Is Islam in accordance with rationality and science?

[c0de]

.

I have been the one willing to concede when the facts prove to be otherwise than I thought: I admitted I was flat-out wrong to assume the violence level in Ubaid times was as chronic as in Uruk times; I admitted that my unwillingness to ascribe much economic benefit to slavery derived from my personal biases

And all of these concessions were well appreciated.

But now, it is time for you to concede the following and get it over with:

Well I don't know how you managed to miss hearing about Egypt and Syria threatening to kill all the Jews, and taking actions to destroy Israel; the Israeli obsession with defending themselves, at whatever cost, is a rather large elephant in the room to miss. You gave the impression that Israel attacked Egypt and Syria just out of the blue, motivated only because the US assigned as their mission, as a precondition to becoming a US client, the prevention of Egypt and Syria forming a United Arab Republic.

rite... "defending" themselves, eh?


According to Martin van Creveld, the IDF pressed for war: "...the concept of 'defensible borders' was not even part of the IDFs own vocabulary. Anyone who will look for it in the military literature of the time will do so in vain. Instead, Israel's commanders based their thought on the 1948 war and, especially, their 1956 triumph over the Egyptians in which, from then Chief of Staff Dayan down, they had gained their spurs. When the 1967 crisis broke they felt certain of their ability to win a 'decisive, quick and elegant' victory, as one of their number, General Haim Bar Lev, put it, and pressed the government to start the war as soon as possible".[121][81]



The whole idea that Israel had to "defend" itself from aggressive Arabs is actually a joke:

James Reston, writing in the New York Times on 23 May 1967 noted, "In discipline, training, morale, equipment and general competence his [Nasser's] army and the other Arab forces, without the direct assistance of the Soviet Union, are no match for the Israelis... Even with 50,000 troops and the best of his generals and air force in Yemen, he has not been able to work his way in that small and primitive country, and even his effort to help the Congo rebels was a flop."[131]

According to declassified documents from the Johnson Presidential Library, President Johnson and other top officials in the administration did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable.[113] “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them”, Johnson told Eban during a visit to the White House on May 26.[114][115][113]


On May 26, Eban met with United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and finally with President Lyndon B. Johnson. In a memo to the President, Rusk rejected the claim of an Egyptian and Syrian attack being imminent, plainly stating "our intelligence does not confirm [the] Israeli estimate".[112]

This assertion was made in accordance with a CIA assessment that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts . . . or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth."[114][113]


So how about that concession chief???

the prevention of Egypt and Syria forming a United Arab Republic. Now, actually the UAR was formed in 1958 (Yemen also joining but more loosely; Iraq trying to join but coup d'etats intervening), without Israel doing anything about it (the US did send troops to Lebanon, and the UK to Jordan, to deter Nasserites from trying to take over those countries as well), and it broke up in 1961 (due to internal Arab quarreling which I am sure Israel welcomed, but did not have the power to bring about).

Everyone knows the UAR wasn't that big a deal. But the HOPE of it, the "pan arab nationalism" that Nasser represented, that was the actual POPULIST threat which kingdoms like Saudi Arabia are afraid of.

I already gave you a source which showed American sentiments shifted to Israel's side BEFORE the war and the fact that American aid went full steam ahead after it proves that Israel's aggression was well appreciated.

On the general issue of "what motivates people to do what they do", Chomsky knows nothing whatsoever: he is pathologically incapable of understanding the behavior of others, so all the historical information which he painstakingly gathers he puts incoherent interpretations on.

dude, i haven't even quoted Chomsky ONCE, you were the one who started talking about him. I never even mentioned the guy. I told you, most of the stuff I am talking about is textbook mainstream history these days.

But there is a lot of non-mainstream views out there two, and Chomsky is part of that mosaic. Whether you like him or not doesn't really matter. I already told you that I dont even agree with his ideology. But I know that some facts are just that: facts.

You have still not given a single clue as to what you think the USS Liberty episode was about.

The US was showing EXTREME lenience towards Israel, for a reason. That's all I was saying. What Israel did was actually and act of war, and like I said, the US military has not forgotten about it. I told you that a high level American commander recently brought it up as a warning to Israel to not start anything with Iran.

Your sources did not contradict mine in any way. You were simply not reading them correctly, as I have repeatedly tried to explain.

hmmm....This is what you said:

the elites were still the warrior class,

This is what my source said:

Ubaid culture saw the rise of an elite class of hereditary chieftains, perhaps heads of kin groups linked in some way to the administration of the temple shrines and their granaries, responsible for mediating intra-group conflict and maintaining social order.

It has been an exercise in teeth-pulling to get any picture from you of how you think Ubaidi elites maintained their positions.

They had a monopoly on the economy. Just as the elites of today have a monopoly on the economy. Your own argument with the obsidian proved my point.

You wanna do your "audience" a favor now and stop talking about the Ubadis (again) ?? Or grace them with another one of your "long winded" essays?

To someone like you, who thinks the infallibility of the Qur'an should be the default assumption, even if it means re-translating words to meanings those words have never ever been used for before, nothing can ever be "proven".

The word allows for that meaning!

All the interpreters did was go back to the root
of the word, analyze all its possible interpretations
and pick the one which is according to our
understanding. Just as the earlier Muslims did the
same in their own time.

There is nothing wrong with that!
And it is NOT a "contradiction"!

until we got an Arabic-speaker. Well, there you have one

Who>? Abdullah? !! LoLz...

he doesnt even know what he's talking about.

He's not even responding to the issue in the quote u gave !

 

[Saltmeister]

bias ; well are the biblical scholars that have exposed such contradictions biased too? ; see link my dear friend and then tell me wether it's biased:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/216296-post15.html

ah, but it's more than just 'appearing' as contradictions my dear friend; see above link

If it is from God, the most perfect of all, then it has to be without contradictions:

"Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found therein much incongruity." --The Qur'an, Sura 4:82
​

I think you missed my point. My point was that claiming there are contradictions in a religious text may be an argument not as worth making as you think. Do you really think it's the most important thing in a religious text?

I think my dear friend, we should take a step back and first consider before we assume something is from God, as to what the criteria of such a scripture will be?; could God reveal a contradictory text?; does God contradict himself;

Yes, we should certainly take a step back and decide on meaningful criteria.

contradiction basically means 'mistake' or 'error' or 'ha ha you've been caught out that this is all nonsense!' ; this is how a criminal slips up when in court and under interrogation my friend, my contradicting himself, as falsehood gets caught out like this and truth

The accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Slipping up in court and contradicting oneself does not automatically prove that the person is guilty. The truth is always far from conclusive even if a defendant's testimony doesn't stand up in court. If you care about the truth, you wouldn't be so rash to condemn someone.

and perfection will not have this massive error of 'contradiction' in the first place, hence contradictions should spell out for us in capital letters, HELLO, EXCUSE ME, BUT THIS IS NOT FROM GOD, BUT IT'S FROM A FALLIBLE HUMAN WHO'S ONLY CLAIMING SO',

What you regard as "perfection" would be your own perspective. Nobody can ever be absolutely objective about that, but even if you have a text that was "perfect," it still doesn't mean that it came from God. Do you think God is the only person who can create the "perfection" you require?

The kind of "perfection" you require is perfection coming from a piece of literature. I could easily create "perfection" in a piece of literature if I was a good writer. If it was possible for a human to create his own literary perfection then having a perfect religious text that contained the "perfection" you require would be a trivial matter, meaning that "perfection" should and would not even be a criteria for deciding if something comes from God.

If you were to argue that only God can create something perfect, you would have to define what is "perfect" in a piece of literature. What separates literature written by God from literature written by human beings. Human beings have written millions of books and stories. My question to you would be, how can these books not be "perfect?" If you say that nothing a human writes is perfect, you are back to the problem of trying to define perfect.

You would probably claim that by definition, anything God writes is perfect and anything a human writes cannot be perfect. But then you are basically saying that perfection has nothing to do with the content of the literature itself, but more to do with the person who writes it. Oh . . . so anything written by God is perfect simply because He's God. I'm sorry, but if you are looking for perfection, that doesn't satisfy me. Any concept of perfection for a piece of literature must be independent of the author.

If you were to believe that the Quran is "perfect" because the Quran has to be perfect because you are proud of the Quran, then your pride in the Quran is actually clouding your judgment. It actually isn't a rational position. Saying that a lack of contradictions is what makes the Quran perfect doesn't mean much when human beings are quite capable of producing literature that doesn't contain contradictions. This is an ability that doesn't belong exclusively to God.

Even if you could show that the Quran contains knowledge inaccessible to humans, that still doesn't mean it came from God. Apart from God, there are other beings that know things (ie. the workings of the universe) that humans could not have known. An angel could have written the Quran.

Perfection should either not be the sole criterion or not be a criterion at all for deciding whether something comes from God. Actually, I may even go so far as to say that it should not be a requirement at all if there are other considerations that a religious text does not address.

Perfection may not serve God's agenda. I would not put full confidence in a text that was "perfect" but which does not contain the most important or meaningful teachings for humanity. For God to reveal a "perfect text" and omit the most important or meaningful teachings, it would mean that God was outdone by another person.

and wether or not God could fullfill a agenda with a contradictory text should not even occur to us at all, for the former consideration should basically put the text out the window!

I disagree. God's agenda is fulfilled by a text that contains the the most important or meaningful teachings, not by one that lacks contradictions. You are underestimating and not giving proper credit to humanity, something God created.

Humanity may not need perfection. It may simply need proper guidance. Proper guidance is not a matter of being perfect, but being constructive. A religious text can contain teachings that are constructive without having to be perfect.

I am not Buddhist, but I could argue that Buddhism contains teachings that are important and meaningful to humanity. One important aspect that is missing from Buddhism, however, is the belief in God. Because belief in God isn't essential to Buddhism, that reduces the probability of it "serving God's agenda." My point is that I consider it important for a text to contain teachings that are important and meaningful to humanity. A religious text that satisfies this requirement to me is closer to God's agenda than one that is "perfect" and doesn't contain such teachings.

 

[bob x]

But now, it is time for you to concede the following and get it over with...
President Johnson and other top officials in the administration did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable.[113][/I] “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them”, Johnson told Eban during a visit to the White House on May 26.[114][115][113]


On May 26, Eban met with United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and finally with President Lyndon B. Johnson. In a memo to the President, Rusk rejected the claim of an Egyptian and Syrian attack being imminent, plainly stating "our intelligence does not confirm [the] Israeli estimate".[112]

This assertion was made in accordance with a CIA assessment that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts . . . or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth."[114][113]


So how about that concession chief???

I will readily concede that it was JACKASS STUPID for Syria to use the Heights to shut off the water and launch missile barrages at Israel (which, come on now, no nation can be expected to tolerate indefinitely), for Egypt to keep sending fedayin to murder people in their beds and then to cut off the oil supply (which demanded an immediate break of the blockade, by capturing Sharm al-Sheikh naval base and shutting down the Suez Canal), and for Jordan to declare war after watching crippling blows to two stronger nations (and after the Israelis sent the king a message that they would rather leave Jordan out of it). I will concede that I cannot blame LBJ's administration for assuming that the Arabs would act rationally, rather than stupidly start a war they were bound to lose badly. But they did.

It was even more stupid to precede the war with years of frightening talk about exterminating the Jews. The Israeli military may have known that the Arabs had no power to do a second Holocaust, but elected governments have to respond to public emotions, whether or not based in rationality.

Everyone knows the UAR wasn't that big a deal. But the HOPE of it, the "pan arab nationalism" that Nasser represented, that was the actual POPULIST threat which kingdoms like Saudi Arabia are afraid of.

I can agree with you that Nasser kept wishing to revive the project for the rest of his days, and that his military humiliation was a crushing blow to all those who pinned their hopes on him. But you are making the "motiveless malignancy" error when you think that Israel was principally acting just to do harm to the Arabs rather than to help themselves. They didn't do anything in 1958, and had no responsibility for the quarrels which kept any "unification" efforts from being more than a mirage.

I already gave you a source which showed American sentiments shifted to Israel's side BEFORE the war

Public sentiment, sure, I myself said so (this was another jackass-stupid aspect to the Arab rhetoric and actions, that they did not consider the effects on those watching from around the world). But do you mean that the administration had some secret arrangements (contrary to the public "neutrality") before the war? You gave a source, which I could not obtain, and cut off the sentence at "Prior to the Six-Day War--" refusing to say what your source had to say about what happened prior to the Six-Day War.

the fact that American aid went full steam ahead after it proves that Israel's aggression was well appreciated.

Sigh... Responding to acts of war is not "aggression".

And, the American arms sales did not start right after the war, but rather in the fall of 1968, after public opinion against the Arabs was further enflamed by the Palestinians' murderous intervention into our politics-- and by the first wave of airplane attacks "to draw attention to our cause" (damned straight, they got our attention!), but it was the RFK assassination which was particularly infuriating, and will never be forgotten or forgiven as long as those of my age and older are still alive (and those younger, of course, will not forget or forgive 9/11).

The US was showing EXTREME lenience towards Israel [about the Liberty incident], for a reason. That's all I was saying.

What you are NOT saying is why you think it happened at all. You have denounced the version I heard as an absurdity, without offering any alternative version (despite repeated requests). The very existence of the incident fits very poorly with your theory that there was already some kind of tacit alliance.

This is what my source said:

Ubaid culture saw the rise of an elite class of hereditary chieftains, perhaps heads of kin groups linked in some way to the administration of the temple shrines and their granaries, responsible for mediating intra-group conflict and maintaining social order.

And if you look up "chieftains" in the article linked to, you will see that it means warrior leaders. The way you "administered" granaries back then was to be convincingly able to threaten death to whoever would steal from them; the way you "mediated" conflicts was to be convincingly able to beat up (at least) whoever defied your decisions.

As to the "administrators of the temple shrines" (the summarizer here is not being faithful to what Service et al. had to say in the underlying articles: one of the primary ways in which they could tell that towns in different regions were being founded by different cultural groups, not by colonization from one group, was that the religious artifacts were only sometimes gathered into one big "house of God", sometimes instead being found in each house, or sometimes not being present at all-- that is, few of these towns had anything you could call a "temple shrine"), if anyone thinks that the PRIESTS were allowed to be a "hereditary" class, they are grossly mistaken. It was only the warrior class which was hereditary.

They had a monopoly on the economy. Just as the elites of today have a monopoly on the economy.

There was no money, or any other form of stored value, and you don't seem to grasp how different that made it from today. There was no way to hire anyone to fight except to grant them preferential access to the food, larger housing, and better pottery-- other than that, there WAS no economy. The people doing the fighting, the people grabbing the goods, and the "elite" are all just different ways of describing the same group.

Your own argument with the obsidian proved my point.

The obsidian was the WEAPONRY. The people with the WEAPONS were the people doing the fighting, the people "administering" everyone else with threatened violence, the people grabbing the goods: that's who the "elite" were, and your sources (unlike you) are not the least bit unclear about the concept.

All the interpreters did was go back to the root
of the word

Throwing away the actual word, and replacing it with some other word more to their liking.

Just as the earlier Muslims did the
same in their own time.

No. Up until the late 20th century, no-one CONCEIVED of doing such a thing.

 

[c0de]

And if you look up "chieftains" in the article linked to, you will see that it means warrior leaders.

Wrong. I clicked on the word "chieftan" and it linked to the article on Tribal Chiefs. And guess what: "warrior" is not a word that is used ONCE in the entire page. More like "tribal elders".

The way you "administered" granaries back then was to be convincingly able to threaten death to whoever would steal from them; the way you "mediated" conflicts was to be convincingly able to beat up (at least) whoever defied your decisions.

Think about what you are saying! That is essentially what the government does today as well. In fact, in geopolitics that is basically what nations do. It is what Israel did to the Arabs when they tried to steal "their" water.

No law is law unless it is backed by someone who can enforce it. Do you even know what the hell your trying to argue anymore?

There was no money, or any other form of stored value, and you don't seem to grasp how different that made it from today.

Different in appearance only.

Fundamentally, they were the same as us i.e. HUMAN

There was no way to hire anyone to fight except to grant them preferential access to the food, larger housing, and better pottery--

And how do you think the US Army fills its quotas exactly??? by offering hugs??

The people doing the fighting, the people grabbing the goods, and the "elite" are all just different ways of describing the same group.

WRONG!

The elites did NONE of the fighting!

Just like the elites of today !

The obsidian was the WEAPONRY.

obsidian was used to MAKE weaponry!

they controlled the supply of weaponry

nothing says they used it themselves

besides you.

The people with the WEAPONS were the people doing the fighting, the people "administering" everyone else with threatened violence, the people grabbing the goods: that's who the "elite" were, and your sources (unlike you) are not the least bit unclear about the concept.

My sources nowhere listed warfare as the occupation of the elites. You are the one who is trying to say that they did.

But do you mean that the administration had some secret arrangements (contrary to the public "neutrality") before the war? You gave a source, which I could not obtain, and cut off the sentence at "Prior to the Six-Day War--" refusing to say what your source had to say about what happened prior to the Six-Day War.

Dude, the source was wikipedia.

Type "Israel and US relations".

You just screwed yourself buddy.

First you said US administration only aided Israel due to public opinion.
Then you said that public opinion shifted to Israel AFTER the war.
But this clearly contradicts the facts because US turned
"wholeheartedly" towards Israel BEFORE these events.

I love it when people just prove my point for me. Thanks

I will readily concede that it was JACKASS STUPID for Syria to use the Heights to shut off the water and launch missile barrages at Israel (which, come on now, no nation can be expected to tolerate indefinitely), for Egypt to keep sending fedayin to murder people in their beds and then to cut off the oil supply (which demanded an immediate break of the blockade, by capturing Sharm al-Sheikh naval base and shutting down the Suez Canal), and for Jordan to declare war after watching crippling blows to two stronger nations (and after the Israelis sent the king a message that they would rather leave Jordan out of it). I will concede that I cannot blame LBJ's administration for assuming that the Arabs would act rationally, rather than stupidly start a war they were bound to lose badly. But they did.

It was even more stupid to precede the war with years of frightening talk about exterminating the Jews. The Israeli military may have known that the Arabs had no power to do a second Holocaust, but elected governments have to respond to public emotions, whether or not based in rationality.

Are we gonna start playing that game where we keep back tracking through history to see who was responsible for what first???

Cuz that is gonna end up very badly for you, as the Israelis only claim on the land is based in their religion, which is the least "rational" reason you can come up with.

Whichever way you look at it, Israel was the aggressor in 67 simply because its neighbors clearly had neither the intention, nor the capability to attack it. The US knew it, the Soviets knew it, and most of all, Israel was sure of it.

I can agree with you that Nasser kept wishing to revive the project for the rest of his days,

It is much more complex then that. Egypt and Saudi Arabia actually got closer as a result of Nasser's defeat. Before, all he did was denounce the corrupt shiekhs of the kingdom, but now he knew that Egypt's chances of leading the Arab world were over.

Other Arab states took longer to get with the program:

Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the PDRY were the other countries that the Saudis believed espoused a radical form of nationalism. These five states consistently criticized Saudi Arabia's ties to the United States during the 1970s and 1980s.

Saudi Arabia - Arab Nationalism

But you are making the "motiveless malignancy" error when you think that Israel was principally acting just to do harm to the Arabs rather than to help themselves.

You keep imagining this "motiveless malignancy" errors in everyone. My hypothesis is that the Israelis were acting to help themselves by attacking the Arabs. American aid started AFTER the war but their support began BEFORE.

(damned straight, they got our attention!), but it was the RFK assassination which was particularly infuriating, and will never be forgotten or forgiven as long as those of my age and older are still alive (and those younger, of course, will not forget or forgive 9/11).

and im sure we're all very impressed by this chest beating.

What you are NOT saying is why you think it happened at all.

George Lenczowski notes: “It was significant that, in contrast to his secretary of state, President Johnson fully accepted the Israeli version of the tragic incident.” He notes that Johnson himself only included one small paragraph about the Liberty in his autobiography,[30] in which he accepted the Israeli explanation of “error”, but also minimized the whole affair and distorted the actual number of dead and wounded, by lowering them from 34 to 10 and 171 to 100, respectively.


Why???

Throwing away the actual word, and replacing it with some other word more to their liking.

Replacing it with another that fits the bill (i.e. is agreeable to the root).

That is NOT a contradiction.

No. Up until the late 20th century, no-one CONCEIVED of doing such a thing.

What are you talking about? The people who understood the Quran in the 14th century understood those words according to their understanding, did they not? Their understanding might have been wrong. But you can not prove the Quran was wrong unless the word it used was wrong. And it is NOT wrong because it is flexible enough to allow for the shift in OUR understanding.

 

[c0de]

p.s.

What are you talking about? The people who understood the Quran in the 14th century understood those words according to their understanding, did they not? Their understanding might have been wrong. But you can not prove the Quran was wrong unless the word it used was wrong. And it is NOT wrong because it is flexible enough to allow for the shift in OUR understanding.

correction: 7th century.

 

[bob x]

Think about what you are saying! That is essentially what the government does today as well... No law is law unless it is backed by someone who can enforce it. Do you even know what the hell your trying to argue anymore?

Yes I do. What government does today is entirely different from what any Ubaidi could do. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not, himself, patrol the roads of California with a gun: it would be really bad-ass if he did, but instead, there are policemen who patrol, with guns when needed-- and why do they do this? They are paid, with money. This should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't. When it was not possible to hire anyone, no law was law unless it was backed by someone who could enforce it personally, by his own strength and weapons. The strongest and best-armed didn't "work for" the government: they were the government.

And how do you think the US Army fills its quotas exactly??? by offering hugs??

They pay, with money, something which did not exist in Ubaid, which had no way of storing value at all.

obsidian was used to MAKE weaponry!

they controlled the supply of weaponry

nothing says they used it themselves

Please, THINK! What happens if Mr. Prince gives Mr. Serf the weapon, rather than Mr. Prince holding the weapon himself? Mr. Serf would then KILL Mr. Prince and take everything he had. What possible motivation could he have for doing anything else? You are thoughtlessly back-projecting the conditions of a later society: one in which Mr. Prince has a lot of money backing him up, stored some way that Mr. Serf cannot easily grab it, but if Mr. Serf keeps working for Mr. Prince, a little of that money will keep on being doled out to him.

That is not how it was in Ubaid. There was only the granary, and what kept everybody from raiding the granary was that people with obsidian knives would kill you. If there wasn't enough in the granary to go around, the people with the knives got what they needed, you can be sure of that. There was no reason in the world why they should give any to Mr. Prince, if Mr. Prince does not himself have a knife-- for future promises? Promises of what? If he's not around next year, the grain will grow without him.

Oh, there's Mr. Priestly, whom they will need next year, because he knows when to plant the seeds, and where to dig the water trenches, and how many lambs can be culled from the flock, and how to make that herbal poultice for their stab-wounds and (they believe) how to appease angry nature and bring good weather. But they will make damned sure he does not raise kids, with hungry mouths, who might grow up to expect to be fed for nothing: that way lies trouble, so Mr. Priestly has to make a certain sacrifice of his own.

My sources nowhere listed warfare as the occupation of the elites.

They were assuming that anybody reading it would know at least that much about how ancient societies worked (or medieval societies, for that matter; you are the only one with the illusion that modern societies are not seriously different from what came before). You acknowledge that warriors must have existed, and yet imagine that this was a different class from "the elite": why then do your sources never mention this supposed other class? I'll tell you why: because it's not a different class.

Dude, the source was wikipedia.

You cited as "George Lenczowski, American Presidents and the Middle East, Duke University Press, 1990, p.105-115" with the only Wiki link to an article about Mr. Lenczowski, that wouldn't even load for me.

First you said US administration only aided Israel due to public opinion.
Then you said that public opinion shifted to Israel AFTER the war.

NO! I have been INSISTENT that American public opinion shifted strongly to Israel BEFORE the war, that this is why LBJ's "neutrality" declaration was so despised. And AFTER the war? Sentiment, already anti-Arab, turned virulently anti-Arab, enough so that we wanted to ship weapons to Israel, after the Arabs violently attacked within our country.

But this clearly contradicts the facts because US turned "wholeheartedly" towards Israel BEFORE these events.

The public, yes, was cheering for Israel in June 1967. The administration was not, until fall 1968. You clipped from Lenczowski one and a half sentences: a full sentence "During Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency, U.S. policy shifted to a whole-hearted, but not unquestioning, support for Israel." which does not explain what the starting position was or when it "shifted", and then as the text starts to explain, you cut off the beginning of the explanation "Prior to the Six-Day War of 1967..." and rudely refused repeated requests to show me what the book says was happening prior to the Six-Day War. I would assume the sentence was something like "Prior to the Six-Day War of 1967, Johnson's position was ambivalent" but you won't say.

Are we gonna start playing that game where we keep back tracking through history to see who was responsible for what first???

You used the word aggression. That is a claim about who was responsible for what first. Look, if you keep shouting at Mike Tyson that you're going to kill him, and then you pull a knife with your right hand and punch him in the face with your left, you're going to end up in the hospital-- and deservedly so: I don't want to hear about how he's a big meanie, and you couldn't have hurt him anyway; that's why you shouldn't have started a fight with him, innit?

Whichever way you look at it, Israel was the aggressor in 67 simply because its neighbors clearly had neither the intention, nor the capability to attack it.

They DID attack, stupidly. Missile barrages are attacks: Israel put up with that for a very long time. And firing warning shots across the bow of the Iranian tanker was a more serious act of war, even if (unlike the missiles) it didn't kill anybody: cutting off the oil would have strangled Israel if they had not acted to break the blockade quickly.

American aid started AFTER the war but their support began BEFORE.

WHAT support, before or during the war? Public cheers, yes, but nothing from the government.

and im sure we're all very impressed by this chest beating.

Hey, we're the ones with the obsidian

George Lenczowski notes: “It was significant that, in contrast to his secretary of state, President Johnson fully accepted the Israeli version of the tragic incident.” He notes that Johnson himself only included one small paragraph about the Liberty in his autobiography,[30] in which he accepted the Israeli explanation of “error”, but also minimized the whole affair and distorted the actual number of dead and wounded, by lowering them from 34 to 10 and 171 to 100, respectively.

I've never found the "oh gee, we didn't see that American flag at all" story plausible. I have always assumed that LBJ pretended to believe it because the Israelis could have sunk him by releasing Liberty's transmissions of intelligence to Egypt. LBJ caught enough flak for sending a ship into the middle of a war zone in any case, but to have it proven that he sent it there to assist the wrong side would have been devastating.

You probably don't accept this version: I'm not at all certain of it either; who can know about espionage affairs? Do you (given that, of course, you can't be certain of anything either) basically accept the "accident" version?

Replacing it with another that fits the bill (i.e. is agreeable to the root).

Is "Displacing it with an altered" the same as "Replacing it with another"? I'm sticking to the same roots, you know.

The people who understood the Quran in the 14th century understood those words according to their understanding, did they not?

They understood the words to mean what they meant to the people of Muhammad's day. It would never have occurred to them that the words could be replaced with others, just as long as the consonants of the root were left alone; they were quite punctilious about getting all the vowels and prefixes right too, to make sure they had the exactly right meanings. That is something you are discarding now. You are no longer believing the Qur'an that was revealed through Muhammad to his people.

 

[c0de]

That is not how it was in Ubaid.

Sorry, but nothing you have says that it was the occupation of the elites to THEMSELVES be doing the fighting. My sources clearly dont say that fighting was in their repertoire. They give a whole list of function yet fighting is NOT mentioned once. And my sources OUTRANK anything you have offered.

btw, what happened to your "chieftan" vocabulary suddenly? Did you find out that leaders of tribes were always more brains than brawn??

NO! I have been INSISTENT that American public opinion shifted strongly to Israel BEFORE the war, that this is why LBJ's "neutrality" declaration was so despised.

So you want to believe that the Americans pressured their government into supporting Israel... due to what, exactly??? What made Arab actions so much worse than Israel's???

"During Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency, U.S. policy shifted to a whole-hearted, but not unquestioning, support for Israel." which does not explain what the starting position was

Are you kidding me? It is clearly implied that the
"starting position" was one of non-whole hearted support, obviously.

that's why you shouldn't have started a fight with him, innit?

They didn't START the fight!

Anyone who knows anything about brawling
knows that the fight starts when the first
punch is thrown. Israel threw the first punch,
in 1967. That's a FACT. Everything prior to that
was skirmish level and could have been resolved
through diplomacy. Israel ultimately screwed itself
in the long term through the war anyway.

You probably don't accept this version: I'm not at all certain of it either; who can know about espionage affairs? Do you (given that, of course, you can't be certain of anything either) basically accept the "accident" version?

Fine whatever.

I'm sticking to the same roots, you know.

And as YOU know, your roots aren't strong enough to uproot anything. You can't prove a contradiction and you know it.

You are no longer believing the Qur'an that was revealed through Muhammad to his people.

lolz .... rite

 

[bob x]

My sources clearly dont say that fighting was in their repertoire. They give a whole list of function yet fighting is NOT mentioned once.

They don't say anything about anybody else doing the fighting either; your invention of a separate warrior class is based on nothing. They don't mention the subject because it isn't their topic. The Ubaid vs. Uruk papers do talk about the issue of "colonization" (displacing the existing population) vs. "conversion" (of the existing population to a new way of life) as processes for spreading agriculture, and indicate that the Ubaid period was all about conversion, implying that genocidal campaigns of conquest did not exist back then, unlike in Uruk times; but that's as far as they go. They do not talk about the background violence that occurs in all human history; they do not dispute Keegan's rule of thumb that ancient peoples tended to be fighting about 10% of the time because they do not discuss the subject at all.

They take it for granted that the houses and granary buildings are clustered together defensively, without discussing why, assuming that you can figure out that much for yourself. The paper on the town in Syria discusses the trade in weapon materials, noting that it was the exclusive preoccupation of the elites, but again without discussing why, assuming that you can figure that out for yourself. Your notion that the elites would accumulate weapons in order to give them to somebody else, some completely fictitious "other class", is delusional: why would they put themselves completely at the mercy of some other class, when they had no means whatsoever of buying these other people's loyalties?

And my sources OUTRANK anything you have offered.

OUTRANK??? How do you get that? The closest thing to "rank" in general among academic papers would be in terms of "citations with approval" (of which Keegan has many) minus "citations with disapproval" (of which, so far as I know, Keegan has none or nearly none), and your papers are too recent to expect we would find many citations of either kind; I am willing to believe they will accumulate citations with approval, since I see nothing wrong in anything they had to say, but your notion that papers which have not yet had much time for comment by the wider scholarly community "outrank" those which have been out there for a while is, frankly, bizarre.

In terms of relevancy, clearly a paper which is specifically discussing the topic at issue "outranks" one which scarcely bothers to mention it.

btw, what happened to your "chieftan" vocabulary suddenly? Did you find out that leaders of tribes were always more brains than brawn??

My bad, I was thinking of a different article than the Wiki you cited, one about Native American chiefs (I cannot find it now, which is why I didn't bother trying to put this in before). They had two kinds of "chiefs", the "war chief" and the "medicine chief": in talking to white men they borrowed the word "medicine" to speak of spirituality and the arts in general, not just the healing arts. Medicine chiefs acquired their prestige through having visions, particularly visions in which ceremonial dances would be revealed: Black Elk Speaks is a famous and illuminating book derived from interviews with one of the last great medicine chiefs of the Dakota.

War chiefs were more likely to be hereditary, a son or brother often taking over the rank (as he inherited the weapons, of course) when an old chief died or was killed, but this was not invariable. In many tribes, there was no formal system for choosing them at all: any brave could affiliate with or disaffiliate from any leader at any time, so prestige would wax and wane fluidly. But stronger tribes (particularly in "violent neighborhoods") found it better to impose unanimity, and this was often surprisingly like modern democratic systems: if a majority of the warriors followed one war chief, all the others despite any reservations about him were expected to go along; if there were really hard feelings, the rival faction might secede and move away, but this was a serious move (weakening both groups' survival chances) to be avoided except as a last resort. The Iroquois had an interesting rule whereby the men had the right of election, but the women had the right of impeachment and removal (sparing the men the loss of face from having to admit that they had made a bad choice).

When a war chief grew too old to fight personally any longer, someone else would take over the job of "leading from the front", but the elder would gain, not lose, prestige and influence over decisions with increasing age. Anyone else who managed to live a long time, even if not particularly prestigious while in his prime, would acquire prestige through sheer age, experience being highly prized and respected. But this would not in any way transfer to other members of the family.

So you want to believe that the Americans pressured their government into supporting Israel... due to what, exactly??? What made Arab actions so much worse than Israel's???

Threatening genocide, with the memory of the Holocaust still fresh? Murdering people in their sleep? Raining missiles down on farms? Kicking out all peacekeepers? Attacking unarmed ships in international waters? And after the war: hijacking planes? Assassinating one of our Presidential candidates?

Are you kidding me? It is clearly implied that the
"starting position" was one of non-whole hearted support, obviously.

Clearly? Obviously? I was asking where you got any notion from that the US government supported Israel in any way prior to the Six-Day War. We had granted them diplomatic recognition, from the beginning, as we did with all kinds of nations; we had more recently lifted the arms embargo against them, while maintaining strict balance by selling to the Arabs equally; we had intervened in one conflict (1956) against them, but never on their side. LBJ's public proclamation of "neutrality" reflected little shift in policy; publicly, at least, that "shift" would not come until over a year later.

They didn't START the fight!

Anyone who knows anything about brawling
knows that the fight starts when the first
punch is thrown. Israel threw the first punch,
in 1967. That's a FACT.

That's a LIE. The Arabs had committed several acts of war (in the nature of sucker-punches) even prior to the blockade, which was an act of war requiring immediate response (in the nature of a direct punch to the face). Israel responded with a knockout blow: good for them.

Everything prior to that
was skirmish level and could have been resolved
through diplomacy.

There were no diplomatic relations, and the UN's peacemaking efforts had been explicitly rejected by the Arab side; their firmly stated position, "We want all the Jews dead," did not leave much room for talking anyway. And Israel could not wait through years of talks for its oil shipments to be "allowed" again. The Arabs had of course the right to sell or not sell their own oil to whoever they wished, but it was simply intolerable for them to claim a veto over trade by other nations and forcibly interfere with international shipping. There was nothing to discuss: that had to stop at once.

You can't prove a contradiction and you know it.

Prove it to someone who will accept any excuse rather than question his default presumption? Of course I can't: I never had any hope, or really any wish, to "make" you abandon Islam. But I was wanting to see if you would defend Islam as "in accordance with rationality": to anyone who does not already share your beliefs, the rational conclusion is that ordinary human error is the simplest explanation for the difficulties in the Qur'an.

You are no longer believing the Qur'an that was revealed through Muhammad to his people.

lolz .... rite

Believing that only the consonantal roots are of significance in the text, abandoning any belief that the prefixes and vowels are correct, is in fact a very serious change in the belief-system.

 

[c0de]

My bad, I was thinking of a different article than the Wiki you cited

And that is another point against you. Even the word "chieftan" implies a "tribal elder" a position which is capable of no fighting.

They don't say anything about anybody else doing the fighting either; your invention of a separate warrior class is based on nothing.

why are you assuming that I am assuming there was a separate "warrior class" to begin with??? When did I say anything about a "warrior class" ?? The only one here who has been using the word "warrior" is you. Neither me, nor my sources have used this word.

The fact is that there were NO standing professional armies back then. Warfare in such societies was a collective effort. When there were skirmishes (the Ubaidis didnt see much war, as you conceded) most likely everyone who could pick up a weapon was given a weapon by the elites and told to go and fight. The elites, the very few, lazy, "elders" as they must have been probably "administered" their troops. How could this small, unfit minority, who had no experience with manual labor, be responsible for warfare???

If these elites were a "warrior class" who were specifically responsible for conducting warfare, then conducting warfare would have been listed as their occupation and responsibility, which it was NOT. None of their responsibilities includes ANY sort of manual labor.

OUTRANK??? How do you get that?

By the academic virtue of being a decade more recent. Recent research always receives precedence. Go talk to any university TA

Threatening genocide, with the memory of the Holocaust still fresh? Murdering people in their sleep? Raining missiles down on farms? Kicking out all peacekeepers? Attacking unarmed ships in international waters? And after the war: hijacking planes? Assassinating one of our Presidential candidates?

The RED doesn't count because it was AFTER the fact where you claim opinion already turned against them. The US had chosen its sides BEFORE the war. I asked you what TURNED opinion against the Arabs in the first place.

Now lets have a look at what you cited:

"Threatening genocide, with the memory of the Holocaust still fresh?"Murdering people in their sleep? Raining missiles down on farms?""

A genocide the Europeans committed, by the way, not the Arabs. And what about the Ethnic cleansing committed by the Jews when they took the land by force? The massacres and suicide bombings by the Jews (who started the trend)? And what "genocide" were the Arabs threatening? They just wanted their land back! They wanted REVENGE for what happened to them. Even their rhetoric was based in a defensive plea.

Attacking unarmed ships in international waters?

How about Attacking American ships in international waters?? Hello? What about that?? How much press coverage did that get? Why didn't that affect American opinion?

That's a LIE. The Arabs had committed several acts of war (in the nature of sucker-punches)even prior to the blockade, which was an act of war requiring immediate response (in the nature of a direct punch to the face). Israel responded with a knockout blow: good for them.

I never contended the Arabs played it smart. I already told you they had no chance of winning, EVERYONE knows that. They should have recognized Israel and accepted it has a FACT.

But even if I concede the point that Israel acted defensively in that war, technically, they are still the aggressors, because where do you START drawing the line? What was the real lead up to the war? The blocade or the fact that Israel was/is sitting on captured Arab territory?

Clearly? Obviously? I was asking where you got any notion from that the US government supported Israel in any way prior to the Six-Day War.

That author himself says the Americans turned "whole heartedly" towards the Israelis BEFORE the war! Even you are saying Public Opinion was in their favor, which means that according to your own argument American policy should have favored them before the war. You are just contradicting yourself.

Prove it to someone who will accept any excuse rather than question his default presumption? Of course I can't: I never had any hope, or really any wish, to "make" you abandon Islam. But I was wanting to see if you would defend Islam as "in accordance with rationality": to anyone who does not already share your beliefs, the rational conclusion is that ordinary human error is the simplest explanation for the difficulties in the Qur'an.

I never claimed ANY religion is in accordance with RATIONALITY!!!

My only reason for being on this thread is to question the assertion that there is a contradiction in the Quran. Can you prove a contradiction? No, you can't. No one ever has. Your hypothesis, which is an old Christian missionary tactic, is weak and can be easily brushed aside.

Believing that only the consonantal roots are of significance in the text, abandoning any belief that the prefixes and vowels are correct, is in fact a very serious change in the belief-system.

Not according to the vast majority of experts in Arabic linguistics. If this was such a big issue (as you are claiming), it would have been a big deal, but (clearly) it ain't.

 

[c0de]

p.s.

And since you brought up Chomsky and I know you hate him so much, here's something I found just for you:


QUESTION: What is Israel's relationship to the U.S.?

CHOMSKY: Israel is virtually a dependency of the United States. U.S. exports to Israel, amounting to $1.4 billion in 1976, are exceeded only by those to Saudi Arabia and Iran. But because every other aspect of the problem of the Middle East is fitted into the framework of old reserves, American attitudes towards Israel will vary as they bear on the problem of maintaining control of Middle Eastern energy resources.

Consider the U.S. reaction to Israel's conquest of the Sinai in 1956 and in 1967. In 1956, the U.S. strongly opposed that action. Eisenhower and Dulles were quite forthright and outspoken about it a few days before the presidential election, allegedly a time when political considerations are paramount. Political considerations aside, the U.S. openly compelled Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, not caring about its impact in the presidential election. In contrast, the U.S. supported Israel's conquest of the Sinai in 1967 and has been backing it since that time.

What was the difference between 1956 and 1967? In 1956, Israel was allied with France and England who were trying to reestablish some position of significance in the Middle East, believing still they had some role to play in regulating the affairs of the region. Since Israel was collaborating with rivals of the U.S. in the region, the conquest became illegitimate.

In 1967, Israel was closely allied to the U.S. directly. As a result, the conquest was quite legitimate. U.S. government support of Israel is more or less in accord with the American perception of Israel's strength. The stronger Israel becomes, the more it is able to assist the U.S. in maintaining control of the region, so the more the U.S. will support it. Though the pretense has always been that we're supporting Israel because it is in danger, the opposite would be a much more accurate statement. American support for Israel is contingent upon its strength and ability to aid in maintaining American domination of the Middle East.

QUESTION: Would you explain the logic in American
policy that sees a strong Israeli military position as being in the interests of the U.S?

CHOMSKY: Since 1967 it's been plain that Israel is, by a long shot, the strongest military power in the region. Contrary to what people believe, it's one of the richest countries in the region, in terms of the GNP per capita. Though not as rich as the oil emirates, it is richer than most of the oil-producing nations. Furthermore, it's an advanced technological society. Its wealth and economic strength are not just contingent on some depreciable resource.

American planners have regarded Israel as a barrier to Russian penetration, and have assumed that "the demise of Israel... likely would see increased Soviet influence ..."17 Israeli power protected the "monarchical regimes" of Jordan and Saudi Arabia from "a militarily strong Egypt" in the 1960s, thus securing American interests in the major oil-producing regions.

The Senate's ranking oil expert, Senator Henry Jackson, is only one of those who have emphasized "the strength and Western orientation of Israel on the Mediterranean and Iran on the Persian Gulf," two "reliable friends of the United States," who, along with Saudi Arabia, "have served to inhibit and contain those irresponsible and radical elements in certain Arab states ... who, were they free to do so, would pose a grave threat indeed to our principal sources of petroleum in the Persian Gulf."18

For such reasons, the United States has tacitly supported the Israeli occupation of surrounding Arab territories as well as the forceable takeover of Arab islands by Iran in 1971. The Irano-Israeli alliance not only protects reactionary Arab states allied with the United States, but also stands as a constant threat to them, should they make unwelcome moves. More generally, it is argued that "the Israeli-Iranian interrelationship -- wittingly or unwittingly -- has contributed to" the stability of the Indian Ocean Basin: "the quiet in the eye of a hurricane."19

QUESTION: There seems to be a self-contradictory logic within the U.S. policy.

CHOMSKY: There is. The stronger these countries become, the more likely it is that they'll do something outside the control of the U.S. foreign policy. It is an extremely hazardous game and, as we know, it often fails. Hitler was playing a hazardous game and he lost.
QUESTION: Vance has recently condemned Israel's oil exploration in the Sinai. If the U.S. is interested in a strong Israel, why do they inhibit its independent military capacity by denying it an independent source of petroleum, oil, and lubricants?

CHOMSKY: That's a real bone of contention. For one thing, the U.S. would rather not have Israel have its own internal resources. They want it to be dependent on the U.S. Furthermore, Israel is infringing on the interests of major American corporations in the case of the Gulf of Suez.

American oil companies are linked with Egyptian explorations and liftings and Israel is simply taking over part of the area that they regard as theirs. The thing is pretty small at the moment and it doesn't involve any major oil resources, so the U.S. isn't pressing very hard. But they've always described Israeli actions there as illegal and they simply reiterated it at this point. Of course, what "legality" means is what the big powers determine; it's another rhetorical term. To say that it's illegal is another way of saying, "We disapprove of it and, if we disapprove enough, we'll make you stop it."

QUESTION: What are the consequences for Israeli society of playing the American game?

CHOMSKY: The effect on Israel will be very corrosive, both economically and psychologically. There's a tremendous economic drain into military expenditures and that's only going to increase. Furthermore, a commitment to military production is becoming a larger and larger element in the Israeli economy, both internally and for export, and the tie with the U.S. is a strong part of that. This drain of resources in the military means that they can't face internal social problems which are very serious, such as the problem of the Sephardic oriental Jewish community. That's never going to be faced as long as there's a militarized economy. It will become an economy sharply split along class lines, with an extremely rich sector connected to advanced technology and commerce, and the rest of the population will be suppressed and very poor.

The psychological effect will be harder to estimate, but it is very significant. As long as the occupation persists, there will be an unconquerable temptation to use cheap Arab labor, which is what is happening. Israel will inevitably move toward a kind of South African situation, in which there's a very cheap labor force which is atomized and can't organize. They'll take over a good part of the productive labor of the country. This is already starting to happen. That can only have the effect of encouraging racism and all the kinds of attitudes that come along with exploiting a cheap labor force which is totally under your control.

In my opinion, in ten or twenty years the kibbutzim will become a collective management using Arab labor, running factories off the premises, and living in the urban suburbs. It will be extremely hard for them to do anything else. They've got to compete in the capitalist market, which means they have to use the cheapest working force available. At every point, the effect of all this on Israeli culture is frightening. I find it very depressing to read the Israeli press; the attitudes expressed are outrageous. You can't avoid these attitudes when you're oppressing other people and using that oppression as the basis for your prosperity. You have to have a moral justification for it, and the justification is racism.

Oil Imperialism and the US-Israel Relationship, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Roger Hurwitz, David Woolf & Sherman Teichman

 

[c0de]

.

p.p.s.


Regarding your argument about the supposed "abandoning" of the meanings of the Quran, pay close attention to the parts in BOLD and Highlight (especially in the first response)

The actual word "al-alaq" has a dual meaning in Arabic. Depending on the context it can either mean "a clump of blood" or "leech." This can be seen for example in the Arabic-English Dictionary "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic" by J. Milton Cowan. On page 634, this word is translated into English as "medicinal leech; leech, blood, blood clot." To find a much more comprehensive and authoritative study of this word we need to go to the 18 volume encyclopedia of Arabic language, Lisan Al-Arab. In volume 10, pages 261-270 we can find a detailed treatment of this word, its root, its derivations, its usage, its various permutations, and their meanings. In these ten pages we are presented with roughly 160 different permutations of this word. Each differing only very slightly from the others in written or pronounced form, and with all of them being united by the common theme of different ways of "clinging or hanging" Let us have a look at a couple of examples:


The root word from which this word is derived is the word "Aa-la-qa." It has the general meaning of "to hang" or "to cling." By employing various grammatical manipulations on this word we come up with the aforementioned 160 derivations each of which is closely associated with the concept of "clinging or hanging."For example, one derivation has the general meaning of "devotion" (to cling to with love), another has the general meaning of "hanger" (to hang up clothes), a third conveys the meaning of "dowry" (the money paid to the woman in order to cause the couple to "cling together" in marriage), a fourth form of this word has the general meaning of "lust" (to cling to something with desire and lust), a fifth form has the general meaning of "to ensnare" (an animal gets hung up in a net), a sixth form has the general meaning of "to cling to by your nails," etc.


Now, when looking for the meaning of the precise form of the word at hand, "Aa-la-qu" (For those who speak Arabic "fatha-fatha-dhammah") we find the aforementioned two meanings; leech or clump of blood. So which one was the meaning intended by God in this verse? To better study this word and its dual meaning let us start with a similar example from the English language:


In English we find a number of words with two or more meanings, the correct one of which is chosen based upon the context of the text. For example, the word "right" can have one of more than ten different meanings depending on the employed context. Among these meanings are:


Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer.
Fitting, proper, or appropriate: It is not right to leave the party without saying goodbye.
Most favorable, desirable, or convenient: the right time to act.
In or into a satisfactory state or condition: put things right.
In good mental or physical health or order.
Intended to be worn or positioned facing outward or toward an observer: the right side of the dress; made sure that the right side of the fabric was visible.
a. Of, belonging to, located on, or being the side of the body to the south when the subject is facing east. b. Of, relating to, directed toward, or located on the right side. c. Located on the right side of a person facing downstream: the right bank of a river.
Often Right Of or belonging to the political or intellectual Right.
Mathematics a. Formed by or in reference to a line or plane that is perpendicular to another line or plane. b. Having the axis perpendicular to the base: right cone.
Straight; uncurved; direct: a right line.


So if the text says "I picked it up with my right hand" then the meaning of the word "right" will be quite different than when I use the same word in the sentence "you gave him the right answer." In these two cases the context very clearly leads us to the correct selection.


However, there are other cases when the selection of the correct meaning is not so clear cut. For example, if one were to say "I struck him by my right" then this could be interpreted either to mean that "it was my legal right to do so" or it could mean "my right hand, or right side." Now the meaning is not so clear. Indeed, one example of this in the noble Qur'an can be found in Al-Saffat(37):93, where based upon the nature of the Arabic word "bilyameen" the verse can be translated into English in one of two ways; either "So he (Abraham) attacked them (the idols), striking them with his right hand" or it could be translated into English as "So he (Abraham) attacked them (the idols) striking them in fulfillment of his oath (which he made in verse 21:57)." Since there is no way to translate this word into English without preferring one meaning over the other, therefore the first was chosen by many translators and the English translation thus becomes more restricted in meaning than the original Arabic.

Now, if we were to come to a high-school dropout who has no experience in computers, and we were to give him the operation manual for an IBM compatible Pentium computer, and this manual were to contain references to the computer having "bits" "bytes" and "nibbles" of memory, or having "bugs" in some programs, or "viruses" in its software, then what will this person think? If this person did not know the first thing about operating a computer, and he was asked to read the manual and to explain the operation of a computer without actually having been given access to a physical computer or the tools necessary to dissect it, then this lack of knowledge will indeed influence his "explanation" of what he read in the manual. Assume that this person were then to read that the computer has a "hard drive." Is it not then possible that he may come away thinking that the computer "is driven to do a good job"?

We begin to see that a person's background and understanding are central to how he "interprets" or "understands" a given text. His understanding in no way alters the intended meaning as found in the manual or conveyed by the language, however, that is the only meaning his mind can comprehend at that time based upon his current level of knowledge.


Now assume that this same person went back to school, got his high-school diploma and perhaps a bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering. Now he will begin to have doors of understanding opened up to him which he never before imagined. The meanings begin now to make much more sense and take on broader implications. He now understands that a computer "nibble" does not mean that it bites something, a computer "bug" is not a mosquito, and a computer "virus" is not influenza.


This is indeed what happened with the words of God in the noble Qur'an. Muslims were presented with a book from God which told them that "He (God) created humanity from an Alaq." Those who read this verse "interpreted" it based upon the meaning they felt most appropriate. Humans have blood in them so the verse must mean "blood clot." How could a person be created from worms, they reasoned? However, the verse remained in Arabic and the text retained its dual meaning despite how humanity had tried to understand the meaning. When some people chose to translate the meanings of the Qur'an into English they were faced with a situation where they had to chose one or the other. Unlike the original Arabic, the English language would not allow for a dual meaning. Thus, the translators looked at both meanings, "clump of blood," and "leech" and tried to reason, "Which one appears to my intellect to be the intended meaning, for humans to have been created from a blood clot or for them to have been created from leeches?" Obviously, just as humans would have a hard time imagining "bugs" flying around in their software, so too did they have a hard time imagining "leeches" transmuting into humans, so the verse was translated as "blood clot."

To establish a definition for alaqa we might take a look at the Qamus al-Muheet, one of the most important Arabic dictionaries ever compiled, by Muhammed Ibn-Yaqub al-Firuzabadi (AD 1329-1415) [12]. He says that alaqa has the same meaning as a clot of blood


1.Blood in its normal state or blood which is extremely red or which has hardened or congealed, 2.a piece thereof 3. Every thing that sticks ;4. Clay that sticks to hands;5. Unchanging enmity or love; 6.Zu `alaq is the name of a hill of Banu Asad, where they defeated Rabi`ah ibn Maalik;7. An insect of water that sucks blood;8. That portion of a tree that is within the reach of animals.


As should be clear from the above that there are numerous meanings of the word, but they are all derived from the sense of ‘attachment or clinging’. For example love is alaqah because it clings to the heart and a leech is alaqah because it clings to the skin of the human who’s blood it sucks, and clay is alaqah because it clings to the hands. A faithful translation of the word in English would be ‘anything that clings or sticks’ i.e. ‘clinging thing’ because this would allow all the meanings of the word to be preserved. Moiz Amjad writes the following in his article ‘what was man created from’:

The word `alaq, does not "mean" blood but because of certain properties of blood, it was, besides other things also used to imply blood. The real meaning of the word, as would be obvious from an analysis of all the meanings stated above, is anything that sticks to or hangs with something else. The word was used for blood, because of the well known property of blood of being sticky, as soon as its starts to dry out. The word was used for mud, because of its obvious property of sticking to the hands. The word was used for unending hatred or love, because such emotions stick to one's heart. The word was used for a small insect which sucks blood (leech), because it sticks to its prey. The word was also used for that part of the tree, which is in the reach of grazing animals, because the animals stick to that part of it.


Thus, the real meaning of the word "`alaq" is "anything that sticks or hangs". Now when the Qur'an said: "He created man of `alaq", it was interpreted by Muslim scholars to imply "a clot of blood". This was not because the word "`alaq" meant "a clot of blood" but because the Muslim scholars felt that in this verse it implied "a clot of blood". If, due to the widening of human knowledge, today we are in a position to know that a child is never "a clot of blood", all that has happened is that we can now safely say that the interpretation of the Muslim scholars was not accurate. If the Qur'an was not available in its original language, as is generally the case with the books, other than the Qur'an, believed to be revealed literature, the Muslims would have had no option but to submit that the Qur'an does have a "scientific error" in it. But the case of the Qur'an is quite different from those other books. It is still in its original language. And the word originally used by the Qur'an (`alaq) is not used only for a clot of blood. It actually refers to "something that sticks" (like semi dried blood, mud, unending hatred/love or a leech).

The critic tries to strengthen the case for ‘blood clot’ by quoting the commentaries of Ancient scholars. While Muslims gave the utmost respect for those individuals, we do not consider them to be free from error. They were human beings and did not have the scientific knowledge to understand the Quran correctly and so used whatever theories were around at that time to interpret the Quran. Now that we know they were wrong, we can safely reject their interpretations and use the scientific knowledge at our disposal to interpret the Quran. The Quran’s claim to being a perfect revelation is not in the least affected by imperfect interpretations of it by mortal human beings.

Muslims reject the third meaning ‘blood clot’ for the reasons already stated i.e. it is scientifically wrong. So, alaqah means either ‘leech-like’ or ‘clinging thing’ neither can be said to be wrong however since ‘leech’ is the most common use of the word ‘alaqah’ in Arabic other than ‘blood-clot’ the meaning ‘leech-like’ has to be given the benefit of the doubt. I am sure the reader will appreciate now that alaqah does have two precise scientific meanings neither of which is subject to any scientific or linguistic criticism whatsoever!

http://www.answering-christianity.com/nadeem_embryology.htm

 

[bob x]

And that is another point against you. Even the word "chieftan" implies a "tribal elder" a position which is capable of no fighting.

It is capable of meaning several things, "war chief" or "medicine chief" or "elder", of which only "war chiefs" are generally hereditary offices. One becomes an "elder" simply by living a long time, and the children of the elder have no special position unless and until they too live a long time; when your source speaks of hereditary power starting to take hold, the position of "elder" is certainly not what is meant.

When did I say anything about a "warrior class" ?? The only one here who has been using the word "warrior" is you. Neither me, nor my sources have used this word.

Your sources do not directly talk about war at all, which is why they are not particularly useful for guiding you about the nature of war at that time. But when I mistook you to be claiming that there was a complete absence of war back then, you agreed that there had to have been wars.

The fact is that there were NO standing professional armies back then.

"Professional" in the sense of "paid in money"? Of course not: money did not exist.

Warfare in such societies was a collective effort. When there were skirmishes (the Ubaidis didnt see much war, as you conceded) most likely everyone who could pick up a weapon was given a weapon by the elites and told to go and fight.

Effective weapons were a serious shortage, before metallurgy. Obsidian is not a common material, and flint cutters really are not that effective; archery, which gave weapons to all the men in Siberian and American tribes, was very late coming to the Middle East (perhaps from lack of trees with nicely flexible wood like the yew; later the invention of the composite bow got around this). If there was a serious raid, the elites couldn't give everyone a good weapon, and would more likely tell everyone to get behind the palisade (that's what it was for!) although to be sure, if the enemy approached, everybody would repel them by throwing things (king Abimelech of Israel died besieging Shechem when an old lady leaned over the wall and tossed a pot at his head). If they went out to confront the enemy, those with the large sharp blades would have to be at the front: and those were the chiefs.

Typically, Stone Age societies would have mock-war rituals, both for settling disputes between neighboring communities (it could be assumed that whoever won the mock war would win if it came to a real one) and for drill/training. There's a picture of one from the Dani Papuans here: note that the "army" is only eight men with sharpened sticks. The chief, I'm sure you will notice, is sitting up in the lookout tower, not down in the field-- BUT, in real wars the chiefs were especially likely to die (just as battle was the most common cause of death for Roman emperors); see this chief, displayed by the "successor" who took his territory.

The elites, the very few, lazy, "elders" as they must have been probably "administered" their troops. How could this small, unfit minority, who had no experience with manual labor, be responsible for warfare???

Your source says nothing about "laziness" or "unfitness"; again you are back-projecting from later societies. The margin of survival in the Stone Age was too fine to afford a "gentlemen don't dirty their hands" attitude; Dani chiefs do tend their own pigs (the Dani are roughly at the Ubaidi level of development; more like Eridu in that only codpieces are worn, though more like Uruk in that there is a limited "money" in the form of cowrie shells). But agriculture only requires "all hands on deck" for a few seasonal bursts of activity; most of the year, the major inequality in labor is based on gender, not class lines, with all the men making their women do most of the work (this was also frequently remarked upon by observers of the Native American tribes). Chiefs, having harems (one of the articles on the Dani I looked at said about a chief, "He has several pigs and several wives, and gives both about equal care"), probably did evade more work than bachelors (and the unmarried males would be the poorer ones: as in the Middle East, Dani marriages involve a bride-price to the female's family, of a pig or some shells or at least a food-stash; not a dowry paid out by the female's family, as in India).

If these elites were a "warrior class" who were specifically responsible for conducting warfare, then conducting warfare would have been listed as their occupation and responsibility, which it was NOT. None of their responsibilities includes ANY sort of manual labor.

Your source doesn't talk about anybody conducting warfare, and for that matter doesn't talk about anybody performing any sort of manual labor. Your "argument from silence" only shows that that wasn't the topic of the paper.

By the academic virtue of being a decade more recent. Recent research always receives precedence. Go talk to any university TA

I was a university TA for many years. Of course it is vital to keep up with the latest in your field, but one of the reasons to read the latest publications is so that you can earn your spurs by criticizing them. Even in mathematics, where you might think it would be more immediately evident whether a new paper had or had not "proven" its conclusion, it is a rule of thumb that no prizes are awarded for significant results until after they have been in print for at least two years.

 

[bob x]

The RED doesn't count because it was AFTER the fact where you claim opinion already turned against them. The US had chosen its sides BEFORE the war.

Before the war, the popular opinion (as opposed to the government) was "rooting for" the Israelis, but it wasn't our fight. Except for Jewish Americans, we had no personal stake in the matter, though we felt we had to pay attention to the news, because of the danger the war would spread. This is why reaction to the Liberty incident was mostly anger directed at LBJ for injecting us into a war that wasn't ours (though this was quickly buried under the greater anger at LBJ for the much more massive losses of American life in 'Nam). After the war, Arabs attacked us in our own country: this is what moved public opinion beyond rooting for the Israelis to demands that we arm the Israelis.

"Threatening genocide, with the memory of the Holocaust still fresh?"Murdering people in their sleep? Raining missiles down on farms?""

A genocide the Europeans committed, by the way, not the Arabs.

The Palestinian leaders were firm allies of the Nazis from the beginning, and killed as many Jews as they were able. Mufti Husseini spent the war in Berlin, broadcasting appeals to the world to help him kill the Jews and recruiting Muslims for SS units. The group which was his main rival for leadership of the Palestinian cause, the Ikhwan (which Hamas claims to be the institutional continuation of), were receiving smuggled arms from Germany almost from the day Hitler became Chancellor. Much of their attack was against the British occupiers, of course, but they also killed Jews whenever they could. There is a famous story about a 1934 Ikhwan attack on a Jewish farm in the Negev: a six-year-old named Ariel Sharon grabbed a big stick and demanded to go out with the men to help fight off the invaders, and so the saying goes, he never put the stick down again.

And what about the Ethnic cleansing committed by the Jews when they took the land by force? The massacres and suicide bombings by the Jews (who started the trend)?

Sigh... I really don't think "who started it?" is the best approach to resolving the problem, but if you insist: there is no question whatsoever that THE ARABS STARTED IT. The Jews began immigrating in substantial numbers (of course, there had always been a trickle of returnees in every century) in the 1880's, and generally failed to understand or refused to abide by the customs about how dhimmis were to behave (they had to bow when meeting a Muslim, could not ride since their heads could never be higher than a Muslim's head, could not use the sidewalk if a Muslim was on it etc. and once a year the local shaykh would go through their things and take what he liked, up to customary limits, as jizya despite the official abolition of the practice; Palestine was the most retrograde province in the Ottoman realm). The first "terrorist victim" listed on Israel's monument is a Jew who was killed for not taking his hat, for example.

So at the time of the Balfour Declaration, there was already mutual ill-will. The stated British intention of encouraging the Jews to make a "homeland" there was softened by a promise that this would be "without any prejudice to the rights of the indigenous community" but this was not at all trusted; the British hopes of creating a multi-ethnic society on a basis of equality were alien to the Middle East, where it was taken for granted that one community would be on top and the others on the bottom, and it was feared (as has become a self-fulfilling prophecy!) that the Jews would be on top and the Muslims the new dhimmis. The British set aside the East Bank as a Judenrein zone (kingdom of Transjordan) where Arabs who could not abide living with Jews could go, and limited the number of Jewish immigrants to less than the number of Arab immigrants (economic development was bringing in many from Yemen and Egypt) so that the Arabs wouldn't be outnumbered, but this was not enough. Amin al-Husseini launched a campaign in 1920 with the catchy slogan Itbach al-Yahud "Exterminate the Jew!"

Mind you, at this point no Jews had "stolen" any land from anybody: they were just immigrants then, not conquerors, living in homes which they had bought and paid for. Husseini's men were the exact equivalent of the skinheads who used to burn out black families that move into white neighborhoods: or nowadays, attack Turks who move into German neighborhoods. The number of deaths was relatively small until 1929, when Husseini declared that not only Zionist immigrants, but all Jews should be targets: then the community at Hebron (which had been there since 1492, when the Ottoman sultan invited those expelled by Ferdinand and Isabella to settle in his realm) was massacred, most of the inhabitants of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem (families who had been there since Saladin invited them) driven out, and a less successful assault launched against Tzefad (which had been there since the Byzantines).

Throughout the 20's, Jews armed themselves and drilled, although the British authorities forbade them to have arms (the Mufti's men were allowed arms, after Husseini was given his title as officially recognized head of the community); the British arrested Jabotinsky, the most virulently anti-Arab leader among the Jews, but after this caused a big uproar, they started turning a blind eye to the existence of the Jewish "self-defense" force, or Palmach. After the Ikhwan emerged, there was a serious breach within the Palmach over the issue of whether their actions should be defensive only, or as Jabotinsky argued should also include reprisal strikes. In 1936, the British banished Jabotinsky and Husseini both; a Jabotinsky follower named Stern then led the "Revisionist" faction out of the Palmach and began "retaliatory" strikes which-- I cannot dispute you at all here-- have to be called totally "terrorist" in nature if that word is to have any objective meaning. Stern's faction is the institutional ancestor of Lehi, Irgun, and now Likud. I consider them all illegitimate: I give the background here, not to justify them, but to answer your claim that the Jews "started" it.

[/B]And what "genocide" were the Arabs threatening? They just wanted their land back!

No, their public pronouncements were quite explicit that they wanted ALL THE JEWS DEAD. If that was just rhetorical hyperbole, it was very stupid rhetoric to employ.

And I do have a very basic problem with their wanting back the land they lost in 1948: as in 1967, they stupidly started a war, and lost it. Nations that lose wars lose territory, and particularly if they started the war, they shouldn't expect anyone to be sympathetic about them wanting it back. Germany lost Silesia, Pomerania, and Prussia, and they're not getting it back: in 1949 there were over twice as many German refugees as Palestinian refugees, but we don't still hear about them because Germans, unlike Arabs, take care of their own; they found new homes and lives for themselves long ago. The same goes for the Jews who were kicked out of all the Arab countries in those years (somewhat smaller, but between half and three-quarters as many as the Palestinian refugees).

That author himself says the Americans turned "whole heartedly" towards the Israelis BEFORE the war!

No. That is not what he said at all. He said the American government "shifted" to a whole-hearted support of Israel "during the Johnson administration" (this shift was complete by the fall of 1968). The next sentence starts to explain, starting from how it was before the "shift" happened; you cut that off at half a sentence "Prior to the Six-Day War--" and won't say how that sentence goes, and I can't read that article (the link just makes my browser freeze up).

Your hypothesis, which is an old Christian missionary tactic...

Uh, the first Christians to raise the "sister of Harun" conundrum were the targets of Muslim missionaries, not people out to make converts in the other direction.

Not according to the vast majority of experts in Arabic linguistics.

On the alaqa issue, we have not heard from one single solitary expert in Arabic linguistics, just from one Arabic speaker (Abdullah) who knows only "clot/clump" and "leech" as meanings, and from one person knowing some Semitic linguistics (bob x) who insists that the root and the derivation are equally essential to the meaning.

And since you brought up Chomsky and I know you hate him so much

More pity than hate. His assessments of people's motives are senseless in that interview, as always: the US wanted to destroy its allies' influence in the Middle East, because we want to run everything ourselves (and he adds that we want to do so even if there is no profit in it for us); and the US wanted to acquire allies with influence in the Middle East, because we want to be spared from the burden of running everything ourselves (with this doublethink, obviously he can explain away anything). And he asserts, absolutely without any pretense at backup, that the US government already had an alliance with Israel prior to 1967, although the public position was "neutrality" and the only secret action that has come to light was the decision to send a spy ship into the war zone without consulting Israel in the slightest (whether you think Israel shot at it by accident or out of fear it was working for the other side, it is clear Israel was not consulted about sending that ship there). He winds up by saying Israel's motives for keeping the occupied territories is to provide a source of cheap labor, which has turned out to be 180 degrees opposite from fact, as hardly any Palestinians are allowed to cross the Green Line to work any more.

Regarding your argument about the supposed "abandoning" of the meanings of the Quran, pay close attention to the parts in BOLD and Highlight (especially in the first response)

This source accepts "leech" as the meaning, which is perfectly acceptable since that is one of the meanings traceable back to Muhammad's day; it isn't playing the game of substituting a different word's meaning. The "leech" was called a "clot/clump" because it was believed to spontaneously generate by coagulation of marsh-mud and blood; this belief and the belief that the embryo generates in a similar manner by blood-coagulation are Galenic. But if you think a "leech" is a reasonable analogy for an embryo (it does latch on and suck blood), fine. I can accept the viewpoint, "OK, it's not all that hyper-accurate of a description, but it was good enough to convey the point, which was about the smallness of our beginnings and not about biological instruction." It is just the pretense that the Qur'an is exhibiting some kind of superhuman knowledge that I find absurd here, especially when you have to go through linguistically dubious contortion of the text to get there.

 

[bob x]

[double-post]

 

[c0de]

when your source speaks of hereditary power starting to take hold, the position of "elder" is certainly not what is meant.

But the position of "warrior chief" is ???

Are you aware of how class based systems work?

In India, the upper class was called "Brahmin".

They had heridetary powers, and did not fight for it.

he chief, I'm sure you will notice, is sitting up in the lookout tower, not down in the field-- BUT, in real wars the chiefs were especially likely to die (just as battle was the most common cause of death for Roman emperors); see this chief, displayed by the "successor" who took his territory.

Yes, actually I will notice that and use it against you. As for the "successor" that picture could have been taken after the loser's army was routed and he was captured.

Again, you have NO evidence to suggest that it was the elite who fought themselves. Your own picture shows them sitting atop and "administrating".

Your source says nothing about "laziness" or "unfitness"; again you are back-projecting from later societies.

My source lists various occupations of the elite, and not a single one of those involves manual labor. I am merely following the evidence to its logical conclusions (i.e. they were fat and lazy)

Sigh... I really don't think "who started it?" is the best approach to resolving the problem, but if you insist: there is no question whatsoever that THE ARABS STARTED IT.

Oh really? So tell me, when was the first call for a Jewish national homeland, in the then ARAB territory raised?

You are talking about the 1920s, and the hitler of 39, but the first wave of Jewish immigrants came in the 1870s, and by 1879 the Zionists were talking about independence! It is a known FACT that Palestinian nationalism was a direct result of Jewish nationalistic aspirations (which also fueled their desires for their own independence).

Gelvin, James L. " Google Books". The Israel-Palestine Conflict:100 Years of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-61804-5. p 93

The Palestinian leaders were firm allies of the Nazis from the beginning,

I am no fan of the Mufti (God knows I hate idiots like him). There is a hadith somewhere that says the Muslim civilization will be destroyed by the children of the "quraish". I kept thinking of that as I read the book "A peace to end all peace"

In any case, that is besides the point here, as by then the tensions between Jews and Muslims in the region had already started due to Zionism's calls for a Jewish homeland in Arab territory.

If that was just rhetorical hyperbole, it was very stupid rhetoric to employ.

Yes, it was stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that their rhetoric was triggered by Zionism. Also, that sort of rhetoric was a FIRST in Islamic history. Never before were Jews threatened by Muslims like that, as you very well know. So that itself is proof that it was not the Muslims but something was pushing their buttons (i.e. Zionism and the overall defensive posture of the entire civilization).

More pity than hate. His assessments of people's motives are senseless in that interview, as always: the US wanted to destroy its allies' influence in the Middle East, because we want to run everything ourselves (and he adds that we want to do so even if there is no profit in it for us)

I disagree. He is showing a perfectly plausible and RATIONAL series of actions by a superpower. The attempt at denial of resources to your potential enemies is a very rational objective. There is a reason why the US wants total control of the SEAS and SPACE, to do exactly that. You wouldnt be a true "superpower" if you did not have that capability.

Are their better ways to conduct such a strategy? Perhaps, yes. But to say that the actions described by Chomsky shows a "motiveless malignancy" is wrong. There is a plain motive, and a rational strategy.

This source accepts "leech" as the meaning, which is perfectly acceptable since that is one of the meanings traceable back to Muhammad's day; it isn't playing the game of substituting a different word's meaning. The "leech" was called a "clot/clump" because it was believed to spontaneously generate by coagulation of marsh-mud and blood; this belief and the belief that the embryo generates in a similar manner by blood-coagulation are Galenic. But if you think a "leech" is a reasonable analogy for an embryo (it does latch on and suck blood), fine. I can accept the viewpoint, "OK, it's not all that hyper-accurate of a description, but it was good enough to convey the point, which was about the smallness of our beginnings and not about biological instruction." It is just the pretense that the Qur'an is exhibiting some kind of superhuman knowledge that I find absurd here, especially when you have to go through linguistically dubious contortion of the text to get there.

My very first words on this thread were a rebuke to Abdullah for starting this thread, precisely because there is no way to rationally prove what he was trying to prove.

Yes, there are certain prophecies in the Quran that do exhibit "superhuman" knowledge, but if I was an agnostic, I would never be convinced to follow the Quran due to those types of things.

Faith is not about rationality and the two are fundamentally opposed to each other. If you are aware of the Dialogues of Hume (Demea vs Cleanthes) then you know what I am talking about. Abdullah, obviously, does not.

In any case, I assume that you are dropping the issue and we can move on?

 

[bob x]

But the position of "warrior chief" is ???

Are you aware of how class based systems work?

In India, the upper class was called "Brahmin".

They had heridetary powers, and did not fight for it.

I have discussed this many times; you just don't seem to be paying attention; from a page ago:

There was of course another kind of "elite" besides warriors: the priests, since the societies did need some people to think, as well as to fight. This "First Estate" (as they were called in continental Europe; the "Brahman" caste in India, or "Lords spiritual" in England) tended to outrank the "Second Estate" (the warrior "Kshatriya" caste in India, or "Lords temporal" in England) who outranked the "Third Estate" (craftsmen, able to accumulate some property; "Vaisya" in India, or "Commons" in England) who outranked the unfree (not represented in government as a "Fourth Estate"; "Sudra" in India, "villeins" in England). Ubaidi society prevented the priests from rising to the top rank by physically forbidding them a hereditary status.

The early Mideasterner warrior classes were perfectly aware of the danger that a priestly class, if allowed to become hereditary, would naturally tend to rise to the top rank, and prevented this by cutting off their penises.

Yes, actually I will notice that and use it against you. As for the "successor" that picture could have been taken after the loser's army was routed and he was captured.

And you imagine that he himself would not bother to fight this, and that his successor had no role in taking this "trophy"?

Again, you have NO evidence to suggest that it was the elite who fought themselves. Your own picture shows them sitting atop and "administrating".

During the mock war ritual, evidently this is true. But for that purpose, they aren't breaking out the real weapons, of which in Papua they don't have many; the great axes are the property of the chief and his immediate family, the symbols (and source!) of their power.

My source lists various occupations of the elite, and not a single one of those involves manual labor. I am merely following the evidence to its logical conclusions (i.e. they were fat and lazy)

Your source does not mention any manual labor by anybody. It lists ways in which the elite differed from the commoners: I can stand your argument from silence on its head by pointing out that your source doesn't say the elite were any different from anybody else in regard to what they had to do day-to-day.

Oh really? So tell me, when was the first call for a Jewish national homeland, in the then ARAB territory raised?

"First"??? Exhortations to remember and return to their homeland have been continuous since the Babylonian Captivity, a thousand years before there were any Arabs there.

You are talking about the 1920s, and the hitler of 39, but the first wave of Jewish immigrants came in the 1870s, and by 1879 the Zionists were talking about independence!

In 1879 you can't talk about "the" Zionists, as there was no overall organization and I don't know which little faction you are trying to cite. But the 19th century Zionists were secularized Europeans who believed, like the original authors of the British Mandate, in a democratic state under which all citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity would have equal rights. It is unfortunate that this concept of equality did not exist among the Arabs, who could only think that if they were not to be at the top, continuing to boss all the dhimmis around, then they would have to be at the bottom.

There is no reason it was impossible for the Arabs and Jews to peacefully co-exist in the land, as in many places they did. The Jews and the British, by bringing irrigation and industry to the land, greatly increased the population it could support, which was under a half million before, and this made it possible both for the native population to expand rapidly and for Arab immigrants also to find a better life there. In the early 70's I spoke with some Palestinians (at the Ann Arbor Art Fair, which had a "politics row" of booths for various causes) and the subject turned to their family history: their grandfather had moved to Palestine from Yemen in the 20's, until the family fled the 1948 war; they were somewhat non-plussed when I asked why they didn't consider Yemen their homeland.

It is a known FACT that Palestinian nationalism was a direct result of Jewish nationalistic aspirations (which also fueled their desires for their own independence).

Well, exactly. In the abstract, one can say that the Palestinian people should have had the right to regulate the rate of immigration, which the British tried to keep restricted but the Zionists were hoping would be so large as to overwhelm the existing populace; but they had no national government or any tradition of self-governance. Immigration is always a touchy subject: living in California as I do, I can assure you that xenophobia against newcomers, particularly newcomers who come in large numbers, is by no means unique to Arabs. My personal biases are in favor of greater freedom of movement for everyone, though I know that is not the direction my own country is going. But I am repulsed by violent Mexican-bashers here, or by their analogues anywhere.

The Palestinians chose the path of violence, which makes me unsympathetic to their complaints that it has turned out badly for them. How much sympathy would you have for a German neo-Nazi who tried to beat up some Turks and ended up getting the worst of it?

I am no fan of the Mufti (God knows I hate idiots like him). There is a hadith somewhere that says the Muslim civilization will be destroyed by the children of the "quraish". I kept thinking of that as I read the book "A peace to end all peace"

I used to have that book, one of many that did not survive the move to Michigan.

In any case, that is besides the point here, as by then the tensions between Jews and Muslims in the region had already started due to Zionism's calls for a Jewish homeland in Arab territory.

Declaring that it was so intolerable for Jews to move back there (as they had been doing over the centuries) that the only possible response was to kill them all is not something I can excuse.

Yes, it was stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that their rhetoric was triggered by Zionism. Also, that sort of rhetoric was a FIRST in Islamic history. Never before were Jews threatened by Muslims like that, as you very well know. So that itself is proof that it was not the Muslims but something was pushing their buttons (i.e. Zionism and the overall defensive posture of the entire civilization).

The modernized immigrants rubbed their noses in the fact that the world had moved beyond them and that their country was singularly poor and backward. Their inability to shake off Ottoman rule without the British army, and the role of the British as temporary de facto rulers due to their lack of any organization that could quickly assume governmental authority, only increased the sense of humiliation. This all goes back to the nominal topic of this thread as it relates to what I was saying much earlier: that hanging on to a guidebook intended for 7th century Arabia significantly impedes the Muslim world from getting past the medieval level.

I disagree. He is showing a perfectly plausible and RATIONAL series of actions by a superpower.

Well, we have very differing notions of what is "rational". His depictions look thoroughly schizophrenic to me.

Faith is not about rationality and the two are fundamentally opposed to each other. If you are aware of the Dialogues of Hume (Demea vs Cleanthes) then you know what I am talking about.

We can imagine that God could act in all kinds of ways, but I am more interested in how the world does work. A lawless world in which any state of the world could be followed by any other is not what has been created, nor a law-bound world in which every state of the world determines the next; I see it as a world in which the laws dictate a narrow range of possible outcomes, which agents are free to choose among. God creates the arena and steps back from it: obviously this is not how you see it.

In any case, I assume that you are dropping the issue and we can move on?

The alaqa business? Yes, I think that horse is very dead.

 

[c0de]

The alaqa business? Yes, I think that horse is very dead.

Good. As for the rest, let me try and quickly wrap it up.

Your source does not mention any manual labor by anybody. It lists ways in which the elite differed from the commoners:

Exactly! And if warfare was specifically their responsibility, as you are claiming, then that would mean it would have been listed in that list. Was it? No, it wasn't.

And you imagine that he himself would not bother to fight this, and that his successor had no role in taking this "trophy"?

And you imagine that he himself fought, even though in your own picture he is shown as sitting on his ass?

The early Mideasterner warrior classes were perfectly aware of the danger that a priestly class, if allowed to become hereditary, would naturally tend to rise to the top rank, and prevented this by cutting off their penises.

The Elites in Ubaid were not the "priests". They were "administrators."

"First"??? Exhortations to remember and return to their homeland have been continuous since the Babylonian Captivity, a thousand years before there were any Arabs there.

And who were the Caananites? The people the Israelites kicked out of the land when they God gave them that land that He promised them due to a covenant (that they broke?)

In 1879 you can't talk about "the" Zionists, as there was no overall organization

Wrong. By this argument, we still can't talk about the Palestinians because they still have no "over all organization" !!

Having an overall organization has nothing to do with the point. It doesn't mean you can't talk about the issue itself: which is that the Jews started demanding the land that they had immigrated to.

Before you say that the response that the Arabs took was "completely inexcusable" think about what would have happened if the Irish who landed in New York started raising the Irish flags in their neighborhoods and started talking about separation from the United States.

If you think the immigration debate in the United States is fierce now, and the Mexicans are looked down upon, imagine what would happen if suddenly the Hispanic population in the South West starts talking about taking back California and the other states which the United States conquered.

This is what happened in Palestine. The Jews, who came as immigrants, immediately started talking about forming their own country! You are putting all the blame on the Arabs and saying they could have chosen to live in peace, but if "peace" was the only objective, why did the Jews even bother trying for independence?? They could have chosen to live in Arab territory and used diplomacy to fight against whatever grievances they had.

It was, after all, SOMEONE ELSE'S land. That would be like the immigrants coming over to Canada and saying they don't want to deal with all the harsh realities immigrants face in a new country, and therefore, Canada should just allow new countries to form in every neighborhood where the new immigrants settle! Cuz that is basically what the Jews did in Palestine.

Well, we have very differing notions of what is "rational". His depictions look thoroughly schizophrenic to me.

Dude, wake up. It is your country's actions which "look" schizophrenic to the rest of the world (with or without Chomsky).

And by the way, it is not just leftists like Chomsky who talk about these goals of American Foreign Policy. Are you familiar with STRATFOR? Or how about any of the other think tanks and policy making centers and their papers? Take a look at the way American Military Commands are set up to cover each continent of the world (baring I think Antarctica). Why is that? What other country in the world considers the entire world as being within the sphere of responsibility of its own military?

If you want historical examples, think about the "domino affect".

What do you think that was all about ??

This all goes back to the nominal topic of this thread as it relates to what I was saying much earlier: that hanging on to a guidebook intended for 7th century Arabia significantly impedes the Muslim world from getting past the medieval level.

What exactly in the Quran "impedes" the Muslim world? The stress on charity and welfare? Or how about the principle of human equality? Or knowing that even if the police is not there to monitor your actions, God is.

Is that what is impeding the Muslim world?

Your analysis is biased and completely framed in a Western mindset. The Quran is not what is impeding the world, it is materialism that has always destroyed civilizations, and will do so again.

 

[bob x]

Exactly! And if warfare was specifically their responsibility, as you are claiming, then that would mean it would have been listed in that list.

No, it wouldn't. You are not understanding the nature of these papers: they are not intended to be, and are not pretending to be, a complete sociological picture. They are presenting raw archaeological data, and doing artifact analysis, only. They find diversity of cultural patterns, and infer that agriculture spread more by conversion than by conquest unlike the subsequent period. They find some larger houses, with nicer pottery and a monopoly of the heavy weapons; this demonstrates social disparity, and implies some hereditary power. The communities are large enough and there are sufficiently large-scale projects undertaken that there must have been some dispute-resolution mechanisms and some organizers. This is all they say, and I accept all of it.

A forensic anthropologist would analyze skeletons for information about general diet, health, life-span, and chances of injury and violence, and nowadays we are learning how to extract some DNA to estimate ethnic relationships and migrations; you find none of this in your papers because: they aren't doing forensic anthropology, they are only doing artifact analysis. A comparative anthropologist would reconstruct social structures and belief systems by looking at cultures elsewhere at similar levels of development, and searching the literature of later cultures in the same region for vestigial customs: I do not claim to be a professional in the field, but I have tried to show you what that kind of work tells us; you find none of this in your papers because they are not doing comparative anthropology, they are only doing artifact analysis.

Your arguments from silence implicitly assume either that the authors are omniscient beings, or that they would indulge in rank speculation. They are simply doing one kind of research, and not going beyond what the data from that particular kind of investigation can tell us; they are not even attempting synthesis with results from other fields of research. If you want an academic source on the comparative anthropology of early warfare, Keegan is the gold standard.

And you imagine that he himself fought, even though in your own picture he is shown as sitting on his ass?

We have a picture of one chief conducting a war game using sticks only, and a picture of another chief after the unfortunate result of a real war using the heavy weaponry. Those are not the same situations.

The Elites in Ubaid were not the "priests". They were "administrators."

The English word "clerical" refers both to priests and to administrators because those two roles were not fully separated even in medieval times.

"Administration" of course can mean a lot of different things. Military command of course would be by the owners of the heavy weapons. Bossing around the workers during the spurts of intense labor required by agriculture, irrigation projects, and construction of houses and defensive structures is a role more like an on-site "foreman" than like a behind-the-desk "bureaucrat" and can involve getting your own hands dirty, even if the most unpleasant labor is pushed onto others. Dispute resolution is the classic kind of task to give to elders with experience to draw on.

But the higher-level thinking that was required was quintessentially a "priestly" task back then: there was no precalculated calendar to keep track of (inventing one was the primary achievement of the early priests) so determining the agricultural seasons was a matter of close observation of the Sun, Moon, stars, and winds, and placating their moods with the appropriate rituals; finding water and determining how best to direct it was done by psychic feel rather than any kind of science (even now, in much of the countryside a farmer with a dry well would rather consult a "water witcher" than a hydrological engineer). By the Uruk period, with writing in place, and states emerging controlling multiple towns, trading for an increasing multiplicity of goods, a purely bureaucratic kind of administrator, keeping paperwork (well, clay-work in Mesopotamia) on warehouse inventories and labor scheduling was emerging: these were of course all eunuchs, like the priests of the old agricultural mother-goddess (whose cult continued to emasculate its priests into Roman times).

By Uruk times, this devaluation of the intellectual class, who were expected to be submissive to authority, and the habit of violence as a first rather than last resort, had become established as the foundation-stones of Middle Eastern culture, with dire effects that continue to this day.

Wrong. By this argument, we still can't talk about the Palestinians because they still have no "over all organization" !!

They had the Mufti's administration, legally recognized by Britain from 1920-36, by Germany 1936-45, and by Egypt 1947-51 as their government. Since 1964 they have had the PLO; I would have to look up when the UN granted them observer status, but even Israel has recognized the PA within limits since 1993. In the 30's and 40's the Ikhwan was a rival organization, re-emerging in 1979 as Hamas which has since won election as the government of Gaza, after some intermediate decades in which the families involved in the leadership evidently kept in touch though the organization was mostly moribund (the Sirhan family's deadly intervention into US politics in 1968 a notable exception).

When noting actions of "the Palestinians" I have generally tried to be explicit about which faction I mean: noting that in the buildup to 1967, it was the Syrian-backed Saiqa who launched the missile barrages, Habash's Egyptian-backed Fedayin who were conducting murderous night raids; that in the earlier history it was the Mufti's men who slaughtered Hebron and the Jewish Quarter, but the Ikhwan who attacked the Sharon family farm, etc. You did not note which faction of "the Zionists" you say called for an independent Palestine back in 1879, but this was certainly not a general position: Herzl's Zionist Congress which first gave unification to the movement came to a consensus that a deal should be reached with the Ottoman government (although Herzl found negotiations with the Turks wearisome, and speculated that maybe an empty tract in Argentina would be easier).

Having an overall organization has nothing to do with the point. It doesn't mean you can't talk about the issue itself: which is that the Jews started demanding the land that they had immigrated to.

They didn't demand any land they didn't pay good money for. They did expect to have equal rights in the country, not the subordination and ritual humiliations of the dhimmi status. The Ottoman government, in fact, had already formally abolished the jizya and other legal inequalities of the Christians and Jews; it was just that backwards areas like Palestine refused to implement this. There had been a strong backlash in the 1850's against the Christians for trying to take Constantinople's decrees at face value; the Jews didn't realize what they were stepping into.

Before you say that the response that the Arabs took was "completely inexcusable" think about what would have happened if the Irish who landed in New York started raising the Irish flags in their neighborhoods and started talking about separation from the United States.

The Irish were fully in favor of independence from England, and after we had achieved it, we became a magnet for them precisely for that reason. Irish do raise their Irish flags, a lot, especially in St. Patrick's Day parades but on other occasions as well. And they fought for a long time to get their share of political power, running for office (imagine the nerve of them!) and winning control of several cities, two of them even becoming President of the United States (Kennedy and Reagan, each highly regarded by a lot of people-- though few hold both of them in high regard). Allowing new incomers equal political rights is what has made our country great: it is too bad the Arabs can only see things in terms of one group dominating over another.

This is what happened in Palestine. The Jews, who came as immigrants, immediately started talking about forming their own country! You are putting all the blame on the Arabs and saying they could have chosen to live in peace, but if "peace" was the only objective, why did the Jews even bother trying for independence??

Again I have to ask you who you are talking about and when. There was a lot of dissatisfaction both among Jews and among Arabs about the prospect of Palestine continuing indefinitely to be a province of a decaying Ottoman empire, but the Zionist Congress did not call for any dismantling of Turkey, instead negotiating entry visas and land purchases with the Turkish authorities. The Jews didn't start the rebellion against the Ottomans: the Arabs did! (Many Jews did, however, fight in the British army-- alongside the Arab rebels.) After the war, everybody, Jewish, Arab, and British alike, wanted Palestine prepared for independence; the only quarrel was about timing and borders. The Hashemite dynasty expected to become kings over a giant united state including Egypt, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia: they had zero hope of controlling all that, and could not even hold on to the Hejaz and the Holy Places which they had started with. More practical Arab nationalists wanted a Greater Syria including Palestine and Lebanon, and were outraged that the British handed over Syria to the French (and let France hive off the Christian-majority zone as a separate Lebanon) with no pretense of consulting local wishes; less practical nationalists formed the Iqtalal party demanding "independence immediately" which did not at first command much support (though it later formed the backbone of the Ikhwan).

They could have chosen to live in Arab territory and used diplomacy to fight against whatever grievances they had.

That's what they did do. It required two decades of one-sided violence to change that.

Dude, wake up. It is your country's actions which "look" schizophrenic to the rest of the world (with or without Chomsky).

Our actions are often inconsistent, because our politicians have to respond to the concerns of multiple internal voting blocs (and which segments of the population the administration is most responsive to will change somewhat depending on the party of the administration; politicans care most about those who are likely to vote for them) as well as juggling conflicting alliances and frienships around the globe. But Chomsky just makes no sense at all: he thinks we were out to cripple Britain and France, our most important allies in the whole world in 1956, to take control of everything ourselves? Uh, we didn't take over the Suez Canal ourselves, and it surely wasn't better for us to have Gamal Nasser instead of Anthony Eden running it; but the British position was indefensible, and taking their side would have ruined our friendships with all the oil-producing Arab states; besides which there was the irrational emotional aspect that Eisenhower was personally offended not to have been consulted about the action, which came at an awkward time for him right before Election Day and while he was already embarrassed by the Hungarian revolt (Voice of America had spouted a lot of support for the Hungarian reformers and denunciations of the Soviets which had misled a lot of the Hungarians into thinking we would actually intervene if they breached with the Soviets, something it was far too dangerous for us to do).

What exactly in the Quran "impedes" the Muslim world? The stress on charity and welfare? Or how about the principle of human equality?

Equality is precisely the concept which is completely absent in the Muslim world.

 

[c0de]

Equality is precisely the concept which is completely absent in the Muslim world.

Hence the reason why the Quran is far from obsolete.

But Chomsky just makes no sense at all

You completely ignored the point about Chomsky not being the only one who had mentioned this strategy that the US had adopted. It is a FACT that American think tanks and policy creators have actively considered it their responsibility to control the world's resources.

I asked you a simple question: why has your country divided the entire world into zones of operation for its military? What other nation in the world (other than imperial Britain) ever did that? What is the purpose of your Naval fleet which operates power projection capabilities adequate enough to control sea traffic over every major bottleneck of shipping worldwide?

If your nation did not care about the ability to deny whatever resources to any and all potential enemies, why does your government spend more on military tech and R&D then the entire rest of the world combined?

Allowing new incomers equal political rights is what has made our country great: it is too bad the Arabs can only see things in terms of one group dominating over another.

Well then if Palestine was such a backwater (and it was) then why the hell did they pick to go there? I mean, think about, if I don't like the cold, and I move to Antarctica... would I have any right to complain when I get there?? Not even if someone invited me to come there... and the Palestinians sure didn't invite the Ashkenazim.

And while we're at it, let me point out the BIGGEST elephant in the room. Why, did the Zionists, of all people (atheistic by nature and policy) choose to go back to Jerusalem?? Their only claim to that space being rooted in religion?

The fact is that Israel is, and always has been, a total contradiction. Just like my own home country of Pakistan which was also founded on the basis of religion alone, and then ended up committing genocide against the same people it was founded to protect (i.e. Muslims in the place now known as Bangladesh)

They had the Mufti's administration, legally recognized by Britain from 1920-36,

What about now? Do the Palestinians have an "over all organization" ?? Is it Hamas or the PLO>?? That was my point. It doesn't matter if you have an "over all organization" to qualify your issue for discussion.

They didn't demand any land they didn't pay good money for.

So if the Irish had money and started buying New York piece by piece, what would the other communities have done back in the "gangs of new york" days?

No, it wouldn't. You are not understanding the nature of these papers: they are not intended to be, and are not pretending to be, a complete sociological picture.

Your accusing me of making arguments from silence, but you're the one who has been assuming that the authors imply the elites were warriors because the don't specifically say they weren't.

What is YOUR source which says the elites of Ubaid were warriors? Give me some actual references and I will analyze the issue again. Preferrebly online ones that I can check myself. I dont have any access to a library here.

We have a picture of one chief conducting a war game using sticks only, and a picture of another chief after the unfortunate result of a real war using the heavy weaponry. Those are not the same situations.

War games are generally conducted in the manner of real wars. When the US military conducts its war games, the generals dont command from the front lines. And this doesn't change when the real bullets start flying.

In any case, the picture proves a further point. Can you prove that all the soldiers in that picture were the elites of the village? Because what you have been arguing is that the elite have some special privilege to fight (which makes no sense, frankly).

Military command of course would be by the owners of the heavy weapons.

Why would commanders carry heavy weapons??? It makes no tactical sense.

 

[c0de]

p.s.


did you ever wonder why buying land is not an easy thing to do for new comers in any country? My kiwi roommate just happened to mention that in New Zealand you have to wait 3 years after you immigrate before you can purchase land.

Yet, the Palestinians didn't really have any authority to restrict the newcomers from buying up land, did they? Think about the irony! The Zionists, the prototypical proletariat, taking over territory via buying land!! (lolz)

By the way, can an Arab even buy land in Israel?