The Pagan Origins of Easter

[ygalg1]

By Royce Carlson

Easter celebrations were held hundreds of years before Christ was born as festivals of spring honoring Eostre, the great mother goddess of the Saxons. This name was fashioned after the ancient word for spring, Eastre. The goddess Ostara was the Norse equivalent whose symbols were the hare and the egg. From this comes our modern tradition of celebrating Easter with eggs and bunnies.
In the Mediterranean region, there was a pre-Christian spring celebration centered around the vernal equinox (March 20 or 21) that honored Cybele, the Phrygian goddess of fertility. Cybele’s consort, Attis, was considered born of a virgin and was believed to have died and been resurrected three days later. Attis derived his mythology from even earlier gods, Osiris, Dionysus, and Orpheus, who also were supposed to have been born of a virgin and suffered death and resurrection as long as 500 years before Christ was born. The death of Attis was commemorated on a Friday and the resurrection was celebrated three days later on Sunday.
There are other Easter traditions that are pagan in origin. The Easter sunrise service is derived from the ancient pagan practice of welcoming the sun on the morning of the spring equinox, marking the beginning of spring. What we now call Easter lilies were revered by the ancients as symbols of fertility and representative of the male genitalia. The ancient Babylonian religions had rituals involving dyed eggs as did the ancient Egyptians.
The Christian version of Easter is celebrated after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Modern day neo-pagans usually have their spring celebrations on the day of the equinox. Either way, these celebrations have gone on every year continuously for over 2500 years. So, next Sunday, if you go to an Easter sunrise service, hunt for colored eggs or eat marshmallow bunnies, remember you are indulging in pagan rituals that celebrate fertility and the advent of springtime!
link (http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22042&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60)

[Zlatorog]

http://www.pozivlja.si/download/video/kurenti_v_iraku_celoten.wmv

Kresnik (http://www.posta.si/DezelaZnamk/ViewBigImage.aspx?imageid=6269)

Firemen prepare these (http://www.sls.si/images/news/Kres-na-Jancah.jpg)

Kresnik's holiday, Jurjevanje, popular among scouts and dance groups (http://www.jurjevanje.si/Fotogalerija/Jurjevanje_2004/pic/jurjevanje12.jpg)

Baraga, a Christian, those usually removed trees with too much decoration (http://www.posta.si/DezelaZnamk/ViewBigImage.aspx?imageid=5612)

Attis returned as a pine tree (http://www.posta.si/DezelaZnamk/ViewBigImage.aspx?imageid=5664)

Diety (http://www.posta.si/DezelaZnamk/ViewBigImage.aspx?imageid=7283)

Mock marriage (http://www.posta.si/DezelaZnamk/ViewBigImage.aspx?imageid=5663)

United Nothing (http://www.posta.si/DezelaZnamk/ViewBigImage.aspx?imageid=7292)

Jurjevanje (http://www.posta.si/DezelaZnamk/ViewBigImage.aspx?imageid=5683)

Spring (http://www.posta.si/DezelaZnamk/ViewBigImage.aspx?imageid=7000)

The animal on the right is Proteus (http://www.posta.si/DezelaZnamk/ViewBigImage.aspx?imageid=5837)

Valvasor thought that Proteus (lives in the caves here) was believed to be a little dragon, the devil is either a hunter here, or does not exist (http://www.glirarium.org/dormouse/images/glis-devil.gif)

[Arjunn]

By Royce Carlson

Easter celebrations were held hundreds of years before Christ was born as festivals of spring honoring Eostre, the great mother goddess of the Saxons. This name was fashioned after the ancient word for spring, Eastre. The goddess Ostara was the Norse equivalent whose symbols were the hare and the egg. From this comes our modern tradition of celebrating Easter with eggs and bunnies.
In the Mediterranean region, there was a pre-Christian spring celebration centered around the vernal equinox (March 20 or 21) that honored Cybele, the Phrygian goddess of fertility. Cybele’s consort, Attis, was considered born of a virgin and was believed to have died and been resurrected three days later. Attis derived his mythology from even earlier gods, Osiris, Dionysus, and Orpheus, who also were supposed to have been born of a virgin and suffered death and resurrection as long as 500 years before Christ was born. The death of Attis was commemorated on a Friday and the resurrection was celebrated three days later on Sunday.
There are other Easter traditions that are pagan in origin. The Easter sunrise service is derived from the ancient pagan practice of welcoming the sun on the morning of the spring equinox, marking the beginning of spring. What we now call Easter lilies were revered by the ancients as symbols of fertility and representative of the male genitalia. The ancient Babylonian religions had rituals involving dyed eggs as did the ancient Egyptians.
The Christian version of Easter is celebrated after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Modern day neo-pagans usually have their spring celebrations on the day of the equinox. Either way, these celebrations have gone on every year continuously for over 2500 years. So, next Sunday, if you go to an Easter sunrise service, hunt for colored eggs or eat marshmallow bunnies, remember you are indulging in pagan rituals that celebrate fertility and the advent of springtime!
link (http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22042&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60)


even christmas is a pagan holiday, not only the date but also the christmas tree

[andak01]

This time, I'll defend my Christian fellow people of the Book. Intention counts for a lot. If a religious custom has an origin in another place doesn't tell you anything about what it means to the people who practice it today. When the KKK burns a Cross, they aren't acting as Christians though the origin of the symbol is Christian. So it is entirely possible for a word or a symbol or a celebration to be coopted and used in an entirely different way with different intention. The pagan origins of Christian holidays don't cause Christians to be pagans.

[Arjunn]

This time, I'll defend my Christian fellow people of the Book. Intention counts for a lot. If a religious custom has an origin in another place doesn't tell you anything about what it means to the people who practice it today. When the KKK burns a Cross, they aren't acting as Christians though the origin of the symbol is Christian. So it is entirely possible for a word or a symbol or a celebration to be coopted and used in an entirely different way with different intention. The pagan origins of Christian holidays don't cause Christians to be pagans.


of course it dosent, but co opting of pagan holidays/festivals as christian ones were a main teqnique carried out by eary chriatians to ensure that they stamp out all traces of paganism, wich is a bad thing to do

[andak01]

of course it dosent, but co opting of pagan holidays/festivals as christian ones were a main teqnique carried out by eary chriatians to ensure that they stamp out all traces of paganism, wich is a bad thing to do

On a scale where 5000 years of caste system is a 5, how would that rank?

[Arjunn]

On a scale where 5000 years of caste system is a 5, how would that rank?

ok here we go again, another guy who knows nothing about the caste system or of tis origins apart from what he hears from the media.wouldnt it be better that u do some research on it before u go about posting stuff like this?

but first ill answer ur q,
on a scale of 10. i would rate the co opting of other religions festivals into another religion with the express purpose of removing every trace of the previous (pagan) religion borders of culrutal homicide.a planned act of erasing a peoples history that would merit nothing more than a 0 in the scale

now let me get back to the q u asked,

the issue of caste is mentioned in hinduism but IT clearly says that all castes are equal.would u show proof that it says that one caste it better than the other? nope.

rem the medieval ages in europe? or the middle eastern culture(even now u folks have kings). the caste system too took on a fuedal traid during the medieval timnes, because those who were in power dindt want to lose it hence they subverted the caste system to ensure that they can have power over the others, its a simple matter of politics, the same way there were serfs in the west and lords, and dukes and whatnot, the same way there are still kings in the arabian countries

never in hindu texts is a verse that says once caste is better than the other, actually it even says that people can change castes depending on the jobs they do.

in the ancient times
the priests were called brahmins not cos they were better, its just a title for a type of a job they do)

the warriors: were called ksytrias("shatriars")the caste wich my family belongs to, were those who kept the law, did the administrative work..in other words, the aristocracy. in the event of war between indian kings, it will be the warriors who fight in the armies, the fight would take place in a battlefield far removed from population centors, and no civilian would be harmed..the chivalric aspect of indian warfare far exceeeds of that of the west and of any other country(even thou the japanese come close, they have..killed civilians in japanese civil wars..so hence they aint perfect either)

the vaihsyas: , these were traders,money lenders and so forth

the shudras: these were the ones who were farmers, who tened animals and stuff

its simply an issue of naming the 4 major parts of a society
there are ample examples of shudras being kings and being sages who were regarded even better than the normal brahmin who were sages too

so the talk about the caste issue in india related to hinduism is such Bs.its another one of those easy"explanations" given my the missonaries who came with the colonials to india, to explain away things wich they have no understanding of, and also to make it advantageous for their conversion efforts.

and also its funny cos, eve thou caste has nothing to do with hinduism and and those who are considered to be born in the lower castes have a far higer % of getting a job or university education in india than those who are from other castes,. so if u say that the caste system is still there, then u should add that its actually benificial to the"so called" lower castes.there are even incidents of people reporting their castes differently so they could preferential treatment(saying that they are lower castes).huh? isnt that in direct contradiction to what u see in ur media?

was there any minority or even woman president in the us? a black guy? a hispanic guy? a non christian guy?
in india the pm is a sikh and the pres is a muslim, the previous pres was a guy from the lowest of castes, while the prev pm was an orthodox brahmon. ours is a VERY equal opputunity religion and society, its about time u take a look at the hard facts before u go about spewing stuff thats seems like commie propaganda(wich is always not true.lol)

PS: but i would say that there were soem people who were considered lower in the ancient times, they were those who eat meat. in a society that teaches non violence and that the lives of man and a mere animal are equal, killing and eating of animals is a horrid act in their eyes. an act thats akin to an animal killing and eating another animal.hence those who ate meat were the only ones who were discriminated agasint.other than that all castes were equal. this is not specific to india cos event he ancient japanese samurai looked down on those who ate meat

[Zlatorog]

Holi is pagan, similar to feasts of fools in Europe, Saturnalia in Venice is neopagan. Slovenes are in the 'Paganism of Eastern Alps' category, although they have Pannonian festivals.

An underwater man = art by the river = a terrace, a fairytale... Svarozic = Little God = Bozic = just another name for Christmas

Svarog, in Sanskrt Svarna = one third of Threehead / Triglav, neither Indo European nor neopagan (Wikipedia), bonfires recenty moved to May Day, also labelled neopagan, but there has never been a year here without them.

Similar to Feast of Fools (Kurents and other creatures) are versions of Mardi Grass, but most have never been Christian, so they've been seperate from religious holidays = a rural fest in old Austria (not German, Slav, Roman....) = to smaller extent German and Germanized vs the countryside with some fake bride rivalry, slightly xeno Attis holiday, noone would miss it, a more recent neopagan Halloween is insignificant compared to similar festivals in certain rural places where beliefs never mattered until the industry became either German or French. Muslim children hear about festivals and beliefs in school and that's it, in old Austria they were an inland city police force.

Cilli / Celje that was trashed by football fans - the Germans had a shop, the Slovenes built another one across the street, then the Germans built a theatre, and the Slovene one that was built across the street was built by some Chech architect, was blocked by the German police, the Chech students were trapped, the German army had to intervene: this was the beggining of diplomatic and other disputes that lasted between 1870-1941 and were about language and history - a Slovene 'duchy', an ancient saint, a well, a noisy masquerade, a winter chasing house to house gift exchange, 'Russian colours'.... were found burried or were thriving in Austria and that had to be covered up or erased. The Vatican, at first supported 'saints' like Slomsek, who fought hard to organise schools in Slovene, sometimes just by buying all the land, was squeezed by the Italians who were fighting against the bilingual signs and both nationalities began to ignore the third one sandwiched in between. The Germans were 'liberated' by Hitler. The article is partly about Grimm's romanticism.

[andak01]

ok here we go again, another guy who knows nothing about the caste system or of tis origins apart from what he hears from the media.wouldnt it be better that u do some research on it before u go about posting stuff like this?

Before we go any farther, you sound just like me. If you are going to make the point that there is some higher Hinduism in the scripture than what people generally practice, I'm inclined to believe you. That's the point, it's something to aspire to. But humans being what they are distort it, make it a means of oppressing others.

Islam is no different in that respect. Muhammad's intention wasn't to oppress women or to create an empire, it was to build equality among men, charity and an appreciation for a higher power. There is an entire book of hadith devoted to freeing of slaves. Muhammad married women who were considered untouchable (sorry for that reference): an older woman, a divorced woman, a slave. And in fact, for centuries after Muhammad, other religions lived in that region with no less autonomy than anywhere else and they flourished in places as nowhere else.

Those Muslims that invaded India were of an entirely different philosophy than Muhammad. They were the grandchildren of the Mongols, the most bloodthirsty bunch that ever roamed the earth. Here are some fragments of their code of law, those ancestors of Tamerlane.

The fragments of the Great Yassa of Jenghiz Khan which have come down to us through Makrizi:

1. An adulterer is to be put to death without any regard as to whether he is married or not.
2. Whoever is guilty of sodomy is also to be put to death.
3. Whoever intentionally lies, or practices sorcery, or spies upon the behaviour of others, or intervenes between the two parties in a quarrel to help the one against the other is also to be put to death.
4. Whoever urinates into water or ashes is also to be put to death.
5. Whoever takes goods (on credit) and becomes bankrupt, then again takes goods and again becomes bankrupt, then takes goods again and yet again becomes bankrupt is to be put to death after the third time.
6. Whoever gives food or clothing to a captive without the permission of his captor is to be put to death.
7. Whoever finds a runaway slave or captive and does not return him to the person to whom he belongs is to be put to death.
8. When an animal is to be eaten, its feet must be tied, its belly ripped open and its heart squeezed in the hand until the animal dies; then its meat may be eaten; but if anyone slaughter an animal after the Mohammedan fashion, he is to be himself slaughtered.
9. If in battle, during an attack or a retreat, anyone let fall his pack, or bow, or any luggage, the man behind him must alight and return the thing fallen to its owner; if he does not so alight and return the thing fallen, he is to be put to death.
10. Jenghiz Khan decided that no taxes or duties should be imposed ... upon fakirs, readers of the Al-Koran, lawyers, physicians, scholars, people who devote themselves to prayer and asceticism, muezzins and those who wash the bodies of the dead.
11. He ordered that all religions were to be respected and that no preference was to be shown to any of them. All this he commanded in order that it might be agreeable to God.
12. He forbade his people to eat food offered by another until the one offering the food tasted of it himself, even though one be a prince and the other a captive; he forbade them to eat anything in the presence of another without having invited him to partake of the food; he forbade any man to eat more than his comrades, and to step over a fire on which food was being cooked or a dish from which people were eating.
13. When a wayfarer passes by people eating, he must alight and eat with them without asking for permission, and they must not forbid him this.
14. He forbade them to dip their hands into water and ordered them to use some vessel for the drawing of water.
15. He forbade them to wash their clothes until they were completely worn out.
16. He forbade them to say of anything that it was unclean, and insisted that all things were clean and made no distinction between the clean and unclean.
17. He forbade them to show preference for any sect, to pronounce words with emphasis, to use honorary titles; when speaking to the Sultan or anyone else simply his name was to be used.
18. He ordered his successors to personally examine the troops and their armament before going to battle, to supply the troops with everything they needed for the campaign and to survey everything even to needle and thread, and if any of the soldiers lacked a necessary thing that soldier was to be punished.
19. He ordered women accompanying the troops to do the work and perform the duties of the men, while the latter were absent fighting.
20. He ordered the warriors, on their return from the campaign (battle) to carry out certain duties in the service of the Sultan.
21. He ordered them to present all their daughters to the Sultan at the beginning of each year that he might choose some of them for himself and his children.
22. He put Emirs (princes/generals or noyans) at the head of the troops and appointed commanders of thousands, hundreds, and tens.
23. He ordered that the oldest of the Emirs, if he had committed some offence, was to give himself up to the messenger sent by the sovereign to punish him, even if he was the lowest of his servants; and prostrate himself before him until he had carried out the punishment prescribed by the sovereign, even if it be to put him to death.
24. He forbade Emirs to address themselves to anyone except the sovereign. Whoever addressed himself to asnyone but the sovereign was to be put to death, and anyone changing his post without permission was also to be put to death.
25. He ordered the Sultan to establish permanent postal communications in order that he might be informed in good time of all the events of the country.
26. He ordered his son, Jagatai-baen-Jenghiz Khan to see that the Yassa was observed.

From Mirhond (or Mirhovend):



27. He ordered that soldiers be punished for negligence; and hunters who let an animal escape during a community hunt he ordered to be beaten with sticks and in some cases to be put to death.
28. In cases of murder (punishment for murder) one could ransom himself by paying fines which were: for a Mohammedan - 40 golden coins (Balysh); and for a Chinese - one donkey.

From Ibn-Batuta:



29. The man in whose possession a stolen horse is found must return it to its owner and add nine horses of the same kind: if he is unable to pay this fine, his children must be taken instead of the horses, and if he have no children, he himself shall be slaughtered like a sheep.

From Vartang:



30. The Yassa of Jenghiz Khan forbids lies, theft and adultery and prescribes love of one's neighbor as ones's self; it orders men not to hurt each other and to forget offences completely, to sparae countries and cities which submit voluntarily, to free from taxes temples consecrated to God, and to respect old people and beggars. Whoever violates these commands is to be put to death.

From Mahakia:



31. (The Yassa prescribes these rules:) to love one another, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to give false witness, not to be a traitor, and to respect old people and beggars. Whoever violates these commands is put to death.

From various sources:



32. (The Yassa of J. K. prescribes that) a man who chokes on food must be driven out of the camp and immediately killed; and whosoever puts his foot on the threshold of the tent of the commander of an army shall also be put to death.
33. If unable to abstain from drinking, a man may get drunk three times a month; if he does it more than three times he is culpable; if he gets drunk twice a month it is better; if once a month, this is still more laudable; and if one does not drink at all what can be better? But where can such a man be found? If such a man were found he would be worthy of the highest esteem.(Riasanovsky considers this fragment to belong to the Maxims of J.K., maxim 20)
34. Children born of a concubine are to be considered as legitimate, and receive their share of the heritage according to the disposition of it made by the father. (Beats the law of primogenture in Europe where only oldest inherited) Much more civilized. The distribution of property is to be carried out on the basis of the senior son receiving more than the junior, the younger son inheriting the household of the father. The seniority of children depends upon the rank of their mother; one of the wives must always be the senior, this being determined chiefly by the time of her marriage.
35. After the death of his father, a son may dispose of the father's wives, all except his mother; he may marry them or give them in marriage to others.
36. All except the legal heirs are strictly forbidden to make use of any of the property of the deceased.



http://members.tripod.com/~whitebard/yasa.htm

[Agnosthiest]

Those Muslims that invaded India were of an entirely different philosophy than Muhammad.

not really. their philosophy of invasion, lootings, and submission is very similar to Mohammad's.


11. He ordered that all religions were to be respected and that no preference was to be shown to any of them. All this he commanded in order that it might be agreeable to God.

these laws are not so bad, especially this one. if only they lived up to it.

[Agnosthiest]

of course it dosent, but co opting of pagan holidays/festivals as christian ones were a main teqnique carried out by eary chriatians to ensure that they stamp out all traces of paganism, wich is a bad thing to do
why is it bad? i think its a good and peaceful way of persuasion. much better than the jewish slaughter of pagans, or the islamic combination method of warfare & dhimmitude to deal with pagans & unbelievers.

europeans did not complain, why should you?

and look at christmas, its so much fun!!! even non-christians could celebrate it, like the chinese, japanese & some muslims & hindus.

so again how can co opting of pagan holidays/festivals as christian ones be a bad thing? how?

[Mediocrates]

FWIW the names of the months in the Jewish calendar are Babylonian and/or Sumerian.

[Arjunn]

Before we go any farther, you sound just like me. If you are going to make the point that there is some higher Hinduism in the scripture than what people generally practice, I'm inclined to believe you. That's the point, it's something to aspire to. But humans being what they are distort it, make it a means of oppressing others.

Islam is no different in that respect. Muhammad's intention wasn't to oppress women or to create an empire, it was to build equality among men, charity and an appreciation for a higher power. There is an entire book of hadith devoted to freeing of slaves. Muhammad married women who were considered untouchable (sorry for that reference): an older woman, a divorced woman, a slave. And in fact, for centuries after Muhammad, other religions lived in that region with no less autonomy than anywhere else and they flourished in places as nowhere else.

Those Muslims that invaded India were of an entirely different philosophy than Muhammad. They were the grandchildren of the Mongols, the most bloodthirsty bunch that ever roamed the earth. Here are some fragments of their code of law, those ancestors of Tamerlane.

The fragments of the Great Yassa of Jenghiz Khan which have come down to us through Makrizi:

1. An adulterer is to be put to death without any regard as to whether he is married or not.
2. Whoever is guilty of sodomy is also to be put to death.
3. Whoever intentionally lies, or practices sorcery, or spies upon the behaviour of others, or intervenes between the two parties in a quarrel to help the one against the other is also to be put to death.
4. Whoever urinates into water or ashes is also to be put to death.
5. Whoever takes goods (on credit) and becomes bankrupt, then again takes goods and again becomes bankrupt, then takes goods again and yet again becomes bankrupt is to be put to death after the third time.
6. Whoever gives food or clothing to a captive without the permission of his captor is to be put to death.
7. Whoever finds a runaway slave or captive and does not return him to the person to whom he belongs is to be put to death.
8. When an animal is to be eaten, its feet must be tied, its belly ripped open and its heart squeezed in the hand until the animal dies; then its meat may be eaten; but if anyone slaughter an animal after the Mohammedan fashion, he is to be himself slaughtered.
9. If in battle, during an attack or a retreat, anyone let fall his pack, or bow, or any luggage, the man behind him must alight and return the thing fallen to its owner; if he does not so alight and return the thing fallen, he is to be put to death.
10. Jenghiz Khan decided that no taxes or duties should be imposed ... upon fakirs, readers of the Al-Koran, lawyers, physicians, scholars, people who devote themselves to prayer and asceticism, muezzins and those who wash the bodies of the dead.
11. He ordered that all religions were to be respected and that no preference was to be shown to any of them. All this he commanded in order that it might be agreeable to God.
12. He forbade his people to eat food offered by another until the one offering the food tasted of it himself, even though one be a prince and the other a captive; he forbade them to eat anything in the presence of another without having invited him to partake of the food; he forbade any man to eat more than his comrades, and to step over a fire on which food was being cooked or a dish from which people were eating.
13. When a wayfarer passes by people eating, he must alight and eat with them without asking for permission, and they must not forbid him this.
14. He forbade them to dip their hands into water and ordered them to use some vessel for the drawing of water.
15. He forbade them to wash their clothes until they were completely worn out.
16. He forbade them to say of anything that it was unclean, and insisted that all things were clean and made no distinction between the clean and unclean.
17. He forbade them to show preference for any sect, to pronounce words with emphasis, to use honorary titles; when speaking to the Sultan or anyone else simply his name was to be used.
18. He ordered his successors to personally examine the troops and their armament before going to battle, to supply the troops with everything they needed for the campaign and to survey everything even to needle and thread, and if any of the soldiers lacked a necessary thing that soldier was to be punished.
19. He ordered women accompanying the troops to do the work and perform the duties of the men, while the latter were absent fighting.
20. He ordered the warriors, on their return from the campaign (battle) to carry out certain duties in the service of the Sultan.
21. He ordered them to present all their daughters to the Sultan at the beginning of each year that he might choose some of them for himself and his children.
22. He put Emirs (princes/generals or noyans) at the head of the troops and appointed commanders of thousands, hundreds, and tens.
23. He ordered that the oldest of the Emirs, if he had committed some offence, was to give himself up to the messenger sent by the sovereign to punish him, even if he was the lowest of his servants; and prostrate himself before him until he had carried out the punishment prescribed by the sovereign, even if it be to put him to death.
24. He forbade Emirs to address themselves to anyone except the sovereign. Whoever addressed himself to asnyone but the sovereign was to be put to death, and anyone changing his post without permission was also to be put to death.
25. He ordered the Sultan to establish permanent postal communications in order that he might be informed in good time of all the events of the country.
26. He ordered his son, Jagatai-baen-Jenghiz Khan to see that the Yassa was observed.

From Mirhond (or Mirhovend):



27. He ordered that soldiers be punished for negligence; and hunters who let an animal escape during a community hunt he ordered to be beaten with sticks and in some cases to be put to death.
28. In cases of murder (punishment for murder) one could ransom himself by paying fines which were: for a Mohammedan - 40 golden coins (Balysh); and for a Chinese - one donkey.

From Ibn-Batuta:



29. The man in whose possession a stolen horse is found must return it to its owner and add nine horses of the same kind: if he is unable to pay this fine, his children must be taken instead of the horses, and if he have no children, he himself shall be slaughtered like a sheep.

From Vartang:



30. The Yassa of Jenghiz Khan forbids lies, theft and adultery and prescribes love of one's neighbor as ones's self; it orders men not to hurt each other and to forget offences completely, to sparae countries and cities which submit voluntarily, to free from taxes temples consecrated to God, and to respect old people and beggars. Whoever violates these commands is to be put to death.

From Mahakia:



31. (The Yassa prescribes these rules:) to love one another, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to give false witness, not to be a traitor, and to respect old people and beggars. Whoever violates these commands is put to death.

From various sources:



32. (The Yassa of J. K. prescribes that) a man who chokes on food must be driven out of the camp and immediately killed; and whosoever puts his foot on the threshold of the tent of the commander of an army shall also be put to death.
33. If unable to abstain from drinking, a man may get drunk three times a month; if he does it more than three times he is culpable; if he gets drunk twice a month it is better; if once a month, this is still more laudable; and if one does not drink at all what can be better? But where can such a man be found? If such a man were found he would be worthy of the highest esteem.(Riasanovsky considers this fragment to belong to the Maxims of J.K., maxim 20)
34. Children born of a concubine are to be considered as legitimate, and receive their share of the heritage according to the disposition of it made by the father. (Beats the law of primogenture in Europe where only oldest inherited) Much more civilized. The distribution of property is to be carried out on the basis of the senior son receiving more than the junior, the younger son inheriting the household of the father. The seniority of children depends upon the rank of their mother; one of the wives must always be the senior, this being determined chiefly by the time of her marriage.
35. After the death of his father, a son may dispose of the father's wives, all except his mother; he may marry them or give them in marriage to others.
36. All except the legal heirs are strictly forbidden to make use of any of the property of the deceased.



http://members.tripod.com/~whitebard/yasa.htm

ur missing my point. the discrimination there used to be(once upon a time, not now) was NOT based on castes, actually tis once of economics/power, connecting the caste with discrimination was done by a few individuals who wanted to gain from it.esp the missonaries played a major part

and hmnn..if i rem correctly, mohhamed did invade cities/regions and dindt he invade mecca and destroy the pagan worshippers there??

[Arjunn]

why is it bad? i think its a good and peaceful way of persuasion. much better than the jewish slaughter of pagans, or the islamic combination method of warfare & dhimmitude to deal with pagans & unbelievers.

europeans did not complain, why should you?

and look at christmas, its so much fun!!! even non-christians could celebrate it, like the chinese, japanese & some muslims & hindus.

so again how can co opting of pagan holidays/festivals as christian ones be a bad thing? how?


hehe..even christmas is a pagan tradition.

[Agnosthiest]

hehe..even christmas is a pagan tradition.

i hear some christians say that incorporating pagan tradition into christianity is a sign of christian respect to the inherent goodness of some pagan traditions.

and i agree with that. christmas is a good celebration whatever your belief is. thats why this holiday is fast evolving into a christ-less holiday that can be celebrated even in athiest china or shinto japan.

sing with me! "jingle bells...jingle bells....."

"oho ho ho ho ho blue christmas without you!"

"i dont need a lot of presents to make my chrismas bright!"

[Arjunn]

i hear some christians say that incorporating pagan tradition into christianity is a sign of christian respect to the inherent goodness of some pagan traditions.

and i agree with that. christmas is a good celebration whatever your belief is. thats why this holiday is fast evolving into a christ-less holiday that can be celebrated even in athiest china or shinto japan.

sing with me! "jingle bells...jingle bells....."

"oho ho ho ho ho blue christmas without you!"

"i dont need a lot of presents to make my chrismas bright!"

so the only things they thought "good enough" to get from the pagan traditions were only the date and the tree?..yeah i see
cos they have coverd up the rest
not only that they actually termed all the pagan stuff as "satanic"..examples being the"pentacle", "goddess", "nature is as important as humans"..those concepts were all demonised.

[andak01]

and hmnn..if i rem correctly, mohhamed did invade cities/regions and dindt he invade mecca and destroy the pagan worshippers there??

No. Read your history. Mecca was taken without a struggle and the pagan worshippers, while losing their temple and its idols (the Kaaba) were not themselves destroyed. Non-Muslims continued to live in Mecca for several centuries after Muhammad. They certainly did during his lifetime.

[Arjunn]

No. Read your history. Mecca was taken without a struggle and the pagan worshippers, while losing their temple and its idols (the Kaaba) were not themselves destroyed. Non-Muslims continued to live in Mecca for several centuries after Muhammad. They certainly did during his lifetime.

my point is that they did lose their place of worship and their statues

[andak01]

When the Muslims returned to Mecca after over twenty years of exile, they destroyed the idols in the Kaaba. When the Christians came out of the catacombs, they built St. Peters from pieces of pieces of temples. When there is a dynamic shift in the religious demographic following a period of oppression, you will see something of the sort. In this case, whether you believe it or not, they believed that the Kaaba was a special place. The Christians used to find pieces of the cross in places where they built cathedrals. And where there had been Muslims or Jews, that was right over top of a mosque or synogogue.

BTW, what was the religion prior to Hinduism? Buddhism? You really believe that none of the Buddhist shrines in India were taken down to make way for the Hindus?

If you can't imagine such a thing taking place, well, here are some photos of the Babri mosque being ripped apart by a mob in 1992.

Youths clamor atop the Muslim mosque in Ayodhya five hours before the structure was completely demolished by hundreds supporting Hindu fundamentalist activists in 1992

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/04/india.violence/story.ayodhya.temple.jpg

http://www.ndtv.com/images/topstories/Ayodhya1.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/india.site.background/story.ayodhya.afp.jpg

http://www.indianet.nl/divers/ayodhya.jpg

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/04/india.violence/

[Agnosthiest]

No. Read your history. Mecca was taken without a struggle and the pagan worshippers, while losing their temple and its idols (the Kaaba) were not themselves destroyed. Non-Muslims continued to live in Mecca for several centuries after Muhammad. They certainly did during his lifetime.


Although there was no struggle, Mecca was still taken by force.

Read your history. The meccans were caught with their pants down. They were partying, confident that there was still an ongoing peace treaty with the muslims, when suddenly there came a fully armed muslim horde marching towards their city. They had no choice but to surrender.

Thats how crafty Mohammad was. And thats how Islam spreads. An invitation letter at the tip of the sword.

[Arjunn]

When the Muslims returned to Mecca after over twenty years of exile, they destroyed the idols in the Kaaba. When the Christians came out of the catacombs, they built St. Peters from pieces of pieces of temples. When there is a dynamic shift in the religious demographic following a period of oppression, you will see something of the sort. In this case, whether you believe it or not, they believed that the Kaaba was a special place. The Christians used to find pieces of the cross in places where they built cathedrals. And where there had been Muslims or Jews, that was right over top of a mosque or synogogue.

BTW, what was the religion prior to Hinduism? Buddhism? You really believe that none of the Buddhist shrines in India were taken down to make way for the Hindus?

If you can't imagine such a thing taking place, well, here are some photos of the Babri mosque being ripped apart by a mob in 1992.

Youths clamor atop the Muslim mosque in Ayodhya five hours before the structure was completely demolished by hundreds supporting Hindu fundamentalist activists in 1992

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/04/india.violence/story.ayodhya.temple.jpg

http://www.ndtv.com/images/topstories/Ayodhya1.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/india.site.background/story.ayodhya.afp.jpg

http://www.indianet.nl/divers/ayodhya.jpg

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/04/india.violence/


Even thou i didnt condone the tearing down of the mousque, it was built on top of a hindu temple demolished by the invading islamic armies, actually babri mosqu is the only one demolished so far,
there are literally hundreds if not thousands of mousques built on top of demolished hindu and buddhist temples by the invaders.its a histroical fact,
in most of the cases the stone from the demolisehed temple was used for the construction of the mousques, and then plasterd and painted white, to hidxe the origians of the stone.

ive seen with my own eyes many such mousques, so i would not say that the demolishing of the mousque is the same as the christians/muslims demolishing pagan temple, actually tis the opposite

and as for ur q about the temples before hinduism and buddhism, hehe..actually in india there wasnt any religion before hinduism, and no temples nor places of worship, the earliest known places of worship of hinduism go back to the Indus valley civilisation wich started in around 3000BCE, not after when the vedas vere put down to writing.

even before the indus valley civilisation(so called by the early british archelogists who didnt know that it was but an offshoot of the far ealier "saraswati" civilisation(the river saraswati stopped flowing in 3000bc).the ealiest town called Mehrgarh; of the saraswati civilisation goes back to about 8000BCE, making it by far the oldest town found anyware in the planet, even there, the terracotta images and statues point to a early form of hinduism,

Mehrgarh disproves Gordon Childe’s concept of a Neolithic revolution followed by an urban revolution, because here already in the beginning of the Neolithic age we have a large town, the largest in the ancient world, covering over 168 acres, five times the size of the contemporary Catal Huyuk site in Turkey which has been called the largest Neolithic site in the Near East. In comparison, the entire population of Egypt was around 30,000 persons around 6000 BC, around the same as of Mehrgarh alone! And this is two thousand years before Sumer. There is no break in cultural developments from Mehrgarh to Harappa to modern India—here we have proof of the oldest living civilization in the world.

hence, archelogists have come to agree that hinduism might be the "oldest" surviving religion in the planet, soemthing that hinduism has claimed all this time.

the name "hinduism" is not the name of the religion at all, many westerners still dont know that fact. "hindu" derives from the word "Indus" (the river)

hinduism is known amongst its practisioners as "sanatana Dharma" the literal english translation meaning "eternal religion/way/rightful path".it never claims to have a prophet or a founder

and no, actually buddhism came after hinduism, around 500Bce when prince siddharta achived enlightened and became buddha.he is considered to be one of the main teachers in himduism , even thou buddhism is considered to be a seperate religion by many, hindus and even some buddhists acknowledge that its but a sect of hinduism, . buddha never wanted to start a religion, he practiced yoga meditation, he actually learned from the wise sages who lived meditating in the forests. so he is but one of the countless englihtened ones in hinduism.

no buddhist temples was demolished in india, none whatsoever.pls dont try to find ways to equate the eastern religious ways with that of the west..their approach is veryy different, we dont belive in "taking over" a religion or "converting" people by force.

[Arjunn]

Although there was no struggle, Mecca was still taken by force.

Read your history. The meccans were caught with their pants down. They were partying, confident that there was still an ongoing peace treaty with the muslims, when suddenly there came a fully armed muslim horde marching towards their city. They had no choice but to surrender.

Thats how crafty Mohammad was. And thats how Islam spreads. An invitation letter at the tip of the sword.


yeah, thats what i read too..about mohhamed taking mecca. andak01? isnt that the case?

[andak01]

What was your source? Where did you read that the treaty was broken by the Muslims? The Quran and Hadith don't say that Muslims can arbitrarily break treaties. It says that we are not required to hold to treaties that have already been broken by the other party. Surah Taubah is rather clear about that. We must hold to treaties that are honored by the other party, so long as they are honored.

9:4
(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

9:13
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!


Let me say this. This rather unique (and it would be if it existed) public, religious model for dishonesty and treachery- how does it accord with the actual treachery displayed with regards to treaties made by other religions? Did the papacy fulfill all of its agreements? Was Joshua honoring agreements when he slaughtered 12,000 men, women and children of the tribe of Ai in a single day? Did the honorable men of the Mayflower and their descendants hold to their treaties with the Indians? Would such dishonesty be at variance with the great philosophers Machiavelli and Sun Tzu?

[Agnosthiest]

What was your source? Where did you read that the treaty was broken by the Muslims? The Quran and Hadith don't say that Muslims can arbitrarily break treaties. It says that we are not required to hold to treaties that have already been broken by the other party. Surah Taubah is rather clear about that. We must hold to treaties that are honored by the other party, so long as they are honored.

I never said that.

What happened was that Mohammad prepared his army and waited for the slightest provocation. When a skirmish occurred between some muslims and a remote ally of the meccans, he declared the treaty broken by the meccans and proceeded to attack Mecca. The unsuspecting and thus unprepared meccans were surprised and tried to plead with mohammad to re-establish the treaty.

It was a cunning move by Mohammad. The only point is that Mecca was still taken by force, though a bloodless one. But only because the hopeless meccans surrendered.

[andak01]

I never said that.

What happened was that Mohammad prepared his army and waited for the slightest provocation. When a skirmish occurred between some muslims and a remote ally of the meccans, he declared the treaty broken by the meccans and proceeded to attack Mecca. The unsuspecting and thus unprepared meccans were surprised and tried to plead with mohammad to re-establish the treaty.

What is your source for this? In order to verify it, we would need to prove motives for 14 century old acts. But what Muslims are taught about holding to treaties exists today. It is memorized in the words of the Quran by millions. Muhammad never taught his people that breaking treaties is OK.

It was a cunning move by Mohammad. The only point is that Mecca was still taken by force, though a bloodless one. But only because the hopeless meccans surrendered.

But by your version of who Muslims are and what we are required to do by our religion, there should have been a massacre of the Meccans. How do you explain that there wasn't? At least, since we are supposedly obliged to hate Jews, he could have separated the Jews and killed them. But nothing of the sort happened.

You say Mohammad is cunning for doing (if it was even true) what any shrewd general would. How did the Texans win the Battle of San Jacinto? How did Washington beat the Hessians? But whenever, on those five times per day and more that he follows the word of Allah, to you he is evil. It's almost as if you are disappointed that he didn't kill every man, woman and child in Mecca.

[Agnosthiest]

What is your source for this? In order to verify it, we would need to prove motives for 14 century old acts. But what Muslims are taught about holding to treaties exists today. It is memorized in the words of the Quran by millions. Muhammad never taught his people that breaking treaties is OK.

I repeat, I never said mohammad broke the treaty. But he did use a small excuse to declare the treaty broken. A brilliant general.


But by your version of who Muslims are and what we are required to do by our religion, there should have been a massacre of the Meccans.

That’s not how I see medieval muslims. Their ideal concept of peace is when Islam rules and when polythiesm is stamped out. The meccans submitted and the polythiests accepted islam. No massacre necessary.


How do you explain that there wasn't? At least, since we are supposedly obliged to hate Jews, he could have separated the Jews and killed them. But nothing of the sort happened.

I believe Mohammad truly came to hate the jews but he had no excuse to exterminate them at that time. Unlike in Banu Qurayza.


You say Mohammad is cunning for doing (if it was even true) what any shrewd general would. How did the Texans win the Battle of San Jacinto? How did Washington beat the Hessians?

Hey I would do the same thing if I were in his shoes. What he did was magnificent. My only point here is that mecca was taken by force.


But whenever, on those five times per day and more that he follows the word of Allah, to you he is evil. It's almost as if you are disappointed that he didn't kill every man, woman and child in Mecca.
Oh don’t get too emotional. Such a thought never entered my mind. To be honest with you, my only wish was that the meccans & jews shouldn’t have trusted that Mohammad wanted a peaceful coexistence. They became too comfortable with the ‘peace treaty’. They were too tired of fighting religious fanatics.

[andak01]

First off, he didn't exterminate the Banu Qaraiza. Joshua exterminated the tribe of Ai, over 17 times as many men, women and children. With the Banu Qaraiza, only the able bodied men were killed. And of course, those few that fought with the Muslims were spared.

Banu Qaraiza, the Jewish tribe, had been secretly in league with the enemy during the battle. They had to defend Medina in terms of the Treaty of Medina signed early. When required to explain their conduct, they prepared to fight and shut themselves up in their forts. After twenty days they agreed to end the war, proposing Saad bin Maaz as the judge. He decided against them. Their fighting men were put to death under Mosaic Law. The rest were asked to leave Medina. Saad died soon after this. The Prophet was moved to tears at the death of this devoted companion.

http://www.alislam.org/library/history/chap11.htm

Now, I don't generally include Islamic sources, because nobody here believes anything they say, but I want you to focus on what is being taught in this case. It is an important point to Muslims that the Banu Qaraiza betrayed the Muslims, not that they were Jewish (though it seems that Muslims and Jews are in agreement that they were).

There isn't any celebration that they were killed because they were Jews. In fact, the paragraph above doesn't focus on the killing part at all. And more detailed descriptions tell of how difficult the decision was for Saad Bin Maaz. The focus is on the betrayal itself, because it nearly cost the Muslims everything.

[Agnosthiest]

First off, he didn't exterminate the Banu Qaraiza.

Mohammad exterminated Banu Qaraiza by destroying that tribe's capacity to procreate. The tribe has been destroyed. Those murdered men were luckier than the enslaved children. And probably luckier than the enslaved women too.


Joshua exterminated the tribe of Ai, over 17 times as many men, women and children. With the Banu Qaraiza, only the able bodied men were killed. And of course, those few that fought with the Muslims were spared.

so maybe Joshua was a worse monster than Mohammad was. i dont see joshua as a holy man. dont use that excuse on me. ;)


Banu Qaraiza, the Jewish tribe, had been secretly in league with the enemy during the battle. They had to defend Medina in terms of the Treaty of Medina signed early. When required to explain their conduct, they prepared to fight and shut themselves up in their forts. After twenty days they agreed to end the war, proposing Saad bin Maaz as the judge. He decided against them. Their fighting men were put to death under Mosaic Law. The rest were asked to leave Medina. Saad died soon after this. The Prophet was moved to tears at the death of this devoted companion.

so what is the excuse here? that they were in league with the enemy? then why did they get exterminated and not the real enemy that enticed them to betray medina? (if truly thats how it happened).

or maybe the excuse is the selection of a judge? so? he was merely an arbiter, the true power was mohammad. He could easily have overruled the judgement as too inhumane, too unjust, and granted liniency on the jews. And earned the respect of everyone, even us today. Oh no, on the contrary Mohammad claimed the the ruling was the will of god. My goodness.


It is an important point to Muslims that the Banu Qaraiza betrayed the Muslims, not that they were Jewish (though it seems that Muslims and Jews are in agreement that they were).

the meccans betrayed them too with the supposed breaking of the treaty.


And more detailed descriptions tell of how difficult the decision was for Saad Bin Maaz. The focus is on the betrayal itself, because it nearly cost the Muslims everything.
Some historians see Saad as anti-jew. If so the difficulty was in finding the proper excuse to exterminate the jews. I must say, his usage of the torah against the jews was very crafty. The verse he used would have been difficult to find for a non-jew.

[andak01]

so maybe Joshua was a worse monster than Mohammad was. i dont see joshua as a holy man. dont use that excuse on me. ;)

On the other hand, I don't see you condemning Judaism because of something Joshua did. We don't judge the Anglicans based on the life of Henry VIII. Neither Muhammad nor Henry VIII nor Joshua asked people to worship them. Their message was to worship God.


so what is the excuse here? that they were in league with the enemy? then why did they get exterminated and not the real enemy that enticed them to betray medina? (if truly thats how it happened).

Problem was, the possible confederates of the Meccans were numerous. The Muslims felt that they needed to make an example of the ones that betrayed them. It was a drastic decision, not one entered into easily. Arabia at that time was a very cruel and unforgiving environment. The Muslims didn't create it, but they reacted to it.

the meccans betrayed them too with the supposed breaking of the treaty.

But upon the defeat of the Meccans, the danger to the Muslims was largely over. Perhaps the Meccans consoled themselves that the death of the Bani Qaraizi men avoided many battles. After killing 200,000 Japanese civilians, that was our American line. Noone can ever know because we can't live history twice.

[Agnosthiest]

On the other hand, I don't see you condemning Judaism because of something Joshua did. We don't judge the Anglicans based on the life of Henry VIII. Neither Muhammad nor Henry VIII nor Joshua asked people to worship them. Their message was to worship God.

But Judaism & anglican christianity does not revolve around those people. Those men had nothing to do with the beliefs in those religions.


Problem was, the possible confederates of the Meccans were numerous. The Muslims felt that they needed to make an example of the ones that betrayed them. It was a drastic decision, not one entered into easily. Arabia at that time was a very cruel and unforgiving environment. The Muslims didn't create it, but they reacted to it.

This would be understandable had it been any other secular conflict. But in this case it turns out that Islam was founded by a man who had no problem resorting to a great evil. For even in ancient times slaughter and enslavement were seen as evils, but often necessary evils.



But upon the defeat of the Meccans, the danger to the Muslims was largely over. Perhaps the Meccans consoled themselves that the death of the Bani Qaraizi men avoided many battles. After killing 200,000 Japanese civilians, that was our American line. Noone can ever know because we can't live history twice.

The japanese killed thousands of civilians so the allies killed their civilians too. The nuke was necessary to avoid american casualty, for the japanese were resolved to fight to the last man. Their suicide bombings were deadly. Sunk more ships than the rest of the entire war. Necessary evils.


What Mohammad did to the jews was a necessary evil.

[Bloodnut]

== Now, I don't generally include Islamic sources, because nobody here believes anything they say

On the contrary, biographers like Ibn Ishaq and the ahadith tradition are strictly Islamic sources. They are the only sources that provide us with all we know about these historical events, but the problem is that Muslim apologists generally refuse to believe what they say.

== It is an important point to Muslims that the Banu Qaraiza betrayed the Muslims, not that they were Jewish (though it seems that Muslims and Jews are in agreement that they were).

It is also important to point out that this is not proved or demonstrated. It is merely asserted as an ad hoc excuse for the anti-Jewish bigotry expressed by Muhammed. He thought the Jews would accept him, but when he realized they would not, his attutude turned quickly to retribution. Muhammed's hatred towards the Jews is a pattern that is not confined to the massacre of some 600-900 men of the Qaraiza tribe. The Jews of Kahybar were also the targets of his wrath, as were other tribes that were either banished or killed. The Muslim apologetic explanation is that Jews had a bad habit of deserving of these treatments.

Yeah. Right.

That is hardly a sensible or rational explanation, but even this suggests there is something deficient in the Jew's moral nature. Meaning, this further demonstrates the hatred shown towards Jews in Islam, as can easily be corroborated by dozens upon dozens of Quranic and Hadith references. Jews are universally depicted in the negative in the Quran, and Muhammed on one occasion made the assertion that if the Muslims were to lose a battle at Badr, then Allah would be "worshipped no more." This suggests Muhammed did not believe Jews and Christians really worshipped the same God as the Muslims.

[andak01]

On the contrary, biographers like Ibn Ishaq and the ahadith tradition are strictly Islamic sources. They are the only sources that provide us with all we know about these historical events, but the problem is that Muslim apologists generally refuse to believe what they say.

It is also important to point out that this is not proved or demonstrated.

Kind of a contradiction, don't you think? Does Ibn Ishaq say that Muslims are treacherous liars? Does he say that the Bani Qaraizah were killed because they were Jews? Of course not! But we are to believe him, I guess only in accordance with what you would have us believe?

That is hardly a sensible or rational explanation, but even this suggests there is something deficient in the Jew's moral nature.

Your words, not mine. On the contrary, people of the same religion tended to live together in tribes at that time. They would have been something other than Muslim. Had they been Christian or Hindu or pagan worshippers as many were and had they betrayed the Muslims, it's probable that Muslim history would have mentioned it. If people want to take that message away, as many did with those who killed Jesus, that's their own bigotry talking. That wasn't the message of Jesus, it wasn't the message of Muhammad. Both of them condemned Jews that were hypocrites and praised those that weren't. Nothing more.

[Bloodnut]

I suggest you look through the other thread where I provide plenty of commentary from the official biographers and ahadith.

The simple fact is Muhammed demonstrated a propensity to find fault with Jews using whatever excuse he could. Many times he used the divine opreemptive "God told me they would betray me" cop-out. The fact is he hated Jews because they rejected his claim of prophethood. Their poets insulted him and naturally they refused to fight for him.

[Arjunn]

hmnn this is off topic but

i always wondered why "god" would go find his "prophet" in some nomadic desert tribe..without any civilisation. surely allah could have found better candidates?

i didnt meant to make fun or anything, just wondering

[Mira]

hmnn this is off topic but

i always wondered why "god" would go find his "prophet" in some nomadic desert tribe..without any civilisation. surely allah could have found better candidates?

i didnt meant to make fun or anything, just wondering

Given the fact that Islam is the second largest religion in the world and growing....well, I don't really get your point.

[Arjunn]

hmnnnn

[andak01]

The simple fact is Muhammed demonstrated a propensity to find fault with Jews using whatever excuse he could. Many times he used the divine opreemptive "God told me they would betray me" cop-out. The fact is he hated Jews because they rejected his claim of prophethood. Their poets insulted him and naturally they refused to fight for him.

The Quran doesn't condemn Jews as a whole a single time. It always says "some among them", referring to hypocrites. Why does this Jew hater heap such praises upon Abraham, Moses, Joseph? They have whole Surahs devoted to them.

Muhammad never wrote a tract, "The Lies of the Jews", Martin Luther did. Henri VIII didn't have so many problems with the Jews. They weren't allowed to practice publicly under his reign! Most were gone anyway after the expulsion of 1290! So, there are two founders of religion who really didn't do much for the Jews.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/England.html

Don't get so caught up in your hatred of modern anti-semites that you try to rewrite history. If there is anti-semitism among Muslims, it is no requirement of Islam. And if you want to do away with anti-semitism, don't tell Muslims that we are uniquely anti-semitic or that we must be. That won't fly.

[ygalg1]

The Quran doesn't condemn Jews as a whole a single time. It always says "some among them", referring to hypocrites.

002.135
SHAKIR: And they say: Be Jews or Christians, you will be on the right course. Say: Nay! (we follow) the religion of Ibrahim, the Hanif, and he was not one of the polytheists.
005.051
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
009.030
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
no "some among them" in those verses

[Agnosthiest]

Why does this Jew hater heap such praises upon Abraham, Moses, Joseph? They have whole Surahs devoted to them.

Because mohammad thought that those guys were neither jews nor christians?


Muhammad never wrote a tract, "The Lies of the Jews", Martin Luther did. Henri VIII didn't have so many problems with the Jews. They weren't allowed to practice publicly under his reign! Most were gone anyway after the expulsion of 1290! So, there are two founders of religion who really didn't do much for the Jews.

yeah but thats what many muslims are saying now. some muslims expelled the jews too.

[andak01]

Because mohammad thought that those guys were neither jews nor christians?

If it quacks like a duck...

Surah 3:50 And (I [Jesus] come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

5:43 But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them?- therein is the (plain) command of Allah; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith.

Because people of the Faith would follow the Jewish law that was presented to them by God!

9:111 Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.




yeah but thats what many muslims are saying now. some muslims expelled the jews too.