Talk: Druze
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
Removed this comment from the lower portion of the article, under the source link:
as this is on a US government website and there is no copyright notice to the contrary, I assume this is in the public domain?
...as it doesn't belong in the article. Said lower portion needs to be merged... I'll put it on my list of articles to work on, but that list's getting long... -- Jake 08:32, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)
Some more than 1.100,000 Druze exist in the Middle-east today.
There are 600,000 Druze in Syria and 400,000 in Lebanon and about 100,000 in Israel
About the believe, the five emanations plus the sixth and his Godly unity the Universal intelligence who is higher than the universal mind and lesser than the almighty God, the Universal intelligence emanates in the holy personality who chosen by the almighty God to host the Godly universal intelligence in turn of the Builder or the Ruler( al Hakim), but don?t mix up and take it wrong about the believe.
Some hint of the Druze faith or (al taw hid) which means in Sanskrit Yuga, and the religious men or women (Ajawid) called in Sanskrit yogis, al tawhid began with the history of Adam ( al safa) or Adam the crystal or in Greek Christo, or the true Christ, or Krishna in Sanskrit and re-announced during the Fatimid khalifa AL Hakim by the Universal mind emanation Hamza Bin Ali.
| Contents |
Druze in Israel
What was said is not actually correct; the Druze in Israel among the older generations do support Syria. However, the younger generations have sworn allegiance to Israel, due to the better life in Israel, especially the lack of persecution; and the Druze notion of being faithful to whatever country they currently live in. [ 68.106.127.101 ] (sig added)
The use of the term "collaborate" is highly POV. Israel has offered the Golan Druze citizenship, the older generation has repudiated it, the younger generation generally accepted it. "Collaborate" implies a great deal more. Jayjg 14:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Israeli state" is a bizarre usage; the term is "Israel". "Israeli state" uses two longer words to describe what is better said in one word. Jayjg 14:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Do the Druze do anything else besides refuse citizenship? Do they refuse to pay Israeli taxes, disobey Israeli laws, or whatnot? If so, mention it—specificity beats vagueness every time. —No-One Jones 02:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Judaism and Christianity are not hierarchical
Judaism is not a "hierarchical" religion; in fact, it has little formal structure, as religious authorities are not centrally controlled, and have only as much authority as individual Jews are willing to grant them (which, more often than not, is none). Protestant Christianity is also often non-hierarchical; most denominations pride themselves on this, in contrast to the Roman Catholic church, which is decidedly and formally hierarchical. In fact, Christianity is so broad and varied saying just about anything about Christianity as a whole is bound to be false. Jayjg 14:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- 'Christianity is so broad and varied saying just about anything about Christianity as a whole is bound to be false' - In that case I guess we all better shut up about Christianity because it might offend you... --Xed 01:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This is not about me or my feelings, Xed, it's about the facts. Much of Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity, eschews hierarchy, precisely because Catholicism has it. It's all part and parcel of the repudiation of the Catholic church that devolves from Martin Luther's original doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As for Judaism, I don't know what "hierarchy" you are referring to in the article, perhaps you can explain here. Jayjg 01:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg is wrong about Christianity; probably the majority of Christians belong to sects (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, many varieties of Lutheranism, the Anglican communion, and maybe some I've forgotten) that have some sort of hierarchy. However, this dispute is both tiresome and unnecessary—it is sufficient to say that the Druze have little religious hierarchy without dragging in these comparisons. —No-One Jones 02:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, undoubtedly the majority of Christians belong to sects which have strong hierarchies; Catholics alone arguably comprise a majority. Them, plus the other groups you mention, plus other groups like Mormons definitely form a majority. Of course, one could quibble about who a real "Christian" is, but that's a debate best avoided like the plague. Regardless, that still leaves several hundred million Christians without any particular hierarchy, a not insignificant number, which is why I preferred Catholic, the largest Christian group with arguably the best known and developed hierarchy. That said, your edit is even better. :-) Jayjg 02:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Christianity and Judaism as a whole have no hierarchies that represent all of the membes of their faiths; both Christians and Jews form religious hierarchical religious bodies that represent themselves, but they don't represent other members of their faiths. The Roman Catholic is perhaps the best example of one such body, both for its size and its degree of organization for its size. Lorem Ipsum 20:40 7 Sept. 2005 (UTC)
Pennant
This flag has been made up. It is not flown anywhere to identify Druze, except on the pages of Wikipedia. Why not make up a Druze coat-of-arms too, while we're playing? Wetman 09:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See:
-
Also try Google for more information.
Perhaps the star and the stripes/star variant should be shown as well. --Pjacobi 10:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We are not trying to creat a flag here. Wikipedia should check the information and display the right flag that is only 5 colored strips. We are not playing, no !! nizarmahmoud@hotmail.com
- It seems a little strange that a group who are famously secretive and take pains to blend in with other religions should have a flag, don't you think?
Monotheism
@Jayig: Not only are the Christians by self-labelling monotheistic, but also (to quote your nemesis):
Most Jews and Muslims see the Trinity as a sincere attempt to be monotheistic. Thus, most Jewish and Muslim critics of the Trinity don't claim that it is the worship of three separate Gods; rather, they say that Chrisitians attempt to worship one god, but at the same time acknowledge three distinct persons within that god. Given Mulim and Jewish definitions of these terms, the resulting Christian worship has the appearance (to Muslims and Jews) of cognitive dissonance. The way that Jewish law deals with this is by saying that such worship is legally considered monotheism, as long as gentiles are doing it; however, this type of worship is forbidden by Jewish law to Jews. (The law itself is an example of cognative dissonance, but the rabbis were well aware of this. They are trying to legally find a way to hold onto their beliefs, without condemning Christianity. For this issue, they were not looking for philosophical clarity.) I am not sure how Muslims or other strict unitarian monotheists formally deal with this issue. User:RK
- From Talk:Monotheism
Do you have specific evidence of the Druzes accusing the Christians for not beeing monotheistic. Otherwise I'm rather tempted to revert your last edit. --Pjacobi 17:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- To begin with, my own edit was simply the reversion of an anonymous insertion. Next, RK's views of what "most Jews and Muslims" believe are inaccurate. Finally, what Trinitarians view as monotheism is not viewed by Muslims and Jews as monotheism; rather, Jews view it as "shituf", and Muslims view it as "shirk". Each word essentially means "association", and it is considered a sin for members of both faiths. The article itself says that Druze are monotheists "like Jews and Muslims"; the Trinitarianism of the vast majority of Christians, regardless of whether or not one views it as monotheism (and not even all Christians do), is quite different from the monotheism of Judaism and Islam. Furthermore, as the article points out, the Druze call themselves Ahl al-Tawheed (sons of the Unity). If you look at the Tawheed article you will note immediately that it relates to the Muslim (not Christian) concept of monotheism. Jayjg 18:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thinking again about this formulation, I can see that the sentence under inspection:
- They are monotheists, like Jews and Muslims.
Can be read in two ways (at least for me, not being a native speaker of english):
- (a) They are monotheists, in the same way as Jews and Muslims.
- (b) They are monotheists. Other prominent monotheists are Jews and Muslims.
IMHO (a) is perfectly valid statement (despite some minor voices who explicitely claim that trinatarism is compatible with Druze beliefs). Only reading (b) has a problem, and all disputes about the possibile POV-ness of (b) should go into Monotheism, not into Druze.
So if anyone can propose a formulation which emphasizes the (a) reading in a stylistally acceptable way, all can agree, right?
Pjacobi 20:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- a) is fine with me. Jayjg 20:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the above information should not be compared when you are defining a religion. You should stated facts only. Nizar
