Arab culture before monotheism
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Come on SAM, you have 1000s of year of Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, Persian and Roman literature - lets have a proper citation that says Arabs routinely murdered their female children.
Citing religous propaganda would be equivalent to a Korean citing the Emperor in Japanese.
Look, SAM, you're making no sense you are so brainwashed. You want to think Arabs were animal-like barbarians go right ahead and think whatever you want to think. It's your brain - if you feel better denigrating people then go for it. You;re the one who has to live with yourself. You can also pray to the Japanese Emperor and denigrate Koreans if that lets you sleep at night. Oh, you might want to venerate the Queen to, I hear she used to refer to your great grandparents as animal-like barbarians in need of a good clean British civilization, you know, in the name of Humanity. Indians kill their female children - didn't you know. They must be animals - right SAM?
Here's a book written in the 1850s by a British man about Indian female infanticide. He sounds just like YOU.
Enjoy.
Indian Infanticide
Dedicated to the moral and social improvement of the people (you may want to read that word as "animal-like people" or even just "animals" if it makes you fee better) of that county.
Citing religous propaganda would be equivalent to a Korean citing the Emperor in Japanese.
Look, SAM, you're making no sense you are so brainwashed. You want to think Arabs were animal-like barbarians go right ahead and think whatever you want to think. It's your brain - if you feel better denigrating people then go for it. You;re the one who has to live with yourself. You can also pray to the Japanese Emperor and denigrate Koreans if that lets you sleep at night. Oh, you might want to venerate the Queen to, I hear she used to refer to your great grandparents as animal-like barbarians in need of a good clean British civilization, you know, in the name of Humanity. Indians kill their female children - didn't you know. They must be animals - right SAM?
Here's a book written in the 1850s by a British man about Indian female infanticide. He sounds just like YOU.
Enjoy.
Indian Infanticide
Dedicated to the moral and social improvement of the people (you may want to read that word as "animal-like people" or even just "animals" if it makes you fee better) of that county.
Pre-Islamic Arabia was a society of oral traditions. So unless you have some source other than the Quran, I'm afraid you're stuck with what the other societies around them wrote. Did the Romans write anything on pre-Islamic Arabia? They surely knew them since the Arabs traded with them. Did they follow the Roman culture like the Celts?
Its hardly "religious propaganda" to say, don't bury the girl child alive. Thats the evidence that Arabs had the same culture as Jews and Romans. If you claim they did not, you must have some basis for it.
Its hardly "religious propaganda" to say, don't bury the girl child alive. Thats the evidence that Arabs had the same culture as Jews and Romans. If you claim they did not, you must have some basis for it.
Oh, and just so that we're on the same page.
There's absolutly nothing wrong with say this: "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."
Referring to people as animal-like infidels, smashing their heritage and murdering them in the name of a God... THAT'S where the problem comes in.
See the difference?
There's absolutly nothing wrong with say this: "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."
Referring to people as animal-like infidels, smashing their heritage and murdering them in the name of a God... THAT'S where the problem comes in.
See the difference?
Sure but the guy who said the people were animal like, was not Mohammed. 
Still, I agree with him, it was barbaric by the notions of our time, we no longer think an infant is disposable [well some of us do, but abortion rights are not the matter under discussion].
But you're the resident presentist here, you judge EVERYONE by the standards of the present day.
That guy was looking back at a previous age and making judgments based on his current standards. Just like you do ALL the time with Mohammed.
Still, I agree with him, it was barbaric by the notions of our time, we no longer think an infant is disposable [well some of us do, but abortion rights are not the matter under discussion].
But you're the resident presentist here, you judge EVERYONE by the standards of the present day.
That guy was looking back at a previous age and making judgments based on his current standards. Just like you do ALL the time with Mohammed.
SAM, simply put, when people are referred to as Animal-like BIG alarm bells should be going off in your head. When people murdered for a person who says God is talking to him, BIGGER alarm bells should be going off. This is only common sense.
That's the main difference between you and I. You drank the koolaid and I pured mine out.
Japanese thought just like you. They referred to other Asians in much the same way. They even got many of them to believe them and worship their Emperor as The Living God. It didn't even take all the long, less than one generation. So, sure, it's not surprising that by the time the Qur'an was canonized this sort of propaganda had made it's way into it.
Think about it SAM, if there really are no Gods, JUST where did the Qur'an come from? Hmmmm? And if there are no Gods, what does THAT tell you about Mohammad as a person.
That's the main difference between you and I. You drank the koolaid and I pured mine out.
Japanese thought just like you. They referred to other Asians in much the same way. They even got many of them to believe them and worship their Emperor as The Living God. It didn't even take all the long, less than one generation. So, sure, it's not surprising that by the time the Qur'an was canonized this sort of propaganda had made it's way into it.
Think about it SAM, if there really are no Gods, JUST where did the Qur'an come from? Hmmmm? And if there are no Gods, what does THAT tell you about Mohammad as a person.
Unchanged for ages? All these "laws" are post-Shah [instituted in 1983, I think] and owe themselves entirely to the Savama [previously Savak] having too much power.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
No Islamic texts have mentioned the Arabs before Islam as animal-like. The term is Jahiliyyah which means in Ignorance of the message of God. Frankly, I don't understand how you stretch these inferences to such ridiculous levels.
Not to even mention of the errors in the Bible, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1:25)" Paul's open blaspheny against God. But perhaps I should save this for another day for Geoff.
Not to even mention of the errors in the Bible, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1:25)" Paul's open blaspheny against God. But perhaps I should save this for another day for Geoff.
No, I'm saying they practised the same things as did the Jews they lived with and the Romans they worked for. Mohammed was against these practices and convinced them to change them. He was an iconoclast who did not approve of killing the female child which is an ingrained Eastern tradition [much like FGM]. Several centuries later, some Persian wrote about these practices in pre-Islamic Arabia as "groping in animal like ignorance", pretty much how Michael sees the Middle East today, I recall many of his posts on how he perceives Mohammed and his ilk - like all such Orientalists, he too has not actually bothered to go live there and with his mindset, even if he does will only see the "bad".
Michael is insisting the Arabs did not practise female infanticide, because that is what he believes
These laws derive from the traditional schools of islamic jurisprudence, which were not post-Shah.
I said, routinely practice. And as of yet I have not seen any evidence to suggest they did.
Seems the Romans mainly kicked the Jews out in 70 CE.
The eastern Roman empire was the most civilized and educated nation in that area. I can see why he was opposed to it.
No it wasn't.
So after several centuries we should believe muslim revisionist instead of the records of the day?
Except that the people they lived and worked with, practised it routinely. In India, its still a routine practise, probably even in China with the one child policy. Did you know?
But when certain of the actions are addressed - such as Mohammed behaving quite similarly to the familiar warlords and colonial powers of history, and with similar justifications - then the beliefs are to be addressed, not the actions.SAM said:
We have a claim that Islam, and the compilation of religious teachings attributed to him, reduces female infanticide. This seems reasonably possible. At the same time, we note that Islamic cultures generally exhibit a fairly high rate of female mortality, to the point that some of them actually have lower expected lifespans for women than men. Now the benighted state in which these barbarian tribes lived before Islam brought enlightenment and compassion - did they likewise find themselves short of grandmothers, compared with grandfathers?
Except that is just your brainwashed opinion and you have yet to provide a citation.