Arab culture before monotheism

[Michael]

Eastern people still routinely murder their female children.

SAM, firstly, you use "still" as if you know what was happening in nomadic arabia.

Second, are you suggesting that female infanticide is routinely carried out by most of society in the East. Place give a source, because I'm sure it's not routine.

Thirdly, suppose it is routine, does this justify the British going in a destroying all Temples in the East, eradicating their culture and replacing it with Superior British culture?

Fourthly, some Arab people practice honor killing, if the WHOLE impetuous was to "protect females" one would think that Islam would make it absolutely clear that "protecting females" is "THE" central theme - something the God-head wants you to know so bad it was willing to murder other sentient life forms (aka Humans) to make the point. But that's certainly not the case or we wouldn't have Honor Killings. The central theme is Mohammad is "The" last prophet - this point is driven home to where almost ALL (not all but most) agree. Which ironically (or coincidentally) just so happens to reflect a the typical structure of a cult of personality.

That aside, as Honor Killing is occurring in the ME does this then justify the British going in there and destroying the ME culture and replacing it with Xiantiy? Smashing all of the Mosques and making them Xian places of worship?

Well SAM? Or is this another case of it's OK when Mohammad does it but ooo hooo hooo not when British do it.



Lastly, Roman's did not routinely murder their children. If anything they gave big tax incentives to produce more children and women were given almost equal status as men if they could have 3 or so. So, lets not paint a bull crap picture here.


Your story is so convoluted because you sound like a Slave owner trying to justify White Man's burden - sorry babe, it aint gonna fly in this day and age.

 

[Michael]

I mean how far are you willing to take you analogy? To the point of now JUSTIFYING the British colonization of Indian?!?! Because, in essence, that's the story you're trying to sell, only the characters have changed and theme isn't "Arab sisterhood" it's "Humanity"

 

[S.A.M.]

You still seem confused between an Arab being a reformer in his own society vs the British raping other countries for profit.

 

[S.A.M.]

Lastly, Roman's did not routinely murder their children.

You don't know your history:

At the heart of the Roman family was the paterfamilias, the father of the family. It was the paterfamilias who possessed the patria potestas, or power of a father, over his children, regardless of their age. This power made the father the sole owner of all property acquired by his sons. You can imagine the kind of difficulties this might create. A son would work hard and acquire wealth but that wealth was not his, but his father's. And although it was typical for both parents to have died by the time their child may have reached thirty years of age, if a father managed to live to old age his son may have built up so extreme a resentment, that he may have resorted to the murder of his father. By law, the paterfamilias could kill his wife if he found her in bed with another man. He could not only sell any of his children into slavery, he could kill them as well. And the Romans are known for practicing infanticide.

http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture13b.html

The helpless newborn has not always evoked a protective and loving response, in part because the newborn was not always believed to be human. This belief legitimized an action that under other circumstances would be referred to as murder. For example, the ancient Romans believed that the child was more like a plant than an animal until the seventh day after birth. During the Middle Ages, children born with physical defects or behavioral abnormalities were often viewed as evil or the product of supernatural forces. Changelings were infants believed to be exchanged in the still of the night by devils or goblins who removed the real child and left the changeling in its place. To view the child as potentially evil, dangerous, or worthless, rationalizes the desire to eliminate the burden or threat without guilt or remorse.

Historically, birth was not necessarily viewed as a transition to life. Common law in England presumed that a child was born dead. According to early Jewish law, an infant was not deemed viable until it was thirty days old. During the 1950s the chief rabbi of Israel, Ben Zion Uziel, said that if an infant who was not yet thirty days old was killed, the killer could not be executed because the infant's life was still in doubt. In Japan, a child was not considered to be a human being until it released its first cry, a sign that the spirit entered its body. Scientists and ethicists continue to disagree about when life begins, fueling the moral debate surrounding abortion and infanticide. The twenty-first-century moral philosopher Michael Tooley contends that neonates are not persons and as such neonaticide should not be classified as murder. Tooley has suggested that infanticide should be allowed during a brief (e.g., thirty-day) period after birth.

http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Infanticide.html

We have similar arguments today for abortion, so its hardly surprising that people had such ideas before

 

[Michael]

Oh, I can play this game too.

You still seem confused between Humans being reformers in Humanity and Arabs plundering other Arabs (and eventually Persians etc...) for profit.



note: Jews, I do believed they also lived there - were they Arabs in "need of reformation"? Also Xians, they were in need of some reformation by the sword too ... of course they were, silly me, bring me her head.

notes: did Muslims ever plunder other countries for profit?







Just to make sure I got you correctly, if the people can somehow be called "a group", such as "Chinese", say, like the Tibetans - then destroying their culture, smashing there heritage and murdering them it OkeeDokee? I suppose the Japanese were right to invade Korea and make them worship the Emperor of Japan "The Living God"... they are "Asians" after all ... sounding stupid yet?

 

[Michael]

Come on SAM, you're just looking for anything to justify something that is not justifiable. Could Mohammad had taught people to be better? Sure, but destroying their temples, that's inexcusable. The fact that you're falling for the propaganda, and even supporting it, is what's intriguing.

Can you imagine if the Koreans had continued under Japanese influence until their culture was gone. And then one day some Koreans themselves start saying they were "animal-like" before they were civilized by the Japanese?!?!? And then here you are saying YUP they were animals and it's OK because Japanese were "Asians" too. That's what we have going on here.


I agree, as a teacher, it always acceptable to teach your ideas. Buddha did this, Greek philosophers did this, Ron Hubbard, the Raelian guy, many Hindu people, the Dali Lama .. etc... that's fine. What's not fine is when you find someone doesnt' really care what you have to say and so you smash them and even kill them. That's not right SAM.

I do not believe that Arabs were the animals you are making them out to be. Why? Because one was Emperor of Rome, many were artists, writers, builders, etc...this whole history has succumbed to apologist propaganda. Not surprising, the Xians made the Native Americans and Aboriginal Australian out to be animal like too. The Japanese did so to the Chinese. The Roman's to the Germans, etc... we're only now uncovering some of these lost cultures.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think anyone is entitled to try and influence his own society. If he is successful, that is a testimony to the power of his persuasion. Gandhi preached against sati, we listened. Mohammed's power of perusuasion is evident in the billions who follow his preaching today. The Arabs made nothing from it, went back to their homes eventually, and the Persians, Turks, Iraqis, Morroccans, Syrians, Lebanese, etc are still in their own country, not second class citizens under some foreign rule.

Temples? The Kaaba is still there, though they did remake it. Statues? Who cares about statues if it saved millions of girls from being buried alive? They can have their deities, I would rather have the girls.

 

[Michael]

I think anyone is entitled to try and influence his own society.

Here you go with the "His Society" again? Come on.

Yeah, if you are peacefully promoting your ideas then sure, it's fine. And it's fine to do that anywhere on the earth. What's not fine is killing people. Oh, it works SAM. As we know there are billions more Xians than Muslims - because Xians conquered many more peoples. See SAM, that's the real reason why these two religions are prosperous. People killed other people in their name. The victors had children and victims adopted to survive. Maybe they even accepted the religion was stronger because they were defeated. It's still wrong.

So, again, yeah, peacefully, then it's OK. As soon as someone has to kill someone else - that should tell you there is something wrong.

Who cares about statues if it saved millions of girls from being buried alive? They can have their deities, I would rather have the girls.

Provide evidence that girls were routinely murdered by Arabs before Islam. If Mohammad had wanted women equal he'd have made the 100% equal. He didn't, let's not pretend he did.

(or at least who ever created the Mohammad character)

 

[Michael]

Do you really think the Japanese had a "right" to subjugate Koreans because they were "Asians"? They shared cutlery? Or some ideas? That's good enough for you? Good enought to force them to worship the Emperor - because that's exactly what happened.

Using your very own logic they justified the exact same thing. They called the Korean backwards and in need of civilization.

SAM, really, you should take a good look in the mirror here, you are way off base with this one and I think you can feel your feet sinking in deep.

 

[S.A.M.]

The history of the place and period you mentioned is rampant with female infanticide, the Arabs worked with Romans who killed their children, they lived with jews who killed their children, there was a culture of killing female children which still persists in Eastern society and only disappeared in Muslim history with the advent of Mohammed. You can believe that the Arabs were wonderful people who were completely different from other peoples of their time and the admonition to stop killing the female child is made up retrospectively by them to make their ancestors look bad. If the convinced the Persians and other Middle Eastern people to stop killing their children, I am not going to be ashamed of it. I think it was marvelous of them to be able to convince people to let go of an ingrained superstition, considering how difficult it has been in India, where the female child is still so much baggage to be disposed of.

I think I'm done here.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Not according to Diamond, who describes the Persian language (for example) "spreading" across large areas of formerly disparate peoples.

Let me speak for myself. The areas where the Persian language spread were areas which had ethnic and cultural relations to Persia even before Islam. Islam merely cemented the influence of Persia in these regions. Central Asia, Turkey, South Asia, Gulf region, Eastern Africa, even as far north as the Muslim states in present Russia.

 

[GeoffP]

You can make a list of victims if you like. You'll be quite surprised which side piles on the casualties.

Not really. The spread of islam is all the example anyone needs. And since the natives of the conquered lands (and those islam was trying to conquer) were only fighting in self-defense - as you claim in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan (as if everyone was on the side of the radicals) - then whatever was done to fight that spread wouldn't really matter anyway...would it? :shrug:

Still waiting to even get beyond defining what is sovereignty for non-white people.

Where they get to make their own decisions about their daily lives, independently of their religion or sex? Seems a good definition.

 

[GeoffP]

The history of the place and period you mentioned is rampant with female infanticide, the Arabs worked with Romans who killed their children, they lived with jews who killed their children, there was a culture of killing female children which still persists in Eastern society and only disappeared in Muslim history with the advent of Mohammed.

Who preferred that the killing was when they reached reproductive age, apparently. Then it could be used to keep them in line. Got to hand it to him, he knew his marketing.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, what do you want, Sam? The Bible has vicious elements too. Here's the thing: repudiate them. Come out and say:

"You know what? That's bollocks. If that's what it's really saying, I would never do that. I don't believe that was revealed by God, or by any God I think a moral person should follow. So, I'm not going to do that."

A simple directive. Even a moral one. I'm sure your religion - or maybe not you personally, but Zak and Inzomnia anyway - doesn't extend to killing people, but maybe given the facts of the matter you could come out and say that, and then do something about it.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think as long as people make it about religion, they'll achieve nothing. Islam is not like Christianity, you cannot rewrite the Gospels to a more suitable version. There is no one who can say to another: my version is right and your version is wrong. Its against the tenets of Islam to create one inflexible version.

So as long as people keep confusing Muslim societies with Islam, they'll meet with blank incomprehension. The onus is on you to understand what Islam is to Muslims rather than tell them what it is to you. Because what it is to you, matters not at all.

 

[GeoffP]

I think as long as people make it about religion, they'll achieve nothing. Islam is not like Christianity, you cannot rewrite the Gospels to a more suitable version.

Then there's a huge problem vis-a-vis humanitarian equanimity.

There is no one who can say to another: my version is right and your version is wrong. Its against the tenets of Islam to create one inflexible version.

This is fine in theory. In practice, though, it happens all the time, so it's far from impossible.

So as long as people keep confusing Muslim societies with Islam, they'll meet with blank incomprehension. The onus is on you to understand what Islam is to Muslims rather than tell them what it is to you. Because what it is to you, matters not at all.

Again: the problem. You are allowing an old codice to decide your behaviour for you. This is fair within reason, but you suggest you must obviate your own morality by doing so. You allow no room for dissent? I'm Catholic, but it doesn't affect everything I do. If I were pressed theologically, I would think God prefers it so. Blankets for beggars, and so forth. "What is reprehensible to you, do not do to your neighbour. All the rest is commentary," and so forth. Or will you also argue some higher principia mandating tolerance? And if those principles are breached? What then: humanity or the bretheren?

Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

You'll have to address the imams. I really don't know.

However, if you make it about religion, you won't be addressing this or that imam, you'll be addressing all Muslims who really do not give a crap what you think they should believe.

Its quite simple actually, address the action, rather than the belief.

OK, so when those imams sprout stuff straight out of the KKK handbook...what then?

Like whatsisname preaching their God vs our God during the Presidential elections?

You let them, because what some idiot preaches somewhere is as relevant as Sean Hannity on Faux Snooze.

 

[Michael]

a whole lot of opinion and a whole lot less citation

I asked for a citation.

 

[S.A.M.]

The Quran.

The verse reads: "When the female infant, buried alive, is questioned - for what crime was she killed; when the scrolls are laid open; when the World on High is unveiled; when the Blazing Fire is kindled to fierce heat; and when the Garden is brought near - Then shall each soul know what it has put forward. So verily I call (at-Takwir: 8-15).


If you have a more reliable document refuting the female infanticide claim in the Quran, you are free to produce it

 

[Michael]

The citation must be contemporary with pre-Islamic society. Obviously.