Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Michael, Jul 7, 2010.
Exactly, good to see that someone else sees this too.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Done: Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christians, they reject the symbol most commonly associated with Christianity - the cross. Crosses are not displayed in the interior or exterior of Kingdom Halls and Jehovah's Witnesses do not wear cross necklaces or print crosses on their Bibles.
That was easy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've been to churches that are against the use of The Cross and will not use it for the same reasons YOU think the Star and Crescent is not Islamic... because symbolism is considered idolatry. AND yet, most Churches have Crosses and most Mosques have Star and Crescents at their tops.
People like Symbolism (which is perfectly fine - I mean, that's why "Churches" and "Mosques" exist). In my mind "Last Prophet" and "Perfect Qur'an" are other examples of Religious Symbolism - it's just a little harder to see, but, if you think about it, you'll find that they are exactly the same. People do likes their Symbols - don't they Ja'far Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, maybe I am missing your point.
Star and Crescent's were commonly used as Persian symbols.
Mosques are modeled on Persian architecture.
Star and Crescent's are commonly used to "decorate" Mosques.
Ergo, it appears to me, Muslims (probably Persian's) adopted their pre-Islamic Persian symbolism into their new religion and as the religion spread, it became commonly accepted and thus "Islamic" :shrug:
That aside, how would you logically and rationally explain the many Biblical stories found in the Qur'an?
Why not start becoming honest for a change instead of using guile: why did you choose one particular section of the Torah? Jerusalem was established by King David, which is 250 years 'after' the Pentateuch [five books of Moses] was written. Otherwise the entire Torah would constitute a fake - like you. But Jerusalem is mentioned almost 700 times in the Torah - no doubt you are obviously aware of this. The city is thereafter mentioned in every book of the Torah. Your mode of debating is not productive and does not signify truthfulness. There are loads of Muslim distorted copies of the Torah on the net - why bring it here in a history thread?
There is absolutely no point made in your post and your ridiculing stance. Anyone can read the text which says the burial place of Moses will never be known - I never made that up. I freely admitted there is no 'proof'. But we do have this of figures even much earlier, and we do have proof of David and almost all Hebrew figures mentioned. We also have proof of Moses' brother Aaron and his burial place and DOD, as well as Joseph and his mother Rachel - both earlier than Moses, as well as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their wives in Hebron.
When I say there is loads of evidence, as opposed to proof, this too is correct, and in a mode acceptable even in a court case of a murder trial - its called solid circumstantial evidence. If one examines all the narrative details surrounding Moses, such as entry into Canaan, dates, the cities built in Egypt, the routes taken, the nations listed, a war with Egypt mentioning Israel in an Egyptian stelle, etc - these are all regarded as evidences. In fact, we have not a single disputative evidence of Moses from ancient to modern history. So someone with an agenda on negating everything today does not impact here. What is also forgotten is there were no alphabetical books in Moses' time - his was the first of its kind.
Does anyone know, crosses used to be a Jewish symbol, then it was ceased after Christianity took it over? True!
"I shall make Jerusalem as a burden unto the Nations"
Instead of questioning Jerusalem in the Hebrew bible, why not focus on your own scriptures. Only today, this prominent Muslim Imam declares you are a sinner, transgressing an array of laws when this most known Hebrew city is denied of its true owners:
Do we really have to keep talking in circles like this? I have already stated that the star and crescent did become and is a popular symbol of Islam however with that being said, within Islamic theology itself, it plays no importance, has no significance and was not used as a symbol for Islam during the time of the Prophet (saw) or the early ummah infact the flags that were flown were one, solid color usually green, white or black. So what if the Muslim states adopted it from the Byzantines. This happened in the 15th century, over 800 years after the death of the Prophet (saw). So what if there are star and crescents on the tops of masjids this only suggest that it's an adopted, popular symbol for Islam hence it's use.
Muhammad (saw) being khatim an-nabiyin and al-Qur'an being the perfected message of Allah (saw) is not religious symbolism, that is absurd. In Islam and to the Muslim these are declarations of faith, period. You're begining to stretch and are bastardizing the word 'symbolism' here and honestly, these colorful ideas of yours are getting out there.
Your point was that Muslims adopted pre-Islamic religious symbolism, I'm questioning this. That's my point, hence my questions. Also, I recommend that you read up on the history of the star and crescent. The adoption of the symbol by the Muslim states came when the Ottoman Turks took the city of Byzantium whose symbol was the star and crescent. It's from there that association with the symbol and Islam begins.
I don't think you quite understand my point.
There is no archaeological proof or evidence of Moses, the path he supposedly took or the hordes of Jews he supposedly saved from Egypt. The Egyptians, who kept meticulous records, have no mention of Moses or the hordes of Jewish slaves and persons he led out of Egypt - which is quite extraordinaty when one considers the monumental event that it would have been at the time.
Not a single, even small piece of evidence (not even pot fragments) to show that he existed as was apparently written. There is no proof or evidence of the exodus. What archaeological evidence has shown has been the complete opposite.
(from wiki) Habibollah Ayatollahi suggests in The Book of Iran: The History of Iranian Art that the Star and Crescent were commonly used Persian symbols that were adopted by Muslims and overtime became "Islamic" Symbols. According to the archeological evidence these symbols were used by Muslims before the conquest of Constantinople and so predate their use by Turks.
The theory that the Ottomans simply adopted a star and crescent symbol from the Byzantines after their conquest of Constantinople is commonly advanced. However, this is difficult to conclusively establish. After the emergence of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of Constantinople as an imperial city, symbols interpreted as a 'star and crescent' appear rather infrequently on Byzantine coins.
It seems that the symbol "Star and Crescent" were used by Arab and Persian Muslims and considered Islamic long before they were used by Turkish Muslims. Again, we see "Islam" as an evolution of pre-Islamic ideas from the cultures the Arabs migrated and lived with. In short, Arab Muslims adopted the local culture and called it Islamic. Whereas Persian Muslims just continued doing what they were doing - and over time thought it was "Islamic". Which is perfectly normal and fits most social developments where people go to live with another people. Just look at the Sikh Muslim's in India.
It's called "going native" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One could see it as a positive sign and it may suggest that the migrating Arabs really wanted to integrate with their new host nations. Or that people are loath to completely give up their beliefs and traditions to invaders?
That aside, I notice you mention quiet a few things as occurring during the lifetime of Mohammad that there simply is no any contemporary evidence for - - at all. Zero. All of the histories were written many generations later. Just a point I'd like to make if we talking about evidence from the life-time of Mohammad.
Second, again, how do you suppose Biblical stories got into the Qur'an? I mean, what logical rational explanations are there other than they were either (1) copied from a Bible to legitimize a brand new religion called Islam or (2) Islam simply evolved as a branch of Christianity? (3) ???
If the Qur'an had a couple of stories like the flood myth, then sure, maybe it was somewhat indigenous, but as it stands, the Qur'an is composed of vast amounts of Biblical mythology and most people were Persian Zoroastrians or Arab Christians.
From this POV, which I think seems reasonable, Islam is a combination of Persian symbolism/beliefs married to the Biblical mythology that developed over time. The two faiths common in the lands where Arabs migrated to and lived in.
Not even one example?
I would have thought among a billion Muslims you could have found at least faction or group whose actual practices and actions were such that we could use them as a touchstone for what you mean by "Islam". Does it exist on this earth anywhere?
Meanwhile, we have the Islam of Indonesia, the Islam of Saudi Arabia (center of the faith), the Islam of Egypt, the Islam of Iran, and so forth. That collection of sects and factions and ethnicities - the ummah, as you term - is the Islam we non-believers have to deal with.
It not only condones but abets and enforces obvious misogyny. It defends genital mutilation in Egypt, attempts to impose creationism and other religious myths in the science classrooms of schools in Minnesota, justifies the harassment of ordinary women on the streets of my town, defends with word and supports with deed the terrorism directed at various cartoonists and authors, it rallies and justifies all manner of violence including suicide bombings, and so forth.
You are the one asserting a single, inclusive, unitary image of Islam. I'm the one listening to actual Muslims, as they tell me what Islam is to them and act on their beliefs. .
But who would disagree?
Your opinion of what the inherent parts are, of Islam, is just that - your opinion. Other Muslims disagree with you. They have a different idea of what Islam is, and thousands of them live in my town. So what faces me in this matter: on one hand an internet poster who cannot seem to wrap his comnprehension around even what I write, let alone the large subject of Islam; and the official clerics and numerous representatives of Islam who live in my city, the dozens of other explainers and justifiers of Islam that populate the digital multiverse, and the visible Islamic actors and justifiers on the international stage.
The quick resort to accusations of hatred, assumptions (projections, they seem) of attitude and perception and belief, and personal vendetta, is common among the Muslims on this forum - a characteristic you share with your ideological allies of the right, in the US.
Try staying with the issue.
Funny how you didn't adress any of the evidence that I presented and are only choosing to beat this dead horse argument of "it's your ideal Islam, bitch, bitch, bitch," do we really have to keep doing this? Do I really need to keep demonstrating how full of shit you are?
If you hadn't noticed, I have given you evidence against your claims written by scholars whom are accepted and respected by both Sunni and Shi'i Muslims. I have given you evidence against your claims from al-Qur'an of which is the central and most important holy text to all Muslims. I have also referenced numerous marji, scholars, texts and so forth that are in agreement with me. You're talking in terms of absolutes like in your version of 'Islam' there has been some, universal ijma involving the whole ummah which most certainly isn't the case. There is hardly ever true ijma among the whole ummah on anything, there is all sorts of differing varying opinions in philosophy, interpretation, etc. in Islam. Even amongst strictly Sunni circles and Shi'i circles. There is even a group (Qu'ranists) who reject hadith and only accept al-Qur'an. Which is what I have been stressing all along. I have even mentioned ideaologies of which I consider to be the source of X problems, namely Wahhabism. Any Shi'a would be in agreement with me on this considering it's the Wahhabis which yell at Shi'a children calling them heretics. I honestly don't know how much more evidence I would need to provide to get this through your head.
Egypt has banned all forms of female genital cutting. I have already addressed this argument as well, I have already stated that it's an African cultural practice that isn't observed elsewhere in the Muslim world and would infact be considered haram in other areas. Infact in the Lebanese Republic all forms of female genital cutting are banned. A similiar ban would exist in other areas such as Turkmenistan, Iran, KSA, UAE, if said practice even existed to the point where a national ban on the practice would even be necessary to begin with.
In Islam scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang can also just as easily be accepted. Not to mention, this isn't isolated to the Muslim community but also would extend to the Jewish and Christian community as well. Not to mention the political considerations that also should be considered.
Not to mention, again, I have already addressed all of these arguments in detail, with textual evidence, counter-arguments and so forth.
No, I'm not which is clear by my posts. Not only have I explicitly said that Islam is not a single, unitary, homogenous, borg-like, etc entity. I have also argued my point on X matters using evidence of which would be accepted by both Shi'i and Sunni Muslims. I have also presented many arguments and reasoning for X grievances. All you are continuing to do is ignore anything I say, ignore any and all evidence given and then argue the same bullshit as if nothing was said. Again, I ask, how many times do I have to prove just how full of shit you really are?
I have provided arguments, counter-arguments, evidence and refutations of every single one of your assertions and that would be accepted by any non-Muslim that was intellectually honest. Yet, you still persist in the same, tired argument that I have already refuted. This would suggest a hatred, bias and so on towards X and in the case X is Islam and Muslims. The rest of your post was obviously argumentum ad hominem. It's absurd to think I have a personal vendetta against you. How many times do I have to say, I don't give a fuck about this forum? Do you honestly think I give a flying fuck about another Western cog that spouts of the same old, tired out anti-Islamic babble as all the others? No, I most assuredly don't.
It's ironic that you talk about projection. It's also hilarious that you are saying this to me in general because it very apparent that I am the one staying on topic and I am the one the has provided evidence backed refutations of all your claims and have provided numerous counter-arguments to your grievances and ignorance of Islam and Muslims. You're resorting to the same dead horse argument doesn't negate any of this. This is truly pathetic.
*Gasp* Are you really asserting that a theist is... "full of shit"?!? Somebody get glaucon!! It's an emergency!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
iceaura, a theist? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Disagree. Its not an anomaly considering the period; there is loads of evidence for Moses - for so than for Jesus or Buddha; the Egyptians were notorious for erasing past kings writings or references.
True about small pieces of pottery, chariot bits, and Moses mentioned anywhere before 3,200 years - this is common knowledge. The evidences for Moses includes:
A stelle mentioning Israel by name and a war. That the Israelites did return to Canaan and had a kingdom there till 70 CE. That they listed a host of contemporary routes, nations and wars enroute. That the Psalms of King David, some 250 later, mentions Moses numerously - David is a proven true life figure.
There is no proof or disputative proof of Moses - but loads of evidences.
Could you provide such contemporary "evidence" for the existence of Mosses? It only takes ONE peace of good evidence to disprove a theory. My theory is Mosses (like Hercules, Jesus and Mohammad) never existed. Now, you can either accept it, or use some evidence to disprove it.
I can safely tell you there is not much originality in Christianity or Islam beliefs - these are borrowed from a host of older cultures. The cross was a Jewish symbol after Rome invaded the region and introduced crucifixtion.
Mohammed surely existed. The city of Medina had a large Jewish sector after they were displaced by Rome. They were massacred by Mohammed, their women taken, all who had pubic hair were killed as adults and children raised as Muslims.
Re Moses, As I said, there is loads of circumstantial evidence, acceptable even in a legal proceeding today. The narratives of Moses tell of a war between the Israelites and the Egyptians, and that they left Egypt after builting two cities [Pithom & Ramaessy], and returned to their own land [Canaan]. An Egyptian stelle found recently speaks of a war with Israel - aligning with the basic texts of Moses.
The verse, NOW A NEW KING AROSE IN EGYPT WHO KNEW NOT [WOULD NOT RECOGNISE] JOSEPH AND HIS PEOPLE'. Soon after this the texts speaks of enslavement and bondage. This is the reason any past evidence has been erased, which is consistant of Egyptian traits. The first recording of the Pharoahs, even by name, and the Egyptian cutures, diets and religion is in the Mosaic writings. These writings also give an exact period between Joseph entering Egypt and the exodus, down to the year, and listing a host of nations and peoples names which are authentic to their historical period. Moses ushered in Monotheism as a legal treatise with written laws - this never existed before.
IMHO, a greater wonder than no proof of Moses, is the text's assurence this will be the case.
Separate names with a comma.