Posted on 10/23/2001 8:39:39 AM PDT by spycatcher
Pre-Islamic Arabia's religion was one of superstition. Belief in jinns (genies), curse casting, magic stones, totems was the norm - and it was against this background that Allah arose. Although the Quran is claimed to be a heavenly writing with no earthly source, evidence of these very sorts of cultural influence is found in such places as Suras 55, 72, 113 and 114.
Animism, the belief that spirits inhabit rocks, trees and other elements was also very commonplace. Some of these stones were venerated and used as a focal point for the worship of a particular tribal god. No surprise, Muhammad's family had just such a stone for their own tribe - a black stone, in fact, that they kept at the Kabah (where the tribal idols were set up). The pagan rites of bowing toward Mecca, making a pilgrimage to the Kabah, running around it seven times, kissing it, then running to the river to throw stones at the devil all found there way into Islamic practice.
The final piece of the puzzle was in found in the religion of the Sabeans, an astral religion that worshipped the moon god and planned their religious rites around the lunar calendar. One such rite was fasting from crescent moon to crescent moon, a practice which would also be adopted by Muhammad.
If these things were not present before Muhammad received them from Allah (who himself is the moon god of Muhammad's tribe), why did Muhammad not have to explain what those words meant in the Quran? How would people have known who Allah was? ( or: what a jinn was? what the Kabah was? what the word Islam meant? etc.). Even the word "Islam" which many believe to mean "submission" was not an original word. In Arabic it was a secular term that denoted the strength and bravery of a desert warrior (a definition that accurately reflects the war-like tribes that founded Islam with bloodshed).
The Moon God
"Allah" is from the compound Arabic word "al-ilah" or in english "the god". Allah was known before Muhammad's time without a doubt. His name has been found in pre-islamic writings and other archeological finds. At the Kabah in Mecca over 350 gods were worshipped, but it was built especially for the chief deity - the moon god. Allah was the personal title of the moon god. Allah was married to the sun goddess. They produced three daughters, whose worship Muhammad would later make the mistake of condoning. The crescent moon symbol of Arabia came from this god.
Muhammad's family revered this particular god, and it is this idol that Muhammad declared to be the only true god. So, Allah - far from being the revealed God of the Bible as Muhammad would have us believe - is nothing more than an amplified pagan idol. Muhammad did not re-make the pagan god, he simply removed the lower deities from the rites of worship. That is why he never had to explain who Allah was. By definition, an idol converted in the 7th century into a new god cannot be the sama God revealed thousands of years earlier to Biblical prophets!
By the way, a Semitic is a son of Shem and many are white including British and Americans.
I don't think the reasons you described, are quite valid...
But this libertarian would recognize you as morally entitled to kick the living crap out of someone who sold drugs to your children, against your will.
And those that facilitate that?
This conversation started by a claim that it's OK for someone to knock the crap out of someone else for selling something to a third person that's willing to buy. It would seem the Libertarians are having to stretch their beliefs to get it to jibe with Jesus' actions.
I understood the conversation to revolve around some Christians attempting to use Christ's actions in the temple, as justification to employ the initiation of force against sinners.
It is important to recognize however, that Christ's actions in the temple were morally justifiable, (even under libertarian philosophy) because Christ was presumably acting in defense of his own rights (inasmuch as those who traded there, defiled HIS house, without HIS permission, hence violating his property rights)
Force may morally be employed in defense of rights. It may not be morally initiated (even against sinners) if rights have NOT been violated.
Is that a clear explanation?
Well, for one thing, it reflects upon the shoddy quality of the "research" behind this "Moon God" crap (the original topic of this thread).
It's truly amazing how your "Adam was a white guy" crap dovetails so neatly with Identity dogma.
One of my favorite quotes from the above thread:
"If Adam is made in the image of God and if Adam began in Tanzania, you white boys have got a problem because that means you are the children of niggers."
-- Eugene F. Rivers 3d, an evangelical minister
Enjoy
If it's OK for Christ to initiate force to protect his rights on his earth, then it's OK for us to initiate force to protect our children in our country against those that would do harm or facilitate harm.
Force may morally be employed in defense of rights. It may not be morally initiated (even against sinners) if rights have NOT been violated.
Those who sell hard drugs violate rights in the same manner the moneychangers violated rights in the temple.
Is that a clear explanation?
Yes, I'm glad you agree that a people has a right to protect themselves from activities that could lead to destruction.
How's that? Do you have proof that Muhammed wasn't white?
I'm not like you, I don't look for this Jew-hating stuff to use against people. Why would I want to read their website when they're full of crap?
It's truly amazing how your "Adam was a white guy" crap dovetails so neatly with Identity dogma.
That's about the only thing that matches and that's biblical.
One of my favorite quotes from the above thread: "If Adam is made in the image of God and if Adam began in Tanzania,...
Tanzania?
...you white boys have got a problem because that means you are the children of niggers." -- Eugene F. Rivers 3d, an evangelical minister Enjoy
You better not let JimRob see you using that language (even if you are quoting someone else), a definite no-no.
The use of force is as a remedy is justified in both cases. Note the use of force isn't justified by it's validity in some other instance, both are instances of rights violations and that is what justifies the particular remedy of force. The initial rights violation is the initial forceful act.
Once again, words have meanings... please pay careful attention here.
Christs actions in the temple were NOT an intiation of force.
His actions were an employment of defensive force, in response to force initiated by those choosing to be in the temple (on his property), against his (the property owner's) will.
Please pay careful attention to the words.
They have a very precise and important meaning.
Good. Another Liberatarian that has seen the light on protecting society against destruction.
Exactly. The American people own the property of the government and the American people have decided that they don't want hard drug dealers on their (the government's) property. The initiation of force is justified.
Please pay careful attention to the words. They have a very precise and important meaning.
Yes they do. "A government of the people". The people are the government, the people own government property, initiation of force is justified to whack hard drug dealers and those that facilitate them.
The current King of Jordan is a direct descendent of Muhammed.
Which is why in most cases, Protestants may go back and forth between Presbyterian, Methodist, evangelical congregations etc., but don't seriously consider becoming Catholic or Jewish unless the influence of a partner is involved.
I wouldn't call that proof. Most American blacks are descended from whites (and are also the genetic Israelites, by the way).
The current King of Jordan is a direct descendent of Muhammed.
I wouldn't call that proof. Most American blacks are descended from whites (and are also genetic Israelites, by the way).
Do the American people own the homes of those whose doors they kick down for possession of those drugs?
I didn't think so.
(frankly I think you're being a bit silly)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.