Thanks for your response to my one-word question; it's good to hear a view.
I've felt it necessary to break up your post into different sections in order to answer the various points you've made. I think I see what your point of view is, but I'd like to clarify a few things.
format_quote Originally Posted by akhee
lol most of it never never interested me and most of it was propaganda so you dont know what to believe.
Is most US and UK history really propaganda?
most of the leaders aren't even good role models, to be honest, on my opinion
Fair enough, you have every right to believe this. Does it mean that Western history is boring, though? Many Roman emperors were murderously insane, but reading histories about them is fascinating, I think.
if a person is a good leader they should fight along with their country or nation but none of the leaders did this (referring to WW1 + 2 etc.), what is power if one cant fight themselves and sends troops, doesn't that show a sign of weakness?
Thanks for your response to my one-word question; it's good to hear a view.
I've felt it necessary to break up your post into different sections in order to answer the various points you've made. I think I see what your point of view is, but I'd like to clarify a few things.
yeh its ok
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Is most US and UK history really propaganda?
i really think it is.. if you go to germany and ask them about World war 2, you'll hear a completely different response compared to the story about hitler being a madman who hated jews and wanted the blue eyed, blond haired people to dominate. come to think of it - he was brown haired, brown eyed himself. ( i really dont want a huge debate over this lol.) obviously there is more to that but we havnt been told, so alot of things have been kept a secret. why is this? i have read it was regarding the free masons and everything but i dont know much about that.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Fair enough, you have every right to believe this. Does it mean that Western history is boring, though? Many Roman emperors were murderously insane, but reading histories about them is fascinating, I think.
yeh thats true lol stories from that time were interestin - but i like reading the islamic history because its got more of a aim to them instead of just gaining power and ruling countries.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Do you think Winston Churchill was weak?
from what i have heard about him, he was a good leader in matters like persuading the men in the army to fight but he never actually fought in the war himself which never really interested me. i dont know if he did in WW1 but i like a leader who's willing to fight himself with his men, that shows true bravery
Its just sooo confusing! I never understand any of it, though I usually pass with a B and sometimes an A... But the cool thing is, once our teacher found out that we all had answers to her test, so she gave us another one, with totally different topics and I scraped an 81... while everyone else failed (this was American History)
format_quote Originally Posted by akhee
yeh thats true lol stories from that time were interestin - but i like reading the islamic history because its got more of a aim to them instead of just gaining power and ruling countries.
Then you're grandkids would love reading about my rule and domination of Earth, Mars, Crematoria and Pluto...
Last edited by Far7an; 09-17-2005 at 05:28 PM.
Reason: Merged posts: 80445, 80448
i really think it is.. if you go to germany and ask them about World war 2, you'll hear a completely different response compared to the story about hitler being a madman who hated jews and wanted the blue eyed, blond haired people to dominate.
I don't think this is really true. The people of Germany still feel a huge sense of national guilt about the rise of National Socialism and its consequences, but their historians and those of other countries generally agree on the facts of the matter.
However, this is not to say that different views don't exist, and nations are sometimes accused of rewriting their own histories to downplay past wrongdoings - Japan is a recent example, since government approved school textbooks on the Second World War were produced which only give part of the story of Japan's actions. I don't think this accusation can be fairly levelled against the Germans, though.
yeh thats true lol stories from that time were interestin - but i like reading the islamic history because its got more of a aim to them instead of just gaining power and ruling countries.
Some people think history has a general aim, some don't. And there's a lot more to Western history than just "gaining power and ruling countries". Those were the motives of various monarchs and leaders, but not all history is about such powerful people.
from what i have heard about him, he was a good leader in matters like persuading the men in the army to fight but he never actually fought in the war himself which never really interested me. i dont know if he did in WW1 but i like a leader who's willing to fight himself with his men, that shows true bravery
He did fight (briefly) in WW1 - he felt, as you do, that it was important for those sending the troops to war to know what it was like. The problem with leaders going to war with their troops is that they can get killed too easily, which causes disruption to any war plans. When you're trying to organise something as large and complex as a war, it's important that the leader remains safe, so that there doesn't have to be an endless quick succession of new leaders replacing old ones. It may be seen as brave for leaders to fight in a war, but if they die, the success of the entire campaign is thrown into doubt.
He did fight (briefly) in WW1 - he felt, as you do, that it was important for those sending the troops to war to know what it was like. The problem with leaders going to war with their troops is that they can get killed too easily, which causes disruption to any war plans. When you're trying to organise something as large and complex as a war, it's important that the leader remains safe, so that there doesn't have to be an endless quick succession of new leaders replacing old ones. It may be seen as brave for leaders to fight in a war, but if they die, the success of the entire campaign is thrown into doubt.
Peace
yeh.. i kinda thought u was gona say that but if you think about it. our beloved Prophet (salallahu alai hi wasalam) was the only man who was recieving the revelations from Allah (swt) - but even that didn't stop him from fighting ALL the battles that took place between the muslims and the mushriks (polytheists.)
i think this is when the following verse came out:
003.144: Muhammad is no more than a messenger: many Were the messenger that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.
if i am wrong can someone please correct me.
now reffering to that: if our beloved Prophet (salallahu alai hi wasalam) was the only one who could recieve the revelations, then why did he fight in every battle? surely the leaders in the british history could have fought and died and later on someone could replace them, but if our beloved Prophet (salallahu alai hi wasalam) passed away within the battle, then who would replace him? thats what i mean by bravery, and that is the reason i am more interested in Islamic history, because it has a more deeper aim - more deeper than a mere worldly outcome cz no matter how much power a leader may have in this world, it won't benefit him in no way after he is dead.
if a person dies for a worldly cause that is the end of them, but if a muslim dies for Islam, his lifes just beginning insha Allah
peace.
Last edited by - Qatada -; 09-17-2005 at 06:45 PM.
That was an excellent post; you made many good points.
All I can say in return is that there is a distinction to be made between wars in modern history and those before. Until about the 18th century it was common for leaders to fight alongside their troops. The last British king to appear on the battlefield was George II in 1743. After this it became much less common, for the reasons I've given.
I don't want to downplay the importance of Muhammad (pbuh) here, since he is clearly unique in having founded a major world religion, and having achieved military and political success within his lifetime. However, while fighting alongside his troops does show considerable bravery, I do not believe he is exceptional or unique in that regard.
thanks to Allah (swt). cz trust me i've learnt more about islam in a period of about 4 months than i have about the british and american history over the past two years in my gcses.
Very interesting reading. I've read about Khaled, the "Sword of Allah" before, in Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" which I've mentioned on another thread.
By the way, what's your opinion of Salahuddin? I imagine he must be high on the list of great military leaders too.
re western/ non islamic history being boring etc...
i disagree History is the story of what came before you so how can you know what you are and what your place is with out knowing what came before.
history both islamic and non islamic is big in our house!!
studying the romans/greeks/persians is facinating esspecially because you know how the story ends.. well up to now anyway!
I home educate my children, we are currently covering pirates and buccaneers, not a very islamic subject but still interesting.
re leaders fighting, i wish was like the old days before nuclear wepons and chemicals, when a king/caliph would lead his army to war to fight eye ball to eyeball with swords/arrows, it seemed more civilised then.
re churchill he was a great leader for britian in ww2, he wasnt without falts.
but Sir Winston Churchill who introduced the use of chemical weapons to Iraq. In 1920, as Arabs and Kurds rose against Britian’s brutal post-World War I occupation of Iraq, Churchill, then Secretary for War and Air, first suggested the use of “asphyxiating bombs” to put down the rebellion. http://vitw.org/archives/839
its a relative thing, whether you think of him as a great leader or a evil murderer.
history is knowing all the facts to piece together the puzzle and sift through the properganda and lies that every nation creates.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
:
cz trust me i've learnt more about islam in a period of about 4 months than i have about the british and american history over the past two years in my gcses.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks