O.T. Beliefnet. Has anyone seen this before?

[Yvsa]

I don't see many 100% Rednecks.

Hey Y'all!!!! Look At This!!!!Famous last words of a redneck. :footinmou

Semp, that's just because the costume is different. And besides, looks can be deceiving.

 

[Daniel Koster]

whatcha tryin' to say there Yvsa...?

 

[Chris Keller]

Wonder why Islam 97% is above Orthodox Judaisim 100% on Chris'? On all the other tests the 100% is on top? How do they rank them I wonder?

Remember that Judaism and Islam are very close to one another. The main difference between the two is that Jews do not recognize Muhammed as a Prophet and do not recognize the Quran as the revealed Word.

Their opinions about the nature of God seem to be closely allied.

Islam sees itself as a universal faith. Judaism may be worldwide, but is not universal, hence one reason it did not appeal to me. Judaism rarely activly sought converts for some reason I do not know. There were exceptions, such as the Khazar Turks who were partly converted by Isaac Sangari; they kept the headquarters of their horde not far from what was later Stalingrad.

Arabia was in the 7th Century ripe for monotheism. Had Judaism pushed conversion, some think today we would very likely see a Middle East of Judaic faith, with the Iranians holding out in Zoroastrian beliefs.

 

[cliff355]

---deleted---

 

[Rusty]

Merton died in a fall shortly before he was to spend several months in Bhutan ( Nepal is the only officially Hindu state, Bhutan the only officially Buddhist state ) studying under the Lamas there.

Pray in the bathtub: being naked and in hot water improves the listening skills marvelously Rusty

 

[Ferrous Wheel]

Some tribal faiths like Judaism do not seek outsiders because they have their own thing going, works fer them, and there ain't any sense pushing it on others. "nDns" (at Yvsa's terminology request), even most "Neo-Pagans" and Heathens don't recruit--either you hear the call, or you don't. Yes, this makes it hard to fill the ranks, especially in those religions where outsiders are rarely welcomed without a 'sponsor'.

So as not to offend those who feel it is their duty to spread the word,' I will reserve my thoughts on such activities. To each his own.

Keith

 

[hollowdweller]

Remember that Judaism and Islam are very close to one another. The main difference between the two is that Jews do not recognize Muhammed as a Prophet and do not recognize the Quran as the revealed Word.

Their opinions about the nature of God seem to be closely allied.

Islam sees itself as a universal faith. Judaism may be worldwide, but is not universal, hence one reason it did not appeal to me. Judaism rarely activly sought converts for some reason I do not know. There were exceptions, such as the Khazar Turks who were partly converted by Isaac Sangari; they kept the headquarters of their horde not far from what was later Stalingrad.

Arabia was in the 7th Century ripe for monotheism. Had Judaism pushed conversion, some think today we would very likely see a Middle East of Judaic faith, with the Iranians holding out in Zoroastrian beliefs.

What I meant was on everybody else the faith with 100% was at the top of the list, but the test put the faith with 100% second on yours.

 

[Semper Fi]

Hey Y'all!!!! Look At This!!!!Famous last words of a redneck. :footinmou

Semp, that's just because the costume is different. And besides, looks can be deceiving. !

Yvsa,
Down in West Kaintuck we say " Hey y'all, hold muh beer and watch this!"

Said it many a time.

 

[hollowdweller]

Arabia was in the 7th Century ripe for monotheism. Had Judaism pushed conversion, some think today we would very likely see a Middle East of Judaic faith, with the Iranians holding out in Zoroastrian beliefs.

I went to a lecture on Zorastrians once. Very interesting. From what I gleaned the Zorastrian King Cyrus released the Jews from Babylon and repatriated them to Israel or whatever it was called back then.

I read that one of the reasons for the difference in tone of the early old testament books that were more ritual and legalistic, and the prophetic books that are at the end of the old testament was that the Jews were exposed to the Zorastrians during that period and that faiths emphasis on good deeds by humans to help God in his struggle against evil(Ahrimin?)

Then the Arabs swept down into Persia and killed most of the Zorastrians that wouldn't convert to Islam, and a small contingent is still in Iran and still persecuted, and then the rest called Parsi's requested and were granted asylum in India.

Given the ritual use of fire by Zorastrians, and Moses and the burning bush in Judaisim also some of the eschatology and other things I always wondered if Mechizeldek, the high priest of Salem mentioned meeting with Abraham in the old testament was some sort of Zorastrian priest. It is believed the Magi in the New Testament were.

I love this kind of stuff.

 

[Chris Keller]

Actually the Muslims did not wipe out the Zoroastrians; they converted them. It took a long time but Will Durant says that even as late as the 9th Century there were still hundreds of fire temples in Persia.

As for their books ---- I spoke recently in Pasadena with an Iranian fellow who is one of the few (100,000 or so) left in that country. He claimed that Alexander generally burnt their sacred books and the Muslims destroyed the few that remained. I do not know if this is true; I think time and neglect probably caused most of the damage.

Iran than went through an invasion when the Turks went over to Islam, and thus there was no justification in keeping them out. These sheep and cattle raising horse nomads wrecked Iran's agriculture and millions of Iranian farmers were over a few decades chased off their farms.

The ruinous assault of Jenghiz Khan was about two centuries later. It was infinitely more destructive than these earlier conquests, with millions massacred. Jenghiz fought total war. I bet in this period the Zoroastrian remnant was one of the most to suffer.

Alexander destroyed very little unneccesarily, except when he got drunk and ordered Persepolis burnt. The Arabs preferred to tax rather than plunder; they were not fools and knew that taxes in the long run brought them far more wealth than destruction did.

Chris Keller

 

[hollowdweller]

Actually the Muslims did not wipe out the Zoroastrians; they converted them. It took a long time but Will Durant says that even as late as the 9th Century there were still hundreds of fire temples in Persia.

As for their books ---- I spoke recently in Pasadena with an Iranian fellow who is one of the few (100,000 or so) left in that country. He claimed that Alexander generally burnt their sacred books and the Muslims destroyed the few that remained. I do not know if this is true; I think time and neglect probably caused most of the damage.

Chris Keller

That's interesting. Here's the info I was going on:

"After the invasion of Iran and the defeat of the Sassanid, Arab leaders accomplished even a more ignominious behavior, in the sense that they set fire to every written document that they could reach and also they banned Iranians from speaking in Farsi, because they wanted to eradicate Iranian culture and make them subordinate to Arab language and finally to Arab culture, exactly what they did to Egyptians and Syrians. Fortunately, before Iranian language could fade away, Ferdosi, the great Iranian poet of all times, caused its survival by his extraordinary literary work of Shahnameh. To prevail over every aspect of the Iranian life, Arab leaders also imposed Islam forcefully over Iranians and in this regard, committed genocide to Zoroastrians. To justify themselves, accused them of fire worshipping. Unfortunately, even after the Arab regime was thrown out in Iran, still prosecution of Zoroastrians continued by fundamental Muslims. This persecution continued up until Reza Shah Pahlavie, the Great came to power and ended such a cruelty to zoroastrians and also other religious minorities."

 

[Chris Keller]

I do not think that one is true. You have to consider the source.

If it was from a pro-Shah individual, keep in mind that Shah Pahlavi wanted to promote monarchy. He harked back in the story of the Achaemenid Kings like Cyrus. The Arabs never banned Persian speech and had no manpower to do so or to teach them any other idiom. Since some Arabs recognized Zoroastrians as People of The Book, book burning would not have been official policy but a few fanatics may have done it.

The fire temples were not destroyed as much as abandoned.

Of course the Muslim conquest was a great shock to Persia. The Muslims were not polished invaders as were the Greeks, and the Arab ability at warfare had long been disdained. The Persians had been beaten by a neighbor who they had been long used to defeating, except when the Arabs retreated into their wastelands, and as Gibbon said, "reposed in the heart of the burning solitude."

The Arabs were never "thrown out" but rather Persia itself converted en masse to Islam. These "malawi" i.e. clients, about 80 years after the Conquest, no longer would accept the second class status that Arab rule had meant. They demanded not freedom from the Arabs, but equality in the Muslim community. This set the stage for the great Abbasid Revolution, after which Muslim Persians became and remained influential in Islam, after their eclipse of 80 years. Persia rapidly came to be an almost equal language with Arabic.

Still, the Persian culture remained separate, largely professed the Shi'a "heresy" and remained in many ways independent.

"He who reads Persian loses half his faith." ----- A Turkish proverb

Chris Keller (Sikander Abdullah)

 

[hollowdweller]

Chris,

Can you explain the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam? I know it has to do with the successor to Mohammed? But how do they differ in their theology? Would they be like a fundamentalist Baptist versus a Episcopalian? The Sufi's are they generally Sunnis or Shia's?

 

[Chris Keller]

The thing of Shi'a was set in motion because Muhammed did not designate a successor, and apparantly did not contemplate a monarchy. So when he died there was a crisis and Umar, who was thought most able, became the first Caliph.

There was however a dissident branch who felt that those who were the decendants of the Prophet should be rulers of Islam (de facto hereditary kings like those of Persia had been). They felt that as the Prophet had no sons, that the succession should have first passed to his son-in-law Ali. Ali they think was ignored by the Muslim committee that decided on Umar. Hence the Shiites think that the Ummayyads after the first four Caliphs were usurpers. Ali himself was elected as the fourth Caliph.

Shi'a means the "party" of Ali, who was a proponent of this idea. I see it as a romantic but not practical notion. Shi'a is thus not heretical in the Western sense. Hossein, a grandson of the Prophet, later sought temporal power and was killed by the reigning Caliph's forces near Basra. Hossein, also Hussein, gets commemorated every year by the self-flagellating mobs you see on T.V.

Christianity in the Middle Ages had Flagellants, who whipped themselves also, (over a different theology) and were much frowned on by the Popes.

The Persian converts to Islam, perhaps becuase they remembered their lost monarchy only a few decades before, became by and large Shi'a's most ardent promoters. But in religious affairs Zoroastrianism was dead, as these new converts surely remembered it but had no thought of ever going back to it. In fact, it is very likely that some of the men who had fought for Khosro Parveez against Heraclius, later when they were old saw fighting in this Muslim civil war.

Sunni Muslims believe that there is no biological successor to the Prophet who shall be king of Islam, as all men are equal in the eyes of God. The monarchial idea was seen as not verifiable by religion though a Muslim country may have kings. Sunni Muslims also for the most part do not accept the idea of Imans (rightly guided men) supposedly inspired by God to guide humanity. Such imans are superfluous at best and frauds at worst.

Personally I think Muhammed was the last Prophet. God may send generals and politicians but no more Prophets, as men know in their hearts, thanks to the line of Prophets, what is right and what is wrong, and do evil at their peril.

I found a Website that discusses this a lot:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/UMAY.HTM

Chris

 

[hollowdweller]

Thanks for the info. Besides the dissent as far as the successor to Mohammed, in what way are the two branches beliefs different?

 

[Yvsa]

They felt that as the Prophet had no sons, that the succession should have first passed to his son-in-law Ali.

Hossein, a grandson of the Prophet, later sought temporal power and was killed by the reigning Caliph's forces near Basra. Hossein, also Hussein, gets commemorated every year by the self-flagellating mobs you see on T.V.

Chris

How could the prophet have no sons and yet have a grandson. Did the prophet have a wife or concubines that perhaps bore him only daughters?
That would explain it.

 

[Chris Keller]

I know the Prophet had only daughters and Hossein was decended from him via the female line.

Chris