#Mahometan

[eretzyisrael]

Jews ‘treated horribly’ in 19th century Morocco

The indefatigable blogger Elder of Ziyon has been delving into his archive. He has found testimonies from European travellers which bear witness to the subjugated status of Jews in Morocco: 

Jews in Morocco

Ten years ago, I discussed a book by a European traveler to northern Africa and the Middle East, using the pseudonym Ali Bey al Abbasi, about what he saw in Morocco in 1895.

“The Jews in Morocco are in the most abject state of slavery; but at Tangier it is remarkable that they live intermingled with the Moors, without having any separate quarter, which is the case in all other places where the Mahometan religion prevails. This distinction occasions perpetual disagreements; it excites disputes, in which, if the Jew is wrong, the Moor takes his own satisfaction; and if the Jew is right, he lodges a complaint with the judge, who always decides in favour of the Mussulman. This shocking partiality in the dispensation of justice between individuals of different sects begins from the cradle; so that a Mussulman child will insult and strike a Jew, whatever be his age and infirmities, without his being allowed to complain, or even to defend himself. This inequality prevails even among the children of these different religions; so that I have seen the Mahometan children amuse themselves with beating little Jews, without these daring to defend themselves.

“When they meet a Mussulman of high rank they are obliged to turn away hastily to a certain distance on the left of the road, to leave their sandals on the ground several paces off, and to put themselves into a most humble posture, their body intirely bent forward, till the Mussulman has passed to a great distance; if they hesitate to do this, or to dismount from their horse when they meet a Mahometan, they are severely punished. I have often been obliged to restrain my soldiers or servants from beating these poor wretches, when they were not active enough in placing themselves in the humble attitude prescribed on them by the Mahometan tyranny.”

It turns out that newspapers in the 19th century had a number of articles from multiple sources that showed that, if anything, Ali Bey was soft-pedaling the problem.

Read article in full

[smolgreybunny]

Chapter 4: Doubts and Difficulties

My heart really breaks for Margaret this chapter, and I'm upset with her parents. Yes, you are a coward, Mr. Hale! Tell your wife yourself, don't put such an emotional burden on your child! This sounds like an all-too-common toxic parent-child relationship, where the parents are relying on their child, rather than the other way around.

It's interesting that Mr. Hale's doubts are never really explained. Margaret assumes he's lost his faith, or something similar, I think? Honestly it's pretty confusing. But it seems more likely that he just has issue with a specific doctrine of his church, not that he has stopped believing in God. But without him talking specifics, I really don't know.

Side note: "Mahometan" just means Muslim. I had to look that up. Although now that I think about it more, it might just be a different way to spell "Muhammedan." Which would make sense as a different word for Muslim, as followers of the teachings of Muhammed.

[cheeeryos]

"To account for, and excuse, the tyranny of man, many ingenious arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the acquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very different character: or, to speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the name of virtue. Yet it should seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by providence to lead mankind to either virtue or happiness. "If then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should they be kept in ignorance under the specious name of innocence? Men complain, and with reason, of the follies and caprices of our sex, when they do not keenly satirize our headstrong passions and groveling vices. Behold, I should answer, the natural effect of ignorance! The mind will ever be unstable that has only prejudices to rest on, and the current will run with destructive fury when there are no barriers to break its force. Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is needless, for at least twenty years of their lives. "Thus Milton describes our first frail mother; though when he tells us that women are formed for the softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in the true Mahometan strain, he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were beings only designed by sweet attractive grace, and docile blind obedience, to gratify the sense of man when he can no longer soar on the wing of contemplation. "How grossly do they insult us, who thus advise us only to render ourselves gentle, domestic brutes!"

- Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 1792

[loving-n0t-heyting]

I feel about far right qurad desecrators in Western Europe roughly the way I do about nazis threatening to March thru skokie: it is important, as a matter of overall principle and strategy, to defend their right to do it, but equally important as a social and political matter to denounce and shame the exercise of that right

Salwan momika and similar rightwing anti-islamic blasphemers are not, as a rule, acting out of some abstract humanist/rationalist/naturalist opposition to Muslim fideism. They are, very explicitly, promoting a terrifyingly xenophobic political movement which has—in Denmark and Sweden particularly—made discouragingly extensive progress in recent years, even among the national centre-lefts. (In Denmark the woke bleeding heart mahometan-pandering social democrats have committed to a reformist phase out of the ripped-from-a-fascist-YA-dystopia-novel ghetto system… by 2030!) for fucks sake, the avowed goal of the swedish quran stunt was a national ban on the Quran itself!! These are the bad guys, the bullets to bite for freedom of expression

And by the same coin… it is definitely wrong but it also should not be very surprising that acts like these provoke riots and inflame national tensions? That’s like, the whole fucking point. Doing graphically offensive things in front of national embassies, its an inflaming-national-tensions strategy. It’s the schoolyard bully tactic of sizing up an irritable mark to taunt until he punches you and you can point to him being a brute. Again, in general not defensible on the marks part! Don’t go around escalating to physical violence for no good reason! Sticks and stones! But my fucking hell, you play stupid games you win stupid prizes

[lux-filia]

Regarder les droitard et les Français se foutres sur la gueule au sujet du conflit israelo-palestien, ou dirais-je plutôt, israelo-mahometan, pendant que les deux s'utilisent l'un l'autre à la destruction de l'Occident.

Suis-je la seule à n'en avoir absolument rien à carrer?

On attend la prochaine vague de réfugiés au porte de la Hongrie et de Lampedusa.

Ces mêmes peuples qui n'en on strictement rien à faire de vos morts et de vos martyrs.

Nos frontières avant les leurs.

[dolphin1812]

This chapter is super short, so I’ll just go paragraph by paragraph:

“This book is a drama, whose leading personage is the Infinite.

“Man is the second.”

The Infinite is back! Technically, it never leaves, but it’s been a while since we got an explicit reference to it. Its placement as the “hero” is interesting; this novel is very focused on “Man,” both in the sense that we follow people dealing with structures made by other people and in the sense that the apparent protagonist, Jean Valjean, is the “Everyman” in everything aside from his strength. The Infinite is less visible (although Hugo brings it up often), but with this order of heroes, it suddenly makes sense that we began with the bishop and not with Jean Valjean. The bishop is a person, of course, but as a religious figure, his role is to contemplate the Infinite even as he helps others. In some ways, he’s a bridge between these two “heroes.”

“ Such being the case, and a convent having happened to be on our road, it has been our duty to enter it. Why? Because the convent, which is common to the Orient as well as to the Occident, to antiquity as well as to modern times, to paganism, to Buddhism, to Mahometanism, as well as to Christianity, is one of the optical apparatuses applied by man to the Infinite. ”

Here, Hugo argues that analyzing the convent was necessary because it’s “universal” as a way of approaching the “Infinite.” While this is debatable (it seems like an oversimplification), it’s interesting to see this attempt at universalizing the novel (if the Infinite is the hero, then its message applies everywhere). Hugo’s done this before, in the preface; he stated that the novel will be relevant as long as poverty exists, universalizing it across time. Here, he does so across space. It’s also fitting that this happens in a digression, as although the book’s themes can be transferred across many contexts (there’s a reason so many people still enjoy it and its various adaptations today, in many different places), the book itself is very much a product of 19th-century France. This is part of the appeal as well; the places Hugo describes are so specific (whether they’re fictional or not), and the way the historical context is linked to characters and events really enriches the story. By moving towards an exploration of the “Infinite,” we’re also zooming out on this French context, allowing Hugo to remind us of his novel’s broader aims.

“ This is not the place for enlarging disproportionately on certain ideas; nevertheless, while absolutely maintaining our reserves, our restrictions, and even our indignations, we must say that every time we encounter man in the Infinite, either well or ill understood, we feel ourselves overpowered with respect. There is, in the synagogue, in the mosque, in the pagoda, in the wigwam, a hideous side which we execrate, and a sublime side, which we adore. What a contemplation for the mind, and what endless food for thought, is the reverberation of God upon the human wall! ”

I can’t tell what Hugo is referring to when he says this isn’t the place to develop "certain ideas” “disproportionately;” is this tied to the novel (avoiding yet another digression)? The state (censorship if he elaborates)? Himself (not wanting to support a total rejection of religion)? Also, while I recognize that his comments on other religious buildings are meant to mean his comments here aren’t specifically targeting Christianity (even if this is a Christian structure) but are instead part of the issue with religions that encourage good (engaging with the Infinite) while having unjust structures, it’s very uncomfortable to only see non-Christian buildings singled out in this paragraph as sites deserving of “execration” and “adoration.” Part of the issue is that, as much as this book can speak across time and space, Hugo is still very much a 19th-century French man. Hearing him reference other places (particularly outside of Europe) and religions besides Christianity could go very badly.

[cliozaur]

That's a very "abstract idea" of the convent! Talking about convents of "the Orient" and "the Occident" (so 19th-century discourse!) and giving examples from other religions (I can even pretend there can be something like a "pagan" or "Buddhist" convent, but "Mahometan" convent?) Hugo generalizes beyond limits. Is convent merely a place where the Infinite dwells? And I can see a continuation of the Enlightenment discourse of tolerance in the way he lists all those examples of cult buildings from all over the world, but it is still quite clumsy and cringy.

[breitzbachbea]

The casual islamophobia, which I would die to find out where the roots are, just makes me think that if Soph reads this and asks "What does Mahometan mean?" and as soon as an answer by Michele that involves "People like Herakles' husband", that man will be so pestered. Longest letter in the history of mankind incoming, Soph wants to KNOW things and tell him shit with the vigour only an overconfident and angry 20 year old could have.

Also, when she asks if they can have more spouses and he says yes, but you should only have as many as you can provide for, so a lot of people only marry once or twice, she then asks: "But aren't you rich? Why don't you have a second one?" and gets "Because Herakles is a fucking handful" as an answer.

[hellsitesonlybookclub]

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Chapter XIV

"Some time elapsed before I learned the history of my friends. It was one which could not fail to impress itself deeply on my mind, unfolding as it did a number of circumstances, each interesting and wonderful to one so utterly inexperienced as I was.

"The name of the old man was De Lacey. He was descended from a good family in France, where he had lived for many years in affluence, respected by his superiors, and beloved by his equals. His son was bred in the service of his country; and Agatha had ranked with ladies of the highest distinction. A few months before my arrival, they had lived in a large and luxurious city, called Paris, surrounded by friends, and possessed of every enjoyment which virtue, refinement of intellect, or taste, accompanied by a moderate fortune, could afford.

"The father of Safie had been the cause of their ruin. He was a Turkish merchant, and had inhabited Paris for many years, when, for some reason which I could not learn, he became obnoxious to the government. He was seized and cast into prison the very day that Safie arrived from Constantinople to join him. He was tried, and condemned to death. The injustice of his sentence was very flagrant; all Paris was indignant; and it was judged that his religion and wealth, rather than the crime alleged against him, had been the cause of his condemnation.

"Felix had accidentally been present at the trial; his horror and indignation were uncontrollable, when he heard the decision of the court. He made, at that moment, a solemn vow to deliver him, and then looked around for the means. After many fruitless attempts to gain admittance to the prison, he found a strongly grated window in an unguarded part of the building, which lighted the dungeon of the unfortunate Mahometan; who, loaded with chains, waited in despair the execution of the barbarous sentence. Felix visited the grate at night, and made known to the prisoner his intentions in his favour. The Turk, amazed and delighted, endeavoured to kindle the zeal of his deliverer by promises of reward and wealth. Felix rejected his offers with contempt; yet when he saw the lovely Safie, who was allowed to visit her father, and who, by her gestures, expressed her lively gratitude, the youth could not help owning to his own mind, that the captive possessed a treasure which would fully reward his toil and hazard.

"The Turk quickly perceived the impression that his daughter had made on the heart of Felix, and endeavoured to secure him more entirely in his interests by the promise of her hand in marriage, so soon as he should be conveyed to a place of safety. Felix was too delicate to accept this offer; yet he looked forward to the probability of the event as to the consummation of his happiness.

"During the ensuing days, while the preparations were going forward for the escape of the merchant, the zeal of Felix was warmed by several letters that he received from this lovely girl, who found means to express her thoughts in the language of her lover by the aid of an old man, a servant of her father, who understood French. She thanked him in the most ardent terms for his intended services towards her parent; and at the same time she gently deplored her own fate.

"I have copies of these letters; for I found means, during my residence in the hovel, to procure the implements of writing; and the letters were often in the hands of Felix or Agatha. Before I depart, I will give them to you, they will prove the truth of my tale; but at present, as the sun is already far declined, I shall only have time to repeat the substance of them to you.

"Safie related, that her mother was a Christian Arab, seized and made a slave by the Turks; recommended by her beauty, she had won the heart of the father of Safie, who married her. The young girl spoke in high and enthusiastic terms of her mother, who, born in freedom, spurned the bondage to which she was now reduced. She instructed her daughter in the tenets of her religion, and taught her to aspire to higher powers of intellect, and an independence of spirit, forbidden to the female followers of Mahomet. This lady died; but her lessons were indelibly impressed on the mind of Safie, who sickened at the prospect of again returning to Asia, and being immured within the walls of a haram, allowed only to occupy herself with infantile amusements, ill suited to the temper of her soul, now accustomed to grand ideas and a noble emulation for virtue. The prospect of marrying a Christian, and remaining in a country where women were allowed to take a rank in society, was enchanting to her.

"The day for the execution of the Turk was fixed; but, on the night previous to it, he quitted his prison, and before morning was distant many leagues from Paris. Felix had procured passports in the name of his father, sister, and himself. He had previously communicated his plan to the former, who aided the deceit by quitting his house, under the pretence of a journey, and concealed himself, with his daughter, in an obscure part of Paris.

"Felix conducted the fugitives through France to Lyons, and across Mont Cenis to Leghorn, where the merchant had decided to wait a favourable opportunity of passing into some part of the Turkish dominions.

"Safie resolved to remain with her father until the moment of his departure, before which time the Turk renewed his promise that she should be united to his deliverer; and Felix remained with them in expectation of that event; and in the mean time he enjoyed the society of the Arabian, who exhibited towards him the simplest and tenderest affection. They conversed with one another through the means of an interpreter, and sometimes with the interpretation of looks; and Safie sang to him the divine airs of her native country.

"The Turk allowed this intimacy to take place, and encouraged the hopes of the youthful lovers, while in his heart he had formed far other plans. He loathed the idea that his daughter should be united to a Christian; but he feared the resentment of Felix, if he should appear lukewarm; for he knew that he was still in the power of his deliverer, if he should choose to betray him to the Italian state which they inhabited. He revolved a thousand plans by which he should be enabled to prolong the deceit until it might be no longer necessary, and secretly to take his daughter with him when he departed. His plans were facilitated by the news which arrived from Paris.

"The government of France were greatly enraged at the escape of their victim, and spared no pains to detect and punish his deliverer. The plot of Felix was quickly discovered, and De Lacey and Agatha were thrown into prison. The news reached Felix, and roused him from his dream of pleasure. His blind and aged father, and his gentle sister, lay in a noisome dungeon, while he enjoyed the free air, and the society of her whom he loved. This idea was torture to him. He quickly arranged with the Turks, that if the latter should find a favourable opportunity for escape before Felix could return to Italy, Safie should remain as a boarder at a convent at Leghorn; and then, quitting the lovely Arabian, he hastened to Paris, and delivered himself up to the vengeance of the law, hoping to free De Lacey and Agatha by this proceeding.

"He did not succeed. They remained confined for five months before the trial took place; the result of which deprived them of their fortune, and condemned them to a perpetual exile from their native country.

"They found a miserable asylum in the cottage in Germany, where I discovered them. Felix soon learned that the treacherous Turk, for whom he and his family endured such unheard-of oppression, on discovering that his deliverer was thus reduced to poverty and ruin, became a traitor to good feeling and honour, and had quitted Italy with his daughter, insultingly sending Felix a pittance of money, to aid him, as he said, in some plan of future maintenance.

"Such were the events that preyed on the heart of Felix, and rendered him, when I first saw him, the most miserable of his family. He could have endured poverty; and while this distress had been the meed of his virtue, he gloried in it: but the ingratitude of the Turk, and the loss of his beloved Safie, were misfortunes more bitter and irreparable. The arrival of the Arabian now infused new life into his soul.

"When the news reached Leghorn, that Felix was deprived of his wealth and rank, the merchant commanded his daughter to think no more of her lover, but to prepare to return to her native country. The generous nature of Safie was outraged by this command; she attempted to expostulate with her father, but he left her angrily, reiterating his tyrannical mandate.

"A few days after, the Turk entered his daughter's apartment, and told her hastily, that he had reason to believe that his residence at Leghorn had been divulged, and that he should speedily be delivered up to the French government; he had, consequently hired a vessel to convey him to Constantinople, for which city he should sail in a few hours. He intended to leave his daughter under the care of a confidential servant, to follow at her leisure with the greater part of his property, which had not yet arrived at Leghorn.

"When alone, Safie resolved in her own mind the plan of conduct that it would become her to pursue in this emergency. A residence in Turkey was abhorrent to her; her religion and her feelings were alike adverse to it. By some papers of her father, which fell into her hands, she heard of the exile of her lover, and learnt the name of the spot where he then resided. She hesitated some time, but at length she formed her determination. Taking with her some jewels that belonged to her, and a sum of money, she quitted Italy with an attendant, a native of Leghorn, but who understood the common language of Turkey, and departed for Germany.

"She arrived in safety at a town about twenty leagues from the cottage of De Lacey, when her attendant fell dangerously ill. Safie nursed her with the most devoted affection; but the poor girl died, and the Arabian was left alone, unacquainted with the language of the country, and utterly ignorant of the customs of the world. She fell, however, into good hands. The Italian had mentioned the name of the spot for which they were bound; and, after her death, the woman of the house in which they had lived took care that Safie should arrive in safety at the cottage of her lover."

[mtlibrary]

A blog post from Jack Alphey, a work experience placement student from King’s College London

For the last several weeks, I have been working on reading through and cataloguing 18th century legal manuscripts within the Middle Temple Library. Having readily available and digitized information about the contents of manuscripts will allow easier access for researchers to the information they want to find. Thus far, I have found many interesting cases. From questions as to whether the theft of live pigeons was a felony to complex cases of financial fraud. Perhaps the most interesting thus far, however, is the case of theft from the Indian John Morgan in 1765 found within a manuscript of notes made at the Old Bailey from 1765-1769.[1]

On the surface, the case is very simple. Three prisoners allegedly stole money and several items of clothing from Morgan. Morgan’s origins in India came up both in the crime and the legal proceedings, and it appears that two of the prisoners were found guilty. After this case, however, the manuscript records a following argument in court over whether John Morgan was guilty of perjury. What was unique about Morgan was that he was a “Mahometan” (an earlier English term for someone of the Muslim faith) and he was only willing to swear an oath on the Qur’an instead of the Bible. My assumption here was that the solution would be a fairly simple yes.

In contrast, however, the court came to a conclusion which upheld Morgan’s testimony. Once the court had become “satisfied of the Belief of Mahometans in a Deity” they deemed the Qur’an “to be their method of being sworn”. Seemingly the importance was in a valid belief that would make an oath taker stay honest instead of requiring a state sanctioned ‘true God’. Hidden at the back of the manuscript, however, is a copy of a letter from “Mr Gould” (that is, Sir Henry Gould, 1710-1794) addressing the case written in 1784, nineteen years after the ruling. This letter provides an admonition on the ruling citing the importance of “corporal oaths”. This was something, in Gould’s eyes, that could only be undertaken by a Christian touching the Bible in front of the Christian God. According to Sir Henry’s reasoning, Morgan’s oath on the Qur’an made his testimony perjury. What happened to John Morgan does not seem public. Did the letter almost two decades later pertain to his actual future or simply to future theory? 

This case is useful, however, in letting us address the lives and trials of non-Western and non-Christian individuals within Britain in this period. Morgan was clearly a man of means: he had a significant amount of money stolen, as shown by the case. This lines up in name, location, and time to be the Indian John Morgan seen working with the artist George Stubbs during his paintings of exotic animals.[2] When a crime was committed, however, Morgan’s testimony put him in danger with the Christian rigidity of the courts. Rare cases like these provide insight into the British system’s struggles and resistances to adapting to a world in which differences such as other religions would more commonly find their way integrating and how this challenged existing institutions.

Jack Alphey, MA student King’s College London

[1] https://www.middletemplelibrary.org.uk/client/en_GB/default/search/results?qu=ms47&te=

[2] Mark Sorrell, ‘A Zebra, A Tigress, and a Cheetah: New Light on George Stubbs’ Exotic Animal Subjects’, British Art Journal, 15 (2014), https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA389175724&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=14672006&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Efd5ab7ed? (accessed 28th February 2023).

[libidomechanica]

Each cell has set

And a flake that beat neath our sails;     hoarse murmuring melodious burdened honey of mourners,     weep night thy song thou

could revoke the black stage-lion     of the doom, the radiant girl! Of flowers. Or gluttoning     a Titan’s bridegroom at

then all thought wind the unpleasing,     but, after all, or liker bene false, is a dying     smile, amid all times call

its wires ouergrast, the truth; if people’s     ancestors are far shore; they punishment. Like a butten     the rest! Is placed, and

her silken robe, and with weather     may see sweeter the patching him is not well beseech you     canst not loues a lasse forlorn,

till not the land beautie but kind,     but all the fields are fire outlines on the sense, for constrative     earth was not to bed.

’Er form legs. You under pale light!     The features ensures floating up repent, and inly know,     but work required, his frozen

tears! As subject to no such     and stile and full of change and grief with Damaske roses fed,     Leave me never spoke too

much plenty of world, and barbarian     shore! With joyous tone; whose baseball flying hair, The     nigh the yellow-haired your

was her name, and grew. I dream hath     bred it sinks, the worst of her rather raise best to-night, nay     day, the goddess of

Mahometans forbeare his worth in     vain on wit’s despair in every hail and me, if ye gie     a woman a’ her wheeling?

Toward bold; the public trusting     from still told of day their steering-wheel or touch of weather     a life was not like strapped

in his hand o’er meikle to     receivest by wilful taste, for they are gone before anxious     for thys, not lift his love

and wine disperse, touch sorrow-clouded     eye; the priest, to reach— and now at earth’s shadow of the     sun strife, and self. And thriftless

praises are borne a slave to     second my heart, are you, beautifully into those whom he     taught, there’s naked love

and feel it inside its care     unclosed and she with thee moste leefe, hobbin, I cursed the sky     and thro’ the lady’s cheek.

[the-devils-dictionary]

ASS, n.

A public singer with a good voice but no ear. In Virginia City, Nevada, he is called the Washoe Canary, in Dakota, the Senator, and everywhere the Donkey. The animal is widely and variously celebrated in the literature, art and religion of every age and country; no other so engages and fires the human imagination as this noble vertebrate. Indeed, it is doubted by some (Ramasilus, lib. II., De Clem., and C. Stantatus, De Temperamente) if it is not a god; and as such we know it was worshiped by the Etruscans, and, if we may believe Macrobious, by the Cupasians also. Of the only two animals admitted into the Mahometan Paradise along with the souls of men, the ass that carried Balaam is one, the dog of the Seven Sleepers the other. This is no small distinction. From what has been written about this beast might be compiled a library of great splendor and magnitude, rivalling that of the Shakespearean cult, and that which clusters about the Bible. It may be said, generally, that all literature is more or less Asinine.

"Hail, holy Ass!" the quiring angels sing; "Priest of Unreason, and of Discords King!" Great co-Creator, let Thy glory shine: God made all else, the Mule, the Mule is thine!"

G.J.

[jamesgraybooksellerworld]

Sandys travels : containing an history of the original and present state of...Turkish Empire, Constantinople, Greece, Ægypt, Armenia, Grand Cairo... Italy, and the islands adjoining, as Cyprus, Crete, Malta, Sicilia, the Æolian Islands, of Rome, Venice, Naples, Syracusa, Mesena, Aetna, Scylla, and Charybdis, and other places of note

631J Sandys, George, 1578-1644.,  Sandys travels : containing an history of the original and present state of the Turkish Empire, their laws, government, policy, military force, courts of justice, and commerce, the Mahometan religion and ceremonies, a description of Constantinople, the Grand Signior’s seraglio, and his manner of living : also, of Greece, with the religion and customs of the…

[blasphemale]

Thomas Paine

Paris, May 12, 1797

In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.

But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.

The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.

You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.

It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.

Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?

For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -

You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.

The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.

The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.

It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.

What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.

In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.

As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.

You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.

When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

it is grimly funny and transparent to see nazis switch their tune the moment that palestinian nationalism comes up. "fair maiden evropa must gird herself against the merciless rapine of the swarthy hordes to her south and east, much blemished and rotted by the vile scourge of mahometan heathenry after the untimely and unbecoming revolt overturning the civilising and humanising guidance offered until lately by the wise imperial aryan to lesser, barbaric races across the globe. it is a struggle reminiscent of so many against the great hook-nosed Enemy, like that of our brave brothers and sisters of palestine in the face of Zionist settler-colonial terror"

uh huh, totally

[travelandtravel]

Any ornaments and jewels

We have talked with many women who had passed through all parts of the ordeal but the last, and the procedure seems to have been as follows: They would seize a woman, strip her carefully to her chemise, laying aside articles of clothing that were valuable, with any ornaments and jewels she might have about her. Then as many of them as cared would violate her, and the last man would kill her or not as the humour took him.

At the next house a man stopped us to show where a blind little brother had been burnt alive, and the spot where he had found his calcined bones, and the rough, hard-visaged man sat down and sobbed like a child. The foolish fellow did not seem to understand that the poor blind boy was better off now, and that he ought really to have thanked the Turks instead of crying about it.

On the other side of the way were the skeletons of two children lying side by side, partly covered with stones, and with frightful sabre cuts in their little skulls. . The number of children killed in these massacres is something enormous. They were often spitted on bayonets, and we have several stories from eye-witnesses who saw little babes carried about the streets, both here and at Otluk-kui, on the point of bayonets Guided Istanbul Tour.

Batak the Bashi-Bazouks

The reason is simple. When a Mahometan has killed a certain number of infidels, he is sure of Paradise, no matter what his sins may be. Mahomet probably intended that only armed men should count, but the ordinary Mussulman takes the precept in broader acceptation, and counts women and children as well. Here in Batak the Bashi-Bazouks, in order to swell the count, ripped open pregnant women, and killed the unborn infants. As we approached the middle of the town, bones, skeletons, and skulls became more numerous.

There was not a house beneath the ruins of which we did not perceive human remains, and the street besides was strewn with them. Before many of the doorways women were walking up and down wailing their funeral chant. One of them caught me by the arm and led me inside of the walls, and there in one corner, half covered with stones and mortar, were the remains of another young girl, with her long hair flowing wildly about among the stones and dust.