[Prince of Persia]

Hey guys,

I've been meaning to learn more about what the world, specifically the Middle East, was like before the invention of Islam. As we know, many ethnic groups had Islam forced upon them by the Gulf Arabs (mostly modern day Saudis), but what I want to know is what those Arabs were like before Islam. Did Islam help them to an extent, or did it hinder their growth and efforts to become civilized? More importantly, can all of the ills of the MENA region be traced back to Islam, or is it something else entirely? Is it just that humanity will always be in a constant state of warfare?

[Paracelsus]

(04-21-2016 08:35 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  

Hey guys,

I've been meaning to learn more about what the world, specifically the Middle East, was like before the invention of Islam. As we know, many ethnic groups had Islam forced upon them by the Gulf Arabs (mostly modern day Saudis), but what I want to know is what those Arabs were like before Islam. Did Islam help them to an extent, or did it hinder their growth and efforts to become civilized? More importantly, can all of the ills of the MENA region be traced back to Islam, or is it something else entirely? Is it just that humanity will always be in a constant state of warfare?

T.E. Lawrence, i.e. Lawrence of Arabia's thoughts on the Arabs and their religions, from Seven Pillars of Wisdom, p.22:

Quote:

They were a people of spasms, of upheavals, of ideas, the race of the individual genius. Their movements were the more shocking by contrast with the quietude of every day, their great men greater by contrast with the humanity of their mob. Their convictions were by instinct, their activities intuitional. Their largest manufacture was of creeds: almost they were monopolists of revealed religions. Three of these efforts had endured among them: two of the three had also borne export (in modified forms) to non-Semitic peoples. Christianity, translated into the diverse spirits of Greek and Latin and Teutonic tongues, had conquered Europe and America. Islam in various transformations was subjecting Africa and parts of Asia. These were Semitic successes. Their failures they kept to themselves. The fringes of their deserts were strewn with broken faiths.

It was significant that this wrack of fallen religions lay about the meeting of the desert and the sown. It pointed to the generation of all these creeds. They were assertions, not arguments; so they required a prophet to set them forth. The Arabs said there had been forty thousand prophets: we had record of at least some hundreds. None of them had been of the wilderness, but their lives were after a pattern . Their birth set them in crowded places. An unintelligible passionate yearning drove them out into the desert. There they lived a greater or lesser time in meditation and physical abandonment; and thence they returned with their imagined message articulate, to preach it to their old, and now doubting, associates. The founders of the great creeds fulfilled this cycle; their possible coincidence was proved a law by the parallel life-histories of the myriad others, the unfortunate who failed, whom we might judge of no less true profession, but for whom time and disillusion had not heaped up dry souls ready to be set on fire.

[Roadrunner]

(04-21-2016 08:35 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  

I've been meaning to learn more about what the world, specifically the Middle East, was like before the invention of Islam. As we know, many ethnic groups had Islam forced upon them by the Gulf Arabs (mostly modern day Saudis), but what I want to know is what those Arabs were like before Islam. Did Islam help them to an extent, or did it hinder their growth and efforts to become civilized? More importantly, can all of the ills of the MENA region be traced back to Islam, or is it something else entirely? Is it just that humanity will always be in a constant state of warfare?

Before Islam the Middle East was a prized geographical choking point where the silk trade met the Western World and goods from Zanzibar as well as Rome could be found and the cultural underpinnings of the region were Hellenistic and Roman on the western side and the Persian area was ruled by powerful and rich kingdoms such as the Sassanids or Parthians that had a rich cultural history. I have to code on a deadline so can't elaborate and this is a very brief; almost inadequate answer as I haven't mentioned the Egyptians or the area of Modern Turkey but I couldn't resist as I just love learning about the achievements of Great Civilizations and Men. The Arabs were inbred, violent and barbaric with a lack of any meaningful wealth, culture or technological advancements; the only redeeming quality the Arab region had is that it was in between India and Africa. Not all of the Ills can be traced to Islam as there have been multiple players through the long history of the Middle East but the most destructive influences has been as a whole Islam despite the amount of time they have had in the region to rectify that. Although for sheer impact with respect to time Genghis, Hulagu and Timur did a job on the region .

[T and A Man]

Before Islam, goats roamed free without fear of rape.

[Prince of Persia]

(04-21-2016 08:53 PM)Roadrunner Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 08:35 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  

I've been meaning to learn more about what the world, specifically the Middle East, was like before the invention of Islam. As we know, many ethnic groups had Islam forced upon them by the Gulf Arabs (mostly modern day Saudis), but what I want to know is what those Arabs were like before Islam. Did Islam help them to an extent, or did it hinder their growth and efforts to become civilized? More importantly, can all of the ills of the MENA region be traced back to Islam, or is it something else entirely? Is it just that humanity will always be in a constant state of warfare?

Before Islam the Middle East was a prized geographical choking point where the silk trade met the Western World and goods from Zanzibar as well as Rome could be found and the cultural underpinnings of the region were Hellenistic and Roman on the western side and the Persian area was ruled by powerful and rich kingdoms such as the Sassanids or Parthians that had a rich cultural history. I have to code on a deadline so can't elaborate and this is a very brief; almost inadequate answer as I haven't mentioned the Egyptians or the area of Modern Turkey but I couldn't resist as I just love learning about the achievements of Great Civilizations and Men. The Arabs were inbred, violent and barbaric with a lack of any meaningful wealth, culture or technological advancements; the only redeeming quality the Arab region had is that it was in between India and Africa. Not all of the Ills can be traced to Islam as there have been multiple players through the long history of the Middle East but the most destructive influences has been as a whole Islam despite the amount of time they have had in the region to rectify that. Although for sheer impact with respect to time Genghis, Hulagu and Timur did a job on the region .

That's what I thought lmao. So you agree that Islam made those Arabs worse? I was raised with the idea that the Arabs were and still are dirty degenerates who just steal the accomplishments of others and claim them as their own.

[Roadrunner]

(04-21-2016 09:10 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  

That's what I thought lmao. So you agree that Islam made those Arabs worse? I was raised with the idea that the Arabs were and still are dirty degenerates who just steal the accomplishments of others and claim them as their own.

Didn't make the Arabs worse. It was the best thing to happen to them. It catapulted them to a level of influence and population to where we now equate Arab to Middle Easterners. Assuming it was your father that told you that and that you are ethnically Persian; he is absolutely correct and the Persia of Cyrus has had nothing but trouble and destruction on account of the Arabs.

[Prince of Persia]

(04-21-2016 10:28 PM)Roadrunner Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:10 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  

That's what I thought lmao. So you agree that Islam made those Arabs worse? I was raised with the idea that the Arabs were and still are dirty degenerates who just steal the accomplishments of others and claim them as their own.

Didn't make the Arabs worse. It was the best thing to happen to them. It catapulted them to a level of influence and population to where we now equate Arab to Middle Easterners. Assuming it was your father that told you that and that you are ethnically Persian; he is absolutely correct and the Persia of Cyrus has had nothing but trouble and destruction on account of the Arabs.

So that brings us to the present. What do you guys think about the current state of Islam, the problems with ISIS and other terrorist groups, Assad in Syria, etc? Should we work to wipe out Islam completely, or is it just Wahhabism that is the main problem? I myself have not read neither the Torah, nor the Bible, nor the Quran in full so I cannot compare Islam to Christianity or Judaism and make the claim that Islam lends itself to violence at a greater rate than other major religions.

[Atheistani]

Islam is just a consequence of the Middle East fucking up Indo European ideas. I say it is a more degenerate versiom of Zoroastrianism. It's not just the Arabs, the whole of the Middle East (Semitic speaking zone) is a culturally vacuous pit. It has very little cultural or artistic background of its own. Middle Eastern 'Civilization' was most likely imported from either South or Central Asia.

When you give the technology and power of Civilization to a people incapable of creating it themselves, or atleast without any history of doing so, expect chaos to ensue.

I reckon very few, if any, ME countries have the ability to rule themselves with stability.

[zombiejimmorrison]

Mesopotamia

Quote:

Widely considered to be one of the cradles of civilization by the Western world, Bronze Age Mesopotamia included Sumer and the Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian empires, all native to the territory of modern-day Iraq. In the Iron Age, it was controlled by the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires.

Quote:

The indigenous Sumerians and Akkadians (including Assyrians and Babylonians) dominated Mesopotamia from the beginning of written history (c. 3100 BC) to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, when it was conquered by the Achaemenid Empire. It fell to Alexander the Great in 332 BC, and after his death, it became part of the Greek Seleucid Empire.

Quote:


Mesopotamia is the site of the earliest developments of the Neolithic Revolution from around 10,000 BC. It has been identified as having "inspired some of the most important developments in human history including the invention of the wheel, the planting of the first cereal crops and the development of cursive script, Mathematics, Astronomy and Agriculture

Quote:

In Mesopotamia (Ancient Iraq), early evidence of beer is a 3900-year-old Sumerian poem honoring Ninkasi, the patron goddess of brewing, which contains the oldest surviving beer recipe, describing the production of beer from barley via bread.

The place has always been at War even before Islam, its never had peace for very long, always fighting amongst itself and being conquered by armies from the West and the East.

What really gets on my nerves is the Islamic golden age myth (8th century to the 13th century). Hellenic classics and the rediscovery of Aristotle is thanks to Christian Syriacs living in Iraq and Turkey (Byzantine Empire). They preserved these works and then translated them into Arabic and then they were rediscovered by Europe. Syriac/Aramaic is the literary/religious language of Middle Eastern Christians.

The place was a warzone from its inception but the Arabs stifled the area further and it remains a shadow of its former self ever since it was taken over by Islam.

[pharao]

Islam in one picture:

[TheMaleBrain]

Empires always assimilated nationalities into them. Islam was not different.

@Roadrunner
You are correct. It is the best thing that happened to them

@Prince of Persia and @Atheistani
Had a forum discussion on a great book detailing Islam present state -

@zombiejimmorrison
Find a place in the world which did not see constant war. Even Europe had its fare share, even till the end of the 20th century.

Being part of the middle east, it is a dangerous place. A lot of baggage, and tons of hate (justified and not justified).
Pointing you to the above mentioned thread. The author had a great prospective on why it is like that.

[Thaitanium]

(04-21-2016 10:28 PM)Roadrunner Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:10 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  

That's what I thought lmao. So you agree that Islam made those Arabs worse? I was raised with the idea that the Arabs were and still are dirty degenerates who just steal the accomplishments of others and claim them as their own.

Didn't make the Arabs worse. It was the best thing to happen to them. It catapulted them to a level of influence and population to where we now equate Arab to Middle Easterners. Assuming it was your father that told you that and that you are ethnically Persian; he is absolutely correct and the Persia of Cyrus has had nothing but trouble and destruction on account of the Arabs.

Very true about the Persians. I was on a short two week holiday in Iran last december. They must have been one of the friendliest, open and hospitable people I have ever met. And everyone started converstation by saying something along the line of: Please tell everyone we are Persians, not ISIS or some stinking Arab. Very proud of their history.

Fiercely proud people, and rightly so, especially after seeing the ruins of Persepolis.

[Atheistani]

I cant help but post this. Darius (actually Rooshes namesake) King of Persia shows great wisdom in this inscription. It's interesting because we dont see this type of confidence and articulation very often.

I kinda would like to see Roosh make this speech, it would be funny.

Quote:

A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, one king of many, one lord of many.

I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

Darius the King says: By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I seized outside of Persia; I ruled over them; they bore tribute to me; what was said to them by me, that they did; my law -- that held them firm; Media, Elam, Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdiana, Chorasmia, Drangiana, Arachosia, Sattagydia, Gandara, Sind, Amyrgian Scythians, Scythians with pointed caps, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Sardis, Ionia, Scythians who are across the sea, Skudra, petasos-wearing Ionians, Libyans, Ethiopians, men of Maka, Carians.

Darius the King says: Ahuramazda, when he saw this earth in commotion, thereafter bestowed it upon me, made me king; I am king. By the favor of Ahuramazda I put it down in its place; what I said to them, that they did, as was my desire. If now you shall think that "How many are the countries which King Darius held?" look at the sculptures (of those) who bear the throne, then shall you know, then shall it become known to you: the spear of a Persian man has gone forth far; then shall it become known to you: a Persian man has delivered battle far indeed from Persia.

Darius the King says: This which has been done, all that by the will of Ahuramazda I did. Ahuramazda bore me aid, until I did the work. May Ahuramazda protect me from harm, and my royal house, and this land: this I pray of Ahuramazda, this may Ahuramazda give to me!

O man, that which is the command of Ahuramazda, let this not seem repugnant to you; do not leave the right path; do not rise in rebellion!

A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this excellent work which is seen, who created happiness for man, who bestowed wisdom and activity upon Darius the King.

Darius the King says: By the favor of Ahuramazda I am of such a sort that I am a friend to right, I am not a friend to wrong. It is not my desire that the weak man should have wrong done to him by the mighty; nor is that my desire, that the mighty man should have wrong done to him by the weak.

What is right, that is my desire. I am not a friend to the man who is a Lie-follower. I am not hot-tempered. What things develop in my anger, I hold firmly under control by my thinking power. I am firmly ruling over my own (impulses).

The man who cooperates, him according to his cooperative action, him thus do I reward. Who does harm, him according to the damage thus I punish. It is not my desire that a man should do harm; nor indeed is that my desire, if he should do harm, he should not be punished.

What a man says against a man, that does not convince me, until he satisfies the Ordinance of Good Regulations.

What a man does or performs (for me) according to his (natural) powers, (therewith) I am satisfied, and my pleasure is abundant, and I am well satisfied.

Of such a sort is my understanding and my command: when what has been done by me you shall see or hear of, both in the palace and in the warcamp, this is my activity over and above my thinking power and my understanding.

This indeed is my activity: inasmuch as my body has the strength, as battle-fighter I am a good battle fighter. Once let there be seen with understanding in the place (of battle), what I see (to be) rebellious, what I see (to be) not (rebellious); both with understanding and with command then am I first to think with action, when I see a rebel as well as when I see a not-(rebel).

Trained am I both with hands and with feet. As a horseman I am a good horseman. As a bowman I am a good bowman both afoot and on horseback. As a spearman I am a good spear-man both afoot and on horseback.

And the (physical) skillfulnesses which Ahuramazda has bestowed upon me and I have had the strength to use them -- by the favor of Ahuramazda what has been done by me, I have done with these skillfulnesses which Ahuramazda has bestowed upon me.

O menial, vigorously make you known of what sort I am, and of what sort my skillfulnesses, and of what sort my superiority. Let not that seem false to you, which has been heard by thy ears. That do you hear, which is communicated to you.

O menial, let that not be made (to seem) false to you, which has been done by me. That do you behold, which [has been inscribed]. Let not the laws [be disobeyed] by you. Let not [anyone] be untrained [in obedience]. [O menial], let not the king (feel himself obliged to) inflict punishment (?) [for wrong-doing (?) on the dwellers (in the land) (?)].

[syrianguy]

The middle-east would have been infinitely better without islam. It stunted all advancement and destroyed entire cultures. The diversity in the region alone was amazing not to mention a centre of trade between Europe and Asia. The persian empire should have never fallen, they were truly an advanced civilization way ahead of their time. Islam raided, pillaged and destroyed all that layed in its path especially knowledge. Only to later re-translate some of the persian and greek documents and claim it as it's own. I can't even begin to imagine the knowledge lost with the burning of Aleksandria's library for example.

I would have much preferred a Mongolian take-over which was possible. At least they wouldn't push their religion...

[radiationsupernova]

(04-24-2016 09:55 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Islam is just a consequence of the Middle East fucking up Indo European ideas. I say it is a more degenerate versiom of Zoroastrianism. It's not just the Arabs, the whole of the Middle East (Semitic speaking zone) is a culturally vacuous pit. It has very little cultural or artistic background of its own. Middle Eastern 'Civilization' was most likely imported from either South or Central Asia.

When you give the technology and power of Civilization to a people incapable of creating it themselves, or atleast without any history of doing so, expect chaos to ensue.

I reckon very few, if any, ME countries have the ability to rule themselves with stability.

No, the whole Indo-European language thing, was basically the Microsoft language matrix of the Ancient World, they were never real racial or ethnic markers, but was a communication language matrix of the trade routes, travel ways, merchant men, traders, highway men, bandits and nomadic barbarian Eurasian tribes that populated the region of Eurasia proper.

The Indo-European peoples were historically an illiterate barbaric brutish horse nomadic people, that were an EXACT REPLICA of the Huns and Mongols that came after them; whom never created their own independent civilizations, never created a basic written script or alphabet script or writing script, never independently came across formal farming and agriculture as was practiced in the Middle East and Africa FIRST; never built any sophisticated megalithic structures and monuments, never created their own basic formal numerical system or sophisticated mathmatic's, did not have a tradition of practicing of mass literacy (infact it was forbidden TO ACTUALLY WRITE AND RECORD TRADITIONS, THOUGHTS, AND IDEAS ON PAPER AND ON WRITTEN FORM AS IN "SEMITIC SOCIETIES", IN EARLY INDO-EUROPEAN CULTURES AND SOCIETIES!), did not have any real art or philosophy, or engineering systems, and all the perquisites of advanced civilizations etc etc etc.

They lived a lifestyle and had a culture that EERILY AND UNCANNILY RESEMBLED THE EXACT SAME LIFESTYLE AND WAY OF LIVING, AS THAT OF THE HUNS, TURKS, AND MONGOLS THAT WOULD COME AFTER THEM! They were migrating Eurasian horse nomadic peoples that lived in wagons and tents, did not practice formal agriculture as was practiced in the Middle East, did not build standing cities/towns or big structures, and resorted to being and resorting to middle men, banditry, warfare, pillaging, raiding, violence, highway men, invading, looting, nomadism, and attacking ACTUAL civilizations and people OF SETTLED CIVILIZATIONS as a way of life, EXACTLY LIKE THE HUNS AND MONGOLS THAT WOULD COME AFTER THEM!


They basically were the Huns and Mongols of the Ancient BC and AD period! Infact the Hunnic and Mongol empires, were just re-iterations, re-makes, and re-incarnations, exact replica's and carbon copies, of the barbarian brutish violent steppe empires and confederations that the so called "Indo-European" or "white Eurasian" peoples HAD ESTABLISHED IN EURASIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST AND ELSEWHERE IN THE FIRST PLACE BEFORE THEM!

So called White Eurasians or White Indo-Europeans, ONLY GOT THE ABOVE MENTIONED THINGS AFTER, they had TAKEN OVER/PILLAGED/EXCHANGED/COPIED/STOLE/ATTACKED/LOOTED/INVADED/MIGRATED to the FIRST non-Indo-European civilizations and cultures in Eurasia and nearby the region, whom did have those things that I mentioned, that the historical white Eurasian peoples as not having!


Islam is in many ways, the religion that would basically fit the mold and lifestyle of Indo-European cultures and peoples in the BC and post-AD period, when they emerged on the region of the Eurasian steppes! It's a religion that is not too overly complicated and encouraged a brutish barbaric backwards lifestyle of violence and pillaging, theft, and warfare, as was a defining characteristic and requirement, of life on the Central Asian and Siberian steppes! It was for this reason why many so called Turkic, Mongol, and even Indo-European peoples and cultures had zero problems accepting or even converting to Islam in the first place! Because the lifestyle and cultures these peoples were used to, was defined and written out clearly and was in sync with, their pre-Islamic lifestyles and cultures!

Just thought I would clear that up for the laymen, and people who aren't knowledgeable about this topic here!

And lol to person above me saying a Mongol occupation would be preferable lol! You do know that the Mongols burned and incinerated and eliminated the library of Baghdad, which was the premier library and holding of human knowledge and intellectual repositories at that time period, when the Mongols did that right? You do know that this act set the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST AS WELL A LOT OF THE KNOWN CIVILIZED WORLD, ON A BACKWARDS PATH AND TRAJECTORY AND BACK BY HUNDREDS OF YEARS BECAUSE OF THE LOST KNOWLEDGE THAT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE MONGOLS DOING THAT RIGHT?

[Comte De St. Germain]

(06-17-2016 06:10 PM)syrianguy Wrote:  

I would have much preferred a Mongolian take-over which was possible. At least they wouldn't push their religion...

Hate to burst your bubble, but they actually did much the same if you didn't submit........

Not to mention large segments of the horde converted to Islam of their own accord not soon after.

See here


And to relegate an entire people as stupid savages is at the height of ignorance. I think our very own Quintus Curtius would highly disagree with that kind of judgement.

I'm a fan of the mirrors for Princes genre(stuff like Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince which are guide books on ruling). Quite a few Islamic treatises on Kingship our worth the read. From my personal collection I recommend:

Qabas Namab by Keikavus

Book of Governance by Nizam Al Mulk

Counsel of Kings, The Alchemy of Happiness by Ghazali

Realize the very nature of the issues that stem from Islamic societies' actions towards foreign cultures and their excessive expansion comes from the history of the area where the only way to secure it was to keep expanding after taking all of it. On the other hand, European societies sought more to secure their borders after the first hundred years of warfare that they couldn't hold all of it(exceptions being Napoleon and Hitler).

Every successful Islamic ruler was a Napoleon or Hitler. That was just the simple way to finally succeed with the conundrum of the area.


To answer OP's question as someone said earlier, it was an area where everyone was fighting for trade routes and the flow of outside wealth as well as what little resources already existed in the area. The only time it was ever secure was under the hands of conquerors whom managed to take it all though not for too long. It was solved under the advent of Islam as more than likely the rulers had the deadly foresight that constant warfare was the only way to truly keep that wealth saved and their societies intact until the advent of the Industrial Age.

[Atheistani]

(06-17-2016 06:59 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

And to relegate an entire people as stupid savages is at the height of ignorance. I think our very own Quintus Curtius would highly disagree with that kind of judgement.

Relegating who as savages? The Arabs? How is it the height of ignorance? People have their own views. If you're so smart why not come back with any number of great Arab achievements, if you can find any.

Quintus is not some kind of authority, I don't think he's that knowledgeable.

(06-17-2016 06:59 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

I'm a fan of the mirrors for Princes genre(stuff like Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince which are guide books on ruling). Quite a few Islamic treatises on Kingship our worth the read. From my personal collection I recommend:

Qabas Namab by Keikavus

Book of Governance by Nizam Al Mulk

Counsel of Kings, The Alchemy of Happiness by Ghazali

These are all Iranians writers, writing on Iranian tradition, who just happen to follow Islam. These are not "Islamic treatises".

[Comte De St. Germain]

(06-17-2016 07:15 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 06:59 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

And to relegate an entire people as stupid savages is at the height of ignorance. I think our very own Quintus Curtius would highly disagree with that kind of judgement.

Relegating who as savages? The Arabs? How is it the height of ignorance? People have their own views. If you're so smart why not come back with any number of great Arab achievements, if you can find any.

Quintus is not some kind of authority, I don't think he's that knowledgeable.

(06-17-2016 06:59 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

I'm a fan of the mirrors for Princes genre(stuff like Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince which are guide books on ruling). Quite a few Islamic treatises on Kingship our worth the read. From my personal collection I recommend:

Qabas Namab by Keikavus

Book of Governance by Nizam Al Mulk

Counsel of Kings, The Alchemy of Happiness by Ghazali

These are all Iranians writers, writing on Iranian tradition, who just happen to follow Islam. These are not "Islamic treatises".

They were written under Arab rule so I use "Islamic" as a loose term for the intermixed culture of the time period.


List of Arab achievements that I can think of(note for the time period they were atleast though obsoleted later):

Astrobable
Avicenna's works on medicine
Ibn Batuta's accounts of modern world of that area at the time
Cryptoanalysis/Frequency Analysis
Mercuric Chloride(as a disinfectant)


Anyways I'm saying there's much to learn. Not that the Arabs were worthy of emulation, but enemies are worthy of being analyzed. This coming from a person of a certain descent whom doesn't have any fondness for Arabs in his blood.

Treating an entire people as savages without intellect is the height of stupidity and ignorance because you think of them as some far off unreality that can easily be avoided. Those whom don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Instead of horse archers or Camel riders from the East we might be getting another plague or another Civil War. Dealing and learning from those tactics, what resulted from their cultures, and from their histories allows for a greater understanding of human possibility.

Your arguments is quite like the liberals whom dismissed DJT when he first came up as nominee. "Oh he's an ignorant savage there's no way he can be president." "There's nothing to learn from how he's learning his campaign he's jut saying outrageous things to get elected by ignorant people."


It's a bad idea to call things that have succeeded at one point stupid, pointless, or idiotic. It's a virtue to learn from success.

[hydrogonian]

(06-17-2016 06:28 PM)radiationsupernova Wrote:  

No, the whole Indo-European language thing, was basically the Microsoft language matrix of the Ancient World, they were never real racial or ethnic markers, but was a communication language matrix of the trade routes, travel ways, merchant men, traders, highway men, bandits and nomadic barbarian Eurasian tribes that populated the region of Eurasia proper.

...

Talk about lighting the thread on fire in one post.

Though, post on anything having to do with ancient Europeans and their territories and I suppose that one invites the ethnocentrists who are offended by it and get their information purely from ethnocentric websites. If anyone wants to take notice, I'm trying to use polite language.

I'm tempted to respond, but I make it a policy not to respond to people who don't know not to use ALL CAPS and exclamation points in their rhetoric. It speaks to the fact that it won't go anywhere. As do the various mistakes in the commentary that have little relationship to reality.

[hydrogonian]

(04-21-2016 08:35 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  

Hey guys,

I've been meaning to learn more about what the world, specifically the Middle East, was like before the invention of Islam. As we know, many ethnic groups had Islam forced upon them by the Gulf Arabs (mostly modern day Saudis), but what I want to know is what those Arabs were like before Islam. Did Islam help them to an extent, or did it hinder their growth and efforts to become civilized? More importantly, can all of the ills of the MENA region be traced back to Islam, or is it something else entirely? Is it just that humanity will always be in a constant state of warfare?

Leaving possible racial changes from various invasions aside as a factor in anything, pre-Islamic Mesopotamia was both incredibly cut-throat on terms of tribal competition as well as incredibly advanced civilizationally for its time - at least in certain places and periods. It's not great to generalize. You'd want to determine, specifically what periods became most productive and why. For instance, it's proposed that Egypt only reached its peak with the advent of the New Kingdom after influence from the Hyksos invaders (and some say rulers) that brought it chariot and likely other technology. Similarly, you wouldn't want to generalize that the Assyrian Empire was a "great empire". You'd want to get period specific.

Culturally, polytheistic mesopotamia is some of the most interesting religious anthropology that we have (that the Western nations are somehow happy to let ISIS destroy the irreplaceable legacy of). It's the basis for what would eventually become Judaism and, arguably, some forms of Christianity. These latter two religions being interesting only because they are what is left and because they are politically important today, though hardly similar to the original polytheism and likely highly syncretic with religions from outside of the region. But, if you want a real thrill in terms of looking at how intense and majestic the religious mind of the ancient polytheists was, Semitic / Canaanite polytheism is a fantastic place to start. Most polytheist religions in the west seemed to share a general pantheon and mythology with only small details and names of god changed. Don't skip the myths. The Ba'al cycle is especially interesting.

The legacy of the pre-Islamic Near East: Ubaid culture, Egypt, Sumer, the Akkadian Empire, Babylonia, the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and the Neo-Babylonian Empire. That doesn't include Northern Empires such as those of the Hittites and Hurrians.

Most of these empires will have multiple periods that all need to be studied for understanding.

Tribal competition was brutal, but the brutality was everywhere in the world and many of the technologies that helped to form human civilization everywhere were born in the crucible of that competition specifically in Mesopotamia where winter didn't limit their ability to survive and expand. I also think that many not-so-good things came out of that intensely political region as a result of tribal adaptation for survival, but that's another discussion.

Islam had nothing to do with any of that. Islam usually merely works to keep brutes in-line. That's why it's mostly followed by simple people from too-hot regions. It's dominance ruined these regions culturally, and it continues to cleanse the world of its old cultures in favor if its oriental esoterism and brutish exoterism. It was between 3000-35000 years too late to lay claim to any type of advanced civilization in the region. Yes, it unified the region under force, somewhat, but at what continued cost?

[Lizard King]

There was a brief discussion in the Florida Pulse attack thread regarding the Arab/Islamic contribution to technology etc.. I was firmly of the view that the early medieval Arabs had made major breakthroughs in technology, it is the predominant narrative.

I thought that the gentlemen who disagreed with me were just expressing their (rational) dislike of Islam in their view that most of the breakthroughs were based on stolen/captured sources etc.

I try to be open-minded, so I did a quick search, and was quickly surprised.

This quote from Bertrand Russell sums it up well:

http://enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk/2013/0...a.html?m=1

Bertrand Russell Wrote:

Even Bertrand Russell, who in no way is a critic of the Islamic world, writes in the Second Volume of The History of Western Philosophy:
Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes are essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists in logic and metaphysics, from Galen in medicine, from Greek and Indian sources in mathematics and astronomy, and among mystics religious philosophy has also an admixture of old Persian beliefs. Writers in Arabic showed some originality in mathematics and in chemistry--in the latter case, as an incidental result of alchemical researches.

Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which must not be underrated, is as a transmitter. Between ancient and modern European civilization, the dark ages intervened. The Mohammedans and the Byzantines, while lacking the intellectual energy required for innovation, preserved the apparatus of civilization--education, books, and learned leisure. Both stimulated the West when it emerged from barbarism--the Mohammedans chiefly in the thirteenth century, the Byzantines chiefly in the fifteenth. In each case the stimulus
produced new thought better than any produced by the transmitters--in the one case scholasticism, in the other the Renaissance (which however had other causes also).

Russell was by no means an anti-Islamist and had no agenda against Islam.

If the Arab empire had not existed or spread in the way that it did, many of the technologies they are said to have discovered would have still existed.

[Khan]

^Agree. Islamic societies can't produce major technological/cultural innovations on their own. This is a trait that's inherent to the fatalistic nature of Islam. Why bother with independent though, scientific research and innovation, when your God is a ruthless tyrant, bound by nothing, who forbids things such as representational art or laws of nature?

On the other hand, in the Christian worldview, God created the universe and made it governed by laws of nature that can be discovered. Thus, pursuing science can be considered a way of unraveling and discovering the beauty of God's creation, and this serves as motivation for scientific research.