As a WW2 veteran who became a mature age historian, could reckon the sad simple fact is that we regard most Muslims as low life.

That is why unfortunately most Westerners regard Israelies more highly than most Islamics?

Certainly we don't need to love the Islamics, but please - for goodness sake let us be fair and less arrogant for a change?

Bushbred.

Consider the following table listing some of the basic differences between Western culture and many Islamic cultures (African and Oriental):

WESTERN SOCIETIES

*Individualism, independence and initiative are encouraged
*Time oriented (exact time, for example one arrives on time)
*Future oriented (seeing opportunities and foreseeing problems)
*Performance oriented (ability and accomplishments are important)
*Freedom to show weakness
*Egalitarian relationships
*Direct communication
*Analytical thinking; concept oriented
*Emphasis placed on non-violent negotiation in order to resolve differences.

Without a doubt, the Israelis fit within this broad Western "civilization" (as conceptualized by Samuel Huntington in 'The Clash of Civilizations'). That is, they are part of us.

ISLAMIC SOCIETIES

*Community or group oriented
*Event oriented (general times, example: arrival when an event happens)
*Present oriented (enjoy the present, take action when crises develop)
*Status oriented (class, age, family and reputation are important)
*Fear of showing weakness or admitting failures (shame cultures)
*Indirect communication (seeking not to offend or to dishonour)
*Holistic thinking
*Experience or circumstance oriented
*Marked propensity to use threat and violence as the sole or first means or asserting a viewpoint.

Dialogue of the deaf, isn't it. But much more dangerous than our civilizational difference with, say, the Chinese: Muslim cultures show a remarkable proclivity for violence.

As Huntington says, Islam has bloody borders (with other 'civilizations') and bloody innards (between different types of Muslim and even different Muslims of the same strand).

Could be a key reason why, as you say, "we regard most Muslims as low life".

Katie0,

Thank you for interesting comments regarding the prehistory and etymology of YHWH, as well as for the quote from St Paul that underlines how the bible should be read. Not literally: e.g. Genesis needs an appropriate interpretation in light of what is now known from science so that also a 21st century person can "understand what God has freely given us”. As I am not a historian I cannot pinpoint which parts of the OT (or even NT) need an interpretation in light of what is known from history so as to make understandable "what God is telling us" also to a 21st century person. Perhaps interpretations, that previous generations would not understand, be confused, or even scandalised by.

As you say, "history is a series of competing views or theories, not constrained by the power of the imagination". So I think it is important that we have professional historians like you (perhaps more important than in the case of scientists), who can be trusted with not wanting to obscure the meaning behind the narrative, the spiritual gift that "God has given freely us", because there are enough professional, or not-so-professional, historians whose intention is exactly the opposite, who use their knowledge and interpretation of the bible and history to obscure, discredit or even ridicule, this message.

I have no idea whether this can be done with the Koran - I just hope it can - but if, then certainly only from within Islam, by Islamic scholars and historians, and probably not that soon. When (if?) this happens, I believe Christians and Muslims will be able to coexist, worshipping the same God ("the merciful, the compassionate" who is Love Himself), but agreeing to disagree on how they see Him and his contacts with his creation. Until then we do have problems, but I think we should not pour oil on the fire.

KatieO,

An interesting post/link.

Parker-Taylor's, Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible (1975), as the title of the book suggests, addresses history around the thirteenth century BCE. Any Syriac connection would date five hundred years earlier (Toynbee).

I have Parker-Taylor's book. Parker-Taylor relates Yaweh tightly to the Bible and the Moses, the author doesn't try to go back to the orgin of Yehaw, rather discussion is on the theories pertaining to how Moses might have collected the deity on his travels.

I will be off-line for a few days. Work: Building Heirarchial Linear Models based on Anthropologically-based societal constructs. None of my three advanced degrees are in History. I have only one peer reviewed published paper in cross-cultural History.

George,

FYI:

"The Kenite hypothesis may be summarized briefly as follows. Prior to the time of Moses, YHWH was already the God of the Kenites. When Moses fled from Egypt, he found sanctuary with Jethro, the priest of Midian, and married his daughter, Zipporah. Jethro, who belonged to a Kenite clan of the Midianites, introduced Moses to the god, YHWH, and later ( Exod.18:11) rejoiced at the discovery that YHWH had delivered Moses and the Israelites in the Exodus from Egypt and the passage of the Sea of Reeds. This in no way detracts from the new understanding of YHWH gained by Moses as a result of the encounter at the burning bush ( Exod.3:1-15). Various southern tribes, including Judah, which were not involved in the sojourn in Egypt, or in the Exodus under Moses, had penetrated Palestine from the south. Kenites had been associated with them in this northward movement from Kadesh-barnea. The worship of YHWH had been adopted by the southern tribes at a time much earlier than that of Moses, and indeed, according to Gen.4:26 and the J tradition, YHWH was acknowledged as having been worshipped from antiquity. The " Joseph" tribes, whom Moses led out of Egypt, did not worship God under the name YHWH, until Moses declared this name to them, after his return from Midian"

Glorfindel,

Yes, I agree with all you say. I am aware of Irshad Manji (one of the few female Muslim or ex Muslim voices – funny it seems there are only female outspoken voices apart from Salman Rushdie) and some of the other authors you have mentioned. But am suspect of Karen Armstrong - Ayaan Hirsi Ali I'm sure called her ridiculous. Have you heard of Wafa Sultan who is a Syrian American psychologist? She is currently writing a book too and hopes to blast all the Islam apologists et al to their senses. She left Syria and Islam when her university professor was killed by some Muslim Brotherhood assailants while in class. She has something to say about the practices of Mohammad and has much despair of the Islamic attitudes to their own women. I haven’t even read Ayaan’s book yet but I have read some of her interviews. Like Ayaan needs bodyguards, Wafa actually met with Australian government officials about 2 yrs ago and her visit was only announced when she left Australia as her visit was deemed too provocative and dangerous. So it seems she didn’t bring the government to their senses. The western world’s current psychological state, particularly Europe’s is pretty fragile and not very confident in these times. Yep, political correctness has gone mad.

Anyway, If I read all the books you recommended, I think I’d go insane or get too paranoid about what is in the midst for western civilisation. I need balance, so I like to resort to the arts. Plus, I do not have much time as I work and have somewhat of a life. I think I have read enough already to get the picture of Islam, as much as I can get rather obsessed with it all - as it is a worry. Have you heard of Tanveer Ahmed, a liberal minded Bangladeshi Australian – he has a site. He is a psychiatrist. He’s actually the one who got me onto ONO via his site.

Constance: << If I read all the books you recommended, I think I’d go insane or get too paranoid about what is in the midst for western civilisation >>

Indeed - look at what's happened to Glorfindel.