Iraqi Shias protest against US troops

Oh, I agree. Sometimes they even take to calling their opponent an extremist, even when the opponent's held the same, reserved position he always had. And people see this change, and they begin to wonder: what happened? Why the change? Were they always extremists and didn't know it? Or maybe, at the core, it's an article of their belief system, or maybe it's the result of a little too much pushing, or maybe a little too much truth, or maybe just that that someone gets backed up against those same articles of faith, handed down by some mythical deity, and doesn't know which way to jump - but not forward. Not that. That would be a betrayal, of...something. Something they've never seen, never touched, but only felt inside - a little tremble they convinced themselves they felt one day, in that sunshine, in that place, chest ringing to the force of the human voice, not knowing why they felt this way but needing something to cling to to keep away the terrors at the fringes, the fear of being helpless and alive, like an animal. A little something; man, god, give me something. Don't let me fall into the black, they think, and they'll do anything to convince themselves they won't.

So in the end, it doesn't really matter how often you win the rounds - their attitude doesn't change.

Then again, on the internet, no one's ever really does.
 
Oh, I agree. Sometimes they even take to calling their opponent an extremist, even when the opponent's held the same, reserved position he always had. And people see this change, and they begin to wonder: what happened? Why the change? Were they always extremists and didn't know it? Or maybe, at the core, it's an article of their belief system, or maybe it's the result of a little too much pushing, or maybe a little too much truth, or maybe just that that someone gets backed up against those same articles of faith, handed down by some mythical deity, and doesn't know which way to jump - but not forward. Not that. That would be a betrayal, of...something. Something they've never seen, never touched, but only felt inside - a little tremble they convinced themselves they felt one day, in that sunshine, in that place, chest ringing to the force of the human voice, not knowing why they felt this way but needing something to cling to to keep away the terrors at the fringes, the fear of being helpless and alive, like an animal. A little something; man, god, give me something. Don't let me fall into the black, they think, and they'll do anything to convince themselves they won't.

So in the end, it doesn't really matter how often you win the rounds - their attitude doesn't change.

Then again, on the internet, no one's ever really does.

Boy you try hard, I'll give you that.

Maybe you should take up writing fiction, instead of presuming motives and emotions that don't exist.:p

Its pretty frustrating talking to idiots who don't know what they are talking about when you've actually taken the trouble to study and travel before reaching your own conclusions. :D
 
I have decided atheists are the most irrational people I have ever met, they completely ignore reality and facts for their foolish notions.:D
On that note.... I was wondering, it was easy for me to ramble off many of the inventions, concepts and philosophies etc.. of the polytheistic Greek and Egyptians and Romans so I still wondered, during the Islamic Golden Age what, in your opinion, is:

1) The VERY top Islamic discovery? The Islamic idea or invention that stands out above all the rest. Something that changed the World.
2) The best Islamic athletic sport developed (I personally see sport as a defining trait of civilization itself)?
3) The top sculpture or bronzing technique developed (can you provide a pic of the sculpture - what was inventive or spacial about it)?
4) The best engineering feat accomplished?
5) The biggest advancement in Medicine?
6) The best example of Islamic architecture?
8) The best plays written (who was the Shakespeare of the ME)?
9) The top Mathematical advancement (who was the Newton of the ME)?
10) The most novel Philosophy? (Who was the Plato, Socrates, Aristotle)?


You say that without Islam Europe would have languished in a putrid state of the dark ages. Yet, I maintain no that is not the case. The Europeans, (if we include the Romans and Greeks as Europeans) had already created such sophisticated philosophies, mathematics, sports, architecture, medicine, sculptures, plays, etc.. before Islam that I fail to see what these people would need Islam to do it again? Is that irrational? Why is it? I fail to see how that is irrational? It makes good sense, the Europeans invested this stuff once they had many copies of the work in Roma, and even without them they could invest this stuff again.

As the last European ice age ended and the common folk started washing (in violation of the stupid Church who thought washing was a sin) the plagues stopped occurring as frequently and the Church's teeth were pulled and as monotheism was no longer a noose around the neck of European ingenuity they developed as they had before monotheism.



Anyway, I am very curious to see this list. That's because so many Muslims have told me this over and over (Europe is only successful purely because of Mohammad :bugeye: ) that I am genuinely curious to see what they are.


Michael
 
Oh, I agree. Sometimes they even take to calling their opponent an extremist, even when the opponent's held the same, reserved position he always had. And people see this change, and they begin to wonder: what happened? Why the change? Were they always extremists and didn't know it? Or maybe, at the core, it's an article of their belief system, or maybe it's the result of a little too much pushing, or maybe a little too much truth, or maybe just that that someone gets backed up against those same articles of faith, handed down by some mythical deity, and doesn't know which way to jump - but not forward. Not that. That would be a betrayal, of...something. Something they've never seen, never touched, but only felt inside - a little tremble they convinced themselves they felt one day, in that sunshine, in that place, chest ringing to the force of the human voice, not knowing why they felt this way but needing something to cling to to keep away the terrors at the fringes, the fear of being helpless and alive, like an animal. A little something; man, god, give me something. Don't let me fall into the black, they think, and they'll do anything to convince themselves they won't.

So in the end, it doesn't really matter how often you win the rounds - their attitude doesn't change.
Hey I missed this - it's good stuff :)
 
Mirza Asadullah Baig Khan, born in Agra (1796) to parents with Turkish aristocratic ancestry is considered to be the most dominating poet of the Urdu language. While he didn't achieve fame during his lifetime, history has vindicated him and he is is the most "written about" among Urdu poets.


Of what I could find in English translations, this would be the one I liked the most.

(note: This is poem is not about love, but of love. One of many an emotion)

The joy of the drop is to die in the river
when pain is cureless pain is lost

Our weakness has weakened even our tears
desperate and hoping this water is air

Spring clear after heavy rains it seems the cloud
has wept and died in its grief completely

To understand the wonder of an air that cleans
see how moss on the mirror grows in spring

The rose is budding a desire for its witness
her color and shape are silent but listen


So? what do you think of this poem? I like it. That said, I'm afraid that without being literate in the Urdu language this is about as much as I could do research wise.


Michael II
 
You have good taste: you found Ghalib. He is my one true love. :)
Why thank you :)

I was also seriously looking for the quintessential "Islamic" Golden Age example of sculpture and I haven't been able to find much of anything??? Maybe I don't know who to look up? There just isn't much out there? So? Who is the shining example of "Islamic" sculpture?

Can you post some representative pieces of their's, or anyone's, work in stone?


Michael


A book my friends wants me to read:

Criticism of Ascribing The Golden Age to Islam

The issue of Islamic Civilization being a misnomer has been raised by a number of recent scholars such as the secular Iranian historian, Dr. Shoja-e-din Shafa in his recent controversial books titled Rebirth (Persian: تولدى ديگر) and After 1400 Years (Persian: پس از 1400 سال) manifesting the intrinsic contradiction of expressions like "Islamic civilization", "Islamic science", "Islamic medicine", "Islamic astronomy", "Islamic scientists", etc. Shafa states that while religion has been a cardinal foundation for nearly all empires of antiquity to derive their authority from, it does not possess adequate defining factors to advance a kingdom or domain in accumulation and furtherance of science, technology, arts, and culture in a way to justify attribution of such developments to existence and practice of a certain faith within that realm. While various empires in the course of mankind's history advocated and officialized the religion they deemed most appropriate to exercise their absolute authority over the masses, we never ascribe their achievements to the faith they practiced. Ergo, using Islamic attribute for the abovementioned terms is as impertinent as arbitrary concocted namings such as "Christian Civilization" for totality of "Roman Empire" as of Constantine I's reign onwards, "Byzantine Empire" and all subsequent European empires that advocated Christianity one way or another; or "Zoroastrian Architecture" for all the architectural innovations and marvels that pre-Islamic Persian Empire later subsequently loaned to its Muslim conquerers.
 
Why thank you :)

I was also seriously looking for the quintessential "Islamic" Golden Age example of sculpture and I haven't been able to find much of anything??? Maybe I don't know who to look up? There just isn't much out there? So? Who is the shining example of "Islamic" sculpture?

Can you post some representative pieces of their's, or anyone's, work in stone?


Michael


A book my friends wants me to read:

Criticism of Ascribing The Golden Age to Islam

The issue of Islamic Civilization being a misnomer has been raised by a number of recent scholars such as the secular Iranian historian, Dr. Shoja-e-din Shafa in his recent controversial books titled Rebirth (Persian: تولدى ديگر) and After 1400 Years (Persian: پس از 1400 سال) manifesting the intrinsic contradiction of expressions like "Islamic civilization", "Islamic science", "Islamic medicine", "Islamic astronomy", "Islamic scientists", etc. Shafa states that while religion has been a cardinal foundation for nearly all empires of antiquity to derive their authority from, it does not possess adequate defining factors to advance a kingdom or domain in accumulation and furtherance of science, technology, arts, and culture in a way to justify attribution of such developments to existence and practice of a certain faith within that realm. While various empires in the course of mankind's history advocated and officialized the religion they deemed most appropriate to exercise their absolute authority over the masses, we never ascribe their achievements to the faith they practiced. Ergo, using Islamic attribute for the abovementioned terms is as impertinent as arbitrary concocted namings such as "Christian Civilization" for totality of "Roman Empire" as of Constantine I's reign onwards, "Byzantine Empire" and all subsequent European empires that advocated Christianity one way or another; or "Zoroastrian Architecture" for all the architectural innovations and marvels that pre-Islamic Persian Empire later subsequently loaned to its Muslim conquerers.


Your friends are sweet and obviously unbiased.

Actually, the Arabs were uncomfortable with the Persian culture and wished for a "wall of fire" to separate them from the Persians. And if the Persians and Byzantines had not been fighting over the Arab lands, they might very well have been left alone by the Arabs who wanted only to "unite their brethren" under one system. Of course, neither the Persians nor the Byzantines took the ragheads determination seriously which ultimately left them vulnerable to conquest.

I believe the initial Arabs even forbade conversion to Islam by the Persians since they were uncomfortable with the lavish lifestyles of the Persians and stayed on the outskirts of Persia even after conquering it.

It was the richer Persians who first embraced Islam to enjoy the status quo of being on par with their conquerors, and it was Persian Islam mixed with the rich Persian culture that spread to the rest of the world, through the Turks and Mongols, Far from destroying Persian culture, Islam became the conduit through which Persian culture became the basis of Muslim style.

And its not the Islamic golden age merely for the architecture, but for the way the principles of Islam changed how Arabia communicated with the world, how the Persians responded to the advent of Islam and for the effects that Islam had on the Turks and Mongols, for the widespread trade routes set up from Morrocco to Indonesia and the spread of a religion by cross cultural trade.

And since your research skills were limited by language:
http://www.muslimheritage.com/
 
Last edited:
Your friends are sweet and obviously unbiased.

Actually, the Arabs were uncomfortable with the Persian culture and wished for a "wall of fire" to separate them from the Persians. And if the Persians and Byzantines had not been fighting over the Arab lands, they might very well have been left alone by the Arabs who wanted only to "unite their brethren" under one system. Of course, neither the Persians nor the Byzantines took the ragheads determination seriously which ultimately left them vulnerable to conquest.

I believe the initial Arabs even forbade conversion to Islam by the Persians since they were uncomfortable with the lavish lifestyles of the Persians and stayed on the outskirts of Persia even after conquering it.

It was the richer Persians who first embraced Islam to enjoy the status quo of being on par with their conquerors, and it was Persian Islam mixed with the rich Persian culture that spread to the rest of the world, through the Turks and Mongols, Far from destroying Persian culture, Islam became the conduit through which Persian culture became the basis of Muslim style.
Where did THAT come from?

Sam, do you think it was good that the Persians were militarily conquered by the Arabs? The thousands of civilians murdered, the countless women raped and children killed. Are you trying to justify the conquest of one people by another?

Why in hell would Farsi be be replaced by Arabic?
Think about that for a moment.


What would it take for the Americans to have total conquest and control of Iraq? What would it take to make Iraqis lose their language, culture and religion and replace it with English, American pop-culture and Christianity? Just how much terror for how many generations before they would be willing to do anything to stop the torment. Then you'll have an idea of the terror that Persians must have faced to be forced into the position where they lost their language, they lost their culture and they converted to a new religion and then perhaps you could appreciate why many see the Arabic conquest of Persia far worse than even what the Mongolians did to them.




Anyway, forget about that, you seem to have romanticized War.
Many people do.
Better to forget about the massive rape, murder, torture, starvation, pain and tears and tell yourself some Romantic story about how Arab white knights rode in on their darling camels and saved the poor oppressed Persians from an evil tyrant.


... white knight Americans in their Hummer war chariots save Iraqis from evil tyrant. Iraqis so happy with their conquest quit speaking Arabic, start speaking English and convert to Christianity .... bla bla bla bla ...




Anyway, back to to the stone work - a representative sculpture?

Michael


PS: I seriously do not understand how you can see that the killing and rape and eventual conquest of one people is wrong yet not the other?
 
I didn't know that the Persians or Byzantine were fighting Arabs for control of Mecca or Medina or anywhere else deep within the Arabian Penisila??
Is that true?
Where they really?
I was under the impression they were fighting one another? Why would anyone, such as these two great empires, be fighting over a desert? I really find that hard to believe. Perhaps a few skirmishes with nomadic bandits yes, but to actually go to war with and want control over a desert wasteland? Why? The return would not be worth the investment - espeacially when better picking could be had in Europe.. .. . are you sure you didn't just make that up out of thin air? Just to try and come up with some sort of justification for the resulting carnage?


Has it really come to this?

Michael
 
aside from politics iraq, the idea always gets to me there are people or even children in horrible conditions, situations that hold onto the hope of being rescued, someone will intervene, or a miracle.

there are so many unseen souls that are suffering, desperate and in despair but caught in the political web of this foul world not of their making or condone and have little hope. Sad, it bothers me. The real people that suffer behind the assholes who take up all the news coverage and cause all the problems.
 
I didn't know that the Persians or Byzantine were fighting Arabs for control of Mecca or Medina or anywhere else deep within the Arabian Penisila??
Is that true?
Where they really?
I was under the impression they were fighting one another? Why would anyone, such as these two great empires, be fighting over a desert? I really find that hard to believe. Perhaps a few skirmishes with nomadic bandits yes, but to actually go to war with and want control over a desert wasteland? Why? The return would not be worth the investment - espeacially when better picking could be had in Europe.. .. . are you sure you didn't just make that up out of thin air? Just to try and come up with some sort of justification for the resulting carnage?


Has it really come to this?

Michael

sigh
The Byzantine clients, the Arab Ghassanids, converted to the Monophysite form of Christianity, which was regarded as heretical by the established Byzantine Orthodox Church. The Byzantines attempted to suppress the heresy, alienating the Ghassanids and sparking rebellions on their desert frontiers.

The Lakhmids also revolted against the Persian king Khusrau II. Al-Noman III (son of Al-Monder IV), the first Christian Lakhmid king, was deposed and killed by Khusrau II, because of his attempt to throw off the Persian tutelage. After Khusrau's assassination, the Persian empire fractured and the Lakhmids were effectively independent.

It is tenable that weakening the Lakhmids and the Ghassanids bulwark contributed to the consequent Arab-Muslim breakthrough into Iraq and Bahrain.

The main military commander of the Muslims, Khalid ibn al-Walid, was able to conquer most of Mesopotamia (Iraq) from the Persians in a span of nine months, from April 633 until January 634, after a series of battles. The following are some of the most significant battles fought between the Muslim Arabs and the Persians in Mesopotamia.
Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature. The new non-Muslim subjects, or dhimmi, were to pay a special tax, the jizya or poll tax, which was calculated per individual at varying rates for men, women and children as determined by Muslim rules but paid collectively by the whole community. In addition, the so-called protected People-of-the-Book were subject to various restrictions of occupation, worship, and dress (Bashear 1997, p. 117).

Mass conversions were neither desired nor allowed, at least in the first few centuries of Arab rule[4][5]. Later such restrictions disappeared.
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Persia

Some background:
When Byzantine armies approached the Persian capital Ctesiphon, the Persian aristocracy deposed Khosrau II by having him assassinated. His successor Kavadh II made peace with Heraclius by restoring all the empire's former territories. The exhausted Sassanid dynasty never recovered from the war. The Sassanids were further weakened by economic decline, heavy taxation from Khosrau II's campaigns, religious unrest, rigid social stratification, and increasing power of the provincial landholders. The Arab armies overwhelmed the sinking state through numerous invasions during the Islamic conquest of Persia. The exhausted Byzantine empire's southern provinces in North Africa and Syria were also lost during the Byzantine-Arab Wars. The Byzantine capital Constantinople survived Arab sieges, haulting further Arab incursion into Europe. Ironically, a combined Persian and Roman army fought against an Arab army under Khalid ibn al-Walid in the Battle of Faraz, though they both lost this last battle against the Arabs during the Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia (now Iraq).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman-Persian_Wars
 
Last edited:
Occupation

Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature. The new non-Muslim subjects, or dhimmi, were to pay a special tax, the jizya or poll tax, which was calculated per individual at varying rates for men, women and children as determined by Muslim rules but paid collectively by the whole community. In addition, the so-called protected People-of-the-Book were subject to various restrictions of occupation, worship, and dress (Bashear 1997, p. 117).

Mass conversions were neither desired nor allowed, at least in the first few centuries of Arab rule. Later such restrictions disappeared.

Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, had made it clear that the "People of the Book", Jews and Christians, were to be tolerated so long as they submitted to Muslim rule. It was at first unclear as to whether or not the Sassanid state religion, Zoroastrianism, was entitled to the same tolerance. Many Arab commanders destroyed Zoroastrian shrines and prohibited Zoroastrian worship. Many of the Zoroastrians were massacred and many fled to India to avoid persecution.

Before the conquest, the Persians had been mainly Zoroastrian, however, there were also large and thriving Christian and Jewish communities. However, there was a slow but steady movement of the population toward Islam. The nobility and city-dwellers were the first to convert, most likely to preserve the economic and social status and advantages[original research?]; Islam spread more slowly among the peasantry and the dihqans, or landed gentry. By the late 10th century, the majority of Persians had become Muslim, at least nominally. Most Persian Muslims were Sunni Muslims. Though Iran is known today as a stronghold of the Shi'a Muslim faith, it did not become so until much later around the 15th century. The Iranian Muslims projected many of their own Persian moral and ethical values that predates Islam into the religion, while recognizing Islam as their religion and the prophet's son in law, Ali as an enduring symbol of justice.

According to Bernard Lewis:

"[Arab Muslims conquests] have been variously seen in Iran: by some as a blessing, the advent of the true faith, the end of the age of ignorance and heathenism; by others as a humiliating national defeat, the conquest and subjugation of the country by foreign invaders. Both perceptions are of course valid, depending on one's angle of vision... Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized. Persians remained Persians. And after an interval of silence, Iran reemerged as a separate, different and distinctive element within Islam, eventually adding a new element even to Islam itself. Culturally, politically, and most remarkable of all even religiously, the Iranian contribution to this new Islamic civilization is of immense importance. The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution. In a sense, Iranian Islam is a second advent of Islam itself, a new Islam sometimes referred to as Islam-i Ajam. It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna..."

According to Tarikh-i Bukhara "The residents of Bukhara became Muslims. But they renounced [Islam] each time the Arabs turned back. Qutayba b. Muslim made them Muslim three times, [but] they renounced [Islam] again and became nonbelievers. The fourth time, Qutayba waged war, seized the city, and established Islam after considerable strife....They espoused Islam overtly but practiced idolatry in secret."

During the reign of the Ummayad dynasty, the Arab conquerors imposed Arabic as the primary language of the subject peoples throughout their empire, displacing their indigenous languages. However, Middle Persian proved to be much more enduring. Most of the structure and vocabulary survived, evolving into the modern Persian language. However, Persian did incorporate a certain amount of Arabic vocabulary, specially as pertains to religion, as well as switching from the Pahlavi Aramaic alphabet to one based on a modified version of Arabic characters.
ha yes, the religion of peace. :D
 
They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature. The new non-Muslim subjects, or dhimmi, were to pay a special tax, the jizya or poll tax, which was calculated per individual at varying rates for men, women and children as determined by Muslim rules but paid collectively by the whole community. In addition, the so-called protected People-of-the-Book were subject to various restrictions of occupation, worship, and dress (Bashear 1997, p. 117).

That's interesting. I'd been told by people here that it wasn't tallied for women and children, but only men, making it a much "nicer" occupation tax.
 
That's interesting. I'd been told by people here that it wasn't tallied for women and children, but only men, making it a much "nicer" occupation tax.

Its not the first time that people have twisted religion to benefit themselves

Several poll taxes were levied throughout the Middle East from the time of the Muslim conquests (seventh century). Caliph Umar II (717 - 720 C.E.) established the principle that they should be levied only on non-Muslims. Islam exempted women, children, and the disabled or unemployed from the tax.

In 1855, the Ottoman Empire abolished the tax, as part of reforms to equalize the status of Muslims and non-Muslims. It was replaced, however, by a military-exemption tax on non-Muslims, the Bedel-i Askeri.

Lapidus, Ira M. A History of Islamic Societies, 2d edition. Cambridge, U.K., and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 3d edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
 
samcd said:
- - - Of course, neither the Persians nor the Byzantines took the ragheads determination seriously which ultimately left them vulnerable to conquest.
Yes, the softness and decadence of civilization, its easy and condescending assumption of fighting superiority to go with all the other, obvious, superiorities, has often been noted by the barbarian thugs that bring it down. But we were looking for the Golden virtues of Islam, not the faults of the overcivilized and peaceful. So far we have found military determination and the ability to do violence to the smug.
samcd said:
I believe the initial Arabs even forbade conversion to Islam by the Persians since they were uncomfortable with the lavish lifestyles of the Persians and stayed on the outskirts of Persia even after conquering it.
The Mongols did the same. They too were nomads, and disliked the confinement of walls.
samcdkey said:
- - - Far from destroying Persian culture, Islam became the conduit through which Persian culture became the basis of Muslim style.
Are we to assume that becoming the basis of style for a tribe of brutal and misogynistic thugs was somehow an improvement or culmination of Persian culture ? Why may we not see this side benefit of tragedy as the acquisition of some rudiments of civilization by conquerers heretofore lacking in it ?
samoy said:
And its not the Islamic golden age merely for the architecture, but for the way the principles of Islam changed how Arabia communicated with the world, how the Persians responded to the advent of Islam and for the effects that Islam had on the Turks and Mongols, for the widespread trade routes set up from Morrocco to Indonesia and the spread of a religion by cross cultural trade.
I am sorry to be another atheist, piling on so to speak, but the Mongols did not learn how to establish trade routes from any Muslims, much less the Arab ones. The other way around, if anything - the Mongols were famous for their tolerance of religion, and this willingness to leave the local religion in peace is thought to have contributed a great deal to the size and stability of the Mongol Empire, and its unprecedented ability to create and oversee economic and cultural exchange. The Mongols built, for example, roads and (especially, disliking boats) bridges.

And as far as the benefits of the spread of Islam, over those Mongol trade routes and bridges, it's exactly that we are investigating. A Golden Age of Islam and a Golden Age for Islam are not at all necessarily the same thing. This seems a bit difficult for the believing Muslim to comprehend, for some reason. For example:
Its not the first time that people have twisted religion to benefit themselves
was directed at a comment that had nothing to do with twisting religion, but rather tax policy.

You are arguing with people who see the separation of church and state as a physical fact always present underneath any social order or set of assumptions.
 
Yes, the softness and decadence of civilization, its easy and condescending assumption of fighting superiority to go with all the other, obvious, superiorities, has often been noted by the barbarian thugs that bring it down. But we were looking for the Golden virtues of Islam, not the faults of the overcivilized and peaceful. So far we have found military determination and the ability to do violence to the smug.

The overcivilised and peaceful had been embroiled in a war for 700 years, the longest between any two entities in history.:)
The Mongols did the same. They too were nomads, and disliked the confinement of walls.

Yes
Are we to assume that becoming the basis of style for a tribe of brutal and misogynistic thugs was somehow an improvement or culmination of Persian culture ? Why may we not see this side benefit of tragedy as the acquisition of some rudiments of civilization by conquerers heretofore lacking in it ?

No but the Arab practice of trade rather than conquest (Arab traders were common even before their conversion to Islam) plus the Islamic principle of all men being on the same level, regardless of position, and the lack of special status for kings,clerics or priests was what the Persians and Mongols appreciated and adopted.

The caliph was answerable to the clergy and people, he could be deposed and another elected, there was no right by birth to the throne (at least in the Sunnis). These were concepts that came from Islam and is the reason why so many kings came from commoners or soldiers (like in the Delhi sultanate).
I am sorry to be another atheist, piling on so to speak, but the Mongols did not learn how to establish trade routes from any Muslims, much less the Arab ones. The other way around, if anything - the Mongols were famous for their tolerance of religion, and this willingness to leave the local religion in peace is thought to have contributed a great deal to the size and stability of the Mongol Empire, and its unprecedented ability to create and oversee economic and cultural exchange. The Mongols built, for example, roads and (especially, disliking boats) bridges.

The difference between Genghis Khan and Emperor Akbar (both Mongols) is the distance travelled by Mongols through Islam.

Besides the period of Arab conquest ended with Persia (620-680).

All further spread of Islam was by non-Arab Muslims.

And as far as the benefits of the spread of Islam, over those Mongol trade routes and bridges, it's exactly that we are investigating. A Golden Age of Islam and a Golden Age for Islam are not at all necessarily the same thing. This seems a bit difficult for the believing Muslim to comprehend, for some reason. For example: was directed at a comment that had nothing to do with twisting religion, but rather tax policy.

Since the tax was putatively based on rules considered Islamic it is.

You are arguing with people who see the separation of church and state as a physical fact always present underneath any social order or set of assumptions.

Considering that the separation of church and state is still an ongoing controversy in the West, apparently Muslims of a thousand years ago are held to different standards.
 
Last edited:
Its not the first time that people have twisted religion to benefit themselves

Ahhh! You begin to see at last. "Rife for misuse" is certainly a term I would apply to political islam, yes: although I rather think the initial intention was "misuse" anyway. But this is a start.

Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me.
 
Ahhh! You begin to see at last. "Rife for misuse" is certainly a term I would apply to political islam, yes: although I rather think the initial intention was "misuse" anyway. But this is a start.

Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me.

I'll answer genuine queries.:)
 
No but the Arab practice of trade rather than conquest (Arab traders were common even before their conversion to Islam) plus the Islamic principle of all men being on the same level, regardless of position

All islamic men, you mean.

Since the tax was putatively based on rules considered Islamic it is.

Heh. THis is rather my argument.

Considering that the separation of church and state is still an ongoing controversy in the West, apparently Muslims of a thousand years ago are held to different standards.

The issue is rather that the same standards are held to apply today in the islamic world: al-insan al-kamil, Mohammed is termed, he whose example is good for all men in all times. Thereby, the example of a thousand years ago is quite apt indeed.

Geoff
 
Back
Top