Arab culture before monotheism

[Michael]

I was wondering what Arab culture was like pre-Islam? Often many Muslims suggest it was backwards and barbaric. I even heard one person tell me Arabs always buried all of their female children in the sand to die. Which seems very odd as Mohammad's first wife was a relatively successful Arab woman (pretty hard to be successful when your buried and dead)

It's almost sad really, that this culture was crushed under the weight of monotheism. A monotheism very much different than the one that first enthralled the Romans. By the 600s Xianity was becoming a power... Theocracy was the type of Xianity that the Arabs succumbed to.

Too bad for them to.



Anyway, so I was wondering how much of ancient Arab culture still exists? What do we know about it from the archeological record? There was one Roman emperor who was Arab. Syrians often lived and worked in the Roman army in England. My guess is Arabs were just like all other people of the Mediterranean. I don't buy the monotheistic propaganda they were barbaric and backwards. That's the type of argument used by someone who seeks war. They always paint the people they are conquering as barbaric and backwards. Hell even Bush is doing it now "Terrorists" is the nuevo-word for "Barbarian" in today's double speak.


So, any ideas about pre-monotheism Arab culture?
M

 

[swarm]

Short bit on pre islamic arab culture:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/PRE.HTM


"The pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped three goddesses, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, who were all daughters of one god, Allah"

 

[Michael]

Very interesting. Although I'm not sure if the dates line up on the Xian Icons. Definitely there were a lot of Arab Xians in the Arabian Peninsula. This is why Islam so closely parallels Xian mythology.

Here's an intersting person: Marcus Julius Philippus an Arab Roman Emperor from 244 to 249.

Little is known about Philip's early life and political career. He was born in Shahba, about 55 miles southeast of Damascus, in the Roman province of Syria. Philip has the nickname "the Arab" because he had family who had originated in the Arabian peninsula, believed to be distant descendants of the Baleed family of Allepo. Philip was the son of a Julius Marinus, a local Roman citizen, possibly of some importance. Many historians[1][2][3] agree that he was of Arab descent who gained Roman citizenship through his father, a man of considerable influence.

Nice bust huh?

It seems more and more clear to me that most ancient Arabs were as civil as any other of the ancient people. I highly doubt that they routinely buried their female children to die in the sands.

Granted, people always paint other people as the Barbarians. The Persians described the Greeks as Barbarians and the Greeks described the Persians as the Barbarians. The Athenians painted the Spartans as Barbarians and visa versa. The Romans did such a wonderful job making the Germans out to be Barbarians that until recently even I thought they probably were the aggressors and had little knowledge of science and arts. Come to find out they had a shit load of gold and a calendar much more accurate that the one the Romans used.

To me, this then is indicative of a failure of making a good and true argument. A failure of logic, sentiment, rightfulness, and truth.

You see, most people can easily see through bullshit, oh, it's brown, but remarkably see through. Hence the need to cloud the vision, so to speak, by painting the other as "Barbarians" (or "Terrorists").

It's funny. Julius Caesar was a great warrior and politician. He hunted down and murdered probably 3 million Germans: women, children, men, old, young, infirm every one of them. He sold up to 1 million into slavery. The excuse he used was he was "protecting" them against the "other Barbarians" (who ironically were Germans themselves and were slaughtered and sold). Coincidentally Germans just so happened to have had a mother-f*cking shitload of gold. Masses of Gold. This all went to Caesar and together with the slaves - he became so powerful he overthrew the State Institutions and in all but name - became Emperor. In a sense he ended the Republic. Perhaps Romans would have solved their problems democratically and we'd have a whole different history, if not for him, the word BarBar and gold. Maybe there would have never been a Xianity, maybe even Judaism would have vanished? Certainly Islam would not have developed.

Anyway, the point is, people worshiped Caesar as a God and a Savior for centuries and people forever saw him as a Hero. But, the truth is, the day he painted the Germans as "Barbarians" and then set upon them with his army - he became a Warmonger. Oh, a clever and successful one - but, one nonetheless. Think about the parallels. Where Arabs really "Barbarians" and "Pagan" people who routinely buried their children in the sand and was it oh so wrong to worship their Idols? Or were many in fact and in reality - Victims?

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Most civil people of all times have commit female infanticide.

I should have realised this is not an honest thread, but a prelude to your regular anti-Islamic tirades. I'll consider all future threads from you as such and avoid posting in them in good faith from now on. I'm also deleting the post I had included here. Have fun with your crusade.

 

[Michael]

Bye Bye (note this is to the missing SAM post)

The opening post specifically states: I even heard one person tell me Arabs always buried all of their female children in the sand to die. Which seems very odd as Mohammad's first wife was a relatively successful Arab woman (pretty hard to be successful when your buried and dead). It's almost sad really, that this culture was crushed under the weight of monotheism.

PS: there is an ignore button - use it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Since you are soooooo interested in infanticide, you should look it up,

Carthage

Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed infants to their gods. Charred bones of thousands of infants have been found in Carthaginian archaeological sites in modern times. One such area harbored as many as 20,000 burial urns. It is estimated that child sacrifice was practiced for centuries in the region. Plutarch (ca. 46–120 CE) mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius, Diodorus Siculus and Philo. The Hebrew Bible also mentions what appears to be child sacrifice practiced at a place called the Tophet (from the Hebrew taph or toph, to burn) by the Canaanites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, and by some Israelites. Writing in the 3rd century BCE, Kleitarchos, one of the historians of Alexander the Great, described that the infants rolled into the flaming pit. Diodorus Siculus wrote that babies were roasted to death inside the burning pit of the god Baal Hamon, a bronze statue.[13][14]

[edit] Greece and Rome
Medea killing her sons, by Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix (1862).

The historical Greeks considered barbarous the practice of adult and child sacrifice.[15] However, exposure of newborns was widely practiced in ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Philo was the first philosopher to speak out against it.[16] A letter from a Roman citizen to his wife, dating from 1 BCE, demonstrates the casual nature with which infanticide was often viewed:

"Know that I am still in Alexandria. [...] I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered [before I come home], if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl, discard it."[17]

In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to death by exposure. The Twelve Tables of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed. Infanticide became a capital offense in Roman law in 374 CE, but offenders were rarely if ever prosecuted.[18]

According to mythological legend, Romulus and Remus, twin infant sons of the war god, Mars, survived near-infanticide after being tossed into the Tiber River. According to the mythology, they were raised by wolves and later founded the city of Rome.

Among the Greeks, in Sophocles's play, Oedipus Rex, Oedipus is abandoned as a baby in the fields, leaving his fate to the gods.

[edit] Judaism

Although there are many instances in the Bible of ancient Hebrews sacrificing their children to heathen gods (e.g., Deuteronomy 12:30-31, 18:10; 2 Kings 16:3 & 17:17, 30-31 & 21:6 & 23:4, 10; Jeremiah 7:31-32 & 19:5 & 32:35; Ezekiel 16: 20-21, 36; Judges 11:31), Judaism prohibits infanticide. Roman historians wrote about the ideas and customs of other peoples, which often diverged from their own. Tacitus recorded that the Jews "regard it as a crime to kill any late-born children."[19] Josephus, whose works give an important insight into first-century Judaism, wrote that God "forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward."[20]

The Mosaic laws expressly forbade the Jews to offer sacrifices to Moloch. "You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God" (Lev. 18:21).[21].

Years later, the practice existed among the Jews as reported by the prophet, Jeremiah, who writings date to the period around 629 - 585 B.C.

Jeremiah 32:35:

And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#In_the_Old_World

 

[Michael]

The point of my post is that painting people as barbaric or barbarians or terrorists just so that you can justify destroying their culture is wrong.

You if anyone should appreciate such a point of view.

But, as usual, anything that makes your brain thinking critically enters a Windows type reboot error.

As for you comment that I am on a "crusade". Well, if you want to think of it like that, go ahead. But, this is a religous debate forum. It where people challenge established views and debate them. I'm sure the Catholic church considered Galileo as such and to catch a shimmer of such light is only a flattery. We in the West and far East have moved past the age of complete superstitions, we're not completely out of it's shadow, but we are getting there.

M

Interesting post on infanticide, I can almost hear you chanting: "Kill the Barbarians" "Let me bring the head of the singer to you - The Voice of God!!"
*runs off happily to murder BarBars"

 

[S.A.M.]

Hey, I'm not the one who is all worked up about Arabs who buried their children alive.

I can even understand the Inuit who abandoned babies in little igloos and left them to die.

However, I still appreciate the ones who decided its not a good idea to do it after all.

 

[Michael]

The point about the infanticide is not that it happened on occasion. It's that Arabs were painted as barbarians who routinely buried their children in the sand to die. This then justified their being conquered and "civilized". The Civilization came in the form of a new culture.

Don't play dumb, you know the game and you know it's wrong. And it reflects back something to the people who suggested it.



Look here:
Aspects of Pre-Islamic Arabian Society

We may sum up the social situation in Arabia by saying that the Arabs of the pre-Islamic period were groping about in the dark and ignorance, entangled in a mesh of superstitions paralyzing their mind and driving them to lead an animal- like life. The woman was a marketable commodity and regarded as a piece of inanimate property.

Or Here:
Women and the Glorious Qur'an

And the female (infant) was buried alive (as the Pagan Arabs used to do).. and they continued to do this until the Qur'an banned it.

PLEASE!!! I know propaganda when I read it. I bet we can look up all sorts of similar such things the English said about the Indians so that the Indians felt ashamed of their own culture. Or the Romans said of the Germans. Or the Japanese said of the Chinese. Or the Chinese said of the Tibetans.

It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and I personally say it's an admission of guilt.
Lets think about the Spanish. When they had no good argument for conquering indigenous Americans they called them Pagans, Called their Religion and culture Heresy and set about "converting" them - by the sword.


Now, I don't know about you SAM, but where I come from we call a spade a spade,
M

 

[Michael]

However, I still appreciate the ones who decided its not a good idea to do it after all.

I'm sure you do. And I'm sure the English could find an Indian or two who did this or that and use this as a pretext.

Arabs did NOT routinely bury their children in the sand. Did it happen, perhaps, not as a routine. That's the whole point of this thread. To say that Arabs pre-Islam were not backwards animals. And to suggest this was the case, well, to put it simply - pure propaganda. It shows that there is a failure on the part of the propagandist to make their case. So they result to this.

I wonder, if looking into his eyes, as a mirror, would he see kindship in GW Bush Jr's blank stare? Mutual understanding?

 

[Michael]

LOL. This thread is hilarious.

People telling others how they should live.

please DH, stop injecting, its not good for the neurons.

This thread is about uncovering the noble culture that Arabs had before they were monotheists. Or don't you find this revolting: We may sum up the social situation in Arabia by saying that the Arabs of the pre-Islamic period were groping about in the dark and ignorance, entangled in a mesh of superstitions paralyzing their mind and driving them to lead an animal- like life. The woman was a marketable commodity and regarded as a piece of inanimate property?

I wonder if the twit who wrote that knew of the Roman Emperor who was Arab?

Care to contribute constructively?
M

 

[Gustav]

"Arab culture before monotheism" (micheal) and what persists


for instance...honor killings ...etc?????

 

[Michael]

"Arab culture before monotheism" (micheal) and what persists


for instance...honor killings ...etc?????

Do you have evidence of honor killings pre-Islam? Mohammad's wife was a powerful Arab leader. Don't see too many of them in Classical Athens.


How were Arab nomads different than the way the Classical Greeks thought of women? Menander's writes: "Teaching a woman to read and write? What a terrible thing to do! Like feeding a vile snake on more poison."


it should also be noted that nomadic men often treated their women with much more respect than civil men. Think about that.



I guess my point is (1) don't confuse modern Arabs with ancient Arabs and (2) don't fall for the propaganda.

 

[S.A.M.]

"Arab culture before monotheism" (micheal) and what persists


for instance...honor killings ...etc?????

Yeah, honor killings are very old and embody the principle of ownership of the wife. Some primitive tribes still offer their wives up to travellers and guests.

Sharif Kanaana, professor of anthropology at Birzeit University states that honor killing is:

A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. .. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honour killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior. What's behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power.[1]

I wonder if its a coincidence that Sicilian cultures and Turkish cultures also have it, as do the Baluch and Pashtun. What was the Mediterranean view on honor killing?

 

[Michael]

I have a right to interject as I am definately more familiar with Arabic culture than you.

You, and people like you, wish to tarnish the reputation of Arabs and Muslims throughout the world, and dream of a world without Islam where these people would be submissive to Western encroachment and cultural dominance.

Guess what, the Arabs are Muslims. Deal with it.

They are some of the nicest and kindest people in the world, but people like you are too busy making Arabs to be villains to see this.

DH, have you bothered to read the post at all? I AM saying that Arab culture was not barbaric and that it was PURPOSELY demonized to make it appear that Arabs were "animal-like" and to justify their conquest. The Roman's did the exact same thing to the Germans "Barbarians", the Spanish did the exact same thing to the Aztec, the Japanese did the same thing Ainu, the CHinese did the same thing to the Tibetians, and Americans are doing it today with the word "Terrorists".

Now, either pull your head out and contribute constructively or bugger off


What are your ideas of this:

Aspects of Pre-Islamic Arabian Society

We may sum up the social situation in Arabia by saying that the Arabs of the pre-Islamic period were groping about in the dark and ignorance, entangled in a mesh of superstitions paralyzing their mind and driving them to lead an animal- like life. The woman was a marketable commodity and regarded as a piece of inanimate property.

What do you think about that DH? It was written by a Muslim about Arabs. I didn't write it, hell, I hadn't even looked anything up when I posted the opening thread. But it certainly didn't take long to find that little peace of bigotry.

Michael


Note: I have no delusions about people dropping their superstitions. It's simply not possible for most people. I accept that. Some people need an Allah or Xenu or YWHA or Jesus or etc... to feel safe. That's fine. BUT, that doesn't mean that superstitions can not evolve. As a matter of fact - they do. And anyway, it's important to learn from our past so that we don't continue to f8ck up the future

 

[S.A.M.]

Except of course, Muhammed was an Arab and spoke to his own society, unlike all the other examples. The British writing about Indian caste system may be considered derogatory, but an Indian writing about it could hardly be considered so. You are too bigoted to see the strawmen you keep putting up.

 

[Michael]

Except of course, Muhammed was an Arab and spoke to his own society, unlike all the other examples. The British writing about Indian caste system may be considered derogatory, but an Indian writing about it could hardly be considered so. You are too bigoted to see the strawmen you keep putting up.

SAM, you just made a division that fit your point of view.

We could use the argument that there is one humanity.

Why divide Germans and Italians - they're both "Europeans"?
Why divide Chinese and Japanese - they're both "Asians"?
Why divide Chinese and Tibetans - hell, according to Chinese they're ALL Chinese! Just exactly like you said of "Arabs"

Then again we can divide people - where to start, two different Arab cities? Two different Arab tribes? Two different Arab families? Two different Arab brother?

At what point is it right to demonize someone else, as a justification for their conquest a plunder? At a familiar level? Or is it a self-evident principal that such behavior is wrong?



Look SAM, when you look at a tree and see many many MANY rotten fruit - there's a good chance there's something sick with the tree. It may have to die off and be replace or maybe it can be fixed up?

Here's a nice ripe peace of rotten fruit: We may sum up the social situation in Arabia by saying that the Arabs of the pre-Islamic period were groping about in the dark and ignorance, entangled in a mesh of superstitions paralyzing their mind and driving them to lead an animal- like life. The woman was a marketable commodity and regarded as a piece of inanimate property.

What do you think? Why is it hanging there on your Islam tree? Going to do something about it?
Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

So basically you're saying it is wrong for Obama to criticise elements of his own society because social reform takes away wonderful cultural practices? If the Arabs were burying infants they were groping around in ignorance, just like those who took a bath because the shadow of a lower caste man fell on him. No doubt, it was a "splendid culture" [in quotes because no one cared enough to leave any record of it], but hey even modern day Americans run torture camps and American history will judge them no less harshly for it.

 

[Michael]

You are too bigoted to see the strawmen you keep putting up.

I didn't write this, not one word of it is mine:

We may sum up the social situation in Arabia by saying that the Arabs of the pre-Islamic period were groping about in the dark and ignorance, entangled in a mesh of superstitions paralyzing their mind and driving them to lead an animal- like life. The woman was a marketable commodity and regarded as a piece of inanimate property.

Animal-like SAM? ANIMAL-LIKE?!?!?!?


Please, this is a commonly held beleif by many Muslims, as such, we can safely call it "Islamic". So, again, seeing as in this is commonly held, even I (a non-Muslim) have been told this MANY times (which is why I decided to investigate). So really, it has little to do with ME and more to do with my CURIOSITY.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, I would say the same about US troops sodomising kids while USAmericans are stuck to American idol. Sheeple, I think you called it.

The woman was a marketable commodity and regarded as a piece of inanimate property.

Worse than animal like. Animals are more progressive than that.

I'm surprised at you. You are as presentist as they are. To the extent of defending female infanticide by denying it could have happened. Hilarious