On 10/27/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Convenience of the definition isn't really the issue. Whether you call
> it "genocide" or whether you call it "picking flowers" it is still
> clear that a certain policy of killing certain nations is found in the
> Jewish Torah, but that the same behavior is clearly prohibited by
> Islamic rules and conditions for warfare.
> In reply:
> Deuteronomy chronicles the eradication of an ethnic group. By today's
> standard it is "genocide"
Yes, because it defined a policy where several specific ethnic groups
were targeted for elimination. This policy is outlined in the Jewish
Torah and so presumably it was Jewish law before the children of
Israel reached the Promised land. The Canaanites were slated for
elimination just because they were living in the land first. Not
because they attacked the Jews. Just because they were minding their
own business and living on that land.
If you read the book of Joshua, there was even a case of a nation
called the Gibeonites. And they had heard that the children of Israel
were running around the Promised Land going from city to city and
taking everybody out (killing "everything that had breath") the
Gibeonites had never done anything to the children of Israel and they
were scared and didn't to be eliminated. So they actually had to
deceive the children of Israel and pretend to be from far away. Only
then were they able to sign a treaty and so they were enslaved
instead.
> The story of the banu Quraysh chronicles the eradication of an ethnic group.
It's not Quraysh, it's Qurayzah. Those are two different groups.
The people of Qurayzah had made a treaty with the Muslims, broken it,
and were a continuing ongoing threat. The women and children survived
so the next generation and the bearers of culture survived. The two
cases are morally different. In this latter case it was a specific
response to a specific situation. In the former case it was policy.
>
> But in both examples a generation later none of the Canaanites and none of
> the Quraysh existed.
>
It is Qurayzah not Quraysh. Quraysh is alive and well. For example,
according to Bahais, Bahaullah would have been Quraysh.
I don't know that Banu Qurayzah has disappeared or under what circumstances.
-Gilberto
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
