History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedDebate of the Month 2

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1776
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 01:26
Originally posted by Mila Mila wrote:

DEBATE of the month

Belly dancing is, we're led to believe, something that was invented for the pleasure of men.

In reality, there is an abundance of evidence that suggests belly dancing pre-dates Islam and was actually born as a method of female worship, dedicated to female divinities.




While I don't know the case of Belly dancing, I would like to state that all dances in India (they are very ancient & elaborate) have had their origins as a method of worship. Female worship was & still is very common in India, The Indian religion has an equal number of godesses as their are Gods (& they are not inferior to the gods in status).

In fact in Indian mythology their are instances when Gods have failed to control or have been defeated by the demons (evil forces) & Godesses had to be called to finish off the demons. In our tradition Godesses are considered to be more powerful than the Gods.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1776
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 01:35
Originally posted by Master_Blaster Master_Blaster wrote:

 
Speaking of sultans, I was watching the history channel the other day and they stated that the Turkish sultan of India, Akbar had 300 wives and 5,000 concubines in his harem. How does a single man satisfy so many women? I have trouble with one! :(


It's not suppose to be this way. The women were there to satisfy the sultan , not vice versa. The women's feelings off course had no meaning.

And talking of rape, their is still a law called the hudood law in Paksitan, which says that a raped woman to prove her rape has to furnish four male eye witnesses to the rape, to prove her claim. Other wise the act will be considered as adultery, where again the women has to bear the blame !

Back to Top
bagelofdoom View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bagelofdoom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 11:11
Originally posted by Master_Blaster Master_Blaster wrote:

No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong!
 
I can excuse the mass slaughter of able-bodied males who may have posed a threat to the conqueror, or the enslavement of these males, but I can never excuse rape. When Alexander was on top of a woman and she was screaming "No! Please no!" and trying to fight him off - he would have known that what he was doing was immoral, and a crime. The same goes for every other scumbag "warrior" who thought it was his "right" to rape as many enemy women as he could.


It was wrong.  It may even be morally worse than killing thousands of men as you claim (although I would disagree with you there).  However, the rapes were ultimately for the same reason: just as killing all military age men would keep a city from rebelling in the short run, the rapes kept cities from fighting the conqueror in the long run.  They did this for a number of reasons: in a patrilinieal society, if a Persian woman say was raped by a Greek and got pregnant, the child was considered Greek.  The large number of people considered "Greek" in the city would fracture it, keeping its populace from rebelling anytime soon.  Also, the fact that any raped woman was considered unclean kept her from marrying and having actual Persian sons to fight the conquerors. 

So, no the question is, if they were done for exactly the same reason, is mass rape still worse than mass murder?
Back to Top
Praetorian View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 190
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Praetorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 15:28
    

 

Originally posted by morticia morticia wrote:

Originally posted by Master_Blaster Master_Blaster wrote:

No doubt, herstory, would have presented a more positive view (and probably one more accurate as well) of women.


True, but remember that historical women did not have the right to an education, did not have the right to get a job outside the home, did not have the right to participate in men's conversations, did not have the right to vote or participate in any political debates, did not have the right to live an adventurous life, etcetera. Women's role was that of being a wife and procreating. Women were totally dependent upon her male counterpart for survival

Well it all depends were and what time.

It all started in the Stone age, Men were stronger so we went to go hunt most of the time, wile the Women stud and resided the kids, Women were dependent upon her male counterpart for survival as for the family being were dependent on the Tribe or Clan. Since we went hutting we stared making tools like the spear and we are bettor in mechanics then women, and sense woman raised the kids they started being better in multitasking then men!

During Roman times women in Rome had some jobs as well in religion, Pagan or Christen, and the Roman honored motherhood, I see women being a backbone in Human civilization being a mother help grow human civilization! With out parent hood we would be animals and humans cannot survive! It is a parent’s love that makes the human race survive!

Also woman had equal power in most barbarian tribes! Their were woman worriers and rulers in some barbarian tribes!

Originally posted by Master_Blaster Master_Blaster wrote:

I don't care for any justifications for it. Rape is rape and it is a heinous crime and male historians were wrong in glorifying such scoundrels and sexual predators such as Alexander, Attila, Genghis Khan, and so many others.

I agree for it being wrong. Some did this act so they can out bred their enemies like the Gals, Also to have a half Roman and half Gals this makes more troops for the coming generations. Most historians do not glorify it. But men were not the only ones doing bad, their was a masker of London, it was a barbarian Women ruler that killed men, women, and children in that city whether they were Romans or not! And the barbarian men and WOMEN worries burned that city down, but after the Romans defeated the barbarian they built London back up.

We are all humans and we as Humans do bad and good things and it is the person to choose, this is my point!



Edited by Praetorian - 20-Oct-2006 at 15:36
“Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
“--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.”

"game over!! man game over!!"
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 09:46
Originally posted by Master_Blaster Master_Blaster wrote:

No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong!
actaully i always assumed it was common in war (still is in places) we are judging this all in a modern perspective.
Back to Top
morticia View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 09-Aug-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote morticia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 12:56
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:


Originally posted by Master_Blaster Master_Blaster wrote:

No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong!
actaully i always assumed it was common in war (still is in places) we are judging this all in a modern perspective.


Welcome Leonidas . Rape may be common in wars, but that doesn't make it right! It was wrong back then and it is still wrong now!
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 06:39
Hi Morticia, just poking my nose in the womens forum.Smile

What i was saying is that we are judging it from a certain perspective in time and place. We just know better.

I'll try to explain my thoughts on rape in war, (i am not a very eloquant writer so apologies  in advance). I am influenced by the Freudian notion (as far as i understand)  that we are essientally voilent-sexual beings that basically are smart enough to relegated such impulses for the benifits (ie security) of society. We like to think of ourselves as being naturally civilised beings, i dont think that is the case. I would contend we only have the ability to be civilised, but we also have deeper primal forces in our make up that are the complete opposite. Baggage. They havent gone anywhere, but just take the back seat when things are good.

War is the anti-thesis of society. In war, even in the very latest ones we still see rape even if particular effected societies are culturally against it. I have heard of stories of quite normal men turning into complete animals once at war, many of the perpetrators wouldnt normally act like this. War is total violence, and in most cases, this has little or no boundaries and strips these men of the very 'civil'  rules that keeps them 'human'  It by its very action negates society and everything it controls and uphelds. I think that since society is temporarily detroyed by war this unleashes these real and very powerful atavistic forces back to the surface.

Now im not excusing rape but trying to understand it within that context


Edited by Leonidas - 26-Oct-2006 at 06:43
Back to Top
morticia View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 09-Aug-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote morticia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 13:56
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

Hi Morticia, just poking my nose in the womens forum.


Hi Leonidas - you can poke your nose in the women's forum any time you want! I welcome you again!

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

What i was saying is that we are judging it from a certain perspective in time and place. We just know better. I'll try to explain my thoughts on rape in war, (i am not a very eloquant writer so apologies  in advance). I am influenced by the Freudian notion (as far as i understand)  that we are essientally voilent-sexual beings that basically are smart enough to relegated such impulses for the benifits (ie security) of society. We like to think of ourselves as being naturally civilised beings, i dont think that is the case. I would contend we only have the ability to be civilised, but we also have deeper primal forces in our make up that are the complete opposite. Baggage. They havent gone anywhere, but just take the back seat when things are good.War is the anti-thesis of society. In war, even in the very latest ones we still see rape even if particular effected societies are culturally against it. I have heard of stories of quite normal men turning into complete animals once at war, many of the perpetrators wouldnt normally act like this. War is total violence, and in most cases, this has little or no boundaries and strips these men of the very 'civil'  rules that keeps them 'human'  It by its very action negates society and everything it controls and uphelds. I think that since society is temporarily detroyed by war this unleashes these real and very powerful atavistic forces back to the surface.Now im not excusing rape but trying to understand it within that context


I see your point, and, as human beings, we are still "animals" (in a sense) and will always have those animalistic instincts and tendencies which have made the species survive for as long as it has. However, it's important to learn from past mistakes so the same mistakes will not be committed again. Not very much has progressed though, I fear. Women are still getting raped, women are still considered second class citizens, women are still being oppressed, women are still not considered men's equal, there are still wars (we all know about that), etcetera. So you see, not much has changed at all!
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1776
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 02:32
Right, not much has changed, except that the world policing has got stronger, which is infact better for all. 
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 22:14
Originally posted by morticia morticia wrote:


I see your point, and, as human beings, we are still "animals" (in a sense) and will always have those animalistic instincts and tendencies which have made the species survive for as long as it has. However, it's important to learn from past mistakes so the same mistakes will not be committed again. Not very much has progressed though, I fear. Women are still getting raped, women are still considered second class citizens, women are still being oppressed, women are still not considered men's equal, there are still wars (we all know about that), etcetera. So you see, not much has changed at all!

We do learn from our mistakes logically, or we wouldnt have the societies we have. But what happens when those deep powerful forces are unleashed has nothing to do with logic, its the complete opposite of logic.

Humans have not evolved/progressed on that level as quickly as the societies we build. This is a massive disconnect, I think that is not understood well enough (especailly by our leaders) and this to me is the real problem.  Its simple when we go to war, our society/world goes to the monkeys, understand that effect of war on the human condition and manage accordingly. The only way you can avoid it, sadly is by limiting wars or at least the scale/scope in which they are conducted.

I would seperate war/rape with more general womens inequality. War is a particular situation of chaos that makes everyone victims in different ways,. At the same time women are getting raped (and killed), men are blowing each other up, all beacuse of these same primal demons.

Domestic violence is more particular to men vs women issues. This is something that can be controlled through law and eduction. No country can be successful if half it population is treated as sub human.



Edited by Leonidas - 27-Oct-2006 at 22:15
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 21:28
It sounds unfair, yes. I am slightly uncomfortable with this situation... but a sentence justifies all in historical matter.
 
"Winner makes the history"
 
It sucks, but it's the reality.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
New User View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote New User Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 04:26
I have read about early women having a much larger role in society and even hunting when the men did the heavier work of scavenging back in prehistory. I shall try and retrieve the book and source it for everyone.
 
As to the male role in the forming of history, its a very interesting subject with which I have been thinking about for a while. As a woman, I read about people, then sort of re assess them when I find out they thought women were inferior or something ie Napolean. Have any other women found periods of history being talked about as a golden age or something, only to think "sounds like hell for the women?" I do and have on many occassion, I shudder to think what they have gone through over the ages..
 
I don't like the line when it comes to women's rights in historical times that "that was they was it was, they knew and wanted no different" that doesn't work adequately for me.
 
There are many examples of women who did not toe the line in varying times of history. Historical views and enquiries on lesbians by women writers, for example ,throw up whole new lines of thought when it comes to looking at certain eras.
 
There are many oft forgotten aspects of women's history, presumably due to the male dominated writing of it, that are being re examined. There are many books on the subject and a whole area in history to deal with such questions.
 
I find it exciting that history is now being looked at so closely from a growing female perspective. New perspectives on an old subject..fab
 
 
Great thread


Edited by New User - 05-Mar-2007 at 04:29
Back to Top
morticia View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 09-Aug-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote morticia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 13:36
Thank you, New User, and welcome to the women's forum. Here, you can get many issues from a woman's perspective. I thank you for your contribution and participation.
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst
Back to Top
conon394 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote conon394 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2007 at 10:22

Master_Blaster

 

Quote No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong!

 

I can excuse the mass slaughter of able-bodied males who may have posed a threat to the conqueror, or the enslavement of these males, but I can never excuse rape. When Alexander was on top of a woman and she was screaming "No! Please no!" and trying to fight him off - he would have known that what he was doing was immoral, and a crime. The same goes for every other scumbag "warrior" who thought it was his "right" to rape as many enemy women as he could.

 

 

 

Seems like an odd moral standpoint, you are fine with the mass slaughter of men, but not ok with the mass rape of women (I guess the men and boys undergoing mass execution offer no pleas or struggle).

 

That is your fine with executing a man and taking away any and everything that person might have done but that somehow pales in comparison to raping women? And while you might be right in the general assumption that mass rape occurred in conjunction with the often terse classical descriptions sacked cites is, but why not also consider that potential for equal degradation to have been handed out to men and boys before their deaths.

 

But whatever the crimes of Alexander committed of his female victims I would question the absolute assumption of some out of time everlasting crime (would the women of Macedonia secure from such treatment at the hands of invaders for the first time in several generations because of the army of Philip and Alexander have agreeded) . Consider the Delian league was formed not to free Greeks or other such rot, but to for revenge and plunder against Persia. Did Athenian women judge the assumed rape of Persian subjects (either by league troops or when their captive women were sold into slavery?) as some vile evil or did they rather perhaps note that war booty helped to make Athens the most secure and wealthy Greek polis in the world? This fact might have been rather germane since they would have been only a decade or so removed from the fact of their own (almost)  mass rape and spectacle of the mass execution of their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons… I would wonder if they shed many tears for Persia and it's subjects.



Edited by conon394 - 23-May-2007 at 10:55
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Porphyrygenitus Augustii

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 05:47
Quote I would contend we only have the ability to be civilised, but we also have deeper primal forces in our make up that are the complete opposite. Baggage. They havent gone anywhere, but just take the back seat when things are good.
 
Yeah, I would agree with that - we are fundamentally animals and still have those tendancies, despite being buried under centuries of attempting to control them. People who say that "I am selfless" and that "I care only for other human beings" are not being true to their origins, because frankly, the most important thing fundamentally to a human is themself and their offspring - nothing can change that. Read Nietze "Beyond good and evil" - although his work is fundamentally a sandwhich of layers of insanity next to layers of genius, he makes a good point of illustrating this seeming denial of animalistic tendancies.
 
...Anyway, back to what we are talking about- many people seem to have the idea that a woman in them middle ages, say, KNEW that she was being oppressed (Well, oppressed in that sense is a product of our own times and culture), whereas the fact of the matter is that she thought that it was NORMAL for her to be unequal.
 
Quote

That is your fine with executing a man and taking away any and everything that person might have done but that somehow pales in comparison to raping women? And while you might be right in the general assumption that mass rape occurred in conjunction with the often terse classical descriptions sacked cites is, but why not also consider that potential for equal degradation to have been handed out to men and boys before their deaths.

Look at Nanking - the psycological effects of those poor women is just as bad as being at the Srebnica massacre.
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!
Back to Top
morticia View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 09-Aug-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote morticia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 14:18
Originally posted by Earl Aster Earl Aster wrote:

...whereas the fact of the matter is that she thought that it was NORMAL for her to be unequal.


Well, I think it's time to change that kind of thinking! It is true, however, that women of that era only knew how to be submissive and obedient to her "master". It was probably the only way to survive! That is why the ones that were outspoken were "burned at the stake" or "stoned to death" or just plainly "killed". Thank goodness those day are over (well, at least in most parts of the world).

Thank you for your contribution to the women's forum, Earl Aster, and welcome!
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Porphyrygenitus Augustii

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 14:48
Yes, it is time to change that kind of thinking, but people can't argue that Women in the middle ages were oppressed because to their minds, it wasn't oppression. We are viewing oppression from our cultural context. To all of us here (I hope!), what's been done to women throughout history has been repellant, but that's our cultural attitude of today, and we can't apply that to many periods in history. 
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 09:05
Ahem! Let's move on to higher things. Where did belly dancing come from? From pre-Islamic temple worship to the moon. A woman could fulfil her triple promise of the perfect union of body, mind and soul by doing the sacred dance of women's mysteries. In her belly shines the jewel, the flashing connection of light between the womb and the all-shining Mother above that shines on her daughters,  the containers of pure goodness, and a woman after dancing could count herself truly blessed. The dance was a sacred act, a freedom from the world. To think of pleasing either male of female desires at such times would be as shocking as having wrong thoughts during religious services. In Iran the women still gather to dance in the ancient ways and men are not allowed.

The name of Allah came from an earlier moon-god, married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters, depending on the culture. Temples to the moon are found from the mountains of Turkey to the Nile. The Sumerians, described the moon deity as either male or female depending upon the season of the year. The popular names of Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar indicate the lunar aspects of the Goddess sailing through the night sky. The moon symbol became the crescent moon in ancient Mesopotamia.

The later Assyrians, Babylonians and Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin, a revised name for the Moon. Sin was a Sumerian name borrowed by the Semites. In ancient Syria the crescent became a symbol of the most sacred. The full moon is placed inside the crescent moon to emphasise lunar phases. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars their daughters. Ishtar was one of the daughters daughter of Sin. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of religious statues.

In the ancient world the symbol of the crescent moon was everywhere - on seal impressions, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals and so on. In Ur the crescent symbol is for the Moon as the head of all life. Bread was baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion. The city of Ur was devoted to the worship and was
sometimes called Nannar, meaning "of the moon". Sir Leonard Woolley when excavating temples in Ur, found many examples of moon worship and are on display at the British Museum. In the 1950's another major temple was excavated and two statues found. Each was of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon on his chest to show the god. Smaller statues had inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon.

Scholars dug up thousands of inscriptions with many discoveries in Arabia. Other sites have been excavated at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions have been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted with the god represented by a crescent moon above them. In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC) the last king of Babylon, built Tayma in Arabia as a centre for Moon worship. The Moon's name "Sin" is a part of Arabic place names such as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," and so on.

The Arabs worshipped many gods at Mecca with the Moon as chief deity. Mecca was first constructed as a shrine to the Moon. In 1944, a temple of the Moon was uncovered in southern Arabia. The symbols of the crescent moon and inscriptions with the name Sin were found, his title was al-ilah "the deity," meaning the chief or high god among the gods. The god Il or Ilah was a phase of the moon.

Within Mohamed's lifetime he turned the previous moon worship into Islam (brotherhood of man). The god of the moon called al-ilah was shortened to Allah in the pre-Islamic times and used in birth names. Both Mohamed's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names. The people already believed this god as supreme among many. Mohamed revealed Allah as the only god. This new way of worship for the world removed wife, daughters and relatives.

The symbol of Islam still is the crescent moon displayed on top of mosques and minarets. A crescent moon waves on the flags of Islamic nations. Muslims fast during the month that begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon. Islam arose and adapted the best traditions of previous symbols, rituals, and ceremonies to monotheism.

Hail Queen, great Moon, white-armed Divinity.
Fair-haired and favourable I thus with thee
My song beginning, by its music sweet,
Shall make immortal many a glorious feat
Of demigods, with lovely lips, so well
Which minstrels, servants of the Muses, tell.

Homer.



Edited by elenos - 24-Jul-2007 at 09:16
elenos
Back to Top
morticia View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 09-Aug-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote morticia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 15:16
Very insightful of you, Elenos. Thank you!
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 13:58
Elenos
 
(Arabic: “God”), the one and only God in the religion of Islam. Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, “the God.” The name's origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was Il or El, the latter being an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh. Allah is the standard Arabic word for “God” and is used by Arab Christians…
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9005770/Allah

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.