McBell
Unbound
Source please.
I ask again because what you provided before was not enough to find anything that supported your claim.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Islam fights free speech
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
I ask again because what you provided before was not enough to find anything that supported your claim.
Um, history says no.
So, my sources aren't online sources. But if we take the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet, you are right, the 'History' section starts off with a reference to a 1098 letter by the crusader Anselme of Ribemont, written in Latin. However, do note that Anselme of Ribemont was from France. The other early sources given on the Wikipedia page are all also from people originating in different parts of France (including several in the Occitan language, which belongs to the same Gallo-Romance, or at least Western Romance linguistic family as Old French). 'Baphomet' came up in a number of the confessions forced out of the Knights Templar in France when the order was suppressed in the early 14th century, and it is from there that the name found its way into 18th and 19th century speculation on the links between the Templars and the Freemasons, and thence into Eliphas Levi's thought and so Thelema and later usage of the figure. It seems as if the original corruption of 'Muhammad' into 'Mahomet' and thus 'Baphomet' happened in Old French, even if a number of the early sources (letters, etc.) were written in Latin, which was the official language for this kind of correspondence at the time. You can see references to the OED, Barber and Partner a little further down the Wikipedia page. Of course, there are other theories on the origin of the term, but I fancy the Old French origin theory myself
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Apparently so. I am wrong occasionally, Mes, however I did qualify it with "If memory serves correct...".
What's 700 years to a bunch of French men?
Interesting though is that it is clearly a derogatory expression given the existing understanding of Baphomet at the time.
It is sort of fitting, Muhammad was a fiery old goat in some respects.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Does this ring true?
McBell
Unbound
I am not saying that the term was not being used in the 1800's in that way.Apparently so. I am wrong occasionally, Mes, however I did qualify it with "If memory serves correct...".
What's 700 years to a bunch of French men?
Interesting though is that it is clearly a derogatory expression given the existing understanding of Baphomet at the time.
It is sort of fitting, Muhammad was a fiery old goat in some respects.
I am merely pointing out that the word is much older than that.
Hey Godo,
I understand that you and I disagree on some points. But I don't think you should lie about my posts. I'm not "ignoring about Islam", I made many very specific claims. Specific claims are not generalizing, they are the opposite of generalizing. I'll repeat one example for you: For many years now Salman Rushdie has had a fatwa lodged against him. If a Muslim murders him, that Muslim will get a reward from a Muslim leader.
This is the opposite of generalization. And you have NOT addressed this situation or any of the other examples I gave.
Next you accuse me of hypocrisy. Please show me where I've been hypocritical?
Godo, I suggest that you debate the ideas, and stop your ad hominem attacks against posters.
YES,you used generalizing and lie in your OP and title.
You used "Muslims" and you used "Islam as title of thread" which is religion of 1.6 billions humans. instead of "some Muslims" or "fatwas" made by some Muslims scholars.
It's like I said "Christianity killed Jews in WW2" or "Christians killed Jews in WW2" but truth is NAZI some Christians.
or "Christianity killed scientist said earth was not flat".
I don't have to repeat discuss about Salam Rushdie,I already clarify my opinion.
I do find some posts are hypocrisy because not honest. and you skip my TAGs many times.
for exemple here.
Sunday at 4:21 PM#24
Monday at 10:21 AM#121
Wednesday at 2:48 PM#316
Hi @Godobeyer ,
In reference to your post #24, you asked again in your post #328 and I answered in my post #336. My answer is this, are you really asking me to compare a novelist (Rushdie) to terrorists like Bin Laden?
In reference to #121 - that was my post, can you double check your numbers?
In reference to #316 - It's not my job to get you back on track when you change subjects. In other words, it's not hypocritical of me to ignore detours.
In reference to your post #24, you asked again in your post #328 and I answered in my post #336. My answer is this, are you really asking me to compare a novelist (Rushdie) to terrorists like Bin Laden?
In reference to #121 - that was my post, can you double check your numbers?
In reference to #316 - It's not my job to get you back on track when you change subjects. In other words, it's not hypocritical of me to ignore detours.
It's weird that you don't quote my post, to skip to answser honestly !
No I was not compare Rushdie to Bin Laden, my point was internventions of West is the main reason to terrorism.
So you need to criticize Western intervention first before each criticize to what happening in Musilm world.
You actually use to talk many subjects about Islam and other subjects,so it's not about change subjects.
How do western interventions explain Islam's first, very violent, 1200 hundred years?
Islam was not very violent 1200.
I am talking for now (present).
Do you ignore that West intervention in Muslim countries ?
Last edited:
Godo,
Since Islam began, 200-300 million people have been murdered by Muslims who wanted to conquer other lands. Now, to be fair, it's also the case that in that same period of history, Christians ALSO murdered 200-300 million people. Both religions are very, very violent.
No, I do not ignore the west's horrible interventions in the ME. I agree that they are one factor. But western interventions are NOT the only factor in a violent ME. They also don't explain Muslim violence outside of the ME, and they don't explain why most of the Muslims who are murdered today are murdered by other Muslims. Western interventions DO NOT EXPLAIN Islamic sectarian violence.
Do you meant relgious wars ?
That's big lie about Islam may also about Christianity.
You seems you need to get very credible data and sources about things you want to talk about.
Thanks God that you start taking the right way.
I do believe for recent voilence "ideoligy and deeds" are just increased by Western interventions.
So when you fired woods by gas, DON'T blame the trees why they got fired.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Muslims killikng Muslims is humans killing humans .. it's about power and wealth. Islam teaches that we should defend ourselves, and many groups/denominations/tribes accuse each other of not being "true Muslims" or being corrupt
..so, perhaps you'd like to tell me why so many people get shot everyday in the USA? Particularly as there is no civil war that I'm aware of.
It's about the human condition and NOT religion
I disagree Muslims killing Muslims because West choice to gave/support "the rebels" more weapons for years.
I do believe it's about indirect war between West and Russia, so Muslims are just land and most victimes.
It isn't only Islam this person posting is a bigot. Wouldn't a Cristian be offended by a cartoon making crucification jokes, don't Christians blow things up and shoot people who support lgbt or non segregation or whatever a Christian extremist thinks is offensive? Look at the Jews, obliterating Palestine, and in the middle of the Syrian civil war, extremely quietly stealing land on the wrong side of the sea of Galilee
Also to say you have free speech is true but I have freedom also and if one person invades someone else's freedom or space, then that person is negating the first persons freedom. Which is why Muslims were so upset about Charlie Hedbo ( this is only one example of thousands), but these people with bombs and guns are extremists. Most people in ISIS don't know the first thing about Islam, they destroy very sacred Islamic sites and pieces of history along with Christian, and pagan, etc. The poerson posting is ignorant and beloved only what the government says you should believe. News and standard western media is **** and this person is blind enough to eat it up.
I thought that Muhammad is supposed to be the model of a perfect person, correct? Well he started many battles, more than 60? Islam is about power.
As far as guns in the US, guess what? I agree it's a problem. And I think that's the difference. I am honest about the west's problems. Muslims on the other hand never seem to want to be honest about Islam's problems.
You seem to be implying that somewhere, there is "true Islam". Can you point us to the definition of true Islam? Can you point us to an example - in the real world - of a country that's demonstrating "true Islam" in practice?