History questions not worth their own thread

[Agent327]

Hmm... what about the central icon of Islam: a meteorite rock surrounded by a big black cube?

 

[Masada]

They don't worship it. Its real purpose is to mark the Tawaaf, the circumnavigation of the Kabba required by the Hajj and Omra. Muslims do emulate the actions of the Prophet Muhammad by walking around the stone and kissing it seven times but that's from the Hadith not from the Qur'an. The thinking runs something like this, Muhammad did it, we should do it and Hadith 2:667 backs me up on this point:

[QUOTE='Abis bin Rabia]'Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing you I would not have kissed you." [/QUOTE]

As does Hadith 2:675

"Umar bin Al-Khattab addressed the Corner (Black Stone) saying, 'By Allah! I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet touching (and kissing) you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you.' Then he kissed it and said, 'There is no reason for us to do Ramal (in Tawaf) except that we wanted to show off before the pagans, and now Allah has destroyed them.' 'Umar added, '(Nevertheless), the Prophet did that and we do not want to leave it (i.e. Ramal).'

As does Hadith 2914

I saw the bald one, i. e. 'Umar b. Khattib (Allah be pleased with him). kissing the Stone and saying: By Allah. I am kissing with full consciousness of the fact that you are a stone and that you can neither do any harm nor good; and if I had not seen Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) kissing you. I would not have kissed you. The rest of the hadith is the same.

It doesn't hold any special significance. Its just a part of the Hajj tradition, they don't worship it, they don't pray before it, when they do pray they say this after each successful circuit:

In the name of God, God is Great, God is Great, God is Great and praise be to God

Note: Umar is the fourth Caliph.

 

[Agent327]

Thanks. (Though I can't help to think that if the Black Stone is kissed ritually, it is, in doing so, revered. Also, despite the islamic ban on depiction there seem to be quite a few pictures of people throughout islamic history; a remarkable similarity with Christian iconography, which has survived all the great iconoclastic countermovements - except in Protestantism.)

 

[Masada]

Though I can't help to think that if the Black Stone is kissed ritually, it is, in doing so, revered.

They revere the act of kissing because it echoes something that Muhammad did. They don't revere what they kissed. Its just a stone. The kissing itself doesn't hold any theological weight - its part of a tradition which arose after the death of Muhammad it wasn't something he personally endorsed.

Also, despite the islamic ban on depiction there seem to be quite a few pictures of people throughout islamic history

There isn't really a formal ban.

(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).

That's assumed to ban depictions of Allah, it wasn't the sole interpretation of that passage, and that is how you can still find images of Allah in various places. Its only recently become the 'sole' and dominant interpretation.

52. Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?"

53. They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them."

54. He said, "Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers."

That sums up the Islamic position on idols and the dangers incumbent upon them. Its a general theological position more than anything. The Qur'an doesn't specifically enumerate a ban. The Hadith however offers us some assistance, Hadith 24: 5268 for instance:

Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you.have created.

So does 24: 5271

This haditli has been reported on the authority of Abu Mu'awiya through another chain of tranmitters (and the words are): "Verity, the most grievously tormented people amongest the denizens of Hall on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures. The rest of the hadith is the same.

As does 93: 648

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard the Prophet saying, "Allah said, 'Who are most unjust than those who try to create something like My creation? I challenge them to create even a smallest ant, a wheat grain or a barley grain.' "

And so and so forth:

The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, "Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection ."

There's a few other with Umar and Aicha involved but I think I've got the point across that there isn't a specific ban or indeed a ban. The different legal traditions of Islam make it possible for a Muslim to ignore Hadith which doesn't seem reputable - all four traditions do it as a matter of course. Now if memory serves me correct only two of the four have a 'ban' and of the remaining two only one has anything that could be construed as a ban - I honestly think its bunk and more than a few Islamic authorities historical and current would agree with me. Also, Shiite frankly see no problem with depicting Muhammad their Hadith doesn't have any hangups.

 

[Plotinus]

Thanks. (Though I can't help to think that if the Black Stone is kissed ritually, it is, in doing so, revered. Also, despite the islamic ban on depiction there seem to be quite a few pictures of people throughout islamic history; a remarkable similarity with Christian iconography, which has survived all the great iconoclastic countermovements - except in Protestantism.)

Revering something isn't the same as worshipping it. You mention the iconoclastic controversies within Christianity: most of the writings of the major iconophiles, such as John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite, were devoted to explaining precisely what the difference is between reverence and worship. And that is of course a distinction that a Chinese ancestor-revering Christian would employ too, and also Japanese Christian Buddhists, and similar syncretist movements.

 

[Masada]

Plotinus, would you have any idea where the whole 'worshiping the rock' controversy came into being? I've seen it linked to the Crusaders, who are alleged to have found it easy to justify their actions on the basis of Muslims being idolaters. That seems silly, they were not all that aware of Muslim practices and already had all the justification they required. The Hajj itself wasn't well known in Europe until quite recently, so I'm guessing that it arose from misinterpretations of early interactions between Orientalists and Muslims. I'm not all that sure honestly, suffice to say that its bunk.

 

[Agent327]

Following your own quotes, I'd say it originates with Muhammad's realization he'd be well-advised not to get rid of a pagan symbol attracting that many people. (In other words: Muhammad realized the obvious possibility of controversy, so he invented a ritual to circumvent it. It's a common practice when encountering tenacious pagan relics.)

Revering something isn't the same as worshipping it. You mention the iconoclastic controversies within Christianity: most of the writings of the major iconophiles, such as John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite, were devoted to explaining precisely what the difference is between reverence and worship. And that is of course a distinction that a Chinese ancestor-revering Christian would employ too, and also Japanese Christian Buddhists, and similar syncretist movements.

You seem to confuse writing(s) with actual religious feelings. The average worshipper will have little regard for such subtleties as there exist between reverence or worship for, say, the pope. I know there's a difference when a priest kisses the hand of a bishop or when people assembled in St Peter's Square hail His Holiness: the one is simple recognition of authority, whereas the other is adoration. But to return to the iconoclasts: it's remarkable that in the end they all failed; it would appear people just love pictures, statues and other things to adore - whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Taoist or whatever true religion.

 

[Plotinus]

Plotinus, would you have any idea where the whole 'worshiping the rock' controversy came into being? I've seen it linked to the Crusaders, who are alleged to have found it easy to justify their actions on the basis of Muslims being idolaters. That seems silly, they were not all that aware of Muslim practices and already had all the justification they required. The Hajj itself wasn't well known in Europe until quite recently, so I'm guessing that it arose from misinterpretations of early interactions between Orientalists and Muslims. I'm not all that sure honestly, suffice to say that its bunk.

I'm afraid I don't know at all. I would guess that the places to start looking for this idea would be the works of John of Damascus and Peter the Venerable, both of whom wrote against Islam in a way that treated it as a body of doctrine rather than as merely a vague enemy, but I don't know what they said about this.

You seem to confuse writing(s) with actual religious feelings. The average worshipper will have little regard for such subtleties as there exist between reverence or worship for, say, the pope. I know there's a difference when a priest kisses the hand of a bishop or when people assembled in St Peter's Square hail His Holiness: the one is simple recognition of authority, whereas the other is adoration.

And you seem to have a low opinion of the cognitive abilities of the average worshipper. Do you really think that if you ask the average Catholic whether their attitude to the pope is exactly the same as their attitude to Jesus, they will answer yes?

 

[Agent327]

Now why on Earth would I think that? (I can't help to notice you're avoiding the point here again...) I do think, however, most worshippers will be unfamilair with such theological writings which you are prone to quoting because of your studies. Most preachers adapt what they preach to suit the audience, and not all worshippers have gone through university. You seem to overestimate education in general as well; if you ever watched an average gameshow, you might know general knowledge on academic matters among the population is appalling. to mention another example: EU matters are still more or less decided by popular vote, but the actual knowledge of EU subjects is poor, too say the least and policy makers seem quite oblivious to such thoughts - unless they are pressed home by referenda and/or elections. (Now this may be related to a decline in church attendance and/or religious adherence, but personally I am skeptical...)

 

[Dragonlord]

EU matters are still more or less decided by popular vote

Huh? I wish! EU matters are more or less decided by bureaucrats in Brussel who don't have to stand for election! There is some limited participation by the European parliament, and there were plebiscites on a couple of fundamental questions in some European countries - we didn't even have those in Germany, because our politicians distrust plebiscites.

I just wish issues were really decided by popular vote! Then maybe we could actually get the 'Ampelregelung' (transl.?) for marking foodstuffs approved, which everyone wants but the lobbyists.

 

[Masada]

Following your own quotes, I'd say it originates with Muhammad's realization he'd be well-advised not to get rid of a pagan symbol attracting that many people. (In other words: Muhammad realized the obvious possibility of controversy, so he invented a ritual to circumvent it. It's a common practice when encountering tenacious pagan relics.)

The chronology doesn't work. He had already destroyed the 365 idols in the Kabba enclosure by striking them with a hammer saying "truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish" (Qur'an 17:81). This was the sole remaining relic of an already defeated creed and he didn't mind showing it. I've also stated that he didn't invent the ritual it only gained popularity after Muhammad's death. Its far more likely that he simply left it to show his contempt for idol worshipers, that's what the Hadith seems to be implying especially 675. Its since become a means of your average Muslim worshiper to connect with Muhammad, to re-trace his purported actions as it were.

I'm afraid I don't know at all. I would guess that the places to start looking for this idea would be the works of John of Damascus and Peter the Venerable, both of whom wrote against Islam in a way that treated it as a body of doctrine rather than as merely a vague enemy, but I don't know what they said about this.

If you were to recommend any introductory primers on Islamic theology what would they be? I know it isn't your field but I'm hoping your at least somewhat aware of where one might start.

 

[Agent327]

Huh? I wish! EU matters are more or less decided by bureaucrats in Brussel who don't have to stand for election! There is some limited participation by the European parliament, and there were plebiscites on a couple of fundamental questions in some European countries - we didn't even have those in Germany, because our politicians distrust plebiscites.

I just wish issues were really decided by popular vote! Then maybe we could actually get the 'Ampelregelung' (transl.?) for marking foodstuffs approved, which everyone wants but the lobbyists.

The jist of the matter was more or less...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If you were to recommend any introductory primers on Islamic theology what would they be? I know it isn't your field but I'm hoping your at least somewhat aware of where one might start.

Ibn Khuldun.

 

[Plotinus]

Now why on Earth would I think that? (I can't help to notice you're avoiding the point here again...) I do think, however, most worshippers will be unfamilair with such theological writings which you are prone to quoting because of your studies. Most preachers adapt what they preach to suit the audience, and not all worshippers have gone through university. You seem to overestimate education in general as well; if you ever watched an average gameshow, you might know general knowledge on academic matters among the population is appalling. to mention another example: EU matters are still more or less decided by popular vote, but the actual knowledge of EU subjects is poor, too say the least and policy makers seem quite oblivious to such thoughts - unless they are pressed home by referenda and/or elections. (Now this may be related to a decline in church attendance and/or religious adherence, but personally I am skeptical...)

The average believer probably won't be aware of all the theological theory, of course. But that's irrelevant. The average English-speaker doesn't know anything about the historical development of the English language and the reasons why we have such strange grammar, but that doesn't stop him or her from speaking it correctly and using the grammar correctly. Just because the average Catholic hasn't read John of Damascus doesn't mean that the average Catholic doesn't understand the difference between veneration and worship. That is because it is a distinction which forms a fundamental part of Catholic practice.

If you were to recommend any introductory primers on Islamic theology what would they be? I know it isn't your field but I'm hoping your at least somewhat aware of where one might start.

I'm sorry, I don't know enough to help you with that one.

 

[Mad Man]

I have a question about Military equipment from WWII. I'm specifically looking for info on the rifles, Pistols, SMGs, Light Machine guns, General purpose Machine guns and shotguns used by Ethiopia, Brazil and Thailand. Any other info I can get will be appreciated thank you.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm having trouble remembering the name of a particular battle. It was Rome versus a Germanic tribe, and I would assume one of Marius' battles. The Romans were at the top of a hill, and with their back against the sunrise, which caused the enemy to be blinded. In addition to this, they had troops hidden in a nearby forest which they used to flank the Germans.

 

[say1988]

I am not sure about WWII, but for the the start Second Italo-Abyssinian war, the bulk were armed with bows and spears, they had large numbers of rifles, but most of these were old and not near on par with modern armies. The same generally goes for their other equipment, such as artillery.
During WWII, I would presume they used the remnants of those as well as British supplied rifles and whatever they acquired from the Italians (especially during partisan activities). So probably primarily Lee Enfields (SMLE Mk III) and Carcano rifiles, possibly some Lewis and Vickers machineguns, etc...

Like the Free French Forces, the Brazilians in Italy utilised surplus American rifles (specifically the M1903 Springfield) and likely other infantry weapons as well. I have no idea what the Brazilians would have had at home (but I don't know of any Brazilian arms industry, so it was likely some older model European/American weapons).

Pre-war the Thais had a mixture of British and American small arms, but may well have acquired stocks of Japanese rifles.

 

[vogtmurr]

I'm having trouble remembering the name of a particular battle. It was Rome versus a Germanic tribe, and I would assume one of Marius' battles. The Romans were at the top of a hill, and with their back against the sunrise, which caused the enemy to be blinded. In addition to this, they had troops hidden in a nearby forest which they used to flank the Germans.

Aquae Sextiae, 102 BC I think

 

[Dachs]

Aquae Sextiae, 102 BC I think

Yes, it was Aquae Sextiae.

 

[LightSpectra]

Would you mind if I started a new thread for this debate, so as to not derail this topic?