#ethnoreligious identity

[themogaidragon]

Jewish Anarchism Flag

PT: Jewish Anarchism Flag /end PT

ID: a completely black flag with in the center a white symbol composed of a circle with the Hebrew Aleph inside. The Hebrew letter Aleph consists of a diagonal line that connects two horizontal lines at the top and bottom. The upper line is slightly longer than the lower line, creating a shape that resembles a stylized X with a vertical line through the middle. END ID

Jewish anarchism: a political movement that combines elements of anarchism with Jewish thought and culture. It advocates for a society without hierarchical structures or centralized authority, emphasizing individual freedom, mutual aid, and community cooperation. Jewish anarchists often draw on Jewish traditions, texts, and values to support their beliefs in social justice, equality, and critique of oppressive systems.

No know creator for the design since it is a widely used one since years.

Edited 30 to correct wrong credits.

[troutfur]

My thoughts are currently so consumed by The Sisters right now thanks to all the morsels of spoilers I've been getting re: Ivypool's Heart that I think it may be about time to bite the bullet and begin reading more content relating to them other than Tree's Roots.

[alexistalkscomics]

Why Is The Jewish “Representation” In Agatha All Along So Problematic???

When it was first confirmed that Joe Locke was going to have a role in Agatha All Along, most fans quickly came to the conclusion that he would be portraying Billy Kaplan AKA Wiccan which unfortunately ended up being correct.

The problem with that casting you ask?

Joe Locke isn’t Jewish and he is playing one of Marvel’s most prominent Jewish characters. Whilst many goyim (non-Jewish people) often inaccurately perceive Jewishness to solely be a religious identity which is a massive oversimplification of what it means to be a Jew, Jewish people are actually an ethnoreligious community which means that we’re our own distinct ethnic group and culture that have a traditional religion that is intrinsically tied to our identity and culture regardless of individual Jewish people’s levels of observance.

And because we are an ethnoreligious group, that makes the casting of Joe Locke, who is not ethnically or religiously Jewish, inherently problematic to say the least, especially when placed into the wider context of Jewish representation in the MCU.

Marvel Studios has previously been criticised for the way that it’s approached adaptations of Jewish characters for the MCU with the two main examples being casting Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff, who is Romani and Jewish in the comics, and Oscar Isaac as the Ashkenazi Jewish Marc Spector in the Moon Knight streaming series and in both cases, the heritage of the characters were either downplayed or just outright erased. So for anyone who understands the issue, it should be clear that the MCU has a poor track record when it comes to representing Jewish characters and that Agatha All Along’s adaptation of Billy Maximoff/Kaplan is just another addition to the list of disrespectful adaptations of Jewish characters.

What is the specific problem with how Billy has been adapted in the MCU?

Well, in order to answer that question, the answer has to effectively be split into two parts:

In the most recent episode of Agatha All Along, we finally learn the backstory of Billy (who had previously only been referred as “Teen” due to a spell that prevented his identity from being found out) and as part of that, we are shown a flashback to the day of Billy KAPLAN’s (the capitalisation will make sense in a bit), Bar Mitzvah, a sacred Jewish ritual that marks the transition into adulthood and the responsibilities that comes with being a Jewish adult. In this flashback, Billy (who if you’ve payed attention, is being played by a non-Jew) is shown wearing traditional religious garments and handling what is potentially an actual Torah scroll.

Within Judaism and Jewish culture in general, handling a Torah and then reading from it is seen as both a great honour and responsibility for any Jew who is called for an Aliyah so seeing a non-Jewish actor who has no experience as a Jewish person and in interviews, has mocked fans who criticised his role in the show, wearing my culture and religion as a costume to advance his career just felt wrong to me. I love Marvel and I take great pride in superhero comics being an art form that was created by Jewish immigrants so seeing one of the biggest franchises in history cast a non-Jewish actor to appropriate Jewish culture just felt disgusting to me. At least with Moon Knight, all we got was the smallest references to his Jewish heritage rather than being subjected to seeing the christian Oscar Isaac partake in sacred closed rituals.

And now, moving onto the second part of the answer to the above question, after we see Billy reading from the Torah and are then shown the party following the ceremony, we learn that the flashback takes place concurrently with the final episode of WandaVision. Because of that, the party has to end early so that guest can evacuate and soon, Billy and his parents are in a car accident where Billy dies…

…until his body is quickly revived after the soul of Wanda and Vision’s artificially constructed son, Billy MAXIMOFF possesses and takes control of Billy Kaplan’s body whilst erasing everything that made Billy Kaplan who he was. The reason why this is especially problematic is because of the great importance of the soul within Judiaism. According to Jewish laws, one of the most important things that distinguishes Jewish people from goyim is a Jewish soul and in Agatha All Along, one of the main protagonist who is an adaption of a Jewish character who was created by a Jewish writer is reimagined as a non-Jewish soul that hijacks the corpse of a Jewish teenager to use as a meat puppet. It becomes even worse when later on in the episode, “Billy” is shown rejecting his identity as Billy Kaplan which effectively takes the undertones of ethnic erasure and cultural appropriation of Joe Locke’s casting and makes it an essential part of the characterisation for this incarnation of Billy.

In Conclusion?

In the Marvel Comics, Billy Kaplan is a proud queer Jewish man who was partially based on the lived experiences of his creator who is also a gay Jewish man. Becuase of that, he holds a special place in the hearts of many fans who see a piece of ourselves in him and we deserved to see the really Billy Kaplan be brought to life in a way that would honour the source material that we love and introduce mainstream audiences to a really cool and fascinating Jewish superhero who can open up so many possibilities for the more supernatural side of the Marvel Universe to be explored in further MCU instalments.

But instead, we got the bare minimum of Jewish representation followed by the complete erasure of that “representation” with the ultimate end product being a show riddled with the underlying rot of antisemitism.

[etz-ashashiyot]

I'm sorry, but actually I'm not over that comment whining about how several of the JVP ritual, uh, practices and bastardization of Judaism are being excluded and how we can't police people's identities.

Actually yes we absolutely can.

[Rant incoming]

Listen, I hate exclusion, alright? Inclusion is always the answer when it comes to people knowing who they are. Every obnoxious identity policing thing in the queer community that has divided us and ripped apart communities has been cruel, counterproductive, given platform to bigots, a distraction from the real issues bearing down on us, and honestly just dumb as a box of rocks. Okay? Okay.

But Jewish identity works differently, because it isn't about YOU. Becoming Jewish is about taking on Jewish culture and religion, a closed ethnoreligious culture, through the narrow path consented to by the collective Jewish people. There IS a path, but it is a highly supervised one. Otherwise it's just appropriation and cultural theft; something Jews have been subjected to for millennia. And if you do legitimately convert you do so because you love the Jewish people - the whole Jewish people - and want passionately to be a Jew for its own sake. You want to join our nation-tribe. You want to join our family.

And the crazy thing to me, the thing that still blows my mind, is that this is allowed! Even after millennia of appropriation, oppression, violence, expulsions, and genocides, Am Yisrael still accepts genuine gerim. It would be so understandable if they had closed the path entirely and tried to shut out outsiders who might bring in danger on their heels even if they themselves were not dangerous.

But they didn't. We didn't. To me this is a miracle, a blessing, and sign of true faith and hope. It is a privilege to be here.

Yet in the same turn, you gotta respect the process! You can't just declare yourself a Jew simply because you feel like it — it doesn't work like that. You can't just declare yourself an Argentinian one morning either without becoming a citizen first, even if you have Argentinian ancestry. And sure, if you do have some of that ancestry, you are connected to the nation, but that's different from being given a vote y'know?

Using a totally unsupervised, totally unsanctioned, brand-new neo-pagan ritual to unilaterally declare your membership in a tribe does not make you one of us. If anything, it proves why you never will be.

Now! Let's assume for a moment that we are referring only to the provably halachic Jews whose connection and backgrounds are beyond reasonable questioning.

You can never really leave the tribe, but you absolutely can apostasize. Plenty of Jews do it. There are plenty of Jews who find that Judaism is not spiritually fulfilling for them but something else is, and they convert out. There are halachic Jews who have walked away from Judaism in order to practice any other number of religions: Christianity, Islam, Neo-paganism, Hinduism, etc.

That is their prerogative, but by doing so they turn away from their people in a serious way and cannot be said to be practicing Judaism. There is of course room for many different types of Jewish practice, but conversely, there are practices that are too far removed from Judaism to meaningfully be considered as such. Otherwise, it's no longer a coherent group identity. And because Judaism is a collective identity, that actually matters.

The Jews as a people have decided that worshipping gods that are not Hashem is not within the realm of Judaism, which is why messianic "Jews" are not practicing a valid form of Judaism even if they are halachicly Jewish and/or have Jewish ancestry. Worshipping Jesus makes you a Christian or at least adjacent. That is a hard boundary.

And yeah — if you change the basic meaning of holidays, if you bring in lots of practices that are brand new and have no halachic or even historical basis, are often highly individualistic, and would not be accepted as Judaism by the vast majority of Jews, then it absolutely falls outside it. If I started practicing a religion that made little icons of Muhammad to pray to once a day and celebrated my ingenuity with pork roast and a nice glass of wine, I don't get to say that I'm practicing Islam.

These people are doing the Jewish equivalent. It is something else entirely. Especially because so many of these practices spit in the face of major tenets of Judaism and go against Jewish values.

To treat it otherwise is to treat it as an absolutely meaningless aesthetic rather than a living breathing ethnoreligious tribe of people who get to decide our own community's boundaries and practices collectively.

And for the naysayers who still disrespect Judaism and Jewish identity and peoplehood so much that they think that they get to define Judaism more than actual rabbis? Look, we can't physically stop you from calling yourself Jewish, but by the same turn, YOU can't force US to recognize you as one of us. You can be mad, but that's the thing about group cultural identities — that cultural group gets to decide whether they claim you or not.

[To be clear: this is not about politics — there are plenty of Jewish non-Zionists and anti-Zionists who are 100% Jewish. This is about this one specific shitty organization and this particular type of behavior.]

[themogaidragon]

theyre gorgeous omg thank u so much for making these /very positive connotation

Jewish Disability Pride Icons

Happy disability pride/wrath month, here’s some icons I made using the disabled sun symbol (<- link to tumblr post about it)!

Feel free to use these however you want, as long as you are being respectful! Credit is always appreciated but not required. Goyim, abled people, queer allies, etc are welcome to interact. If you are antisemitic on this post I will block you.

If you would like a different flag, different saturations, etc feel free to ask (politely!)

Disability Pride Flag ~ Gay Pride + Hostages Yellow Stripe ~ Gay Pride

Philadelphia Pride Flag ~ Intersex (Ver. 1) ~ Intersex (Ver. 2)

Bisexual ~ Lesbian ~ MLM

Transgender ~ Nonbinary ~ Genderfluid

Asexual ~ Aromantic ~ Aroace

Demisexual ~ Demiromantic ~ Grey Ace

Grey Aro ~ Demigirl ~ Demiboy

Genderqueer ~ Overcoming / Disabled Rights Flag ~ Poly pride flag

Queer ~ 8 stripe Gilbert Baker ~ 9 Stripe Gilbert Baker

+ some versions of the bi, demi, and ace flags with the shades of purple swapped:

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

Okay so in the same vein as this post, I want to reality check the people who keep asking (yes I've been this person too, don't @ me) why oh why are Jews the only group leftists are willing to categorically deny self-determination to, and the reason is that most of them are tits deep in Christian supercessionism and don't even know it and have absolutely no desire to change that.

The reason they deny self-determination to Jews is the same reason that they would deny any claim to self-determination of, say, Mormons. If the Mormon church tried to claim Utah because it's the epicenter and birthplace of Mormonism [Edit: apparently the birthplace of Mormonism is western New York and not Utah whoops, but the point stands] and therefore they may as well have an indigenous claim to it, people with brains would rightfully lose their shit.

"But it's a culture too, not just a religion!"

So? Have you met any Mormons and spent time with them? They have their own culture.

"Okay but Jews are an ancient people!"

Please look at the batshit Mormon theological view of the Twelve Tribes and their attitudes towards Native Americans.

"Okay but our history is real!" Yep! These people don't know the first thing about Judaism and Jewish history and don't care.

The reality is that most westerners are hellbent on ignoring Jewish history and ethnoreligious identity because literally all of western civilization is built on Christian supercessionism. Even the people who leave Christianity and hate it (and "all religions") with a violent passion still refuse to engage in learning about Jewish cultural and ethnic history because you cannot do it without engaging the history and texts that they blame as the roots of Christianity and therefore they discredit all of it out of hand.

Obviously they're super fucking wrong about this. You, my fellow yid, and I, both know that. But unraveling the supercessionism means understanding their culpability in Jewish suffering and how they benefit from institutionalized antisemitism.

They are extremely unlikely to do that.

Why? Because if they unlearn Judaism as "just a religion" &/or "Christianity without Jesus" and begin to understand it as an indigenous Levantine group, they then have to reckon with the reality of how much Christianity has stolen from Jews and how much of their hatred for Jews is baked into their western goyische psyche by intentional Christian misunderstandings of Judaism.

Am Yisrael cannot to them be a real people with deep tribal roots and a strong culture, because then they would have to separate Judaism from Christianity and question their assumptions about us and our history.

"But Judaism accepts converts!"

Okay, as someone who "converted," I'm going to say no, not really, actually. Conversion is a convenient shorthand, but it's not accurate. Converting to Judaism means a mutually consensual adoption into the Tribe, after thorough vetting, at least a year of study and perseverance but probably more, and the main, primary promise that you make is about choosing to share the collective fate of the Jewish people. Yes, this adoption and naturalization is through the medium of the spiritual/religious aspect of Jewish identity, but it's way more than that. To be a Jew is to know that I might get stabbed on my walk to shul for being visibly Jewish, and to accept that possibility because the idea of not living as a Jew is worse. Gerim have to be ride or die because a serious chunk of Jewish history is on the "die" side of that equation. You have to be just a little bit nuts voluntarily take on that risk (reminder that I say this as a ger who is happily Jewish) and it must come from a place of profound love for and identification with the Jewish people. And once you join the family, that's it. You don't get to ever stop being a member of the family, even if you become estranged from it.

It's a people, with a deep history and culture, and anyone who joins it takes on both. Obviously your genetic makeup and ancestry don't change, but everything else does.

Understanding that major difference in Judaism in a serious way means that they would have to let go of their world view that their religion and culture are separate, that Christianity intentionally divorced faith from culture in order to acquire as many converts as possible, and then begin to understand how Christianity has shaped their understanding of culture, tradition, what religion is, ethics, and values. And they would have to then make an effort to separate their understanding of Judaism and what they think they know about us from Christianity, however they do or don't relate to it.

[jewish-sideblog]

hey, so im Palestinian and a strong activist for my people's liberation. i wanted to ask for some info/advice on avoiding antisemitism in my activism for Palestine. im on anon bc i don't want to be called a racefaker for caring about Jewish ppl. i know antisemitism is on the rise right now (and generally over the past few years) and i want to make sure i'm not unintentionally contributing to it.

Hey there! I wanted to start by genuinely thanking you for asking this question. Partially because I don't actually get any well-intentioned or helpful questions in my inbox anymore, but also because I understand the amount of bravery it takes to reach out with a question like that at a time like this.

Next, I want to apologize to all my followers who hate long posts. Judaism is a very complicated ethnoreligious group, antisemitism is a very complicated form of bigotry, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is arguably the most complicated international issue that has ever existed. I'm going to try to go through everything as succinctly as possible below the cut-- I am also going to ask other Jews to contribute to and make edits to this list as needed.

And finally-- I'm writing this as though I were speaking to someone with very little knowledge of the subject. I understand that as a Palestinian, you probably know a lot about what's going on here. But I want to make sure that I'm covering bases for anybody else who might need to use this post. So if you're like, Yeah, Obviously I Knew That. Please remember that a fuckton of people on tumblr are engaging in Israeli criticism without obviously knowing that.

There are two primary forms of antisemitism in anti-Zionist spaces-- antisemitic conspiracy theory, and criticism of Israel that no other country receives. The first kind is the easiest kind to pick out, and it makes a nice bulleted list, so we'll start there.

Dual Loyalty. A global stereotype that has skyrocketed since the establishment of Israel, but it's been around for a lot longer than that. Simply put, it's the idea that Jews are more loyal to Israel (or some global secret kabal) than we are to the countries we currently reside in. With I/P, it manifests as the idea that All Jews are directly responsible for Israel or the idea that All Jews secretly support Israel. If you see a Jew who isn't directly engaging in I/P topics, don't ask them what their stance is. Plenty of us have never even been to Israel, and it's fucked up to assume that we're all experts in geopolitics.

The Holocaust was a Fabrication or a Lesson. The idea that Jews made up the Shoah has been around since the Shoah was still happening, and it's always been ridiculous. Today, you'll see three primary lines about this. Either it's that Jews made up the Shoah as an excuse to establish Israel, that the Jews deserved the Shoah because of what's happening in Israel today, or that the Jews "should have learned their lesson from the Holocaust" because now Jews are "the new Nazis". Frankly, I wish goyim would stop treating the deaths of millions of Jews like a TV show. Palestinian deaths are genuinely horrible, but this isn't some kind of "narrative parallel" to the Shoah.

The Kazars Theory, or All Jews are White. This is the DNA test nonsense. The idea is that Israel (or Jews at large) are only pretending to be indigenous to the Levant and that secretly Jews as a whole are actually indigenous to Eastern Europe. It's a lie, started by a German professor of Russian history in the early 1800s. Meanwhile, the vast majority of genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence points to Jewish origins in the Israeli/Palestinian region. There have been literal hundreds of genetic studies on this. Most of them suggest that Jews, even "white" Ashkenazim, are nearly genetically identical to Palestinians.

World Domination. The idea that Jews control the world began with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 1903. If you're encountering criticism of Israel that suggests that world governments, particularly European or American ones, are being controlled by Jews, you've got yourself antisemitism. White supremacists like to use the term "Zionist Occupied Government" or "ZOG" as shorthand for this conspiracy. The next two points are born out of this same ideology.

Controlling the Media. The idea that Jews are in charge of Hollywood and/or major news organizations around the world. Regarding I/P, I've seen a bunch of people say something like "Western media outlets won't cover this! (Because you know who controls them!)" only to look online and see... Western media outlets covering it. See also: "My source is tiktok! I don't trust the news!" While it's obviously a fair criticism to say that some Western news outlets certainly have a pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian bias, it's certainly not every single one of them. Reuters and the AP are once again my go-to's here.

Controlling the Financial World. I haven't actually seen this come up regarding I/P, but considering how things have been going, it's only a matter of time. We don't control the banks. We don't control the stock market. We're not in charge of American aid being sent to Israel. HaShem knows that if we controlled all the money, I'd certainly be living larger than I am now...

Those Bloodthirsty Jews. This one arguably started with Blood Libel in the 1100s, when Christians started accusing us of stealing and eating their babies. Straight up, I have met Christians who still believe this in 2023. You see this a lot with I/P-- the Al Ahli Hospital is the biggest example. More than a month later, most reliable intelligence organizations agree that a misfired Hamas rocket landed in a parking lot, killing about 100 people. But a ton of people are still saying that Those Bloodthirsty Jews intentionally bombed the hospital dead on, killing 470 people. I want to be clear-- Israel is killing a lot of civilians. But if you see a bandwagon of people focusing on the one group of deaths that Israel probably actually didn't cause? Consider why.

Causing wars, revolutions, and calamities. Hamas has straight-up got this one in their founding charter. No, the Jews are not responsible for any major global conflicts, revolutions, or counter-revolutions that don't directly involve Israel. We didn't do WWII. We didn't do the October Revolution. See above-- we're not secretly plotting massacres on Shabbat. A lot of people are saying that Netanyahu and Likud let Hamas in to justify the invasion of Gaza... I'd be shocked if that was the case. All evidence points to a classic intelligence failure. We're not orchestrating bloodbaths.

Section 2: Criticisms only levelled at Israel

It's important to recognise that Israeli civilians are no more collectively responsible for the actions of the Likud coalition than Palestinians are collectively responsible for the actions of Hamas. No Palestinian deserves to be stripped of their rights to self-determination in their ancestral lands because of the October 7th attack. Likewise, no Chinese person deserves to be displaced from China because of the CCP's human rights violations in Tibet, Uyghur and Hong Kong. No Russian person deserves to be ethnically cleansed from Russia because of the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine. But plenty of people do believe that Jews should be stripped of their rights to self-determination in historically Jewish indigenous lands because of the actions of the Israeli government.

After October 7th, I've seen people argue that Israeli babies deserved to be kidnapped because of their national origin. I've seen people argue that Israeli women deserved to be sexually abused because of their nation of origin. I've seen people argue that the seven million Jews living in their ancestral homeland deserve death or displacement because of their nation of origin. Justifying or allowing brutal harm against people because of their national origin is hateful.

I want to make this part very clear-- I do not have an issue with calling out Israeli war crimes or crimes against humanity. But I do have an issue with treating Jewish civilians differently than civilians of other nations responsible for similar horrors. Amplifying bias against a particular group because of that group's nation of origin is called bigotry. Taking a stand against Israeli settlements in the West Bank is anti-Zionism. Collectivizing the label of "white colonialism", and forcing that label upon refugees forced to move to Israel, or Mizrahim with uninterrupted 8,000-year histories in Israel, is antisemitism.

Part 3: Moving Forward

So where do we go from here? If advocating for the destruction of Israel is advocating for the elimination of Jewish self-determination in our ancestral lands, but advocating in favour of the Israeli government is advocating for the elimination of Palestinian self-determination in your ancestral lands, then we must find some middle ground. A solution that allows seven million Jews and five-and-a-half-million Arabs to share the same holy land, without fear of persecution, displacement, or death. For me, this means a few things.

First of all, the recognition that most Israelis disagree with Netanyahu's approach to Palestine, and most Palestinians disagree with Hamas's approach to Israel. And that brings up a question-- why are Likud and Hamas in charge of Israel and Gaza respectively if most people disagree with them? Without getting into the complicated intricacies of the Knesset and the PNA on an already very long post (and without explaining your own government to you), the simple answer is international funds.

Israeli crimes against Palestinians are bankrolled by American Evangelical Christians, who believe that when Palestine is gone, all the Jews will go to Israel, and Jesus will come back to kill the world's infidels. They actually fucking believe that. Meanwhile, Hamas is bankrolled by Iran, which believes that the more often Jews and Sunni Muslims kill each other, the easier it will be for Iranian Shiite Jihad to take over the world. They actually fucking believe that.

So what steps can we take during our advocacy? Not for the destruction of Israel nor the destruction of Palestine, but for America and Iran to get their noses out of our damn business. I genuinely believe that a defunded Likud and a defunded Hamas will allow Israelis and Palestinians to work together for a peaceful two-state or joint-rule solution. Something that will keep my Palestinian friends from feeling like they can't safely travel from Jaffa to Tel Aviv. Something that will allow my Jewish family to visit and pray at the Cenotaphs of Isaac and Rebecca and the Temple Mount. Something that will let Israeli children from Kibbutz Nirim and Palestinian children from Khan Yunis play on the same playgrounds together, instead of sheltering from missile fire.

Frankly, we nearly had that when the Supreme Muslim Council and the Assembly of Representatives began collaborating against the British Mandate instead of against each other. Clearly, it's possible, we just need to stop being pitted against each other by foreign powers.

[whencyclopedia]

Yazidism

Yazidism is a syncretic, monotheistic religion practiced by the Yazidis, an ethnoreligious group which resides primarily in northern Iraq, northern Syria, and southeastern Turkey. Yazidism is considered by its adherents to be the oldest religion in the world and the first truly monotheistic faith. The Yazidi calendar states that the religion, as well as the universe, is almost 7,000 years old, which is 5,000 years older than the Gregorian Calendar and 1,000 years older than the Jewish calendar. Yazidism has had a rich history of syncretic development. For thousands of years, Yazidism incorporated elements of Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which coalesced from 1162 CE to the 15th century CE. Ultimately, this process created Yazidi culture and ethnic identity. However, to understand Yazidism, its history must first be explained.

The Origins of Yazidism

Almost nothing is recorded about the history of the first Yazidis. The etymology of the word 'Yazidi' is uncertain. Scholars debate whether or not it comes from the Middle Persian and Kurdish Yazad, which means 'God.' Other scholars believe that the Yazidis originated in the Zoroastrian city of Yazd in Iran. Another theory is that the Yazidis are descended from the Umayyad caliph Yazid ibn Mu'awiya, who reigned from 680 to 683 CE and killed the Prophet Muhammad's grandson, Hussein ibn 'Ali. After the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate in 750 CE, descendants of the royal family and other Umayyad sympathizers fled into the Kurdish mountains from the rival Abbasid Caliphate. There, they were welcomed by the Kurds, who remained loyal to them. The theory concludes that the Umayyad refugees intermarried with the Yazidis, passing along their admiration for Yazid ibn Mua'wiyah, their ancestor and former ruler. This theory is popular among Western scholars, as in Yazidism, the historical figure of Yazid appears as one of the three manifestations of God, Sultan Êzî.

The Yazidis call themselves Ezid, Ezi, or Izid, as well as Dasini or Dasin, which is linked with the Nestorian Christian dioceses of Daseni or Dasaniyat. There is substantial evidence for the emergence of aspects of Yazidism from Christianity, as certain Yazidi rituals are derived from Christian traditions, such as baptism and the consumption of alcohol.

The Yazidis were first recorded historically by Muslim historian 'Abd al-Karim al-Sam'ani (d. 1167 CE) as a community in Iraq during the 12th century CE. He wrote of a community called al-Yazidiyya in the region of Hulwan in northern Mosul, Iraq. He said that they lived an ascetic lifestyle and rarely associated with outsiders. He also stated that al-Yazidiyya revered the caliph Yazid ibn Mu'awiya, which is consistent with modern Yazidi beliefs. The Christian scholar Gregorius bar Hebraeus (d. 1286 CE) and Shafi'i scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373 CE) mentioned that there were many Kurds in northern Iraq who still practiced pre-Islamic faiths, such as the Zoroastrian Taïrahites and the Tirhiye, who practiced an ancient religion called Magism. Another related people known as the Shamsani practiced Manichaeism. However, in the early 12th century CE, the arrival of one man in the Kurdish Mountains would change the fate of the Kurds forever, the man who is credited by scholars and Yazidis as the founder of Yazidism itself: Sheikh 'Adi.

Sheikh 'Adi was a 12th-century CE Sufi mystic who studied in Baghdad with other scholars of Islamic mysticism. Amongst these were the sheikhs 'Uqayl al-Manbiji and Abdu'l-Wafa al-Hulwani, who came from the Kurdish mountains and established a Sufi presence there. This inspired 'Adi to travel to northern Iraq to lead an ascetic life, free of all desires and the self.

Sheikh 'Adi left Baghdad in the early 12th century CE to found a convent of Dervishes, or Sufi Muslim ascetics, in the valley of Lalish. He found a group of peasant Kurds in the area, whose belief system was a mixture of Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, ancient Iranian religions, and the veneration of the Umayyad caliph Yazid ibn Mu'awiya. Sheikh 'Adi performed miracles and led an ascetic lifestyle, which moved the Kurdish peasants so much that they became his followers. 'Adi taught them his mystical form of Islam until he died in Lalish in 1162 CE. His tomb became a site of pilgrimage for his followers. Eventually, 'Adi's followers turned the qibla, the direction in which a Muslim prays, away from Mecca and towards Lalish. This was the first step in the development of the Yazidi religion away from Islam, and Sheikh 'Adi's followers began calling themselves 'Yazidis.'

Years later, Sheikh Hasan, the grandson of Sheikh 'Adi's nephew, expanded Yazidi influence throughout the Muslim world during the 13th century CE. According to Yazidi oral tradition, Hasan wrote the religious text Kitab al-Jilwa li-Arbab al-Khalwa, which put Sheikh 'Adi's ideas into written form. During Hasan's reign, Yazidis served as soldiers in Saladin's Muslim army during the Crusades and served as ambassadors to the Ayyubid Sultanate. Yazidism itself spread throughout the Kurdish community, and many converted. The Yazidis emigrated to large swathes of the Muslim world.

The increased power of the Yazidis under Sheikh Hasan frightened many Muslims, especially Badr al-Din Lu'lu, the provincial governor of Mosul. The Yazidis and the majority of other Kurdish groups did not support his rule; they rebelled and refused to pay taxes. Lu'lu feared a large Kurdish revolt under the leadership of Hasan, so he sent his army to kill and imprison the Kurds. His soldiers did so and burned Sheikh 'Adi's bones in Lalish. Sheikh Hasan was captured and decapitated in Mosul in 1253 CE. The execution of Sheikh Hasan marked the beginning of centuries of persecution faced by Yazidis, which has continued into the 21st century CE. By the 14th century CE, Yazidism spanned from the city of Sulaimaniya in the Kurdish Mountains to Antioch in Turkey. However, Yazidis have lived in tribal societies from the 15th century CE onwards as a result of continued persecution and a lack of centralized leadership.

Continue reading...

[tanadrin]

Most oriental orthodox churches are pretty much ethnoreligions, no?

AFAICT they're just six miaphysite churches governed along roughly the same lines as Eastern Orthodox churches (i.e., autocephalous churches all in communion with each other). I think if "ethnoreligion" has a meaning stronger than "local cultural flavor of a larger religious tradition" (which I think would be a very uninteresting definition applicable to even huge transethnic religions with centralized governance) it's hard for me to see how these churches are ethnoreligions. Some, like the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, seem overtly multiethnic!

Like I understand an "ethnoreligion" as a religious tradition that is in some ways unique to, or nearly exclusively associated with, a particular culture, especially where ethnic and religious identity are to some extent linked. Alawites, Mandaeans, and Parsis seem like much more central examples than most Christian denominations.

Though some sources seem to use the term "ethnoreligion" to include groups where a religious fault line also runs across an ethnic fault line, even if the religion isn't particular to the ethnic group: Bosniaks, for instance, would be an ethnoreligious group because they are distinguished from their neighbors in part by being Muslim, even though they are mainline Sunnis. In this telling, Irish Catholics are also an ethnoreligious group, because they are distinguished from their Irish Protestant neighbors in ways which are especially salient in the context of Northern Ireland (even if the salience of this distinction is low outside of the region).

That seems like a different thing we are talking about to me than the thing we are talking about when we're talking about the cultural and religious identity of, like, Parsis or Jews. Under that classification there might be some Oriental Orthodox churches that are ethnoreligions, though? Probably not the Armenian Apostolic Church or the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, but maybe some of the minority churches in predominantly Muslim regions?

[xclowniex]

to respond to anon's "you can't convert to another ethnicity" genetically? no. culturally, in the case of ethnoreligious like judaism? yes. ethnoreligious practices and how those tribal identities function predate modern dna testing by millennia.

generally, converts take on the minhag, or tradition, of the congregation they converted with, most commonly ashkenazi in the diaspora, though there are jews who convert in other communities too like sephardi and mizrahi etc. it's not replacing who you are and where you come from, it's just added on top of your existing identity.

a slight adjustment to your statement about moving to israel and conversion; reform and conservative conversions are considered valid under the law of return, but that's about it and if you want to be considered jews for legal purposes like burial and marriage, then you have to convert orthodox.

.

[tamamita]

I think back to if I had been alive back then, I might have agreed with the creation of Isreal (with the Holocaust being so fresh in everybody's minds it makes sense that Jews have a reason to be concerned for their preservation) but learning of the Nakba and the continued occupation and treatment of the Palestinians (much in part thanks to you) I cannot support them. The Holocaust does not give Zionists a "get out of Genocide Free" Card.

Shifting gears a bit, I am Canadian, and our government has been put in an unfortunate position with India over the assassination of a man who was an advocate for the Khalistan Movement. Now while I intend to do my own research into it, I was curious your opinion (if any) on the creation of a separatist Sikh state?

I am against any ethnostate or/and states in general. Or in ML terms, I'm for the abolishment of states.

Nevertheless, being free from persecution does not require a homeland, and a Jewish ethnostate is contradictory, because JEwish people aren't monolith. Historically, Jewish people all over the world have come to create their own cultural, ethnical and religious identities that are vastly different from each other, the question then becomes a complicated one, how does one unify under one single homogenized state? If we look at Israel, then we know that they have systematically pulled efforts into erasing various Judeo-inspired languages, such as Yiddish or Judeo-Arabic, and it wasn't long ago when they forcefully sterilized Ethiopian Jews, who are still experiencing racism in Israel. I can't say I know much about how class differences work within the Jewish community, so I'll abstain from that. Nevertheless. It's obvious that for a state to become unified, there must be one codex of identity that all of them has to be identified under, while everything else is undesirable. This is the path to fascism, and you've already seen MPs in the Knesset expressing the desire for ethnic cleansing.

As for the Sikh state, I am against theocracies, ethnoreligious states or any state that adopts a de facto profanum/sanctum consitution.

[werewolfetone]

2nd try—

did the british have a big role regarding tensions between the catholics and protestants in Ireland (as in making them) as opposed to taking advantage/exacerbating them? the speech im reading uses Ireland as a similar situation to caste in india (hence the ‘ireland jumpscare’ lmao) . a common argument used to dismiss/ignore the latter is that it is an imperialist import (so we don’t really do anything bad, we don’t really have any privilege/advantage cause of it, etc etc)

does the same hold true for ireland? said speech (annihilation of caste, dr ambedkar) was written in 1930s iirc, so maybe late 19th cen-20th cen? (i am very ill versed in irish history, school had one page for the whole uk)

Ok so short answer, the way I look at it is that while we do have a responsibility to try and lessen protestant/catholic tensions and break down barriers for the benefit of everyone &c &c today, yes, Britain did play a role in creating protestant/catholic tensions in Ireland. Longer answer:

It's important to remember in discussions of Britain + Ireland + sectarianism, that, to quote the book Scripture Politics by Ian McBride, "there was nothing peculiarly Irish about the eighteenth century obsession with popery." Nor was there with the seventeenth century, or the sixteenth century, or the any century since the Reformation -- since the categories of protestant and catholic have existed, with the possible exception of the 21st century,* Britain and British people have been fighting for one and against the other, often as violently if not more violently than Irish people have. The reasons for this were complex -- questions of freedom, religious doctrine, and national identity too complicated for this post and which I need to do more reading on before I can speak at length about. What matters is that any actions involving Britain and sectarianism must be put into the context of Britain being a very sectarian state itself for as long as that was possible, rather than a state which just exacerbated sectarianism elsewhere. Admittedly most of what I know about caste in India comes from my Indian friends irl talking about it, so this comparison is almost certainly not perfect, but imo it's a little less like the British exacerbating caste in India and a little more like if the British had been butchering one another over caste independently and then come over to India, realised that the same caste system existed there, and immediately decided to bring the conflict over with them. Essentially it can't really be said to have been something Britain just "exacerbated" because, well, Britain was playing an active role in it.

Secondly, & perhaps more crucially, it's important when it comes to Irish history that "protestant" and "catholic" don't just mean what church one attends. In a similar way to how the Israeli occupation of Palestine is not "Jews VS Muslims" but a case of settler colonialism, "catholic" in the context of Irish history usually means one considers oneself Irish, while "protestant" usually indicates a connection to Britishness. There are many exceptions, of course! There are lots of protestant republicans and catholic loyalists, especially historically, but if, like, someone from Derry were talking about "prods" in the modern day they would almost certainly be referring to ethnoreligious conflict between people who are considered Irish and people who are considered British, rather than genuine disapproval over doctrinal disputes (there are exceptions to this, too, though. some of the stuff my mother says...). Both of these labels also often denote a whole other set of cultural behaviours apart from religion (pronunciation of certain letters, what school one attends, so on and so forth). Mentioning this mostly just because I think it's interesting, but wrt this issue I often think about how when modern sectarian violence in the north of Ireland really emerged in 1780s Co. Armagh, rather than "catholic" "anglican" and "presbyterian," those involved would distinguish the three groups by referring to them as "Irish," "English," and "Scotch**," respectively, indicating that the understanding that sectarian violence has been just as much about questions of identity and nationalism as religion for a really, really long time.

So. Do I think that, had British colonisation not happened, Ireland would never have gotten involved in any religious conflict? No. Getting into religious wars was really just what European powers did for a very long time, so a hypothetical free Kingdom of Ireland or whatever in an alternate 17th century probably would have been just as eager to butcher the protestant dogs as other catholic countries like France or Spain were. However, as real history stands, the fact that Britain's crusade against Irish catholics in the real life 17th century was part of Britain's own protestant/catholic religious war, and the fact that 'protestant/catholic conflict' in Irish history is nearly always just settler-colonial violence (perpetrated by Britain) with fancy dressing, mean that yes, I would say that Britain must take at least some responsibility for the existence of protestant/catholic tensions in modern day Ireland.

*personally I wouldn't include the 20th century in this due to the continuation of sectarian tensions in scotland

**historical term for "scottish" I am using as I am quoting historical documents where it was used. if u start discourse over the use of this word on this post I will block u

Sources under the cut

Farrell, Sean. Rituals and Riots: Sectarian Violence and Political Culture in Ulster, 1784-1886. University Press of Kentucky, 2000.

McBride, Ian. Scripture politics : Ulster Presbyterians and Irish radicalism in the late eighteenth century. Clarendon Press, 1998.

Cone, Carl. The English Jacobins: Reformers in Late 18th Century England. Taylor & Francis Group, 1968.

Coward, Barry. Oliver Cromwell. Longman, 2000.

Rees, John. The Leveller Revolution: Radical Political Organisation in England, 1640-1650. Verso Books, 2017.

[vernalloy]

🥀🕸️🍷

[oc x canon ask game]

Thank you so much for the ask!! This was a lot of fun to sit with!

🥀: favorite thing about your ship?

I know I’ve answered this question before but they make me insane so I’ll answer it again. I’m really happy that they match each other’s mental illness.

In Psycho II, Mary is surprisingly kind and empathetic toward Norman even as he poses a threat to her, but she has an upper hand in being not psychotic. Norman is always at risk of being reinstitutionalized, an experience that, while in the later films he seems willing to accept as not to hurt anyone, has clearly traumatized him. This same threat is present with Connie, but even moreso, given she was formerly his caretaker. Maureen is mentally ill— suicidal— but not delusional. Persistently, Norman is left without someone who will understand his relationship with his mother, and the thin line he walks between two worlds.

John, as stated, existed as a character before I knew Norman. I love how many parts of them intersect completely on accident— their religions, their families, their feelings on love. So too with their delusions. This isn’t to say they don’t scratch and bite— they certainly tread on each other’s realities if they want to hurt the other— but they do understand their shared paths of undeath and unreality.

🕸️ : any song that reminds you of your ship?

You already know All Rooms Cable A/C Free Coffee by The Extra Glenns for Norman’s perspective and Riches And Wonders by the Mountain Goats for John’s, but I’d also like to throw in (s)mother by Jordaan Mason & The Horse Museum.

Divorce Lawyers I Shaved My Head as a whole is a major inspiration, especially for its lyricism. It’s a concept album about “a failed marriage between two people of confused genders and identities taking place during a glandolinian war in 1990.” Despite the characters of Arcanary being cis*, the themes of dysphoria, disgust, and existence outside a heteronormative society are potent for a story about abuse, especially within the control of the family. Sexuality is foreign in a body that you cannot call your own. Also. Bird motif.

🍷: favorite thing about your oc?

This is a tricky question because there is so much that is dear to me about John, but they’re all so interconnected that I can’t exactly pick out one. Instead, I’ll talk about the trait that I’ve been thinking about the most lately, given it’s one I have the least firsthand experience with.

John is Jewish. I am not. But like my grandparents, his father was a Slavic refugee escaping an ethnoreligious genocide by going to America, where he lived in poverty. Immigrants never rest so their children can have better lives than they did, and there’s a guilt you carry for having a much better life than your parents, or their parents, and still being mentally ill.

Of course, part of the reason is the generational trauma. Any longterm stress to a community makes mental health issues such as depression, psychosis, and addiction far more likely to crop up. If you can’t control your life, you can control your family.

There’s no real conclusion here, but I hope that explains some things.

[patrickscervix]

i think your assessment of catholicism is pretty flawed. i want to start by saying i am neutral on the doctrine and theology, so im coming at this from the political angle of catholism. by virtue of its two millennia of the forced conversion of millions of people on every single continent, its persistent attempts to destroy other religions (e.g., the inquisition, residential schools, the vatican's endorsement of the holocaust, etc.), extreme and pervasive influence on the entire world's history for at least a millennium, and its status as the worlds largest christian denomination--largely as a result of centuries of forced conversion at threat of death--catholicism isnt comparable to any other religion and it isnt the mystery cult early christianity once was. sure, it occupies this space as a 'mystic' aesthetic among non-catholic americans because it is so different from cultural protestantism, but i dont think it can be called an ethnoreligion by any stretch of the imagination. the millennia of forced conversion of every single ethnicity it has come in contact with has ensured that it isnt. i DO think that you make a good point about the "return" to these older denominations (catholicism and orthodoxy) that are currently very popular among conservative white americans. i think thats very closely linked with the cultural hegemony of protestantism and the desire a lot of conservative white americans have to "have a culture," + american individualism and the desire to be special, but they realize theyre constrained by culture that is acceptable to whiteness and, despite its modern global status, catholicism is very often overwhelmingly linked to european history and "greatness" in the minds of these people, so it is considered an acceptable "culture."

nothing against you, i think youre great. ive just spent a lot of time on christian history and have a different opinion of it :)

so i feel like we mostly agree. perhaps i should've stated this more clearly, but i wasn't referring to catholics in general in the last ask, i was referring to catholics in the usa, who despite the cultural power the catholic church holds and has always held, did face discrimination on mostly individual (and sometimes systemic) levels at one point in time in this country. i don't think this is always a clear cut designation and depends on other factors of ethnic/cultural background which is why i also said to the other anon that i mostly agreed with them, i think it's complicated, but i can see why they as a mexican american catholic would consider themselves as part of an ethnoreligious group while living in a country that is predominantly not catholic where they have experienced discrimination due to their cultural practices, regardless of where those practices came from. i'm not really going to fuss about that, i get the logic, even if mexican american catholics don't strictly meet every bullet point as to what classifies a group as ethnoreligious

i think it's fair as well to look at irish catholics during this discussion, who are officially designated as an ethnoreligious group. as is the case for almost every ethnic group that is predominantly catholic and not italian, they were also largely forcibly converted; still, catholicism has become an inextricable part of their identity, in ireland and in the diaspora. while i believe that you cannot separate catholicism from colonization and forced conversion, that doesn’t negate irish catholics facing discrimination for being catholic in countries where the state is antagonistic towards them

and tbh i don’t see catholicism as incomparable to any other religion. i do think that the centralization of it is certainly unique, but imo there’s not much use in splitting hairs between denominations of christianity when it comes to colonization and forced conversion, esp considering evangelicals as well as catholics and adherents of other denominations of christianity in the west, for the most part, are still actively attempting to colonize the global south. i view this as an inherent aspect of organized christianity itself. and, while i do not believe the level of violence nor the form of colonization is comparable, i do think there are similarities that can be drawn between the spread of christianity and the spread of islam

idk, i feel like there are a lot of factors at play here, especially speaking specifically in regards to the usa, which as you said, is culturally protestant. i understand your argument but i can also understand why a catholic person from a culturally catholic background living in a country that is not culturally catholic would consider themselves as part of an ethnoreligious group. if you’d like to discuss this more feel free to send another ask or DM me

[queermarzipan]

antitheists really will sit there and try to claim they're oppressed bc religious people are mad at them. they will seriously try to explain to literal ethnoreligious groups that they're wrong about religion being a huge and core part of their culture and identity, actually, and you can just stop being religious at any point without it changing anything about you or your life! like wow dude. you really proved your, at this point, WILFUL inability to grasp that religion is important actually and is a positive to many people and is FUNDAMENTAL TO THE PERSONAL AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN PEOPLE.

[suugrbunz]

Part One — Main Focus will be Joe Liebgott, Edward Shames, and Jewish Identity. Part two will focus on MoTa.

First let me start by saying— these are thoughts that have been forming for a long time. There are things I will say that I've wanted to say for a long time. This is just me publishing my personal opinion with subsequent facts of the matter. However, you can differentiate the two. Put the facts above my opinion and if you believe I am wrong, feel free to send me a message in my ask box about it!

First and foremost being Jewish is a spectrum. There are ethnic Jews who are secular but stay within the community, there are practising ethnic Jews who vary their degrees of religious adherence, there are ethnic Jews who are Christian converts, and there are converts who are not ethnically Jewish. We are an ethnoreligious group— like the Druze or the Yazidis. There are many forms of our religion and many different cultural practices influenced by where they lived. The main groups we have are Ashkenazim; Diaspora that lives in Eastern Europe and everyone uses them as the staple of Jewry, they're not, they're just a part of the community. Mizrahim; Diaspora that resided in the Middle East and Northern African. They have suffered through many genocides (as have the rest shhh). Sephardim; Diaspora that resided in the Iberian Peninsula before the Spanish inquisition fucked them over and they ended up in the Balkans, the Middle East, Africa, and anywhere else. Finally, there are Central Asian Jews who are often a mixture of the Ashkenazi and Mizrahi diaspora. A great example of these are the Bukharan Jews. Whilst they're their own community within our community; Many Iraqi, Iranian, and Ashki Jews ended up in their community due to genocides in the countries they lived in.

So let's talk about some of our Jewish characters in BoB and some important information!!

Liebgott’s mother was Jewish. Yes, he was raised catholic but allow me to remind you of the statement we are an ethnoreligious group. He may not have spoken Yiddish but he did speak a dialect of German because of where his parents were from. Let's be real, speaking your parent's first language at home is normal. If Liebgott wasn't ethnically Jewish he wouldn't have been pissed off at Guarnere’s blatant antisemitism towards Sobel by calling him a Son of Abraham (oy vey).

Joe may not have known anything about the religion. Joe may not have gone to shul. But neither did Billy Joel and he was similarly raised Catholic by a Jewish family and still he has said he feels connected to the community. Joel's family went to Cuba to escape Nazis as they were a German Jewish family. If he didn't feel this connection then the real-life Liebgott wouldn't have fought Guarnere, right?

We note him as being exceptionally hateful towards Nazis. We see him as this feisty individual who could initiate a fight with anyone and might just win. The first time we see the war’s true emotional toll on Liebgott is when he breaks down at the camp. Though, I'd also argue that him not getting help when injured is a big sign of his deteriorating mental health.

Sit down because we are about to take a very emotional ride which will give you insight to any Ashkenazi or Sephardic individual who had a family member perish in the Sho’ah.

As only two generations away from the Sho’ah in my family, I know where my family died and I know where they were from. The most painful thing for me is to look at the train loads of Hungarian Jews arriving at Auschwitz. That is my family. At a young age I saw that film, I remember silently crying as I questioned if my family was captured in this film. If I see them just before they're matched to their death. Now imagine being Liebgott. Imagine being any Jewish individual that came across a camp— death or work camp. Imagine knowing this could've been you if your family didn't leave their homeland. Or worse, knowing that whatever family they left behind is dead. Dead and gone. Unnamed. Unknown. Stripped of their identity and in some camps they're just a number for ease of figuring out who has or has not died. Not every camp used this system, but some did. The camp easy company came across was not one of these but… It was still a camp. I think many people don't realise the sheer amount of camps and ghettos that were spread across the whole of Europe. According to USHMM’s Encyclopedia— over 44,000 camps were established. Additionally there were around 1,000 ghettos. So, we will establish our base estimated number at 45,000. Meaning the likelihood of accidentally coming across one was generally higher than what one may believe. Especially depending on the area you were in.

On the other hand someone who is hardly spoken of; Edward Shames was a practising Jew. He toasted his son’s bar mitzvah with hitler's cognac. Which is such a fuck you to hitler. A bar/bat mitzvah is a celebration of a Jewish person becoming an adult in the religion. There's partying, reading of the Torah, and all around joyous times. It is basically; We lived, you didn't— how successful was your genocide? Oh, yeah, not successful enough. Additionally, Shames held a Pesach Seder during the war. He was as religious as he could be during the war. I do not remember if or how he reacted to the concentration camp during the miniseries. I am a bit ignorant of him, I know some information but not enough to speak any further. Both Liebgott and Edward Shames by Halacha are Jewish. Liebgott's mum is a Jew, so he's a Jew. Edward Shames' parents are both Jewish. Even though to a secular person they are not viewed as being equally Jewish... In my eyes, they kind of are.

This concludes part one of two. You can find part two here: X