. Where's the progress in Muslim societies?
And don't get me started on sharia law and the oppression of women. Women should not be abused for not covering their hair or wearing a burqa. And women should have equal rights.
I'll stop here.
You are correct you are not an expert on Islam. John Paul II is said to have kissed the Quran. The Vatican has an entire institute devoted to Islam. I believe it is refered to as the Pontifical Academy for Arabic and Islamic Studies (something like that). Islamic mystics also helped shape Christian mystics.
As for strife and war. Both the Islamic and Christian worlds have known this - so have the worlds of ideology (e.g. Democracy vs Communism). Such is life. The great Ottoman Empire, in her redoubtable strength and silk flags, did not have the turmoil and infighting that Christian Europe once had centuries ago.
"Terrorism" is a tactic. It's employed not just by NGO's but by nations states. Currently Israel has inflicted no less terror on the cities of Lebanon and no less damage to her infastructure than Al Qaida did to New York City. The United States Government by the way supports this terrorism. The United States her self conducted a terrorizing tactic when it fire bombed Tokyo. The emotionalism in the phrase "terrorism" is of political construct. The Brits called the Americans and George Washignton a terrorist at one time. And there was a time when Nelson Mandela of South Africa was called a "terrorist." The status quo uses the term "terrorist" to demonize any NGO that would challenge its authority with it's own classic 21st century warfare principles (e.g. attack the civilian sectors to force the opposing government to cede to your demands)
There are however things I don't care for about Islam. And I'm not certain my conviction in Mohammed. I'm still very a young brother of Jesus and give great honors onto Santa Maria. But Islam address my world and Islam through everything, through all the media hype over "Islamic terrorism," still has a Muslim women population that gives fidelity to Islamic men in the darkest of Islamic hours.
There is truth in loyalty and I love loyalty. And Islam has loyalty. At least in her women. To me, their must be something holy and golden in that, Islamic women bear some Divine truth I do not know or see in Christianity.
My mother is Catholic, she attends mass. She gave me a hard time for taking interest in learning theology and history of the Church. She would prefer I adhere to her doctrines than that of the Church or Pope. She had only ever spoken down on Christianity and only spoken highly of Islam. She would probably assume by her rethoric that a Muslim crashing into the Twin Towers to seek eternal life with virgins may possibly be worthy of sainthood because under the Christian praxis: "you shouldn't judge." However, she would probably think a Republican, whom works two jobs, and is faithful to his wife, and whom raises his sons with confidence and "moral" direction, ought be doomed eternally into hell.
I've tired of much of the empty rethoric I've heard from Christians. I've tired of the hatred and rethoric from secular people. I don't fear Islam.
I prefer most though, Brazilian secularism. It's tolerance and easy going ways. I would fight for Brazil against Islam if any Islamic forces ever attempted to place her under sharia. Other than that I pro-Islam, minus some of the mean and hateful people in Islam.
Catholicism is not the beginning nor end of all that is Christian.
In fact, many Christians (Protestants) subscribe to the notion that the Catholic church is a christian cult, on par with Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. Be informed.
When critiquing Christianity, look to the Bible and/or its central fugure- Jesus- and not to religious denominations. Likewise, when critiquing Islam, look to Mohammed.
I would not be suprised to hear that the Pope had kissd the Quran as pope John Paul had met to agree with Hindu, Muslim and Ba'hai leaders promoting unity. But does the Bible promote interfaith dialogue? What did Jesus say about other religions? What did Jesus say will happen to those who are not His Sheep?
P.S. Read up on current Brazilian religious practices. In 20 years, Brazil will not be secular or Catholic.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 31 Jul 2006 14:38 Post subject: Catholics
Melani23 wrote:
Catholicism is not the beginning nor end of all that is Christian.
In fact, many Christians (Protestants) subscribe to the notion that the Catholic church is a christian cult, on par with Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. Be informed.
Well, Catholics believe the Catholic churches (Roman, Ortodox, Oriental) are the real churches founded by Peter and Paul. And believe Protestants are a bunch of naughty boys that have in common their hate the Virgin Mary
Quote:
When critiquing Christianity, look to the Bible and/or its central fugure- Jesus- and not to religious denominations. Likewise, when critiquing Islam, look to Mohammed.
I Agree. But which part of the Bible? The old or the New testament. Things are totally different depending on which part of the Bible you embrace the most.
Quote:
I would not be suprised to hear that the Pope had kissd the Quran as pope John Paul had met to agree with Hindu, Muslim and Ba'hai leaders promoting unity. But does the Bible promote interfaith dialogue? What did Jesus say about other religions? What did Jesus say will happen to those who are not His Sheep?
Yes. Christian fundamentalist also exist. Remember what Paul said, instead.
Quote:
P.S. Read up on current Brazilian religious practices. In 20 years, Brazil will not be secular or Catholic.
Sure. If you believe on that probably you believe in Santa Clauss as well.
Perhaps you don't understand how deep are the roots of Catholicism in Latin America. No way new age religions -protestant included- will replace the Catholic church so easy. Believing that is just not knowing the region.
Catholicism is not the beginning nor end of all that is Christian.
In fact, many Christians (Protestants) subscribe to the notion that the Catholic church is a christian cult, on par with Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. Be informed.
I'm aware of what many Protestant groups think (of course the Methodists have just signed on to the Catholic-Lutheran agreement on the justification issue). The Black side of my family was basicly all Protestants except for one great aunt (she was Catholic) and I came up in the United States and in a predominately Black neighborhood in the Midwest, which means I've heard Catholic bashing all my life.
If you haven't noticed by the way, Black Protestants in the U.S. including their most prized political leaders, all cede accolades of greatness to Islam as well the NOI (neo-Islamics).
Quote:
When critiquing Christianity, look to the Bible and/or its central fugure- Jesus- and not to religious denominations. Likewise, when critiquing Islam, look to Mohammed.
Thanks for the advice but I've already read a fair amount of theology, Christian history, and I already had one Pope in John Paul II, I'm not sure I need you as my Pope.
Quote:
I would not be suprised to hear that the Pope had kissd the Quran as pope John Paul had met to agree with Hindu, Muslim and Ba'hai leaders promoting unity. But does the Bible promote interfaith dialogue? What did Jesus say about other religions? What did Jesus say will happen to those who are not His Sheep?
Yes John Paul II worked very hard at building bridges with other faiths and especially at helping reconcile with the Orthodox Churches.
Quote:
P.S. Read up on current Brazilian religious practices. In 20 years, Brazil will not be secular or Catholic.
I'm aware of the great inroads Evangelical Protestantism has made in Brazil. Very true most Christians in Brazil will be Evangelical Protestants in the future (unless something changes that). But Brazil will be largely secular. I'm afraid you misjudge Brazil if you believe otherwise.
You are correct you are not an expert on Islam. John Paul II is said to have kissed the Quran.
And this means what exactly? Was this symbolic gesture of ecumenism on the part of the Pope seen the same way by many Muslims as it was meant to be by the Pope? Would an Islamic scholar who is not a Sufi mystic kiss the New and Old Testament?
Quote:
The Vatican has an entire institute devoted to Islam. I believe it is refered to as the Pontifical Academy for Arabic and Islamic Studies (something like that). Islamic mystics also helped shape Christian mystics.
I would contest this. Didn’t Christian mysticism predate Islamic mysticism? Also, Islamic mystics-Sufis, were heavily influenced by Gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and (in the case of sub-Saharan Africa) animism or polytheism. These were the religious currents the Arab Muslims and the converted peoples came in contact with when they conquered other lands.
Quote:
As for strife and war. Both the Islamic and Christian worlds have known this - so have the worlds of ideology (e.g. Democracy vs Communism). Such is life. The great Ottoman Empire, in her redoubtable strength and silk flags, did not have the turmoil and infighting that Christian Europe once had centuries ago.
That’s because the Ottoman Empire at its peak was able to subjugate its conquered people, including her subjects in Europe (Greece and the Balkans), into a single empire. Christian Europe was divided into several competing monarchies.
Quote:
"Terrorism" is a tactic. It's employed not just by NGO's but by nations states. Currently Israel has inflicted no less terror on the cities of Lebanon and no less damage to her infastructure than Al Qaida did to New York City. The United States Government by the way supports this terrorism. The United States her self conducted a terrorizing tactic when it fire bombed Tokyo. The emotionalism in the phrase "terrorism" is of political construct. The Brits called the Americans and George Washignton a terrorist at one time. And there was a time when Nelson Mandela of South Africa was called a "terrorist." The status quo uses the term "terrorist" to demonize any NGO that would challenge its authority with it's own classic 21st century warfare principles (e.g. attack the civilian sectors to force the opposing government to cede to your demands)
This is obfuscation and negationism….If everyone is a terrorist then noone is. I suppose the Shiites in Southern Lebanon shouldn’t get upset when people call Hezbollah a terrorist group and they and others should refrain from calling Israel’s reaction to being bombed by Hezbollah terrorist because one man’s terrorist is another man’s [fill in the blank].
Quote:
There are however things I don't care for about Islam. And I'm not certain my conviction in Mohammed. I'm still very a young brother of Jesus and give great honors onto Santa Maria. But Islam address my world and Islam through everything, through all the media hype over "Islamic terrorism," still has a Muslim women population that gives fidelity to Islamic men in the darkest of Islamic hours.
There is truth in loyalty and I love loyalty. And Islam has loyalty. At least in her women. To me, their must be something holy and golden in that, Islamic women bear some Divine truth I do not know or see in Christianity.
Loyalty isn’t a good thing necessarily. If I’m loyal to a significant other who emotionally abuses me or physically abuses me is this a good thing? And what is the “Divine truth” that Muslim women bear that you do not see in Christianity?
Quote:
I've tired of much of the empty rethoric I've heard from Christians. I've tired of the hatred and rethoric from secular people. I don't fear Islam.
But not tired of the rhetoric, intolerance, and violence coming from many in Islamic quarters? I mean I was pretty fearful when a learned, respected religious leader took a contract out on a writer for writing a book he thought was blasphemous. And this was in the latter 20th Century. Many countries: Israel, India, South Africa (?), much of the Arab world, banned the book out of fear of what would happen if some of their Muslim population got riled up about the book being available for purchase. Or maybe the book was banned out of respect for that religion.
I was fearful of the rioting in Nigeria (hundreds killed) when Northern Nigerian Islamic leaders worked themselves into a frenzy when they found out that the Miss Universe Pageant would be held in their country.
Quote:
I prefer most though, Brazilian secularism. It's tolerance and easy going ways. I would fight for Brazil against Islam if any Islamic forces ever attempted to place her under sharia. Other than that I pro-Islam, minus some of the mean and hateful people in Islam.
This last sentence is puzzling. You would fight for a country you’ve never visited and whose language you don’t speak if Muslims attempted to impose sharia on that society. Yet it is okay if Muslims attempt to do it elsewhere, even when many of their co-religionists would rather not live under sharia? Islam, unlike Christianity, is more rigidly monotheistic. Hence, in a place like Brazil, even without imposing sharia, Muslims on average would be much more intolerant of some Brazilians’ religious practices-Orisha worship, spirtism, etc.- than many evangelical Christians are in Brazil today. Catholicism has made its peace with African-based religions in Brazil. But the rigid monotheism of Islam makes it much less tolerant and easygoing towards some of the things that exist in Brazilian society.
Also, if you are willing to disassociate the mean and hateful people in Islam from the religion itself, why do you seem unable to do this with Christians and “secular” people (with the exception of the “secularism” of Brazil)?
Finally, to be pro-Islam should mean to accept the universal truth of Islam and submit yourself (Islam means submission) to the will of god. It also means accepting, according to Islam, that Christianity and Judaism are both distortions of god’s true message, which Muslims have received from Muhammad. If one is pro Islam, in my opinion, one should be a Muslim.
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. But then I operate from the premise that all religions are man made anyway.
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. ...
Interesting. I never heard that before. The timing is right. Nestorianism was at its most widespread during Muhammad's lifetime -- all the way to China, IIRC.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 31 Jul 2006 20:57 Post subject: Christ
fwsweet wrote:
G-Man wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. ...
Interesting. I never heard that before. The timing is right. Nestorianism was at its most widespread during Muhammad's lifetime -- all the way to China, IIRC.
Curiously enough, some say that Christ was part of the Essenes and that he also had Budist influences.
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. ...
Interesting. I never heard that before. The timing is right. Nestorianism was at its most widespread during Muhammad's lifetime -- all the way to China, IIRC.
Yes..This is a theory propagated in some quarters and I believe is the main theme of a book by a German writer who, understandably, writes under a pseudonym. In the mid or late 70s some German (?) archaeologists came across the ruins of a very old mosque. In it was the oldest extant copy of the Quran, or what was left of it. If memory serves, the pieces were taken back to Germany and pieced together. The translations differ significantly from today’s Quran. Naturally, this challenges Islamic teaching that the Quran was the unchanged word of god given to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.
Some of the information contained in this document, has led some scholars to conclude that Muhammad may have been an actual Nestorian Christian and much of the information in the Quran is pilfered from the New and Old Testaments but mistranslated by Muhammad and others. There are variations of this theory as well, some of which posit that Muhammad was a mythical character created by the early kalifs of Islam.
There is a scholar somewhere in Germany using the alias Christoph Luxenberg. He has published a book called Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Quränsprache. He uses a pseudonym because he thinks many Moslems will want to kill him when they find out about it. In this he is undoubtedly correct.
What Luxenberg has done is applied the same methods of philology and linguistics to the Qur’an that were applied to the Christian Bible beginning in the mid-19th century. I have not read the book itself as I have no German, but when I read several summaries of its conclusions I was struck by the sense they made of some odd facts I had picked up over the years. Such as the datum that there is a Christian monastery in the Sinai which received a special immunity, apparently from Mohammed himself, under terms its abbots have kept mum about for 1400 years. And the curious resemblance (you have to have read both the Qur’an and some odd Christian sources to notice, but I have) between the rhetoric of the Qur’an and that of a now-forgotten group of Christian ‘heretics’ called Monophysites who were particularly strong in the Syria and Arabia of Mohammed’s time. And the fact that early Muslims knelt to pray towards Jerusalem, not Mecca.
Mohammed was probably a Christian of a Nestorian or Monophysite stripe, and the Qur’an originally intended as a commentary or gloss on the Syriac recension of the Christian Bible. The surah or section of the Qur’an that Moslems believe is the oldest contains an exhortation to take the Christian Eucharist.
In fact, it is almost certain that the concept of an Islamic identity separate from Syriac Christianity did not develop in Mohammed’s lifetime; there are hints that it was a political creation of the Caliphate, constructed soon after Mohammed’s death by the Caliph ‘Othman. Notably, he had burned all recensions of the sayings of Mohammed other than the one prepared under his control.
Many textual difficulties in the Qur’an vanish once it is realized that a lot of the words in it are fossilized Aramaic. Luxenberg wanders deep into technical philology here and you have to know a lot of details about early Semitic writing systems, including the fact that they didn’t record vowels. (I know enough to smell that Luxenberg has a hell of a strong case.) But the upshot is that you can go to Syrio-Aramaic vocabularies and extract clear readings from many passages that are maddeningly obscure if you’re running under the assumption that they are written in the vocabulary of later Arabic.
Remember the brief rash of news stories about “72 virgins” actually meaning “72 white grapes”? That was Luxenberg reading the Qur’an in its original Syrio-Aramaic-derived vocabulary.
Islamic scholars of the Qur’an lost the knowledge of the Qur’an’s Aramaic origins shortly after ‘Othman’s book-burning. There are hints of it in the oldest hadith (traditional saying of Mohammed) but the hints don’t make any sense until you do the philology, at which point they snap into focus and startle the crap out of you. The traditional Islamic accounts of the Qur’an’s origins are are best confused, and at worst pure inventions of the Umaiyyad propaganda machine that was busily turning Mohammed’s reform of Syriac Christianity into a new religion as the basis for empire
And more information from American Atheists (yes I know they are atheists, but there is quite a bit of good information here about the possible origins of Islam and the Quran): An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
And this means what exactly? Was this symbolic gesture of ecumenism on the part of the Pope seen the same way by many Muslims as it was meant to be by the Pope? Would an Islamic scholar who is not a Sufi mystic kiss the New and Old Testament?
Supposedly, or so it is said, John Paul II did it to symbolize respect for truth to be found in Islam. Not to say Islam is all true, but rather that truth can be found in Islam also.
Quote:
I would contest this. Didn’t Christian mysticism predate Islamic mysticism? Also, Islamic mystics-Sufis, were heavily influenced by Gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and (in the case of sub-Saharan Africa) animism or polytheism. These were the religious currents the Arab Muslims and the converted peoples came in contact with when they conquered other lands.
It is true so far as I know, that Sufi Islam orginated or at least was shaped by, Christian mystics. Nonetheless Islam returned the favor to Christian mysticism when it controlled parts of Spain.
Quote:
That’s because the Ottoman Empire at its peak was able to subjugate its conquered people, including her subjects in Europe (Greece and the Balkans), into a single empire. Christian Europe was divided into several competing monarchies.
No doubt. The U.S. retained its unity by subjugating the southern states under the federal powers in the U.S. Civil War. The United States, Mexico, and Brazil were formed by subjugation.
Quote:
This is obfuscation and negationism….If everyone is a terrorist then noone is. I suppose the Shiites in Southern Lebanon shouldn’t get upset when people call Hezbollah a terrorist group and they and others should refrain from calling Israel’s reaction to being bombed by Hezbollah terrorist because one man’s terrorist is another man’s [fill in the blank].
I don't think I argued everyone is a terrorist. I don't think everyone that has stolen something in their life can be reduced to a "theif" for the rest of their life. I simply stated a simple tactical fact: that what we refer to as "terrorism" is a tactic and one practiced by nation states. I Also stated that the term "terrorist" is used as political propaganda to demonize NGO's. That's not to say all NGO's are on par with one another, but is to acknowledge that any NGO that challenges the status quo risks being labeled a "terrorist" group by the status quo and officials put in place to protect the interests of the status quo.
You are mistaken if you believe Western Military is one of benevolent tradition. What has made her so effect for centuries is her willingness to put huge sums of money into military arms and related tech as well her great ferocity. So military historian Geoffry Parker (sp?) believes. Where oh where are the Amerindians today? Protected by Western militaries why did Zionist set up statehood in Palestine and not Texas? "Democracies" have proven more colonial than Hezbollah or Hamas.
Quote:
Loyalty isn’t a good thing necessarily. If I’m loyal to a significant other who emotionally abuses me or physically abuses me is this a good thing? And what is the “Divine truth” that Muslim women bear that you do not see in Christianity?
All Muslim women are not abused.
Loyalty is that divine truth. Great, great, loyalty.
Quote:
But not tired of the rhetoric, intolerance, and violence coming from many in Islamic quarters? I mean I was pretty fearful when a learned, respected religious leader took a contract out on a writer for writing a book he thought was blasphemous. And this was in the latter 20th Century. Many countries: Israel, India, South Africa (?), much of the Arab world, banned the book out of fear of what would happen if some of their Muslim population got riled up about the book being available for purchase. Or maybe the book was banned out of respect for that religion.
I was fearful of the rioting in Nigeria (hundreds killed) when Northern Nigerian Islamic leaders worked themselves into a frenzy when they found out that the Miss Universe Pageant would be held in their country.
Yes the Islamic world has some problems now. I'm confident they can work through it. If they don't then they will remain in the state, or worse, that they are in now.
Quote:
This last sentence is puzzling. You would fight for a country you’ve never visited and whose language you don’t speak if Muslims attempted to impose sharia on that society. Yet it is okay if Muslims attempt to do it elsewhere, even when many of their co-religionists would rather not live under sharia? Islam, unlike Christianity, is more rigidly monotheistic. Hence, in a place like Brazil, even without imposing sharia, Muslims on average would be much more intolerant of some Brazilians’ religious practices-Orisha worship, spirtism, etc.- than many evangelical Christians are in Brazil today. Catholicism has made its peace with African-based religions in Brazil. But the rigid monotheism of Islam makes it much less tolerant and easygoing towards some of the things that exist in Brazilian society.
I regard Brazil - my Brazil - similar to the way some people regard the United States. Her ideals and culture are worth saving (Brazil).
Islam is more puritan than Catholicism just like the original Protestant Reformation Churches were. In many respects it was Eastern Christianity's Reformation. I don't care for this aspect of Islam - but then again maybe that just because I was not raised Islamic.
Quote:
Also, if you are willing to disassociate the mean and hateful people in Islam from the religion itself, why do you seem unable to do this with Christians and “secular” people (with the exception of the “secularism” of Brazil)?
I do to a certain extant. And I think to a very good level. Granted I have been fortunate not to have as negative experiences in Christianity or Catholicism specificly as some people. That I am thankful for. I'm also thankful for and appreciative of all the Christians and clergy of kind, honest, and disciplined nature who I have encountered and associated with (secular people too). Nonetheless, I feel certain enough of my experiences for a long enough time with Christians and seculars of various stripe, has been to level and length (time) of negative experiences that the vast majority of people would have taken my similar route much sonner and faster than I did. That's my belief.
Quote:
Finally, to be pro-Islam should mean to accept the universal truth of Islam and submit yourself (Islam means submission) to the will of god. It also means accepting, according to Islam, that Christianity and Judaism are both distortions of god’s true message, which Muslims have received from Muhammad. If one is pro Islam, in my opinion, one should be a Muslim.
That's your opinion. I have my own opinion as well my own convictions. Many Americans support Israel with out being Israeli. I support Islam without being Islamic.
Quote:
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. But then I operate from the premise that all religions are man made anyway.
Yes, some have tried to claim Mohammed was a heretic, Hillare Belloc (sp?) I believe proposed this. But to be a heretic in Christianity one would first have to be a Christian. I don't think Mohammed was, not at this point I don't. He seems to have been around Christians and more than likely shaped by them to some degree. Certainly Islam adapted some things from Eastern Christianity.
Posted: Tue 01 Aug 2006 02:09 Post subject: Re: Christ
oevega wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
G-Man wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, Muhammad was probably a Nestorian Christian who made Islam up. ...
Interesting. I never heard that before. The timing is right. Nestorianism was at its most widespread during Muhammad's lifetime -- all the way to China, IIRC.
Curiously enough, some say that Christ was part of the Essenes and that he also had Budist influences.
The world is round, I guess.
Omar
People claim all sorts of things. Buddhist have the same problems Christians, Muslims, and most other people have at times. That is attempting to interpret anothers culture through your own cultural lens.
As such Buddhist or those less knowledgable about Christianity or Jesus, attempt to understand the Old Testament and New Testament writings the way one reads Buddhist sacred texts. This is innacurate though. Having an interest in both Christianity and Buddhism I can tell you Jesus was clearly Jewish and of the Jewish faith. Jesus was the most fire and brim stone prophet of the entire Bible. His choice of Twelve Apostles had nothing to do with Buddhist tradition, his choice of bread instead of rice at the Last Supper had nothing to do with Buddhist tradition, his recital of Old Testament scripture had nothing to do with Buddhist tradition. Furthermore Buddhist believe the material world is our source of suffering, everything is an illusion, and there is no God. Clearly Jesus displayed his Jewish roots when he said "Our Father who art in Heaven..."
From wine, to bread, to spitting in dirt and rubbing it on a blind persons eyes, Jesus taught a connection to salvation rooted in the embrace of the natural world not a fleeing from the material world to obtain nirvana.
But it picks and chooses what to use based on the cultural times of when it was founded by Mohammed. And it was all for Muhammed's personal benefit. (Aisha comes to mind.)
I don't think I argued everyone is a terrorist. I don't think everyone that has stolen something in their life can be reduced to a "theif" for the rest of their life. I simply stated a simple tactical fact: that what we refer to as "terrorism" is a tactic and one practiced by nation states. I Also stated that the term "terrorist" is used as political propaganda to demonize NGO's. That's not to say all NGO's are on par with one another, but is to acknowledge that any NGO that challenges the status quo risks being labeled a "terrorist" group by the status quo and officials put in place to protect the interests of the status quo.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are both NGOs that challenge the status quo, but they are not seen as terrorist organizations, so it is not axiomatic that an NGO that challenges the status quo is seen as a terrorist organization. An NGO is simply a non-governmental organization. Some NGOs, like Hamas and Hezbollah (I assume you are referring to them since the statement above lacks context), are multi-faceted: they are social welfare organizations, political parties, militias, and entities that carry out attacks on other countries or leaders within their own nation. It is the last thing that gets them labeled terrorist organizations. If terrorism is a tactic practiced by nation states, then terrorism can easily be a tactic practiced by NGOs as well. If we accept this possibility, then an “NGO” that engages in this tactic, regardless of whether or not it challenges the “status quo” can indeed be seen as engaging in terrorist activity.
Quote:
You are mistaken if you believe Western Military is one of benevolent tradition. What has made her so effect for centuries is her willingness to put huge sums of money into military arms and related tech as well her great ferocity. So military historian Geoffry Parker (sp?) believes. Where oh where are the Amerindians today?
On the contrary I do not believe this. What I reject is the assumption on the part of others that actions like colonialism, militarism, etc. are unique to the West. We can just as easily ask where are the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Copts, and Zoroastrians today.
Quote:
Protected by Western militaries why did Zionist set up statehood in Palestine and not Texas? "Democracies" have proven more colonial than Hezbollah or Hamas.
Actually, Zionist settlers started filtering into Palestine during the time when Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were not part of the Western powers. Settlement continued after the fall of the Ottomans and the ceding of that territory to the British after WWI. It was the Balfour Declaration that officially indicated Britain’s support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, but it wouldn’t be until 1948 that what we know as Israel would be established.
Incidentally, NGOs like the Stern Gang and the Irgun employed the tactic of terrorism to force Britain out of Palestine. Their behavior suggests that Western militaries-in this case the British-may have been less than enthusiastic about the establishment of a Jewish homeland and not particularly willing to protect Jews as they went about the business of setting up their own state in British-mandated Palestine.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are both NGOs that challenge the status quo, but they are not seen as terrorist organizations, so it is not axiomatic that an NGO that challenges the status quo is seen as a terrorist organization. An NGO is simply a non-governmental organization. Some NGOs, like Hamas and Hezbollah (I assume you are referring to them since the statement above lacks context), are multi-faceted: they are social welfare organizations, political parties, militias, and entities that carry out attacks on other countries or leaders within their own nation. It is the last thing that gets them labeled terrorist organizations. If terrorism is a tactic practiced by nation states, then terrorism can easily be a tactic practiced by NGOs as well. If we accept this possibility, then an “NGO” that engages in this tactic, regardless of whether or not it challenges the “status quo” can indeed be seen as engaging in terrorist activity.
By stating that "terrorism" is a tactic is simply a statement of it's truth. The fallacy is to conclude Hezbollah is a "terrorist" orginization and that the nation state of Israel and the United States are not. That's my problem, and it that reason you will military historeians that dismiss the emotional and political term "terrorists." The United States has without doubt terrorized more peope around the earth than Hezbollah has. So if Hezbollah is a terrorist NGO than the United States can only logically be concluded to be a terrorist nation state.
Quote:
On the contrary I do not believe this. What I reject is the assumption on the part of others that actions like colonialism, militarism, etc. are unique to the West. We can just as easily ask where are the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Copts, and Zoroastrians today.
Point taken.
Quote:
Actually, Zionist settlers started filtering into Palestine during the time when Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were not part of the Western powers. Settlement continued after the fall of the Ottomans and the ceding of that territory to the British after WWI. It was the Balfour Declaration that officially indicated Britain’s support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, but it wouldn’t be until 1948 that what we know as Israel would be established.
Incidentally, NGOs like the Stern Gang and the Irgun employed the tactic of terrorism to force Britain out of Palestine. Their behavior suggests that Western militaries-in this case the British-may have been less than enthusiastic about the establishment of a Jewish homeland and not particularly willing to protect Jews as they went about the business of setting up their own state in British-mandated Palestine.
Great Mexicans can filter in an establish the West and Southwest of the United States as Mexican territory. If "filtering into" gives just cause.
Was Aisha a political wedding? Did he have children with her and when?
Interesting question. I remember being told in the past by a Muslim online that Ayisha was "mature" (psychologically/emotionally) for her age and this is one justifiable reason why Mohammed bed and wed her. I don't much buy that answer... but hey that just me! I'm some what cynical especially when it comes to sexual conquests by men .
I do know Ayisha eventually became a powerful influence in the Islamic world when she became an adult. I believe she even became a female warrior if memory serves me correct.
Anyways... I see no reason to see Mohammed as a demon. I have always thought him and Martin Luther have an interesting story to tell as to how people can have talents and virtues yet great personal failings or fragile weaknesses. We tend to like to make out people as soley good or soley bad. Usually this is not how life is though - in my opinion.
But hey! I think the Paulista, Patricia Araujo is hot. (maybe one day I can become a prophet or reformer of something)
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
