Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Mohammed’s ethnic cleansing

Mohammed’s ethnic cleansing of Medina is rarely mentioned in current books on Islam. During Mohammed’s rule of Medina two Jewish tribes were banished and the remaining tribe slaughtered – a day long process in which all the men were systematically executed by the sword. There was a time that reputable authors felt duty bound to include at least a summary reference to these facts. Here is an excerpt from one book originally published in 1914:
“At Medina he expected the Jews to recognize the agreement between his teaching and theirs, and to own him as a prophet in the true succession, perhaps as the Messiah for whom they were waiting. The Moslems, when they prayed, turned their faces toward Jerusalem; the Day of Atonement was made a solemn fast for Moslems, the one great fast in the year. Mohammed did not see why if he acknowledged Moses and his Torah, the Jews should not acknowledge him and his Koran.

The Jews proved obdurate; their doctrine had no place in it for Arab prophets or messiahs. They took a malicious pleasure in exposing the ignorance of biblical history which Mohammed displayed in his stories about biblical persons, thus impugning his claim to have his stories by revelation. He retorted that his was the true and original version; if it was told otherwise in the books of the Jews it was because they had falsified their Scriptures. The attitude of the Jews was not only vexatious, but had in it a visible element of danger. In conjunction with the ‘hypocrites,’ as Mohammed calls the numerous class who outwardly professed Islam but had no real faith in it, they might at more than one crisis have made his position in Medina untenable. In the interludes in the conflict with the Meccans, Mohammed, on one pretext or another, fell upon the Jews, and did not stop till he had driven out all their tribes from Medina, and conquered their strongholds in the oasis of Khaibar.”
This is taken from the 1941 edition of George Foot Moore’s History Of Religions Volume II: Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, Charles Scribner’s Sons, page 402. Moore was a professor of the history of religion at Harvard University. The phrase ethnic cleansing wasn’t in use in the years 1914-1941, but it clearly describes the result. Moore doesn’t dwell on the details. In fact, the above passage is presented without judgment or comment. A complete survey was expected to present the major aspects of history.

Moore has great respect for Islam and its founder. “It is unreasonable to censure Mohammed for not reconstructing the whole social system of the Arabs in anticipation of modern ideas … he accomplished notable reforms … the moral teaching of the Koran is high; it may fairly be compared with Deuteronomy … “ (p400-401). The standards of Moore’s day demanded a full account without omissions of key elements even when they clash with modern mores.

Today, it is rare to find such a presentation. Most people are shocked when I mention that Mohammad ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews. “Surely, I would have read of such a horrendous event in my history book,” I’m told by skeptical critics. After reading several books, each with a part of the picture, the whole becomes clear to any open-minded person. Those few who’ve followed my advice have been amazed. But who is going to do such extensive research?

Today’s authors lie by omission in order to present a narrative that isn’t embarrassing to Muslims in light of contemporary standards. The worse offender is John Esposito of Georgetown University. In a recent introductory book he describes Mohammad’s exemption from the 4-wife limit as a result of Mohammad’s kindness. Esposito explains that he married widows to provide them with protection and security. He conveniently leaves out that fact that many, if not most of these women became widows when Mohammad slaughtered the men of the tribe and took first pick of the wives for a trophy.

Did I mention that Esposito was a past president of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) – the leading academic society in this area? For more on Esposito read this. For good books on Islam see my reference page. It's time to face the painful truth about Islam.

For a follow-up study of Mohammad's war against the Jews see my essay here.

30 Comments:

Blogger Mad Zionist said...

We are of like minds, John. The problem with islam is not that it is a "religion of peace" that's been hijacked by a "few bad apples". No, the problem is that islam is a terrorist organization, created by a bad apple with criminal intent.

To say that Mohammedism can be practiced peacefully is no different than saying Hitlerism can be practiced peacefully. The founding premise of islam is violent conquest, enslavement and rape. No spin can change this irrefutable fact, and no amount of appeasement will alter the ideology's lust for jihad and sharia law.

-MZ

8/2/05, 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Mustang said...

Hmmm. So it would seem that Mohammed, along with the following Caliphates and various sects of Islam are not entirely politically correct, eh? Makes you wonder about CAIR and others, huh?

Oh, wait . . . I forgot. PC is just for us infidels.

8/2/05, 10:38 AM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
I have two points:

1. Some time ago, I had a library copy of "The Sword of the Prophet" sitting in my living room. One of my huband's coworkers, Faheem (came here from Afghanistan at a young age), stopped by and saw the book. He asked me something like this: "Are you reading that book? Is that the book which tells that Mohammed killed Jews?"

When I replied, "Yes, I'm reading it. Is it true? Did Mohammed slaugher Jews?" Faheem wouldn't answer me. He turned and walked out the door.

I've often wondered if Faheem had heard of the book itself or if he just guessed from the title that the ethnic cleansing at Medina would be included. But one thing is for certain: Faheem knew the story of what happened at Medina. Many educated Westerners do not about that event at Medina, as you pointed out.

2. John Esposito is a snake. He whitewashes Islam and he's clever about it. I've seen him speak in person and also on television. Until I did my homework on him, I believed much of what he had to say.

The FPM article states "Esposito accepts a rose-colored version of militant Islam that has little connection to reality. But rather than damaging his reputation, this approach has served him surprisingly well in both academic circles as well as government. Indeed, he was a leading source of information on Islamic movements for the Department of State during the Clinton years."

And he continues to be regarded by many as a truth-speaking expert.

Does CAIR like Esposito? I'm guessing so because what he says fits in with their agenda.

8/2/05, 8:54 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Good points, people. I think that's a very telling story, AOW. I've talked to Muslims online and when it is clear that I know the details, they go away.

There was only one fellow from Jakarta who would admit I was right but he hoped to reform his society. Then he and his friend worried their internet messages were being monitored. I lost touch with him.

8/2/05, 9:38 PM  
Blogger Mike's America said...

Jason: Thanks for your focus here and I look forward to delving deeply into all your posts.

Regarding the Saudi issue. I posted the following:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2005/07/defunding-terror-recruitment-in-us.html

The problem with the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act now before congress is that it appears to be a Democrat initiative designed not to deal with the problem, but to embarrass the President.

Take a look at the co-sponsers:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02037:@@@P

I think we need to change that, and I have contacted my Congressman, Joe Wilson who has been very good on most of these issues.

Thanks for your participation at Mike's America... please drop by anytime.

8/3/05, 4:20 PM  
Blogger TigerHawk said...

It does not matter much whether Islam is a "religion of peace" or not. Like Christianity, it has its peaceful and warlike adherents, and sacred texts that support either position. At the moment, there seem to be more warlike Muslims than Christians, but it has not always been so clear which had the greater military tendancy. The Christian kings of medieval and early modern Europe were pretty damned warlike.

In any case, it does not seem to be in anybody's interest to characterize Islam as inherently warlike. We will not beat the jihadis. Only moderate Muslims can do that. Characterizing the entire 1.2 billion Muslims as keepers of a warlike religion does not advance our interests. Bush is smart to have recognized this.

Of course, this does not mean that we have to tolerate nonsense. When I hear that Muslims are outraged by Bush's single reference to the word "crusade," my observation in return is that the Crusades were a counterattack.

As for the Jews of Medina...

I am no expert, and have often made snarky references like "somebody should ask the Jews of Medina what they think" when moral relativists go over the top about the inherent peacefulness of Islam. However, it is also the case that the Medina "pogrom," if you want to call it that, was unusual departure in the Prophet's treatment of Jews. Generally, he dealt with Jewish tribes in a businesslike way (according to accounts I have read). The Jews of Medina seem to have confronted him politically in a way that he judged as requiring brutal retaliation. This is not to defend their killing as much as to argue that one cannot generalize about the treatment of Jews under Mohammed from this one incident.

Indeed, it is fairly clear that for most of history -- perhaps until the last 60 years -- Jews generally faired better under Muslim rule than in Christendom.

8/4/05, 11:53 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Of course, when we talk about Mohammad’s treatment of the Jews, we are talking about mythology because there is no actual history of the times. Even according to the mythology, Mohammad’s treatment is atrocious. He did leave open the option of tolerating Jews who submit to Islamic rule and his immediate successors often opted to do just that. But Mohammad’s actions, again according to the mythology, are anything but defensive.

One of the problems is their use of the word “defense.” It becomes so broad that it becomes meaningless. Part of that comes from Mohammad’s examples. To justify them one has to distort the word defense beyond recognizable bounds. We notice this tradition continues today.

I think you missed an important point of mine, Tiger. I distinguish between sociology and philosophy. In the former, I acknowledge that most Muslims are moderate but my explanation differs from the conventional one when it explains how and why. As philosophy, however, I go to the texts – the Koran and Hadith – and here I have to conclude that Islam is at its core a warrior-like supremacist ideology. Honest people can disagree but for those of us who have come to the conclusion above, we must be honest and open about what we believe. This is true, too, when we deal with Muslims.

There is no reason to feign a respect we do not have. We don’t have to like other ideologies – only respect other people’s rights if they respect ours. Obviously, you started out with the bottom line – they are currently aggressive. However, no war is won by adopting the enemy’s propaganda. For some suggested readings try these.

8/4/05, 12:19 PM  
Blogger James said...

Click here for Syrian MP Muhammad Habash describing Mohammed as an environmentalist because the rubbish heaps created by the Jews in Medina were making people sick...

8/6/05, 1:48 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
At http://socialsense.blogspot.com/2005/08/did-you-know_06.html
G has left a comment well down in the comments. At the end of the comment to which I'm referring is a note which I'd like you to look over. Is G's note true?

I'm managing Social Sense for a few days while Mustang is unavailable.

8/7/05, 7:07 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

That was one amazing video, James. The ability of Arabs to make this spin up is incredible. Note the typical “they brought it on themselves” defense for Mohammad’s ethnic cleansing of Jews.
----------
G’s comment on the relation between the Nazis and Muslims seems too great but I’m not knowledgeable of the whole picture. I don’t remember our having trouble with extensive Arab support for Nazis in North Africa or the Middle East, for example. We had problems fighting the French in North Africa – who at first sided with German. I believe we lost 3000 GIs fighting the French! I tend to think the Islamic support for the Nazis depended on which way the fortunes of war blew but others might be able to show that it is much deeper and perhaps wider than my knowledge allows.

8/7/05, 5:20 PM  
Anonymous sa said...

Jason, I'd bet there's all kinds of fascinating information waiting to be discovered on the relationship between Muslims and the Nazis. You may find plenty to write about once you run across it.

First off, didn't Egypt back the Nazis in WWII? (I'm not positive myself)

Then, there's this. Seems Yasir Arafat was biologically related to the head Nazi enforcer in Jerusalem (his father) and the Mufti of Jerusalem (his distant cousin) who cracked the whip on Nazi officials and berated them for not executing the Final Solution quickly enough.

If true, Arafat's (and the PLO's) linkage to the Holocaust is something we need to start shouting from the rafters.

11/21/05, 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

QUOTE: - "Mohammed’s ethnic cleansing of Medina is rarely mentioned in current books on Islam. During Mohammed’s rule of Medina two Jewish tribes were banished and the remaining tribe slaughtered – a day long process in which all the men were systematically executed by the sword."... ...
I don't really know what point you're trying to prove mate, I'm neither Christian, Hebrew nor Moslem and frankly couldn't give a monkeys... But didn't the Jews wipeout at least 8 of their own tribes (men women and children)? - Now that's Ethnic Clensing!
Anyway, if they only killed the men.. what happened to the women and the children in Medina, coz if they stayed... it aint ethnic clensing is it?
Didn't the Pope send Crusaders to wipe the Cathers out totally ... what's that then?... I ain't too bright, but I'd say that's ethnic clensing!
Didn't Edward 1st (having used up the Jews in England for all the money they could lend him) have money lending outlawed, hung all their leaders in the Tower of London and all the rest rounded up and put on boats... some of which drowned... now that's ethnic clensing!

I could go on, but think you guys have your own myopic agenda...

See ya, it's been ... err interesting.

5/4/06, 12:21 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

But of all those people, only Mohammad stands out as the founding of his religion. Mohammad defines his religion and his example is one for Muslims for all time.

Others have changed but Islam is the same today as it was in Mohammad’s time.

5/4/06, 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

QUOTE:"But of all those people, only Mohammad stands out as the founding of his religion. Mohammad defines his religion..."

With all due respect, I think you're being a little disingenious here - Rome 'founded' the Christian religion... so you might want to look up what it actually meant to be 'The Pope' & what power he wielded ...and then ask yourself why he wanted a complete race of Christians (the Cathers) wiped off the face of the Earth... a job he sent Crusaders to do...which they did... and we aint talking 600AD.

And the question regarding the tribes of Isreal that were wiped out by the Jews was also comfotably avoided too... As for your glib point about Mohammad being different because he the founder of his religion ... just who might I ask was leading the jews to slaughter those tribes? - Moreover, who did he say was telling him to tell 'his willing flock' to do it? (I'll gi' ya clue.. it's in the first testament OK...Kayyyyy)

BTW, like I said, if only the men were killed in Medina, I assume the women and children stayed; ergo it weren't "ethnic cleansing" as you put, but more like your standard war of the times when a leader needed to establish the law, and frankly no different to almost anywhere else on the earth - at that stage in the history of man.

As I say, I don't really see the point your article is supposed to be making - unless it's the 'message' I've picked up on; but I figure it can't be as I've already proved It's all very lame if you ask me!

5/4/06, 7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

QUOTE:"But of all those people, only Mohammad stands out as the founding of his religion. Mohammad defines his religion..."

With all due respect, I think you're being a little disingenious here - Rome 'founded' the Christian religion... so you might want to look up what it actually meant to be 'The Pope' & what power he wielded ...and then ask yourself why he wanted a complete race of Christians (the Cathers) wiped off the face Earth... a job he sent Crusaders to do...which they did... and we aint talking 600AD.

And the question regarding the tribes of Isreal that were wiped out by the Jews was also comfotably avoided too... As for your glib point about Mohammad being different because he was the founder of his religion ... just who might I ask was leading the jews to slaughter those tribes? - Moreover, who did he say was telling him to tell 'his willing flock' to do it?

BTW, like I said, if only the men were killed in Medina, I assume the women and children stayed; ergo it weren't "ethnic cleansing" as you put, but more like your standard war of the times when a leader needed to establish the law, and frankly no different to almost anywhere else on the earth - at that stage in the history of man.

As I say, I don't really see the point your article is supposed to be making - unless it's the 'message' I've picked up on; but I figure it can't be as I've already proved It's all very lame if you ask me!

5/4/06, 7:44 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Actually, Jesus and Paul defined the Christian religion by their doctrine and their example. It was not an imperialist warrior religion like Islam. Jesus didn’t slaughter nor did he conquer. It is true that Christians acquired a martial component. But with Islam, violent atrocities are congenital and in the very example of their founder.

Christians, after over a thousand years, were able to accept a liberal order that respected individual rights. By absorbing Hellenic rationalism and making religion a private matter, they created, at least in the Anglo-sphere, sustainable liberal societies.

Muslims were never able to create such a sustainable liberal order. For 14 centuries, violent conquest and oppression brought misery to countless people. Some estimates put the slaughter of Indians at 80 million. Only Ataturk, by suppressing Islam, was able to create some semblance of a secular order.

Islam is a warrior religion by its nature. Christians commit atrocities by being hypocrites and abandoning the example of Jesus. Muslims commit atrocities by being devout.

Oh, yes, your silly question! Women and children were considered property in Mohammad’s time. Thus, killing the men and talking their wealth meant talking the woman for pleasure and the children for slaves.

You really are ignorant about Islam. Look around my website you'll see much to read. But that assumes you have an open mind ... which I doubt.

5/4/06, 8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason said QUOTE: “Actually, Jesus and Paul defined the Christian religion by their doctrine and their example. It was not an imperialist warrior religion like Islam. Jesus didn’t slaughter nor did he conquer. It is true that Christians acquired a martial component. But with Islam, violent atrocities are congenital and in the very example of their founder.

Christians, after over a thousand years, were able to accept a liberal order that respected individual rights. By absorbing Hellenic rationalism and making religion a private matter, they created, at least in the Anglo-sphere, sustainable liberal societies.

Muslims were never able to create such a sustainable liberal order. For 14 centuries, violent conquest and oppression brought misery to countless people. Some estimates put the slaughter of Indians at 80 million. Only Ataturk, by suppressing Islam, was able to create some semblance of a secular order.

Islam is a warrior religion by its nature. Christians commit atrocities by being hypocrites and abandoning the example of Jesus. Muslims commit atrocities by being devout.

Oh, yes, your silly question! Women and children were considered property in Mohammad’s time. Thus, killing the men and talking their wealth meant talking the woman for pleasure and the children for slaves.

You really are ignorant about Islam. Look around my website you'll see much to read. But that assumes you have an open mind ... which I doubt.” :END OF QUOTE

Ahh, rattled you a little have I Jason?

See now here’s the thing… ignorant of Islam – I am not, unfortunately for you neither am I ignorant of the history of the Jewish faith nor the ‘fashioned’ construct that is Christianity… nor indeed have I got a weak grasp on history, cultures or customs throughout the ages… Which then begs the question “so which part of your reply would you like me to ‘shoot down’ first Jason m’man?”… which bit do feel is water-tight eh fella?

Personally, I find your excitable use of the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ somewhat rich… considering you write from a City & member of states that exist as a direct result of the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of not one but many, many races that had been there for 1000’s of years.

You point at Mohammed (like a petulant child) as if to say “well he was the only establisher of his faith that advocated violence, murder and war”… with your particular rhetoric designed to make your simpering cronies buy the idea that he was unique in that respect…
But mate you’ve ignored for the second time my direct question to you about the tribes that were slaughtered.
I know you don’t want me to be right, but... yes, men, women and children butchered(oh except virgin women… nice touch Big Moses), everything stolen as ‘prize’ and the cities burned to the ground… as desired by Yewah and delivered and ordered by Moses… in fact Moses even interrogates his ‘murdering faithful’ as to why they had spared the women “who had perverted the sons of Israel”… and get this… sends them back in to finish the Job… yeah geezer, that was Moses…
So will you now admit that Mohammed was no the only Religious founder to war and kill; or will you deny me thrice? ;)

PS. Killing the men, and taking the women and children as goods and slaves… was actually a common (and ‘right’) practice throughout the …”now what’s that word… oh I know” – world!
A practice known and accepted by all… by even those that were killed in Medina and it was called (rather boringly) “war” and not ‘ethnic cleansing’… “Aww…sorry puppy”

However… what Moses did is (and I don’t wanna shock ya – so cover yer ears sweetpea) ‘Genocide’ – there I said it!

Hey, maybe it’s only guys called “Mo” who do this kinda stuff… I wonder… what do’ya reckon Jase?

PPS. I am Indian, and your 80 million figure is firstly fanciful conjecture (in terms of killings) & is spread over at least 500 years, probably attributed by you to the ‘alleged’ research of Ibn Warraq or Ali Sina – but I suspect it actually came from the writings of Will Durant or the calculations of KS Lal based on the Muslim Chronicles… and it says that the numbers of Hindus over that time period decreased by 80 million...
"hmmm! Do I die for being a pagan or do I convert to Islam… Now lemmi see... (ponders a while) Yes, I've got it... I think both my wife and I and our children would like to convert to Islam please Mr Angry Sword Waving Man..." ergo, circa 5 less Hindus immediately… but alive.
How else would you account for the existence of Sufis for example?

Moreover, my people are Sikhs, created by warrior leaders and establishers of the religion (Surprise! Surprise!) Yes, we were oppressed very badly by Islam, but then a good chunk of our ‘holy book’ contains the writings of a Muslim Saint… how ironic eh?

You see, nothing is black and white my friend, even the extremist and terribly violent portion of Islam has been very comfortably employed, encouraged funded and armed in the recent past by the very nations that are now crying “foul”

As for Jesus defining the Christian religion, surely you’re having a laugh pal, he had sod all to do with it, blimey, he only managed to get declared ‘divine’ after bishops came to blows and Jesus ‘won’ by a narrow margin during their vote! - Hundreds of years after his death.

Yet the world continues to turn and spin its ugly web eh!

Tarra mate!

5/5/06, 9:44 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

It's odd how you, being religious, paint a morally equivalent one-dimensional horrendous picture of religion and I, being secular, can see differences in essence, origin, and potential.

I don’t want to play the numbers game since you are already aware of Islam’s conquest and slaughter of Indians.

I’d argue that religions in general, favoring faith and authority, are more suitable for underwriting an illiberal regime. However, as I said above and as you refused to consider, the bottom line is that in the Anglo-sphere Christians (or nominal Christians) have been able to come to grips with Hellenic rationalism and creates sustainable liberal societies. Perfect? Of course not! Islam, with the help of Al Ghazali (your Sufi friend) helped to expunge the influence of Hellenic rationalism and secure Islam’s barbarity and impoverishment. That’s the bottom line. I could go on but why?

5/5/06, 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You fool!, there is no bottom line... like there is a clear mark of distinction, the muck that men create continues, new labels, new uniforms, new language but always the same rubbish – greed and power!

So where were your “sustainable liberal societies” for the Native Americans, on whose blood and bones you comfortably place your arse in New York while you write to me brut…? People are people pal, and they see what they want to see… I don’t care what new wonder “snake oil” is selling today… either the man or men are decent or they are not... the evidence is all around you.

I think you should read your original post and I think you’ll find I’ve already shown you that you were wrong… a) about it being ethnic cleansing and b) that he was the only leader and establisher of a faith that committed atrocities.
I’ve also cited incontrovertibly for you that Moses in fact committed the real genocide… so why aint you having a ‘pop’ at the Jews too eh?

Hahaha, oh yeah! And what is it puppy that makes you assume I am religious? I’m an observer yes, but I don’t follow a recognised ‘faith’… Are you Muslim just coz you think you know a lot about the Koran…? Are you a leader of nations or some great philosopher just because you love to repeat the phrase “Hellenic rationalism” over and over again like it means something…? I don’t think so!

And I don’t just jump to horribly wrong conclusions like you have - twice already (at least) in this conversation.

Moreover, I don’t think there is anything moral in the taking of life, & as far as religions go, possibly the Jain faith has committed the least atrocities and the Christian faith is the outright runaway winner in terms of killings in it’s name…as the most!

Religion remains ‘faith’… yet men remain men – mix the two… for a heady brew - and the ‘potential’ is total carnage…(Oh, I was very nearly poetic in an ‘Old Norse warrior’ song kinda way there…)

PS. Al Ghazali ain’t no friend of mine (was that another assumption on your part) and certainly was not the Sufi I was talking about!

Bye for now!

5/5/06, 12:09 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Despite your cynical worldview, the achievement of the West is orders of magnitude greater than prior civilizations. You keep repeating the same lame alleged counter examples that I assumed were written in haste.

Your silly claim, that Mohammad didn’t ethnically cleanse Medina because he left some women and children alive, merely equivocates ethnic cleansing with complete genocide. After Mohammad there were no Jewish tribes in Medina. Mohammad helped to make Medina Juden-Frei. That’s clearly ethnic cleansing.

That Mohammad was a military leader could be a minor point if it weren't for the fact that he created a supremacist warrior ideology of conquest and domination. Mohammad (like Jesus and unlike Moses) almost completely dominates the Islamic religion. He sets the example and provides the doctrine. I’ve discussed the differences between Islam and Christianity here. Judaism is a minority religion with no single figure that dominates to the extent that Jesus and Mohammad do. Read my link for further details.

5/9/06, 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You assume that I consider ‘great’ what you perceive to be great (purely on the basis that you think it is), and then you have the ‘hutspa’ to further assume that what the west has (as you put it) achieved is far greater than all previous civilisations - frankly laughable and the height of arrogance pal.

So tell me, if that is sooooo true, why are people being proven to more unhappy now than they were just 50 years ago?

And how come the sciences of say ‘the Veda’ (from an old civilisation that you patently consider below today’s mighty achievements) having historically been repeatedly ridiculed by esteemed Western historians and scientists… manages to every few years prove to hold scientific facts and theories that we only just uncovered or discovered
… yeah, you’re soo right Jase they musta been right stupid people compared to the shining gods of science & happiness that we are now eh!

Moving on, as much as you say my claim is silly, no doubt you’ve been frantically researching how war was conducted historically… and you found (probably to your utter disgust) that I was right, didn’t ya Jase.

See, that’s why there are no original tribes in England, or that the tribes of America are effectively gone, etc etc ad nauseam pal. You want this thing to be a singular phenomena & you’ve found out it just aint!

And if my points were written in haste, why cant you answer them billy-boy?

I mean how hard can that be, clearly you think I’m some kinda idiot, yet you have failed to answer any of my direct questions… how’s that make you look pal… and you are being looked at, check your ‘hits’ since I started writing to you!

You see puppy, disingenuity will not work with me… you and I both know that Jesus dominates the Christian religion because he was constructed to do so by those that created the dominant Christian ‘Creed’
… and what for was it created?… Oh yes, control of the masses, ergo your ‘twisting and turning’ will not release you from my ‘hastily written’ questions – currently pal your missives are the ‘lame’ ones.

As for your claim regarding the achievement of the West in orders of magnitude… yeah that one, ya might want to study were a lot of that science and know-how actually came from pal.

See, I’m concerned how we all as humans move on and create a harmonious world where brother embraces brother sure (& I couldn’t give a monkeys if my life ended now, I’ve had a good time – but I have children and grandchildren who are yet to experience this wonderful world full of wonderful people)…

So when I see selective history, agenda based spinning and 'affected behaviour' designed to make people angry or fearful whilst all the time pretending to be just a caring and studious academic… well it just makes me sick, coz you aint nuthin but a fireman fetching kindling... are ya sweetpea ...?

5/10/06, 7:32 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

In many cases I’ve answered you but you’ve failed to grasp that.

I’ve talked about the differences between Christianity and Islam with respect to their ability to modernize here, for those who are interested. As for you continued silly rant, I won’t dignify with a further response.

5/10/06, 10:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it hard to believe the Sikh guy when he says he has grandchildren because he sounds like an arrogant college student. Yes Christians have historically committed war crimes, but don't do ethnic cleansing any more. Whether or not the Jesus portrayed by the New Testament is accurate or not does not matter; what matters is that as portrayed he is a peaceful, tolerant man who never killed, enslaved, (or even has sex) with anybody. If Christians follow his example then they will be peaceful, and model world citizens. However if Muslims follow Muhammad's example they will murder, rape, and enslave people who don't think the way they do.

10/23/06, 6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Hard to believe”?
Honey! When you grow up, you’ll find out that most people only find easy to believe what they want to believe… you know, like “yes we are collecting you spectacles – but it really is a shower and not a gas chamber”… or “all Muslims in Iran want to kill all Americans”… or “Fundamental Christians who positively yearn for ‘the rapture’ only have Israel & the Middle East’s best interests at heart… honest Indun” etc ad infinitum.

A mate of mine pinged me and said “hey I think he/she’s Talking about you”…

So here I am.
I am nearly 50 years old, I have 3 children, I have 3 grandchildren, I live in a sleepy picturesque country village in one of the English Shires. I am not a Sikh, although my people are Sikhs and come from the Punjab in Northern India, I however was born on the East Coast of Africa and came to Europe in 60’s.
I am relatively successful, I have my health, my senses, my family and a roof over my head. I pay my taxes, I vote, I think & I feel – how’s that, am I more believable.. more tangible now?

Arrogant?
Takin’ the piss… yes, showing a lack of respect for those that spread dangerous thought by dressing it up as intelligent thought… yes… but arrogant, you gotta be kidding me?

Arrogant is thinking that pointing at words in a book is all you need to do in order to label millions upon millions of peace loving and gentle Muslim humans as inherently militant – and reinforce it as fact just by repeating it! ~Anonymous Sikh granddad guy rubs his chin & muses~ Hmm, didn’t the Dominicans do similar when they embarked on their Inquisition… “The Witches Hammer” … Anyone? Anyone?… Nah didn’t think so!

Moses according to JP doesn’t count as a major religious leader (probably because I proved he committed genocide)… Hey JP, go tell it to the Rabbis.

JP ignores the fact that not only was Mohamed a military leader, he observed the custom of the period in that he removed stubborn opposition by banishing or killing the men and enslaving the women and children – a custom adhered to by almost all nations, peoples and faiths – So not shocking at all, perfectly normal behaviour (much like Christians marrying off their daughters by the age of 10 to men sometimes 20 years or so their senior also considered normal at the time) much like many many other customs that would shock us today. - Nothing is ever just Black or White pal!

JP also ignores my point about what it meant to be the Pope and the power that he wielded… why?
As a Christian you received word from god via the Pope, you could not access god without the Pope, damn! You couldn’t even reach the gates of heaven when you died no matter how good a man you had been - if the Pope decided it guys.
Hell, not only did the people live under the grip of the Pope, not only did he control vast lands, armies and wealth, he was even more powerful than Kings and countries and could have them all shaking in their boots whenever he wanted… Yet JP decided that also was not a valid point when I tried to discuss the wipe-out of the Cathars.

JP claims 80 million Hindus disappeared in India due to the Muslims and tries to make it look like murders… what he fails to acknowledge is that it was over a 500 year period, when (much to JP’s obvious distaste) many many Hindu’s converted to Islam (I’m not saying they did it with enthusiasm – but then great swathes of the World at different stages have converted to another faith for reasons that can include everything from physical survival to personal financial gain and even prudence in terms of future planning for their families – such is the way of man). -

JP labels Islam as political, and fails to even make a passing nod to the incontrovertible bond between Christianity and political gain… well its leverage for gain in all the myriad manifestations of that word… From Constantine’s use of it to create a cohesive people under his power right up to Bush’s (accidentally on purpose) slip of the tongue when he very meaningfully used the word ‘crusade’ to unify Christian orientated faithful.

Lets not also talk about how Christians brought Christianity & Christian Sensibility to all the barbaric, heathen and backward races and lands… Oh how they made the world better in sooo many ways… hahahaha NOT!

But most laughably, JP goes on and on and on about how workable and wonder full Hellenistic thought & society is - once Thomas Aquinas had reconciled Aristotle with the Bible… what he fails to acknowledge is Christianity with it’s big ‘know-it-all’ hob-nail boots on – had been trampling up and down the world burning and destroying anything that it considered heretical or deviant from the word of god - even the great library in Alexandria is put down to Muslim destruction (another [dare I say] political Christian myth) although it was in fact most probably destroyed due to a Christian orientated order as it was considered the contents were heretical.

Anyway, my point is that Aquinas only managed to read Aristotle because the Muslims had taken the trouble to revere many many great works (including a wealth of Greek classics & important Hellenistic scientific thought), translate them into Arabic and save and study them in their great centres of learning – Centres that eventually influenced the creation of similar places like in Oxford, Paris and Bologna.

JP even goes on to elude as to how great and advanced the West is – and fails to acknowledge (or maybe he just doesn’t know) how much Eastern science, thought and mathematical know how had to learnt from the East first before any of it was possible… even the humble ‘zero’.
Hey JP… it weren’t called “The Dark Ages” for nowt!

This ignorance or lack of balanced thinking by JP is what makes me seem arrogant – as he’s either on a specific & nasty agenda – or he’s not as well read as he portrays!

But more criminal and negligent above all these little examples, is the failure to acknowledge that the invocation or use of the term Christianity as the reason why something is being done – has created more death, suffering, loss and pain in the last 1500 years than any other religion.

Anyway, I’m flitting from this to that and back again, mainly because the subject is so deep but also because there’s just me and then you myopic brown-noses and JP the puppet master general.

I choose to believe that almost all humans are inherently born as decent individuals that actually do care for their fellow man… however history and the ambitions of men conspire to and sometimes win in their battle to upset that very fragile balance that makes people naturally want to coexist with their neighbour… eh?

4/13/07, 11:58 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

You seem to be opposed to learning from books. However, if you don't study the documents of a religion or philosophy you won't understand it. Talking to ignorant adherents isn't useful when trying to understand philosophy or history; you must read the texts.

I made it clear, many times, that I distinguish between sociology and philosophy. You clearly can't keep distintions in mind.

Yes, Mohammad was a man of the 7th century and it shows. However, he even violated the norms of the time and used Islam to justify his barbaric behavior. Do some homework instead of spouting propaganda.

I'm not religious, which you still can't get; thus you expose your prejudice when you assume that I'm a Christian. The history of Christianity is irrelevant to an assessment of Islam's doctrines and history. Today's problem is Islam. It is what drives the most savage jihadi around the world from Thailand to Kashmir to Israel to Algeria to London to New York. Perhaps you've been away from the planet for a few decades. Welcome back to earth. You have much to learn to catch up.

4/13/07, 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awww Puppy, and you said (with that cute pout of yours) that you was not going to talk to me anymore, no way no how… and here ya are back again to me :)
So anyway Jase, I said I was “nearly 50” not “nearly stupid” – Now then, I’ll see if I can address your points to me from your last post
If as you say I seem to be opposed to learning from books – find me something I’ve said (in any of my posts) that is incorrect big boy – go on, you learned man you… I challenge ya!

And what’s wrong with talking to ignorant adherents, I’m talking to you, what makes you any different – you also strike me as an ignorant adherent (albeit to your own faith) are you not?

I don’t care if you say a million times that you distinguish between sociology and philosophy – what’s the point pal, show me any part of man’s history that has one without the other? – you crack me up, it’s like saying “I distinguish between legs and walking” – you cant ‘do’ unless you ‘have’ – get it?

Your point about Mohammad violating the norms of the time is total and utter boll*cks and you know it – and if you don’t know it then my earlier point about you being ignorant stands true – So take your own advice bruv – You go do your homework OK… Kayyyyy!

Not once have I assumed you are Christian (perhaps you struggle with the written word – I dunno) – but go fetch the ‘bit’ where I assumed it puppy – I’ve got a treat for ya… go on, go see if you can find it eh?- If anything it’s you that’s made assumptions about me – remember? – (If not just scroll up & check – I won’t tell anybody)

But no, the history of Christianity is not irrelevant it is pertinent in that it’s wielding as a tool to achieve domination, wealth, power and a call for men to arms will/may serve as potential lessons learnt from – for what militant and aggressive Islam could become.
Mate, the civilisation that you so proudly point to – is fashioned by historical Christianity – do you deny this?
Moreover, you just don’t like me using it because it leaves gaping holes in your broadside – I notice you didn’t tell any of the other posters who brought up Christianity that their use of it was “irrelevant” – (it wasn’t because they were agreeing with you was it sweetpea?) – ha, not even that idiot that reckons we should all (yeah all) follow Jesus’ example and refrain from sex – lol, so much for the species then eh!

And please explain to me how is that millions upon millions of peaceful devout Muslims exist – if your theory is sooooo correct – then what are they… an anathema?

I notice you don’t refute any of the claims I make about carnage and genocide committed by or in the name of Christianity. You talk about Medina yet you fail to mention that for the majority of last 1400 years the Jews have been persecuted, ethnically cleansed and banished from many lands and countries because of Christian ideology – and guess who had been taking them in and giving them a home – yep you got it puppy – Muslim territories.
You also give the impression that the Jewish faith does not promote conflict –yet even today IDF officers are indoctrinated in the Talmud & how it prescribes dealing with us ‘non humans’ (as that is what the Talmud claims we are) for example: -that any money or wealth that belongs to a non-Jew is open territory for exploitation by the ‘human beings’ (i.e.Jews)
Or: -that god created them, he created the beasts and he created animals that have the appearance of humans but are nothing more than beasts (you & me).
Or even: -That when engaged in war with non-Jews, soldiers, women and innocent children are all valid targets in the eyes of God and that they are not real human beings anyway etc… etc… and so it goes on - check out Baba Mezia 24a, Baba Kamma 113a, Sanhedrin, 74-b, Sanhedrin 57a, Baba Kamma 37b, Sanhedrin 57a, Midrasch talpioth, fol. 225d, Baba Kamma 37b
Yebamoth 98a... etc...

You bring up Areas of conflict, do you really think this is about religion, do you really think Northern Ireland was about religion, or Kashmir or Israel – well do ya?
Do you think what is happening to the Palestinians is not Ethnic Cleansing – are you really so blind?

And you have the impudence to suggest that I’ve been away from the planet for a while… wake up puppy, look in your own back yard – you think them Christian fundamentalists are diminishing in number, do you think they have peace on their minds, do you think their money isn’t funding weapons that murder innocents, do you think they have no political leverage in the good ol’ US of Ayyy????

Well do ya?
Who’s pullin’ wool over who’s eyes pal?

Pointing at a faith and saying “all members are inherently evil” will not a fruitful & peaceful society promote…

Put back on your fireman’s helmet Jason, put down the kindling and pick up the hose brother!

4/14/07, 8:20 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

You present nothing but sarcasm. You continue to blather about Christianity and Judaism neither of which I'm sympathetic. And you fail to distinguish between adherents that follow the faith or betray it. Until you learn to reason and make distinctions it is useless to address anything you say. I will be deleting such nonsense.

4/14/07, 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was doing research into ethnic cleansing of Jews as I had been set a project to find out when this first happened. My colleague was sure it was Edward 1 but this site came up, so I was interested to read the assertions that it was Mohammed (he came before Edward).

I have to say, the old Sikh, who is maybe a hobbit in disguise, coming from the shires ;o), has raised, yes perhaps sarcastically, but nevertheless, some very valid counter arguments to how you started this blog, Jason.

“Until you learn to reason and make distinctions it is useless to address anything you say. I will be deleting such nonsense.”

I have to say, seeing as its your blog, jason, this statement is a little dismissive. Perhaps, for following readers you could set the record straight and put SikhGuy right, especially on his challenges to you? I, for one, would be interested in what you have to say, as at the moment, your statements look a little shaky.

4/16/07, 10:07 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

As to Mohammad’s ethnic-cleansing of the Jews of Medina I note above that it was once common to tell this story in every text that included the history of Islam. The above book by George Foot Moore, written in the early 20th century, was typical. However, you can go back to Edward Gibbson’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” written in the 18th century to hear the same story.

Mohammad’s behavior didn’t just reflected the context of the times; there are many times when he flouted the norms of the region. He engaged in theft and plunder of the caravans but he went beyond the norms by attacking the caravans during the holy month. He justified it by saying it was for the religion. He often had revelations conviently in time to justify why he should be exempt from norms of the region and his newly created religion. A good book on this is Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not A Muslim.”

There are similarities between both monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam, and there are differences. I generally don’t discuss Judaism because it is a minority religion and has been out of power for over 2000 years. However, both Christianity and Islam have developed while in a position of power and their comparison is worthwhile. (Actually, Christianity wasn’t in power for its 1st 300 years.)

I argue that Islam has features that make it less likely to sustain a broad acceptance of a moderate version as can be the case with Christianity but I suggest that history shows that secularization is a viable alternative to the Islamic Revival. At all times, I argue that it is important to distinguish between the demographic group, Muslims, and the written religious/political philosophy of Islam. I explain why in several places. As always, one must judge inidividuals regardless of how they label themselves.

One good thing about the internet is that I don’t have to repeat myself but I can give a link to a short thouht-out post on the matter. I’ve gotten much feedback and I’ve learnd a lot. Althought I have been writing about the subject in the last 12 months I still enjoy the feedback. Thanks for your comments.

4/16/07, 10:57 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

As an example of what I mean with regard to a sociological focus in contrast to a philosophical/religious focus, let's talk about Christianity for a moment. When I read the Gospels (take Mathew, for example) I conclude that the example of Jesus readily underwrites a pacifist philosophy even though it is obvious that few Christians are pacifists and that Christians have been quite violent through out history. Yet my assessment of the written work is based on the tenor of the Gospels as a whole and on recurring themes. I consider that a defect, by the way, since pacifism is a problem.

Of course, Jesus was twice removed from power and his immediate followers expected the end of time. Thus, their concern wasn't "how to run a nation" but the imminent end and the need for salvation. Thus, politics and how to live this life are largely left open. As I said here:

"Early Christians didn't focus on living well in this life but on saving their souls before the impending return of the Messiah. As a result Christianity has no political doctrine, except, perhaps, "Render unto Caesar, What Is Caesar's." Thus, the Roman Empire could become Christian while remaining an empire. Many centuries later, Christian apologists for the monarchy preached the doctrine of the divine right of Kings to justify royal supremacy, but John Locke could argue for individual liberty and against the Devine Right doctrine while still remaining a devout Christian. The lack of an explicit Christian political doctrine enabled Christians to consider differing political forms and philosophies without clashing with the authority of a revealed text."

(By the way I also talk about Avicenna and Averroes in that essay as I have elsewhere.)

Christianity evolved after Constantine and after the schism, the Western and Eastern churches evolved in different directions. Islam has not be significantly altered and splintered as Christianity, at least not on the basis of belief. The construction of a new Islam that is vigorously religious requires coming to grips with the Koran and Hadith. In Christianity there were several transformations solidified by major theologians -- Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc.

Individual Muslims, of course, have often gone their own way. But there is a difference between a "moderate Islam" and a "lax Muslim." The same can be said for any religion. If a Catholic man fails to go to church on Sunday and doesn't listen to the Pope he hasn't created a new form of Catholicism; he has only become lax or lapse. To know if someone is more than a nominal adherent and actually practices the religion, you first have to know what the religion is. To create a moderate variation that is practice by many and sustainable, one needs a reformer and a group of followers who look to that reformer as an example. The slackers don't define a religion.

Sociology is interesting and it is important to acknowledge the different ways people live. However, just because someone calls themselves a Muslim (or Christian) that doesn't mean that their actions exemplify Islam (or Christianity.) You have to decide if they are acting from the religion or despite the religion. And to do that you have to know what the religion is before you judge the person as an example or a violator of the religion.

These are the distinctions one needs if we are to understand both people and ideas.

4/16/07, 11:42 AM  

<< Home