It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are the connections between the god of Islam and the Arab moon god Allah?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Look at saddam's heavy handed tatictics. Terrorise his enemy's, again. Another mentality shaped around Mohammed's mentality. Mabe you people are not on my wave length of logic. You see things in a differenent manner.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Thinker]




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Saddam was secular, the people around him were Iraqi christians or muslims.

The muslims extremist were anti-Saddam.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Thinker, of those purported occult practices facilitated by Islam, can be said for thousands of "cults" the world over. Once again, your subjective tautologies regarding an orthodoxy that begat in the very same context in which those of Judea did, get annoying. You just resorted to more hate mongered in lieu of the issue at hand.

What does this thread have to do with terrorism?

Of how many philosophers have we read? How can you compare "philosophers" to a mythical fictational character? What philosophers are we comparing?

Please me elaborate further.

Deep

[edit on 11-12-2004 by ZeroDeep]


I don't really read philopsorers work. But i do know they follow pretty much the same path and that morality is prime goal for them to solve.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Hmmm...... Well Germany didn't start WWII to spread Christianity into Russia thats for sure. Hitler wasn't a Christian, he was agnostic if I remember correctly with a deep respect for certain eastern philosophies. Also if you want to get into wars, here's an interesting little fact. Almost every single hot war currently occuring on the planet involves one side being islamic.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jukyu
Hmmm...... Well Germany didn't start WWII to spread Christianity into Russia thats for sure. Hitler wasn't a Christian, he was agnostic if I remember correctly with a deep respect for certain eastern philosophies. Also if you want to get into wars, here's an interesting little fact. Almost every single hot war currently occuring on the planet involves one side being islamic.


And the other side being western or western financed. It's the oil, not the people that you fight over.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justanotherperson
Saddam was secular, the people around him were Iraqi christians or muslims.

The muslims extremist were anti-Saddam.


Doesn't matter if Saddam was Muslim or not. Islam has shaped the middleast culture and saddam was brough up with the culture.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Well you're wrong actually. In most cases I believe its radical muslim factions trying to topple governments.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   


Look at saddam's heavy handed tatictics. Terrorise his enemy's, again. Another mentality shaped around Mohammed's mentality. Mabe you people are not on my wave length of logic. You see things in a differenent manner.


Using that logic, early American settlers were indoctrinated in Mohammeds' teaching, i mean, that is the reason they killed countless millions of Native Americans, no?

You have no logic; you're using closed minded dogmatism to tackle an issue you have a very little knowledge regarding, as is evident in a myriad of your posts. You are just using subjective postulate.

Now, being that you have no knowledge of the many realms of philosophies, why would you chide those who are proponents of, and adhere to many of it's schools of thought: empericism; surrealism; ontological and deontological proponents; those who propose 'a prosteroi' and not 'a priori.' Just to name a few.

Deep

[edit on 11-12-2004 by ZeroDeep]

[edit on 11-12-2004 by ZeroDeep]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justanotherperson

Originally posted by jukyu
Hmmm...... Well Germany didn't start WWII to spread Christianity into Russia thats for sure. Hitler wasn't a Christian, he was agnostic if I remember correctly with a deep respect for certain eastern philosophies. Also if you want to get into wars, here's an interesting little fact. Almost every single hot war currently occuring on the planet involves one side being islamic.


And the other side being western or western financed. It's the oil, not the people that you fight over.


Well i'm not one the west's side or the muslims.
I believe the west want's control over the middleast, expand the empire. Bring down certian cultures. Then create some secularist mindset for the people. The west is has to much power over the people, the money they controled it amazing, media, propaganda. They could inslave a nation to their ideology with ease. Then still give the people a sense of freedom, which in reality is not.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jukyu
Well you're wrong actually. In most cases I believe its radical muslim factions trying to topple governments.


Are the IRA muslims? Just one group that dispels the whole notion.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep


Look at saddam's heavy handed tatictics. Terrorise his enemy's, again. Another mentality shaped around Mohammed's mentality. Mabe you people are not on my wave length of logic. You see things in a differenent manner.


Using that logic, early American settlers were indoctrinated in Mohammeds' teaching, i mean, that is the reason they killed countless millions of Native Americans, no?

You have no logic; you're using closed minded dogmatism to tackle an issue you have a very little knowledge regarding, as is evident in a myriad of your posts. You are just using subjective postulate.

Now, being that you have no knowledge of the many realms of philosophies, why would you chide those who are proponents of, and adhere to many of it's schools of thought: empericism; surrealism; ontological and deontological proponents; those who propose 'a prosteroi' and not 'a priori.'

Deep

[edit on 11-12-2004 by ZeroDeep]


I have no idea about the mpericism; surrealism; ontological and deontological proponents way's of though. I'm also finding it hard to understand certain word's you wrote down. I'm no advanced english person.

Cheer's...i have my view and you have yours..lets drink..



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justanotherperson

Originally posted by jukyu
Well you're wrong actually. In most cases I believe its radical muslim factions trying to topple governments.


Are the IRA muslims? Just one group that dispels the whole notion.


No, they are terrorist's.
They use terrorist tactices in order for someone to give in.

If robber goes into a bank and puts gun to head of bank lady and demands money he is terrorist. Anything similar to this is the same. Terrorists.

See how terrorism, goes hand in hand with immoral, crimnals.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
The Romans claimed descent from Aeneus of Troy, which is in Turkey.

Yes, but of course this is before the Turks were in turkey, and before islam existed. And a semitic language wasn't spoken there. Besides which, this is just a roman myth. The italian peoples don't genetically match up with any people in turkey, so there is no reason to beleive it. The etruscans, however, do match up with populations in turkey, so there is reason to beleive that they came from there.


We are all aware of the Moorish domination of Spain,

This was thousands of years later.


of the Spanish reconquest of Italy,

Again, this is thousands of years later. ANd the spanairds weren't bringing some moorish word for wing with them. The latin word 'ala' already existed.



that the Romans spoke Latin, that the Arabs invented the Lateen sail

That has no bearing on this at all.


the Eastern Capital of the Roman Empire was in Constantinople (modern Istanbul, Turkey)

Yes, and there were no arabs, turks, or muslims in it when it was the capital.Not only that, but Greek was teh official language of the eastern and byzantine empire.

that Carthage was in North Africa (Libya), and so on.

The Carthaginians spoke Punic, a semetic language, but not arabic, and I don't know what their word for 'wing' is, but itdoesn't really matter since the Romans were already calling a wing an 'ala' before then.


the origin of our Mediterranean languages and cultures go back to Sumeria,

What? Since when? Egypt had more influence on the mediterranean than sumer did, and it doesn't really matter because the mediterranean peoples already had thier own languages, which were almost entirely unrelated to sumerian.


and the Patriarch of the Gods there was Winged.

Lots of gods had wings in sumeria


All three of the current ruling religions share this Sumerian origin through Abraham,

The Romans don't share any religion with abraham, certainly not while latin was forming.



The Sumerians claimed extraterrestrial contact with winged 'gods' from Heaven.

Every civilization everywhere claims contact with gods. The Sumerians often depicted theirs as having wings. So did other places.



The Romans are Semitic (Sumerian).

The romans are not semitic.


The Arabs are Semitic (Sumerian).

its even moderately debateable if the sumerians were 'semitic'. Their language was unique. The arabs, I'll agree, are semitic.



Ala means wing in Latin to this day.

Ala means wing in latin because its the latin word for it, not because of some connection that goes back to sumeria, a civilization that the romans had no contact with.

Seraphim_Serpente
the Romans & all Europeans for that fact were Aryan Gentiles

Latin is an indo-european language, so one could plausibly say that the romans are 'aryan' linguistically, but not all languages in europe are 'indo-european'. Basque, etruscan, oscan, and infact lots of other italian languages weren't IE. And what sense is there in refering to the Romans as gentiles? Practically everyone on the planet is a gentile.


jukyu
Semetic just means that they had a language that could be spelled out with an alphabet

Semitic has two takes, the ethnic and the linguistic. Ignoring that ethnic aspect, the linguistic one is that there is a semitic language family, which is subsumed in the afro-asiatic family of languages, or somethign liek that. It doesn't have to do with the alphabet, althought the phonecians, a semitic speaking peoples, did invent the alphabet. Greek uses an alphabet of course and isn't semitic. SO the language of the jews, the phonecians, and the arabs are all members of the semitic language family. Latin, on the other hand, is part of the infamous Indo-european family, along with german and sanskrit. Sumerian is different. I am fairly certain that sumerian is not quite semitic, but either considered its own language, or is part of the 'elamo' language branch, which I think is outside teh semitic language. So, basically, the status of the sumerians as 'semitic, is not, I think, quite set in stone. Irregardless, its irrelevant to the development of latin.


thinker
Islam is nothing more then popular cult

Your ludicrous and hypocritical blathering once again nicely reveals you as a bigoted racist who hasn't a clue as to what he is talking about.


thinker
The Japanese started world war 2 to spread Buddism.

So along with beign a bigot, you are also poorly educated eh?


Europe was not lead by the pope, it was controled by governments and nations. Most wars were secular and really had nothing to with christianity.

Absurd. The Pope had ecclesiastical and temporal power. This lunatic revisionist history wherein christians don't fight over religion is, er, lunacy. The 30 years war was a religious one, to name one. How does one distinguish between a religious war and one that isn't really religious but is only pretending to be, as you claim the religious ones really were? How were those european religious wars any less religious and more 'political' than the islamic expansion wars?


Mabe you people are not on my wave length of logic.

A mental flatline cannot be described as a wavelength. You are, quite simply, saying that muslims only fight over their evil religon, while goodly christians fight over secular things. So even tho the pope called for the catholics to retake the holy land from the muslims, its really a practical secular war, because people in england had such good reasons to go to the levant. But the wars between the muslim arabs and other arabs, those were entirely religious, and had nothing to do with politics. Its a joke, and its a common bit of idiocy mouthed out by people who are bigots, and who simply think that muslims are inferior. Don't pretend or claim that you don't, one doesn't need to 'demonstrate' that you aren, you do a good enough job of it yourself. No one is dumb enough here to actually think that you aren't a bigot and probably a racist for that too.


See how terrorism, goes hand in hand with immoral, crimnals.

So now, since the IRA are powerful in ireland, all irish are inherently immoral criminal terrorists? Papists with no secular desires too perhaps? Just religious fury? The logic is perfectly the same.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Chakotay
The Romans claimed descent from Aeneus of Troy, which is in Turkey.

Yes, but of course this is before the Turks were in turkey, and before islam existed. And a semitic language wasn't spoken there. Besides which, this is just a roman myth. The italian peoples don't genetically match up with any people in turkey, so there is no reason to beleive it. The etruscans, however, do match up with populations in turkey, so there is reason to beleive that they came from there.


We are all aware of the Moorish domination of Spain,

This was thousands of years later.


of the Spanish reconquest of Italy,

Again, this is thousands of years later. ANd the spanairds weren't bringing some moorish word for wing with them. The latin word 'ala' already existed.



that the Romans spoke Latin, that the Arabs invented the Lateen sail

That has no bearing on this at all.


the Eastern Capital of the Roman Empire was in Constantinople (modern Istanbul, Turkey)

Yes, and there were no arabs, turks, or muslims in it when it was the capital.Not only that, but Greek was teh official language of the eastern and byzantine empire.

that Carthage was in North Africa (Libya), and so on.

The Carthaginians spoke Punic, a semetic language, but not arabic, and I don't know what their word for 'wing' is, but itdoesn't really matter since the Romans were already calling a wing an 'ala' before then.


the origin of our Mediterranean languages and cultures go back to Sumeria,

What? Since when? Egypt had more influence on the mediterranean than sumer did, and it doesn't really matter because the mediterranean peoples already had thier own languages, which were almost entirely unrelated to sumerian.


and the Patriarch of the Gods there was Winged.

Lots of gods had wings in sumeria


All three of the current ruling religions share this Sumerian origin through Abraham,

The Romans don't share any religion with abraham, certainly not while latin was forming.



The Sumerians claimed extraterrestrial contact with winged 'gods' from Heaven.

Every civilization everywhere claims contact with gods. The Sumerians often depicted theirs as having wings. So did other places.



The Romans are Semitic (Sumerian).

The romans are not semitic.


The Arabs are Semitic (Sumerian).

its even moderately debateable if the sumerians were 'semitic'. Their language was unique. The arabs, I'll agree, are semitic.



Ala means wing in Latin to this day.

Ala means wing in latin because its the latin word for it, not because of some connection that goes back to sumeria, a civilization that the romans had no contact with.

Seraphim_Serpente
the Romans & all Europeans for that fact were Aryan Gentiles

Latin is an indo-european language, so one could plausibly say that the romans are 'aryan' linguistically, but not all languages in europe are 'indo-european'. Basque, etruscan, oscan, and infact lots of other italian languages weren't IE. And what sense is there in refering to the Romans as gentiles? Practically everyone on the planet is a gentile.


jukyu
Semetic just means that they had a language that could be spelled out with an alphabet

Semitic has two takes, the ethnic and the linguistic. Ignoring that ethnic aspect, the linguistic one is that there is a semitic language family, which is subsumed in the afro-asiatic family of languages, or somethign liek that. It doesn't have to do with the alphabet, althought the phonecians, a semitic speaking peoples, did invent the alphabet. Greek uses an alphabet of course and isn't semitic. SO the language of the jews, the phonecians, and the arabs are all members of the semitic language family. Latin, on the other hand, is part of the infamous Indo-european family, along with german and sanskrit. Sumerian is different. I am fairly certain that sumerian is not quite semitic, but either considered its own language, or is part of the 'elamo' language branch, which I think is outside teh semitic language. So, basically, the status of the sumerians as 'semitic, is not, I think, quite set in stone. Irregardless, its irrelevant to the development of latin.


thinker
Islam is nothing more then popular cult

Your ludicrous and hypocritical blathering once again nicely reveals you as a bigoted racist who hasn't a clue as to what he is talking about.


thinker
The Japanese started world war 2 to spread Buddism.

So along with beign a bigot, you are also poorly educated eh?


Europe was not lead by the pope, it was controled by governments and nations. Most wars were secular and really had nothing to with christianity.

Absurd. The Pope had ecclesiastical and temporal power. This lunatic revisionist history wherein christians don't fight over religion is, er, lunacy. The 30 years war was a religious one, to name one. How does one distinguish between a religious war and one that isn't really religious but is only pretending to be, as you claim the religious ones really were? How were those european religious wars any less religious and more 'political' than the islamic expansion wars?


Mabe you people are not on my wave length of logic.

A mental flatline cannot be described as a wavelength. You are, quite simply, saying that muslims only fight over their evil religon, while goodly christians fight over secular things. So even tho the pope called for the catholics to retake the holy land from the muslims, its really a practical secular war, because people in england had such good reasons to go to the levant. But the wars between the muslim arabs and other arabs, those were entirely religious, and had nothing to do with politics. Its a joke, and its a common bit of idiocy mouthed out by people who are bigots, and who simply think that muslims are inferior. Don't pretend or claim that you don't, one doesn't need to 'demonstrate' that you aren, you do a good enough job of it yourself. No one is dumb enough here to actually think that you aren't a bigot and probably a racist for that too.


See how terrorism, goes hand in hand with immoral, crimnals.

So now, since the IRA are powerful in ireland, all irish are inherently immoral criminal terrorists? Papists with no secular desires too perhaps? Just religious fury? The logic is perfectly the same.





posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
ummmm....yeah....getting back to the original topic. One of the links mentioned "The Moon-god Allh in the Archeology of the Middle East" by Dr. Robert Morey. I found this site after a little research. Sure, it is in the exact opposite direction of the original links posted (anti-anti-islam), but it is good for a look from the opposite side:
www.islamic-awareness.org...



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
thank you very much. Thats what I was looking for lol, information on the subject from both sides so that an informed decision could be formed. You have provided me with a link to said information.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Here's the dude who's stirring this up: Dr. Robert Morey.

Now I know I should stay out of this. And I am going to. But I am reminded by a saying of my dear departed friend Sun Bear:

'I am not interested in your philosophy if it does not grow corn.'

We need to can all this toxic material up and put it where it cannot hurt future generations (oops, that was about nuclear waste- no wait it was about dioxin, or- no, wait I was talking about murderous philosophies. Drat, let the Marines deal with it. Or the diplomats or somebody.)

I'm going fishing.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Other than the three of us playing Texas Hold'em every friday night, I'm not sure.

I thought they were one in the same?

islam.about.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Quote: "I don't get the Semitic Sumerian connection."

Yeah Jukyu I think that he has a Point. The Sumerians might be from that part of the World (Now Iraq) - but their Culture & Language doesn't seem to be Semitic. Religiously - they were Pagans (wow you mean there were actual Pagans in the Middle East in Ancient Times - Yep). I think that we are making a relevant point however - The New Evolves from the Old! Races, Languages, Cultures & Religions have been known to become Mixed over Time & History! For instance I am an Italian American. I consider myself "White" - but I am not Naive enough to believe that I am a 100% Pure Blooded Aryan. I think that Race is an Illusion - its all about the Manner that you carry yourself in - how you present yourself to the World. The willingness to Refine yourself & expand your Intellect!

Anyhow you know it is True that the Moors Conquered a large part of Italy & France & Spain! Studying History I see that the Christians are equally as guilty as the Moslems in fighting WARS in the name of Expanding Empire - it continues up to this day obviously! We should be thankful for these little footnotes of history - if it wasn't for the Moors who preserved a LOT of Ancient Knowledge & Wisdom (By Building Librarys & Universities/Learning Centers) the Medieval DARK AGE (which was Induced by the
Roman Catholic Church BTW) would have lasted Much Longer & been much more Severe! I have noticed that certain Bigots on the Net tend to Denounce "MultiCultural" attitudes - it is this very Attitude & Mentality that bought about the Renaissance!!! What the Nazi's did was to BURN BOOKS!


[edit on 11-12-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Oh btw I think you can see the beginnings of the dark ages and feudalism in the late days of the Western Roman Empire. Emperors released edicts that mandated people stay in the same line of work throughout their life, even to the point of it becoming hereditary. For instance a baker would pass down his trade to his son or a mason or whatever. It was done to make sure that the skilled labor in the Empire would not decline but it also prevented expansion and advancement and led to stagnation. One thing it also did was bind farmers to their land and eventually tenant farmers basically became serf-like. I don't know if its a fact that this is how feudalism started since obviously Rome fell and became Germanic provinces, but its mighty similar.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join