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!
A simpleton, dullard, child, vegetative human being, etc.. who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard. Their actions are effectively amoral.
That is why we afford stewardship to these individuals.
You could wrongly rationalize just about anything.
But to claim freedom of peaceful action as a moral imperative... as rightful.. as just.. you must afford it to others.
To fail to do so, invalidates the claim for self.
Let's say you are walking along the beach and you see a wristwatch in the dunes. Would you pick it up and say,
"Look, a collection of silicate molecules from the sand and various metallic atoms in the ocean formed this thing that looks just like a watch. And it's ticking to boot!"
No.
I'd hold it up to the sky and say.. "God.. you dropped your watch".
But others do not have to afford it to you.
This is not true. I've know profoundly retarded people who have innate sense of morality and yet aren't able to read or write beyond a first grade level.
Indeed they do, if they wish to rationally claim it as a moral imnperative for themselves.
Those who are willing to initiate force against otherwise peaceful men, rationally preclude any claim they might make to such a moral imperative.
Have many done so anyway?
Sure.
But their actions cannot be rationally defended or sustained consistent with the notion of morality.
Hence, they act immorally.
What part of "who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality" didn't you get?
LOL! You believe now!
What don't you get? They are able to restrain their behavior and yet do not possess the necessary faculties of comprehension.
What don't you get? They are able to restrain their behavior and yet do not possess the necessary faculties of comprehension.
No they don't. They can rationalize anything they wish. It's only YOUR morality that compels them to follow your rule. They can simply live by "Let the buyer beware".
I stated... (and I quote)
A simpleton, dullard, child, vegetative human being, etc.. who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard. Their actions are effectively amoral.
Clearly, I am speaking about people who DO NOT possess the necessary faculties.
You seem to be trying to rebutt my point, by suggesting that there are borderline functional people who DO possess the necessary faculties.
But if they possess the necessary faculties, then I clearly wasn't talking about them.
What part don't you get?
If I bring you around I would be overjoyed that your life would improve by truly coming to understand God and His purpose and His purpose for you and that quite possibly down the road you would come to a saving faith and I could some day embrace you as a brother in heaven.
If you bring me around, and I reject the notion of a creator and I say, 'It's all hogwash!! OWK was right!' would I be better off? Would my life improve some way? Would you take any joy in opening my eyes?
"Rationalization" is being used as equivalent to sophistry.
We're talking about objectively defensible and demonstrable reason, which is another thing altogether.
Reason demands that a moral code (a system defining good and evil among humankind) applies to all humans equally.
If it does not, then it fails the first test, and is hence irrational. (whether some clown "rationalizes" it, or not)
Imposing morality, that is.
Judges 21:25
Your faith is yours to evaluate, and to accept or reject on it's merits.
I share my thoughts.
Take what value you will from them.
Would I consider your life improved, for having forsaken fairly tales in favor of reason?
I think I would perhaps.. yes..
But the decision is yours, and I take even greater pleasure in this.
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.