Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 174 (315816)
05-28-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by macaroniandcheese
05-28-2006 5:01 PM


Re: No it's not about neediness, & they create their own problems
Who knows if "giving them free money" would have helped or not, since it didn't get to the people at all. Their own leaders deprived them of the best use of the money, whatever that might have been. As I understand it, Israel has offered all kinds of help, which they refuse.
And I said nothing against the culture as such except taht you don't understand it, along with most products of our university system. You and others here are projecting your own feelings onto them, which they don't have because their culture is different. They are ideologically motivated, which you aren't in a position to understand. You have to study it to understand it, and if all you are getting is the kind of propaganda you described, no wonder you don't undertand it.
Off topic comments hidden. If this continues suspensions will be coming next.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : hide off topic content

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 5:01 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 7:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 122 of 174 (315828)
05-28-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
05-28-2006 5:18 PM


Re: No it's not about neediness, & they create their own problems
And I said nothing against the culture as such except taht you don't understand it, along with most products of our university system. You and others here are projecting your own feelings onto them, which they don't have because their culture is different. They are ideologically motivated, which you aren't in a position to understand. You have to study it to understand it, and if all you are getting is the kind of propaganda you described, no wonder you don't undertand it.
i wasn't getting propaganda. you need to stop assuming and start listening. maybe you should read the book before you assume what it is about. but the point is that i want to understand and i want to learn and you want to blame. or at least that's what it sounds like. you are ideologically motivated, too, you know.
Their own leaders deprived them of the best use of the money, whatever that might have been.
so the problem might be leaders and not the people? i can't believe you might admit that. ok so they have flawed leaders. it's happened to us a few times. does this change the possibility that we might be able to amend their feelings if we are able to do so in a structural way and not in any way that would be translatable into the pockets of leaders?
As I understand it, Israel has offered all kinds of help, which they refuse.
if you had a big brother who molested you and beat you up all the time, would you let him treat your wounds?
Off topic content hidden continuation of this will result in suspensions.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : hide off topic comments

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 5:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 174 (315854)
05-28-2006 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by nwr
05-28-2006 10:36 AM


Re: but why is the Islamic world annoyed at the west
nwr writes:
That was a long time ago. The people who might have been angry then are long since dead.
The question is, why are present day residents of the middle east angry at the west?
1. Well then why are we getting these history lectures on way back when by Jar and folks getting off topic warnings about present day stuff, et al?
2. The Turks, Shehites and Sunnis are all annoyed by one another today. Doesn't that relate any to Ottoman history, the nature of Islam and why they're annoyed by the West? The bottom line is that Muslim factions seem to be annoyed about just about everyone, including themselves. They don't mind blowing one another to pieces over their annoyances.
3. The black slaves in America are long since dead also. So are the Native Americans of the early days. But not all's hunkydory over historical stuff.
4. I know the thread's about annoyance with the West, but I think it's important to show that ME Muslims are at odds/annoyed with about everyone, including themselves.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by nwr, posted 05-28-2006 10:36 AM nwr has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 174 (315856)
05-29-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
05-28-2006 9:41 AM


Re: Whitwashing The Islamic Ottoman Turks
Jar writes:
Buz, several points. First all you have provided as usual is bare unsupported asseretions. While I have provided links to the actual documents, correspondence and maps to support my contentions, as usual you have provided no evidence in support of yours. In addition, I have repeated asked that this discussion be limited to from around WWI on. We can start another thread on the earlier history if you want.
Please try to stick with the topic and if at all possible, could you consider supporting some of the allegations you make.
OK Jar. Enough said. I'm outa here. It was you who began with the Ottomans and I responded. You can just keep on lecturing your version of what's important to the question and keep on ignoring the factual answers I've given. You're impossible to work with! Why don't you do the Forum Guidelines thing and refute my stuff rather than your personal demeaning comments and false allegations that my response provided no evidence? If Buzsaw has provided no evidence, prove that to be the case. And btw, you never proveded linked evidence to much of the history you gave either.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 05-28-2006 9:41 AM jar has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 125 of 174 (315890)
05-29-2006 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
05-28-2006 10:26 AM


back in time
I don't think so. The expansionist aspirations of Suleyman and other notable Ottoman dictators seemed to be inspired by Mohammed and his successors whose ambitions and motivations were to (1) grow Islam into the global religion and (2) totally secure the strategic and lucrative trade routes connecting the east with the west. The Roman Empire perse had little to do with the rise of Islam as I understand the history.
But why would a movement like that gain any strength? We could blame WWII on Hitler's expansionist ideas, but it only gained strength because of what the other countries did to it after WWI. We need to look way before Suleyman to get first causes.
The Greeks and then the Romans controlled large sections of the Middle East as part of the Eastern Roman Empire (which became the Byzantine Empire). The capital was Constantinople, which would become a central point in Christian worship for the Eastern part of the Roman Empire for centuries (notably the Greeks).
The Byzantine Empire included Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (which is a significant part of modern day Turkey).
As the empire began to lose its grip on these far away lands, the Muslims began to grow in strength and anger at their ancestral homelands being subsumed by Christians. So they fought back and took Syria, placing Turkey as the Frontier land. The Romans were unable to hold on, and the Empire began to shrink as more and more states became independent. It was only a matter of time when the empire would come crashing down under the pressure from the east. Mongols as well as Muslims of course, but it was the Muslims that broke through, carried on towards Austria and were then themselves pushed back and surrounded by the (almost) united west which had once again begun to grow strong.
So yeah, if we look at who started the aggression in the first place, it should the Greeks and the Romans. Perhaps you can go back further and find someone else who started it?
Like Jar, you're sweeping under the rug, the fact that it was the expansionist ambitions of Saleyman and other notable Ottoman dictarors who began to invade and conquer Europe that first required defensive involvement by Europe with the aggressive Ottomans.
You evidently haven't been paying attention to anything that I have said. Of course Europe had to defend itself - my point was that whether or not Europe was justified in its actions is not relevant to why the Islamic world might be annoyed with us. Personally, I think both sides had justifications for doing what they did, and we have to come to an agreement whereby we can live peacefully with one another into the future and that the first step in that process is to accept that other side has a right to agrievance.
Say what?? Europe gets invaded and you question justification of annoyance/action??
I questioned its relevance to the thread, I did not question whether justification exists.
The anger of many of these Islamic nations likely began when the Ottomans by the sword annexed them into the Ottoman empire, subjecting them to the Turk absolute dictators. Then when the expansionism of the Ottomans into Europe failed, they were further angered by the necessity of the West to intervene in order to save themselves from one another via intervention in the region of the original aggressors who initiated all the annoyance and unrest.
Perhaps, or perhaps it began with the west taking their pagan lands and converting them into a monotheistic religion, followed by their conversion into monotheism and their outrage that their ancestral homelands were being used to worship a man as if he were God.
This, my friends, is not all as simple as you are trying to make it.
If you read my first post in this thread, you will learn that is precisely what I have been saying. It isn't simple and the presentation of history you put forward is very simple: the Muslims invaded our land and we retaliated - the fault lies with the aggressive religion of Islam etc etc. It isn't that simple, I think we can all agree. Its a long and complex history, which this thread intends to explore - which is why people are getting annoyed at offtopic attacks against one religion as being the sole source of the aggression.
Both have their faults, but, come on, does Islam always have to be the good guys with white hats for you?
Its amazing. No matter how often this accusation is levelled at me, no matter how often I counter it, I still have to deal with again a few weeks later.
I fucking hate fundamentalist religious types of all religions. Particularly the Abrahamic ones because I have had to deal with them more regularly. That includes fucking idiot Muslims who want to kill innocent people and fucking stupid Christians that think murdering doctors is OK.
I hate the fucking lot of them.
Hopefully the language and the repitition helps it sink in.
I am not trying to defend Islam, read my first post in this thread and you will see I am actually biased against them - and for the Hapsburgs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 05-28-2006 10:26 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 05-29-2006 9:23 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 05-29-2006 9:47 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 05-29-2006 4:44 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 05-29-2006 10:52 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 174 (315904)
05-29-2006 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
05-29-2006 7:59 AM


Re: back in time
I don't think so. The expansionist aspirations of Suleyman and other notable Ottoman dictators seemed to be inspired by Mohammed and his successors whose ambitions and motivations were to (1) grow Islam into the global religion and (2) totally secure the strategic and lucrative trade routes connecting the east with the west. The Roman Empire perse had little to do with the rise of Islam as I understand the history.
But why would a movement like that gain any strength? We could blame WWII on Hitler's expansionist ideas, but it only gained strength because of what the other countries did to it after WWI. We need to look way before Suleyman to get first causes.
Not if Islam has its own internal driving ideology, which is what I'm saying and Buz too I believe. It was NOT provoked by anything previous. There was this "new revelation" supposedly from God that supposedly supplanted the revelations of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament and demanded that the world be eventually subjugated to Allah. That's all that was needed, Modulous. Mohammed's personal zeal flared out in converting people by violence when they would not do it voluntarily and that set the tone, and that zeal for Allah became the driving force of Islam in general.
Wasn't the Roman Empire pretty much moribund by then anyway? Mohammed was born in the late 6th century. The Roman Empire was supposedly dead by the middle of the 5th century. And Rome did not have an evil reputation among its conquered peoples, did it? Certainly Judea wasn't happy with it, but their methods of government were generally fair and constructive as I've understood it.
As I picture the middle east at the time, the eastern wing of the Christian church was scattered throughout the region, and the population was a mixture of Christians -- mostly Arabs, but native to the region in any case, and Jews and pagan Arabs, nothing particularly incendiary there. Mohammed was inspired by the Bible to some extent in the formation of his new religion, and seems to have had more identification with Biblical religion than with the pagan religions, since he was a zealous defender of his monotheistic vision against the pagan idols. Nevertheless, despite some peaceable statements about Jews and Christians, Islam also calls for the forced subjugation of Jews and Christians, which was practiced at least sporadically in subsequent history. This all comes from the ideology that is Islam, not from anything in the historical situation.
The Greeks and then the Romans controlled large sections of the Middle East as part of the Eastern Roman Empire (which became the Byzantine Empire). The capital was Constantinople, which would become a central point in Christian worship for the Eastern part of the Roman Empire for centuries (notably the Greeks).
The Byzantine Empire included Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (which is a significant part of modern day Turkey).
Yes, but where's the evidence of discontent to the degree you are implying in the comparison with the Treaty of Versailles? Nothing of the sort occurred in the region. The Byzantine Empire was predominantly Christian, and I think predominantly Arab, though I could be wrong about that. But we're talking about many Arab or native Christians in the region at the time Mohammed lived.
As the empire began to lose its grip on these far away lands, the Muslims began to grow in strength and anger at their ancestral homelands being subsumed by Christians.
There WERE no Muslims at the time, Modulous. There were a great many Christians in the region, however, ARAB Christians.
So they fought back and took Syria, placing Turkey as the Frontier land.
Fought BACK? Against whom? They certainly slaughtered a lot of native Christians and Jews in the effort to convert them, but there was no other motivation that I've ever heard of.
The Romans were unable to hold on, and the Empire began to shrink as more and more states became independent.
WHAT Romans? The Empire was long dead by the time Mohammed came along. A century and a half at least, and Byzantium had taken its place in the East, presiding over a territory that included some sizeable Christian population, and I've never heard of Byantium being this violent conquerer, but perhaps you can enlighten me on the history of that empire.
It was only a matter of time when the empire would come crashing down under the pressure from the east. Mongols as well as Muslims of course, but it was the Muslims that broke through, carried on towards Austria and were then themselves pushed back and surrounded by the (almost) united west which had once again begun to grow strong.
I think you have your time frame way out of whack. Do you have a source for any of this?
So yeah, if we look at who started the aggression in the first place, it should the Greeks and the Romans. Perhaps you can go back further and find someone else who started it?
Well, I think you are the one who needs to supply some evidence for your suppositions at this point.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2006 7:59 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2006 2:04 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 174 (315915)
05-29-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
05-29-2006 7:59 AM


Re: back in time
Just did a quick read on Byzantium and I see nothing that suggests a restive population that sought vengeance against the conquerers. The area had been Hellenized since before Alexander the Great, and then Christianized. Then Constantine moved to Constantinople and a period of great cultural expansion seems to have followed. Nothing I've read suggests some violent objection against their rule.
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Byzantium/byz_3.html
The Early Byzantine Period: The 'First Golden Age' of Byzantium (324730)
The Christianized eastern part of the Roman Empire, or Byzantium, as it came to be called, continued for another 1100 years. A vital figure in its earliest years was the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine the Great (274[?]337), who established toleration for Christianity throughout the Roman Empire through the Edict of Milan in 313. Constantine legally transferred his capital from Rome to Constantinople, on the site of the Greek city of Byzantium.
So it was that the empire continued to be ruled by Roman law and political institutions, with the elite communicating officially in Latin. Yet the population, now Christian, also spoke Greek. In school students studied the ancient Greek classics of literature, philosophy, science, medicine, art, and rhetoric. The church, which developed its own literature and philosophy, nonetheless looked favorably upon the intellectual tradition of classical scholarship. An incalculable benefit of this system was that often only that part of classical Greek literature preserved in Byzantine schoolbooks has survived into modern times.
This doesn't sound like a civilization rife with internal conflict to me.
One of the advantages of Constantine's new capital was that it was on an easily fortified peninsula; as it was closer to the dangerous frontiers of the empire than Rome, imperial armies could respond more rapidly to crises. The strategic location of the city enabled merchants there to grow rich through their control over the trade routes between Europe and the East and the shipping lanes connecting the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Constantine lavished on his new capital a university, two theaters, eight public and fifty-three private baths, fifty-two covered walkways, four law courts, fourteen churches, and fourteen palaces. He imported staggering quantities of the best Greco-Roman art from throughout the empire. This infusion helped the art of the Early Byzantine period to remain close to its Greco-Roman heritage in its naturalism and classical subject matter.
At the Eastern Empire's greatest expanse during the sixth century, the emperor Justinian (483565) controlled most of the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. He was an ambitious builder, his greatest monument being the magnificent domed church of Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom), which was constructed in just five years (53237).
In the seventh century the empire lost Syria, the Holy Land, Egypt, and North Africa to invading Islamic armies. For a time the Muslims merely tapped the economy of these regions, leaving intact many of the Byzantine institutions they had overrun. The Early Byzantine period ended with the onset of the Iconoclastic controversy, the violent debate over devotional religious images called icons that devasted much of the empire for over a hundred years.
It looks to me like Islam just emerged in the middle of this flourishing civilization and moved to take it for Allah.
Edit: Byzantium time line
Edit: The more I read the more it appears that the middle east per se was not dominated by Byzantium at all --see map of Byzantium in 565 So the Muslims attacked it from outside. Motive: Take the world for Allah. So far I see no other motive for this early period of the conquests of Islam.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : second edit
Edited by Faith, : added map link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2006 7:59 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Quetzal, posted 05-29-2006 10:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 133 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2006 2:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 128 of 174 (315930)
05-29-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
05-29-2006 9:47 AM


Re: back in time
The more I read the more it appears that the middle east per se was not dominated by Byzantium at all --see map of Byzantium in 565 So the Muslims attacked it from outside. Motive: Take the world for Allah. So far I see no other motive for this early period of the conquests of Islam.
Indeed, you're not far off, Faith. Before I get into the early history of Islam, I want to make sure we don't derail things too much, however.
Jar: I think you may have started this thread in the middle of the story. Although the Ottoman influence is crucial to understanding modern history, to understand the Ottomans it might be necessary to go further back in time. From some of the responses that have cropped up here since last Thursday, there is a great deal of misunderstanding of earlier history - especially that of the Eastern Roman Empire and the roots of Islam. Let me know if you want me to do a synopsis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 05-29-2006 9:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 05-29-2006 10:48 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 05-29-2006 5:07 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 129 of 174 (315940)
05-29-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Quetzal
05-29-2006 10:30 AM


Re: back in time
I think that part of the story is very important, but I also realize that we have dealt with just the part from around the beginning of WWI and have taken nearly half the thread without even covering the creation of all of the current nations of the Middle East. There is alot of material to be covered.
Would it be possible for you to propose a new topic where you could lead a discussion of the early history?
Also, just to add to the workload, I have not tried to address the creation of the current North African nations. In particular, the history of modern Egypt and the part played by France and Great Britain in that area will become essential to understanding the later history of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. If you could post some of the history of North Africa here in this thread it would be appreciated.
I have intentionally held off talking about the Al-Saud, about the clash between France and Great Britian in the Middle East hoping you would first lay the groundwork of North Africa so folk can see it in context.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Quetzal, posted 05-29-2006 10:30 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Quetzal, posted 05-29-2006 12:29 PM jar has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 130 of 174 (315980)
05-29-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by jar
05-29-2006 10:48 AM


Re: back in time
Ouch! That's a tall order. I'll try and get something up about Egypt today or tomorrow. However, the early history is going to have to wait a bit. I think it would be very interesting - especially since the actual history provides some justification to our colleagues who assert Islam was founded as a religion of conquest. OTOH, there are also some parts that would be very disturbing to those same folks. Like the reason why a large Christian army fought side-by-side with the Umayyid armies of Amr ibn al-As at the Second Battle of Alexandria - against other Christians? A battle, btw, which resulted in almost 900 years of complete tolerance for their allies by the Moslems - including exemption from the jizyah. Not to mention the uncomfortable parallels with Christianity - such as the Islamic version of the "Council of Nicea" under Othman ~650...
Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 05-29-2006 10:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 05-29-2006 1:09 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 131 of 174 (315999)
05-29-2006 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Quetzal
05-29-2006 12:29 PM


yes, it is daunting.
I think it would be very interesting - especially since the actual history provides some justification to our colleagues who assert Islam was founded as a religion of conquest. OTOH, there are also some parts that would be very disturbing to those same folks. Like the reason why a large Christian army fought side-by-side with the Umayyid armies of Amr ibn al-As at the Second Battle of Alexandria - against other Christians?
IMHO it is not only interesting, it is esential to understand that there is no one uniform driving force in this matter, anymore than there is in any other area. The world of Islam is no more a monolithic structure than the West. The Nations of the Middle East that exist today are mostly the result of Western penmanship, borders drawn on the basis of the interests of France and Great Britain. But we need to realize that France and Great Britain each had their own agenda, decisions were made based on the perceived needs of each power, not based on the peoples of the area itself. So too, during the growth of Islam, needs, alliances and confrontation were often based on the unique needs of the power at the time. Often this meant that Christian West and Muslim east were allied against other Christian and Muslim power structures. It was not simply an issue of Christianity vs Islam, not now, not then.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Quetzal, posted 05-29-2006 12:29 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 132 of 174 (316018)
05-29-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
05-29-2006 9:23 AM


Re: back in time
Not if Islam has its own internal driving ideology
But what drove the conversion to Islam? Mohammed and his successors must have tapped into a desire...a zeitgeist as it were much like Hitler. Its like saying that Nazism has its own internal driving ideology and that explains everything. It doesn't.
Wasn't the Roman Empire pretty much moribund by then anyway? Mohammed was born in the late 6th century. The Roman Empire was supposedly dead by the middle of the 5th century.
No. The Holy Roman Empire continued into the 17th Century.
As I picture the middle east at the time, the eastern wing of the Christian church was scattered throughout the region, and the population was a mixture of Christians -- mostly Arabs, but native to the region in any case, and Jews and pagan Arabs, nothing particularly incendiary there.
Did you read what I wrote about the Byzantine Empire? You should take a look into it.
There WERE no Muslims at the time, Modulous.
No Muslims in the 15th Century? So who invaded Constantinople?
Fought BACK? Against whom?
The Eastern part of the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire. The Greek speaking part of it.
I think you have your time frame way out of whack. Do you have a source for any of this?
Check out when Constantinople fell, (1453) and the siege of Vienna (1529/1532) and the Battle of Vienna (1683) the latter of which I discussed as the definitive start of the decline of the Ottoman Empire as a superpower.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 05-29-2006 9:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 05-29-2006 4:24 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 140 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-29-2006 11:31 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 133 of 174 (316020)
05-29-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
05-29-2006 9:47 AM


The Attack on Byzantine Empire
So the Muslims attacked it from outside
Yes, yes they did. That's why I said they attacked Syria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 05-29-2006 9:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 174 (316040)
05-29-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Modulous
05-29-2006 2:04 PM


Re: back in time
Not if Islam has its own internal driving ideology
But what drove the conversion to Islam? Mohammed and his successors must have tapped into a desire...a zeitgeist as it were much like Hitler. Its like saying that Nazism has its own internal driving ideology and that explains everything. It doesn't.
The "conversion" was forced on the Arabs at point of sword, Mod. Otherwise they already believed in a god named Allah, so it wasn't brand new to them; they just had to get rid of the other gods. You are just speculating. If you KNEW there were historical factors, that would be something else, but just as a speculation I don't think it's necessary, considering how Islam got started.
Wasn't the Roman Empire pretty much moribund by then anyway? Mohammed was born in the late 6th century. The Roman Empire was supposedly dead by the middle of the 5th century.
=======
No. The Holy Roman Empire continued into the 17th Century.
But that was a EUROPEAN manifestation, not connected to Byzantium or the Middle East, and not a continuation of the old Roman Empire either, something they just called by that name for old times' sake or something like that. And wasn't the Third Reich modeled on the same idea, a third revival of the old Empire? Admittedly my history is very patchy.
OK for the rest I'll go back and read what you wrote about Byzantium. I thought you were trying to explain Muslim motivation for retaliation against the old Greek and Roman Empires. The OTTOMAN motivation probably had some political motivation against Byzantium but that was much later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2006 2:04 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 174 (316045)
05-29-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
05-29-2006 7:59 AM


OK what you said about Byzantium
I thought you were trying to give a historical reason for the original conquests of Islam. If you are talking about a later rebellion to Byzantium, while I think the Turks had some gripe against incompetent Byzantine rule or something along those lines, what you go on to say about a general rebellion on behalf of their "ancestral lands" looks to me to be motivated by Islam, not by any real political cause, even from what you say here:
The Byzantine Empire included Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (which is a significant part of modern day Turkey).
As the empire began to lose its grip on these far away lands, the Muslims began to grow in strength and anger at their ancestral homelands being subsumed by Christians.
OK, this occupation by Byzantium PRECEDED the existence of Islam as I understand it from the maps. There was a large Syrian Christian population for instance. This idea of their "ancestral homelands" is just some fantasy of their own invention since Islam didn't exist when Byzantium first occupied the area and there were many Arab Christians.
So they fought back and took Syria, placing Turkey as the Frontier land.
All this is motivated by Islam itself, not by any actual history of conquest of Muslim nations, because Islam didn't exist when Byzantium was formed, and again, there was a sizeable native Christian population that would hardly have felt that Islam had some ancestral right to the lands they'd always lived on.
So yeah, if we look at who started the aggression in the first place, it should the Greeks and the Romans. Perhaps you can go back further and find someone else who started it?
I believe -- based only on what you have said -- that this is nothing but Muslim revisionist history, and has nothing to do with any actual political facts that could possibly justify their actions.
Where is the historical evidence of Middle Eastern uprisings against the occupation by Greece and later Rome and later Byzantium AT THE TIME they first occupied them? That's what's needed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2006 7:59 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024