Talk:Shriners/Archive 1

Archive 1

Some famous Shriners

Of the Shriners listed, not all of them are even listed as Freemasons, a prerequisit to the Shrine. Also, Cat:Shriners are not on a lot of their article pages. I suggest verifying each's Masonic (& Shrine) affiliation here: List of Freemasons, with citation & source; Then adding them here: List of Freemasons, Then adding Cat:Freremasons & Cat:Shriners to their articles. In the absence of this, I'd suggest removing them from this list. I will do all this myself, sooner or later, if it goes undone... Grye 08:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed & 100% adjusted

I would probably tend to delete this part of the talk section after completing this project, as I would hope the evolution of this issue, & it's resolution, would tend to make it redundant, by way of certain policies & watchguards being learned/enacted/etc. It's mostly a kind of workboard. Just a thought Grye 09:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Harold Lloyd
• Douglas MacArthur
• Sam Nunn
• Arnold Palmer

circus

are shriner circus performers necessarily shriners?

~thansk. Xah P0lyglut 09:49, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)

As I understand it, no. The Shrine contracts out the actual circus part of it. (That all I need, a requirement to sell the tickets AND the peanuts!

Paul, in Saudi

You have misunderstood. The Shrine Circus is put on by the local Shriners. Some, but not all of the local Shriners use their own clown unit for the circus. (one who knows)

No, not all the performers in the circus are Shriners. Grye 11:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously slanted, and it doesn't give any source.

This article suffers from persistant vandalism by bigots (as above) and others. Don't mind it - just remove it when it turns up if you are so inclined. Rklawton 21:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Clown society?

I was hoping that referring to the Shriners as a Clown society would not be offensive. I put it in. Any objections? Tom Lougheed 02:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You need a source for the anthropological citation. MSJapan 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article's vandal-du-jour has tagged a section NPOV. Rather than revert it, though, I thought it might make an interesting discussion. Those who feel there's a POV problem with this section are invited to make edit suggestions. Rklawton 00:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: I deleted the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) dispute mark. I was editing the part about using "Shriners" instead of "Temple" and thought it was better to wipe it out. I say that a person claiming NPOV is editorially obliged to say why and what on the discussion page. Tom Lougheed 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll find the explanation in the "Shriner's History" section below. His citations are all well known, non-academic works by folks with axes to grind. Rklawton 05:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As per MSJapan's demand on the talk page, I have specified my cleanup tag to an NPOV tag...although, despite his blunt reply to my change, the page still needs cleanup. The article as it is now has a very critical tone, with words put into quotes in an unncessary and mocking way and ouright offensive statements, esp. in the History section. KyleGarvey 02:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a cleanup issue at all, which is why I was blunt, especially since I had just cleaned the article up. First of all it's not in such bad shape that it need to go into the main cleanup pool (which is backlogged already) - the quotes are just because someone didn't know how to italicize, and the History is entirely correct as far as I know, having heard Shriners give presentations on the organization. I'm going to look into the "Mosques" thing, because that I'm not sure of. In short, though, an NPOV issue is an NPOV issue, not a cleanup issue. However, I'd be interested to know exactly what it is that you feel is negatively POV, and why you believe it to be such, and please put it in a new section.MSJapan 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The quotations used in this article is not meant to be "unncessary and mocking way and ouright offensive statements." The quotation marks are used to make a distinction between the way Shriners use these terms and the word's common usages. When a Shriner says "Mosque", he does not mean a "place of worship for the Islamic Faith." He means a "building used for the fraternal functions of the Shrine," which is non standard usage. Although quotations can be used to mock or show irony, they can also point out non-standard usage of words and thus does not make this page POV. Chtirrell 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is a hype for the Shriners

As said the Talk Page of the article on a GOP politician, this article is a promotional page of the Shriner's and not a true wikipedian page : Where is the Criticism Section ? There is none. It's a defaultless organization ? They don't lie ? They don't hide any skeleton in their closet ? What about the Alliance between the Freemasonry of the P-2 Lodge and La Cosa Nostra ? (See "Gladio" article) What about the tentative of the Shriner Douglas MacArthur to genocide the Chinese people with A-bombs http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html

What about the racists-warhawks like Jesse Helsm, Jack Kemp and Strom Thurmond ?

etc., etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodall (talk • contribs)

I'll respond for completeness' sake - What's there to criticize the Shriners about? P2 and the Mafia have nothing to do with the Shrine. Lastly, how does MacArthur's personal ideas have anything to do with the Shrine? I think you grossly misunderstand what you're attempting to talk about. MSJapan 01:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Masons and the Shriner's are supposed to be a "FRATERNAL" organizations; where is the fraternity in attempting to genocide the Chinese People ? Why these organizations don't expelled such neo-nazis ? Why the imperialists and warmongers of UK and US fill the Masons and the Shriners if these organizations are so "nice" ? Why do they just accept the rich and powerful ones in her ranks ? Why these tiny sects are so hyper-represented ?

etc., etc.

Rodall

You still didn't answer the question I asked, and what you've said has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I don't recall MacArthur bombing the Chinese, and even if he did, I fail to see the relevance (or any proof) of the argument. I would also be very careful about tossing words like "neo-nazi" around, especially when they don't apply. Lastly, your biggest mistake is that you assume that every action ever taken in public and private life by a Mason is somehow related to Masonry, which is patently ridiculous. You also clearly have no idea what Masonry is about save your own misguided ideas. This is not a place for soapboxing. MSJapan 10:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticizing the Shriners for the views and actions of members is like criticizing watercolor painting because Hitler painted.Saxophobia 01:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know this is a bit old... but genocide? Chinese? You ARE talking about the same China that killed more Tibetans than Hitler killed Jews, right? THAT China? Genocide OF Chinese? Was that purely the CHINESE Freemasons that did that? Yeah, OK, so what was your arguement ?-) Grye 09:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Today's New York Times contained a front page article about inappropriate co-mingling of funds (between money raised for the Hospitals and funds raised for entertainment etc.) as well as other financial problems in the Shrine. Be prepared for lots of POV pushers coming by and wanting to add this negative info. Perhaps an ounce of prevention is in order?... ie the regular editors to this page should add something on the NYT article themselves, to prevent the discussion being controled by POV pushers. Blueboar 13:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the article, and there's pages of rebuttal, so I simply cut the one-sided addition and left the link to the story. MSJapan 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I botched the title...

so I'm waiting for an admin to put this in the right place, and then I will fix the redirects. MSJapan 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

the 2000 decision on Shrine membership

This probably has no place in the main article, so I'm airing my views here. The 2000 decision to admit 3rd Degree Masons directly to the Shrine has brought more (and younger) brothers into the organization, but at the cost of a sharp drop in membership in the rites- particularly the York Rite. There may come a time when the Shrine admits members directly, without the requirement of their being Masons.Saxophobia 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, from a membership standpoint, is it better to have inflated numbers in the Rites from members who don't come to meetings, and only pay dues to those groups because they wanted to join the Shrine, or is it better to have members who join the Rites because they are interested in and will be active participants in those Rites? MSJapan 02:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I wonder about those men who go directly into the Shrine from their third degree- they may end up as fine Shriners but will they know enough about Masonry? Here in Albany NY (a typical masonic jurisdiction) a man may go from Candidate to Master Mason within the space of three months, or at least within one year. If the Shrine fills up with men who have taken the short cut, I think it's in danger of losing its individual character and just becoming a service organization. (I qualify my remarks by stating that I am not a member of the Shrine)Saxophobia 21:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the article points out, the Shrine is very different from Blue Lodge Masonry. Frankly, one doesn't have to know a lot about Masonry to join the Shrine, and one certainly doesn't know a lot about Masonry just by going through one of the Rites. I think your statement is totally unfounded - since you haven't joined the Shrine you have no basis for the comparison and statement you make. I mean, how do you know what the character of the Shrine is if you're not part of it? I would be interested to see if you have a different mindset after actually joining. MSJapan 16:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That was actually proposed recently, that anyone could join the Shrine, the result being that 3° Masons can join Shrine. The problem is that, in the USA, any Masonic group must be composed of 100% Master Masons to be a Masonic group. So, when the Shrine accepts non-Masons, it will no longer be a Masonic Organization. Grye 09:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Saxophobia has missed the point of Shrine membership. The Shrine is not intrinsically a "Masonic" organization. That is, no Masonic status of any kind is conferred on a man by joining the Shrine. If a man wants "more light" in Masonry beyond the blue lodge, he should join a "Masonic" organization that does confer Masonic degrees, like the York or Scottish Rites. But, to imply that you need to take the York or Scottish Rite degrees first so that you are better prepared to understand the Shrine ritual is simply wrong. There is nothing in Shrine ritual of a Masonic nature. So a non-Mason is just as "ready" to take the Shrine ritual as a Master Mason is. He fears the Shrine becoming "just a service organization." What did he think it was? I have to agree with MSJapan, in that "one doesn't have to know a lot about Masonry to join the Shrine."PGNormand 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to become a Noble on November 10th, so perhaps it is time to step back into this topic of discussion. I might agree that "one doesn't have to know a lot about Masonry to join the Shrine" but it certainly doesn't hurt, and non-masonic members might be likely to feel slightly excluded at times. And to PGNormand, I'll reply that Yes, the Shrine IS a service organization, but it is much more than that.Saxophobia 14:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shriners.png

Image:Shriners.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot doesn't understand redirects, apparently: template removed.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone?

Freemasonry is ostensibly a fraternity designed to create fellowship and benevolence, yet its secrecy makes many people wary. The Shriners, on the other hand, present a public image of a fun-time group, yet they pour millions of dollars into charity, all the while dressed up in a party spirit, wearing their Red Fezzes with great aplomb.

Something about the tone there just doesn't sound right, but I don't know quite how to fix it. What do others think? —Rob (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's altogether inaccurate, and it's also a bit weaselly and POV (it makes a general statement via anonymous attribution, and "ostensibly" implies an ulterior motive), so I actually went ahead and took it out, because it doesn't add to the article at all. So that problem is fixed. I also did some other format adjustment, and dropped a fact tag in as well. Personally, I think the section separations need work. MSJapan 23:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading all this is amusing. As a Mason for 25 years and a Shriner for 12, I have to wonder where people come up with this stuff. I always enjoy reading what people tell me I believe or what I believe in. Has anyone here attended a Masonic or Shrine ceremony to actually know what goes on? Gary, June 13,2006

Actually, some of us have. Having just gone through the Shrine myself, I'd say that there isn't anything wrong with this article - it explains the origins of the Shrine (and I've heard that twice), it explains what Shriners do (though more info on units is needed), and of course, the hospitals. I think you may misunderstand the point of the article, and if not, a vague "this is pretty funny" really doesn't help anybody here to address what you see as a problem. MSJapan 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, you misunderstood what I was talking about. I have no problem with the article. I was addressing the comments made about Masons and Shriners in this discussion. A "vague, this is funny" seems more than appropriate for what I was addressing. Gary 6-14-06

I have gone through my Shrine initiation and can attest that while there was no clowning during the ceremony, the tone was light- especially in contrast to the great seriousness of other Masonic ceremonies. (I was informed later that the procedings would have been more comic if there had been enough Nobles present to make up an Oriental Band to crash cymbals and blow horns)Saxophobia (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

I removed the two external links posted in that section by User:Documentator20, whose whopping three total edits (within 20 minutes of creating the account) were all bad. First of all, there is no controversy involved; court cases are not by nature controversy. The supposed Jesters one doesn't mention either the Jesters or the Shrine by name, so it is defamatory to state that it is. The hospital CFO case note lays the blame entirely on the individual, and the hospital was the plaintiff, so I fail to see the "controversy" there either - just because someone gets caught stealing money from the place they work for, it doesn't make the place complicit in the crime. MSJapan (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Shriners and Nation of Islam

The Wikipedia page on the Fruit of Islam-the Nation of Islam's paramilitary guard-makes references to the Shriners. Could a member of the Shriners comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreed100 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for that kind of discussion, but it is an interesting statement (though your paraphrase is incorrect). The article states that members are taught "Masonic history" (whatever their definition of it is), which includes the Shriners (for whatever reason). It's not cited to a source, so in general, one can't even say that it's true. The article also doesn't explain why that history is relevant, so there's no possible way for anyone to comment on it. The article is also not written well in places (including that section), so it may not be legitimate information. MSJapan (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. I am not interested in how poorly the article was written. Can someone comment about the supposed connection, if indeed there is one? Has any research been done? This is the kind of forum for this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreed100 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC) The Nation of Islam is not connected with the Shriners. The reference of Masonic and Shrine from the nation are taught in their lessons.The Honorable Elijah Muhammad was a Master Mason and he wrote a book called The Secrets of Freemasonry. This book gives the understanding that he had about the knowledge and wisdom of the scriptures. The Shriners are called Muslim Sons. Because of the length of time it took to become a Shriner, being 35-50 yrs. according to those days and times of Muhammads time. The Nation is its own body. Freemasonry and Shrinedom are Fraternities. What you put in them you will get out of them. What is not of the Ancient Landmarks are not right and exact in the realm of this fraternity only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.110.162 (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Shriners per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 06:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine → Shriners International — While AAONMS is the traditional name of the organization, a Google News search suggests its official title has been "Shriners International" since at least the mid-90s.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's a question of common name. No Shriner calls Shriners SI, and it doesn't apply to individual Shrine Centers; it is an appellation used to refer to the HQ in Tampa, FL. That's why it's mainly news hits. The name has not changed otherwise, as all individual Shrines still use AAONMS. No non-Shriner is ever going to find the article if it's under SI (or understand why it's there), so I would much rather we left it as-is and added something to the effect into the current article. MSJapan (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  Well, if we're going by WP:COMMONNAME, it should just be under "Shriners". Also, http://ShrinersHQ.org/ShrinersHQ states "Shriners International is a fraternity based on fun, fellowship and the Masonic principles of brotherly love, relief and truth." Maybe no Shriner would look under "Shriners International", but what non-Shriner would look under AAONMS?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  That's a redirect to here. Maybe just do the same with SI? MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree (although I don't insist) that the article title should probably be "Shriners" (as being most common), with any "official names" noted in the lede (and redirecting to "Shriners"). But if we don't go that route, then I would keep it at the current title. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with the above - it should be called Shriners per common name.--Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Shrinerstatue.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shrinerstatue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Shrinerstatue.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Historic Image?

Arab Patrol from Al Malaikah Temple, Los Angeles, circa 1925

I recently added this historic PD image to the article. User:MSJapan deleted it, commenting "not indicative of anything, and therefore not really needed.)

I think it's an interesting historic image, showing a Shriner event from 80-some years ago, and a nice addition to our article. Other opinions? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What event? What are the subjects doing? Your picture has absolutely no context. Since there's no way to tell what's going on, what possible illustrative use does this photo have for the article? What does the photo add to the article that wasn't there before? MSJapan (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they are doing a strut called the "Camel Walk". Look it up on YouTube or wherever. It is done at parties by Shriners who go around in a circle to music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDNLbZmLINo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.20.37 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an Old Shriner can help out here? Unfortunately the original newspaper article that accompanied the photo wasn't archived. I'd liked to know the story myself. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd need a current Shriner with an 86-year membership record, so you're talking someone with a minimum age of 108 or so. Not terribly likely. MSJapan (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To me, it looks as if they are doing the "circle-sit" (a group of people stand in a tight circle and then all sit down at the same time)... but I agree that it is not illustrative of anything about the shriners. It used to be a fairly common party game (I remember doing it at birthday parties when I was a kid... along with "pin the tail on the donkey"). Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Without some context, explanation and verifiable source the picture means little but it's the sort of thing a Shrine Oriental Band would do. The spectators are smiling and presumably whatever these Shriners are up to it's entertainment. Wikipedia does not have an article or section about the Shrine Oriental Bands (S.O.B.) but you can get some information at http://www.asob.org/. The turned up boots are also of a style S.O.B. members would use and the only thing missing that could confirm this as a S.O.B. is the lack of Arabic regalia. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shriners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101009131353/http://www.shrinersaustralia.com:80/ to http://www.shrinersaustralia.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed material re Shrine's status with certain Grand Lodges

I removed some material that claims that Shriners International was declared clandestine by UGLE and GL of Arkansas. I've tried to find sources for this claim but I cannot.

It appears that the GL of Michigan withdrew recognition from SI in 2011. I'm not sure if that's still in effect, but since I can't find a source to the contrary, I left up a statement noting that the GL of Michigan does not recognize SI. I also removed a section that cautioned Masons against joining the Shriners because it might jeopardize their Blue Lodge standing. While this might be true in Michigan (if the order is still in effect), it sounds like FUD and it's otherwise unencyclopedic. That's a discussion better suited for a Masonic web forum or blog. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Shriners in Prince Hall Masonry?

Doesn't Prince Hall Freemasonry have it's own version of the Shriners connected to it? I'm going to be honest, I'm not certain if it's considered thw same as the one that is largely populated by mainstream Masons or not. If they do, wouldn't its history be of some relevance for the article? Pepe Oats (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a Prince Hall affiliated version of the Shrine called "Ancient Egyptian Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine." Most people call them "Prince Hall Shriners" as shorthand. It wouldn't be suitable for this article, though, since this article refers to the entity specifically known as Shriners International - both legally and conceptually different than AEAONMS. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Does the quoted obligation come from a reliable source?

The article quotes what purports to be the obligation of a Shriner. (I'm personally not a Shriner, so I can't vouch.) The quote appears to come from a book entitled "The Mystic Shrine Illustrated: The Full Illustrated Ritual of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine" by an anonymous author. There is a version of this book available on Amazon attributed to "John Blanchard", but that version appears to be a reprint of an earlier version by an anonymous author.

I cannot find any sources that would indicate that "The Mystic Shrine Illustrated: The Full Illustrated Ritual of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine" is a reliable source. In fact, what little I can find in the way of reviews (such as on Amazon) seem to indicate that it is not accurate and does not match up to the ritual performed by the Shriners.

I wanted to open this up for comment, if anyone is interested. If not, I'll delete the quote in a few days because it does not appear that it comes from a reliable source. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say remove it unless a more reliable source is found. If the information is accurate, there should be no reason why reliable sources shouldn't be found. While I am not a Shriner, I think it's safe to assume that such a public and well known organization would have some documentation somewhere that we can rely on for things like obligations and ceremonies.Pepe Oats (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I think I'll remove it. I did some further digging out of curiosity and found that the originally anonymously-published work was intended to be an anti-Shriner expose. This is made clear in an explanatory note at the end, in which the publisher talks about opposing all secret societies. These exposes are notoriously inaccurate and, even if it were true, would reflect a ritual that's over 100 years old and may have changed since then. Thanks for your input. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Shriner History

The Shriner's blood oath and confession of Allah as God is documented in the secret Lodge document, THE MYSTIC SHRINE, AN ILLUSTRATED RITUAL OF THE ANCIENT ARABIC ORDER NOBLES OF THE SHRINE, 1975 Edition, (pages 20-22). Remember that Allah is not just another name for God. Allah is the name of another god. In usual occult fashion, the initiate swears that he will be inseparably obligated to this "most powerful and binding oath", in advance, and that he may NEVER retract or depart from it.

"The Fez itself, is an example of this double meaning behind most of Freemasonry's facade. Worn and even carried to the grave with pompous dignity, the history of the Fez is barbaric and anti-Christian. In the early 8th century, Muslim hordes overran the Moroccan city of Fez, shouting, "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." There, they butchered approximately 50,000 Christians. These men, women and children were slain because of their faith in Christ, all in the name of Allah, the same demon god to whom every Shriner must bow, with hands tied behind his back, in worship, proclaiming him the god of his fathers in the Shrine initiation , at the Altar of Obligation."

http://www.saintsalive.com/freemasonry/fmsatansdoor.html http://newsletters.cephasministry.com/masonry_lucifers_network.html

We see perhaps the roots of this factual occurence here in an old text entitled: "The Works of Aphra Behn, Volume II" Behn, Aphra, 1640-1689

"King _Philip_ made a War in _Barbary_, Won _Tunis_, conquer'd Fez, and hand to hand Slew great _Abdela_, King of _Fez_, and Father To this _Barbarian_ Prince. _Abd_. … you fit me for Despairs, That may instruct me how to follow him in Death: Yet as I'm Prince o'th' Blood, and Cardinal too, You cannot be my Judges. _Abd_. You shall be try'd, Sir, as becomes your Quality. _Osmin_, … 'tis my Moor,--give him admittance strait, The Thought comes o'er me like a gentle Gale, Raising my Blood into a thousand Curls"

The jist being that the Moors sought and achieved revenge against King Philip for the sacking of Fez.

Of the their little known sect, it is written "The Fatimids (8th century) propped up their power by gathering the Ishmaelites into a Grand Lodge of complex initiations and hierarchical degrees; the members were used for political espionage and intrigue; the forms of the order were transmitted to Jerusalem and Europe and strongly influenced the organization, garb and ritual of the Templars, the Illuminati,and other secret fraternities of the western world. The American (Masonic) businessman is periodically a zealous Mohammedan, proud of his secret doctrine, his Moroccan fez and his Moslem shrine." (The Age of Faith, Will Durant p 289).

The Age of Faith: A History of Medieval Civilization -Christian, Islamic, and Judaic - from Constantine to Dante A.D. 325-1300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.155.4 (talk • contribs)

Here are a few suggestions regarding the information you wish to ad to the article. First, stating that Allah is (or isn't) God is POV and unacceptable in an article about Shriners. However, it might make an interesting section in the Allah article. Likewise, the ancillary information you have about the Fez belongs in the Fez (clothing) article. The reference to the secret oath needs better documentation (ISBN, etc.), that shouldn't be any problem, and it may well give you a reason to link to the Allah article (though I don't know anything about a Shriner's oaths). The article could use significant expansion regarding a Shriner's intentions regarding any oaths. However, the possibility that a Shriner intends to serve anything other than the Creator of the Universe seems rather remote given the Shriners' dedication to fulfilling several Biblical commands regarding children, the sick, and charity. Lastly, one should remember that sometimes a silly hat is just a silly hat. Rklawton 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to your remarks, stating whether or not Allah is or is not God is completely moot since the quote I mentioned had no intention of positing this as fact. It merely mentions that the Allah being referred to is in fact a single and separate ancient God as there were many in the polytheistic religions at that time.

As far as POV'ing lets take a quick look at your response and see how many things we can pull out that one might argue are "POV":

POV: "stating that Allah is (or isn't) God is POV"

POV: "The reference to the secret oath needs better documentation " (although I tend to agree and have obliged with the request below)

POV: "the possibility that a Shriner intends to serve anything other than the Creator of the Universe seems rather remote given the Shriners' dedication to fulfilling several Biblical commands regarding children, the sick, and charity" Hitler gave out candies to children from time to time, why would people question that he was anything other than part of a vast and benevolant childrens organization?

POV: "Lastly, one should remember that sometimes a silly hat is just a silly hat." That's an absurd insinuation, when discussing an organization as heavily steeped in symbolism as The Shriners are and Freemasons in general.

The Age of Faith (The Story of Civilization, Volume 4) (Story of Civilization) ISBN: 0671012002 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671012002/104-4296238-8175903?v=glance&n=283155

The Works of Aphra Behn, Volume II by Aphra Behn EText-No. 8885 http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8885

THE MYSTIC SHRINE ILLUSTRATED By: John Blanchard eBook 126317 http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/126317-ebook.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.155.4 (talk • contribs)

Your arguments and citations are so absurd they speak for themselves. I see little need to elaborate upon them. It's not that I don't wish to engage in an intelligent debate, it's just that I find myself waiting for you to begin. Rklawton 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That's exactly what everyone said would happen if I tried to breathe some truth into the one of many Wikipedia disinformation campaigns! Bravo! You are obviously towing the disinformationist line very well and I wouldn't hesitate to guess that you should expect to make it to "the next level" in no time flat. Let's very quickly examine what we have: "You're arguments and citations are so absurd they speak themselves" I'd argue that I in fact made no arguments, I simply pointed out your glaringly oversimplistic POV and weak command of the English language.

"It's not that I don't wish to engage in an intelligent debate" Double negatives are intelligent? Since when?

"it's just that I find myself waiting for you to begin" Really!? I suppose you have already read all the material I've referenced and that is why you have such deep well-thought-out and intelligent responses to the issues I've attempted to bring to public attention.

Before I waste yet another minute of my precious and limited time responding to nonstatements/nonarguments here with the Wiki-weaky people I'll simply wish you all the best! =)

Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.155.4 (talk • contribs)

Arabic-speaking Christians (about 5% of the Arab World) also use the word "Allah" for God. Bostoner (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, "Allah" and "Yaweh" are the same word; both trace their origins to the now-extinct ancestral Semitic language that eventually gave rise to both Arabic and Hebrew. Laodah 04:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)