What makes something good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hugo
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 257
  • Views Views 28K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I intended the post to illustrate my scepticism about these kinds of debates. There will never be an objective standard of 'good' and 'evil', partly because they are impossible to quantify and partly because people, even when they're doing the morally wrong thing, tend to see their actions as justified, often because they're acting in their own self-interest, or the interests of those they care about. No villain thinks he's a bad guy. That is not to say morality has no place in society - of course it does, it is an imperative pillar of civilisation. And it's not to justify clear injustice, even if the unjust do not think they are behaving in such a manner. But here's the thing - different societies and cultures have different moral codes. Which can to lead to, or exacerbate, conflict when different societies, or even different individuals, meet. Do certain peoples, cultures or religions have superior moral codes to others? That is for the individual to decide in light of the information presented to them.

P.s. I'm not sure how simply describing a discussion as 'academic' constitutes a dismissal of science... What gave you that impression?
An interesting post and in our current world we are of course exposed to all sorts of cultures. I suppose we are all disposed to think our culture is superior and I have no issue with that as long it is not forced down my throat and indeed I very much like the idea of borrowing cultures from each other.

Of course I do want to even suggest that all cultural practices are good and some perhaps we should condemn such as genital mutilation or a culture of drunkenness or intolerance. However, we are all products of our culture, our education, our families, our religion and in general there is nothing much we personally can do about that but it does colour our thinking whether we like it or not.

What is interesting here and in some ways disturbing is that many social groups come say to the UK and want to create or recreate their culture there even though often the have fled oppression or violence within it in the homelands. One then finds that them demand to be able to do this using democratic freedoms whereas if that culture was fully implement such freedoms would disappear - I don't understand this.

Finally, I mention something written by the stoic Greek philosopher Epictetus who commented on human behaviour this way "it is not things in themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of things". In other words it is not what happens to us that determines our behaviour but how we interpret it. Thus facing a failure of some kind one person sees it as a new challenge and the other as abject defeat while someone else will see it as punishment he or she deserves.

So this brings us to you question, which if any cultures are good and therefore we should emulate. Which historically shall we say have led to peace, development and prosperity, which societies are tolerant, which care for the poor, which promote equality and so on or whatever other measure you care to suggest.
 
Last edited:
There have been one or two post about democracy and government so I though I would add something here. I suppose we need to ask ourselves "is development good" or is a static society better. In terms of Islam a kind of fence was drawn in about the 11th century and Islam become fixed though I am not sure who decided, or who could decide this or whether it has any legitimacy. Nothing really stands still and we cannot know what the future holds and in life generally we acquire knowledge and often this means we set aside old notions and embrace new ones and in a way we daily unlearn some things that in some cases has cost us no small labour. In order to make the post manageable I will explain the idea over 2 or 3 posts and you may comment on each of them.

Democracy existed way back in Greek times so it’s not new. Often we read about “pure Islam” and Islamic government being an ideal but history simply tells us that those governments were autocratic and often despotic who would want to return to that? I have chosen to use the work of Al Tahtawi and if you want to follow up these posts there are several books but some are very expensive but go to Amazon and have a look.

Barbara Winckler, "Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawi: France as a Role Model
Daniel L. Newman, An Imam in Paris: Al-Tahtawi's Visit to France (1826-31) (a tranaltion of Rifa'a Al-Tahtawi’s work
Eugene Rogan, The Arabs: A history (I hasve used this as a source books as it is the easiest one to get)​

The comments in my next three post are extracts with some editing from Rogan's book

Al-Tahtawi was a famous Muslim cleric and in the 1850's or thereabouts wrote his brilliant reflections on France. As a Muslim and an Egyptian Ottoman, he was confident of the superiority of his faith and culture. Yet his firsthand observations left him in no doubt of Europe's superiority in science, technology, government and thought – one of his observations was "By God, during my stay in France, I was grieved by the fact that it had enjoyed all those things that are lacking in Islamic kingdoms,"

Science and Technology - To give some sense of the gulf that al-Tahtawi believed separated his readers from Western science, he judged it necessary to explain that European astronomers had proven that the earth was round. He realized how much the Islamic world had fallen behind Europe in the sciences and believed that the Islamic world had a duty and a right to recover this knowledge, given that Western advances since the Renaissance had been built on medieval Islam's progress in the sciences and that Islam in its turn had built on Greek and Indian knowledge. He argued that the Ottomans were only calling due the West's debts to Islamic science by borrowing European advances in modern technology but sadly they waited nearly 10 centuries – that is the trouble with religious and cultural arrogance; you think you have made it, you think there is nothing more to learn, its stops you thinking and asking questions.
 
Last edited:
This is my second post on the thoughts of Al Tahtawi and again if you want to follow up these posts use the books I listed earlier.

Government - al-Tahtawi's book made its most substantial contribution to political reform with his analysis of constitutional government. He translated all seventy-four articles of the 1814 French constitution and wrote a detailed analysis of its key points. Al-Tahtawi believed the constitution to hold the secret of French advancement.

"We should like to include this," he explained to his elite readership, "so that you may see how their intellect has decided that justice and equity are the causes for the civilization of kingdoms, the well-being of subjects, and how rulers and their subjects were led by this, to the extent that their country has prospered, their knowledge increased, their wealth accumulated and their hearts satisfied."

These were dangerous new ideas with no roots in Islamic tradition. As he confessed, most of the principles of the French constitution "cannot be found in the Qur'an nor in the sunna of the Prophet." He may have feared the reaction of his fellow Muslim clerics to these dangerous innovations, but he took the even greater risk of provoking the disfavour of his rulers. After all, the constitution applied to the king and subjects alike, and it called for a division of powers between the monarch and the elected legislature. This is shocking really when you recall that at the time the Muslim world was ruled by absolute monarchies or some other form of autocratic state as it had been from the time of the prophet.
 
I think you have drawn the fence sometime around age 11, and then come here expecting folks to not only honor but work from your apriori judgment and selective reading..
I think you are a sick individual who constantly needs to feed his hatred by affirmation and validation of those he despises!

good luck with all of that!
 
This is my last post on the thoughts of Al Tahtawi and again if you want to follow up these posts use the books I listed earlier.

Free Thinking and Rights - The reformist cleric was captivated by the way the French constitution promoted the rights of common citizens rather than reinforcing the dominance of elites. Among the articles of the constitution that most impressed al-Tahtawi were those asserting the equality of all citizens before the law and the eligibility of all citizens "to any office, irrespective of its rank." The possibility of such upward mobility, he maintained, would encourage "people to study and learn" so that they might "reach a higher position than the one they occupy," thereby keeping their civilization from stagnating. Here again, al-Tahtawi was treading a fine line. In a rigidly hierarchical society like Ottoman Egypt, ideas of social mobility would have struck the elites of his time as a dangerous notion.

Al-Tahtawi went further, praising French rights of free expression. The constitution, he explained, encouraged "everybody freely to express his opinion, knowledge and feelings." The medium by which the average Frenchman made his views known, Al-Tahtawi continued, was something called a "journal" or a "gazette." This would have been the first time many of al-Tahtawi's readers would have heard of newspapers, which were still unknown in the Arabic-speaking world.

Both the powerful and the common people could publish their views in the newspapers, he explained. Indeed, he stressed the importance of commoners having access to the press "since even a lowly person may think of something that does not come to the mind of important people." Yet it was the power of the press to hold people to account for their actions that struck the cleric as truly remarkable. "When someone does something great or despicable, the journalists write about it, so that it becomes known by both the notables and the common people—to encourage the person who did something good, or to make the person who has done a despicable thing forsake his ways."
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1349002 said:
I think you have drawn the fence sometime around age 11, and then come here expecting folks to not only honor but work from your apriori judgment and selective reading..
I think you are a sick individual who constantly needs to feed his hatred by affirmation and validation of those he despises!

good luck with all of that!


salaam

preety much I second that - I think its a good idea of leaving Hugo with this one

Democracy existed way back in Greek times so it’s not new

peace
 
Last edited:
salaam

preety much I second that - I think its a good idea of leaving Hugo with this one



peace

My father wrote a book in his youth comparing Roman 'democracy' with Islamic Shura and it was really well received, and the stark differences between how the plebeians had no political rights under such a system compared to the prophet PBUH taking shura even from 13 year olds and women giving their support makes you know that there is no object of comparison whatsoever..

Again this fellow fails to acknowledge the divide and conquer rule that they have employed and corrupt system that allowed them to besiege entire sovereign empires even completely irreligious ones like in China and mistakes pillaging and lack of conscientiousness for progress to which they later turn around and have the audacity to point shortcomings of others.. despicable all throughout history and despicable still in their word warfare...

but it won't last for long-- despots instated and implementing western agendas won't be around for long and certainly those previously mired in fascination of such corrupt systems are starting to wake up to a stark reality that demands change back to the caliphate and a complete Islamic system..

:w:
 
Finally, I mention something written by the stoic Greek philosopher Epictetus who commented on human behaviour this way "it is not things in themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of things". In other words it is not what happens to us that determines our behaviour but how we interpret it. Thus facing a failure of some kind one person sees it as a new challenge and the other as abject defeat while someone else will see it as punishment he or she deserves.

So this brings us to you question, which if any cultures are good and therefore we should emulate. Which historically shall we say have led to peace, development and prosperity, which societies are tolerant, which care for the poor, which promote equality and so on or whatever other measure you care to suggest.

Good questions... Which cultures are good and therefore we should emulate.... and which historically shall we say have led to peace, development, and prosperity ?

Which society has been tolerant caring for poor, promoted equality and other measure? which inshA Allah i will add and see Hugo whether which Culture in the past has provided best guidelines for a society to be an example for all future societies... :)



We should start by asking question as to whether the Present day standards of excellence, - that is values and ideals which are accepted and upheld by enlightened sections of humanity, and ask question...... What is the Origin of all such ideals ? Whence have they come from ? And in particular then ask ourselves whether such standards and values were commended or enjoined by any pre-Islamic religious teachings ?


If we were to reach the conclusion that all such present day set of ideals and values which is considered worthy for a civilized nation to adopt and accept were for the 1st time revealed in Islam, then we should come to the conclusion that the Islamic ideals are still alive, even though they were given to the world, 1400 years back which then proves that Quran is even today the acceptable Gospel.


Negatively if it could be shown that the principles or set of standards of excellence as given by the teachings Of Islam, were outdated or if the values and ideas gained in modern times are absent in the Quran and mankind has learned something new, then we can say that the Quran is a book out of date...so lets see...

If we were to put the Ideals and Values in a list and see whether such would be accepted as the best norms for a civilized society in 21st century....


1. Equality, dignity and brotherhood of man.
2. Value of universal education with emphasis on spirit of free inquiry and importance of scientific knowledge.
3. Practice of religious tolerance.
4. Liberation of the woman and her spiritual equality with man.
5. Freedom from slavery and exploitation of all kinds.
6. Dignity of manual labor.
7. Integration of mankind in a feeling of oneness irrespective of their differences in race and color.
8. The devaluation of arrogance and pride based on superiority of race, color, wealth, etc and the founding of society on principle of Justice.
9. Rejection of the philosophy of asceticism.


Each one of these said above, are included in the Injunctions of Quran and they are practically shown in the Life of Prophet Muhammad (Saw)....


So any unbiased inquiry in to the past, would be able to give us the answer that such norms were not held by any Pre Islamic civilizations before and the world has come to conclude that above norms are needed for a civilized society, and came to be known after the revelation of Quran...
 
This is my last post on the thoughts of Al Tahtawi and again if you want to follow up these posts use the books I listed earlier.

Free Thinking and Rights - The reformist cleric was captivated by the way the French constitution promoted the rights of common citizens rather than reinforcing the dominance of elites. Among the articles of the constitution that most impressed al-Tahtawi were those asserting the equality of all citizens before the law and the eligibility of all citizens "to any office, irrespective of its rank." The possibility of such upward mobility, he maintained, would encourage "people to study and learn" so that they might "reach a higher position than the one they occupy," thereby keeping their civilization from stagnating. Here again, al-Tahtawi was treading a fine line. In a rigidly hierarchical society like Ottoman Egypt, ideas of social mobility would have struck the elites of his time as a dangerous notion.

Al-Tahtawi went further, praising French rights of free expression. The constitution, he explained, encouraged "everybody freely to express his opinion, knowledge and feelings." The medium by which the average Frenchman made his views known, Al-Tahtawi continued, was something called a "journal" or a "gazette." This would have been the first time many of al-Tahtawi's readers would have heard of newspapers, which were still unknown in the Arabic-speaking world.

Both the powerful and the common people could publish their views in the newspapers, he explained. Indeed, he stressed the importance of commoners having access to the press "since even a lowly person may think of something that does not come to the mind of important people." Yet it was the power of the press to hold people to account for their actions that struck the cleric as truly remarkable. "When someone does something great or despicable, the journalists write about it, so that it becomes known by both the notables and the common people—to encourage the person who did something good, or to make the person who has done a despicable thing forsake his ways."



Well lets see Hugo how much has the French really acted upon their words.... because Actions speak louder than words...


Islamophobia has always been always been a mission of French Government and its Media...a European who knows says...

"It is not a recent phenomena but was already established as early as the 1st World War. A highly racialized stereotypes of Algerians as criminals, primitive savages, rapists, transmitters of venereal disease and tuberculosis, was widely diffused through the French press." (Neil MacMaster "Islamophobias in France and the 'Algerian Problem'," in The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy, Emran Qureshi and Michael Sells, eds., (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003)


Just by analyzing the French rule over the Algerian and their post occupation attitude is sufficient enough for us to come to the conclusion that French Government and its attitude towards Islam and Muslims is nowhere near to what Tahtawi says... not in the past nor in present...

To this day the French Media outlets routinely carry inflammatory anti-Islamic articles, headlines, and pictures. Hijab has been a major target of this long, vicious media campaign. The French had gone to Algeria for good, or so they thought declaring, it a department of France. So the Algerian, War of Independence (1954-1962) was traumatic and France is still bitter over their defeat. Toward the end of that War France sowed seeds of large scale immigration of Algeria by uprooting more than 3 million peasants and destroying Algerian economic infrastructure. This immigration was considered necessary as France needed man power for development after the 2nd World War.

In the 1970s and 1980s these immigrants began to bring in their families and slowly started to settle in the new land. Naturally, they demanded basic rights for themselves and their families, Masajid, schools, cemeteries, Halaal Food, time for prayers etc) As they did the campaign for demonization began and Islamic "threat" began ..... and So Neil MacMaster says ....

"The increased visibilty of Muslims was used by the extremists to generate fear. Muslims were not only bad people to be hated, they were also dangerous people to be feared because they were there to 'takeover' the country. The Machiavellian propaganda campaign is showcased by one example. In 1981-9182 an anonymous forged letter was widely circulated in Dreux where extremists National Front would score a decisive electoral victory a year later. The forged letter was supposedly written by an Algerian to a friend in Algeria. It said :


"My dear Mustapha. By the grace of a the all-powerful Allah we have become lords and masters of Paris... Come quickly, we expect you in large numbers, since Mitterand has promised that we shall soon get the right to vote. We kicked the French out of Algeria, why shouldn't we do the same here ?
(Neil MacMaster "Islamophobias in France and the 'Algerian Problem')


The above reminds me of those Fake Bin Laden tapes which were circulated which justified the attacks on Afghanistan, a nation who had no role in 9/11.... those tapes were called forged by many, as the face of Bin Laden was not even his...


So the 'Democratic' west, has used democracy as a cover to continue their ongoing Colonial, rule, and i suggest Hugo to look at the reality that is beyond what appears as reality....
 
Good questions... Which cultures are good and therefore we should emulate.... and which historically shall we say have led to peace, development, and prosperity. If we were to put the Ideals and Values in a list and see whether such would be accepted as the best norms for a civilized society in 21st century....

1. Equality, dignity and brotherhood of man. 2. Value of universal education with emphasis on spirit of free inquiry and importance of scientific knowledge. 3. Practice of religious tolerance. 4. Liberation of the woman and her spiritual equality with man. 5. Freedom from slavery and exploitation of all kinds.
6. Dignity of manual labor. 7. Integration of mankind in a feeling of oneness irrespective of their differences in race and color. 8. The devaluation of arrogance and pride based on superiority of race, color, wealth, etc and the founding of society on principle of Justice. 9. Rejection of the philosophy of asceticism.
It is nonsense in my opinion to say that Islam brought civilization or any of the things you mention as if they were new. If we take the middle east as the cradle of civilization then its history that we know about goes back 7000 years prior to Islam and as far as we know they were magnificent civilizations. Even if we look at the Greeks some 3000 years before Islam we see greatness and the writings they bequeathed to us probably added more to thought and logic than any other people on earth. If we exclude the purely Islamic historical things from the Qu'ran then everything else has been mentioned elsewhere long before 600 AD. I have already shown in my others posts that the brilliant observer and Islamic cleric, al-Tahtwai, thought so.

In the above list it is patently obvious that no one of them is true and easily demonstrable. For the purposes of this thread we can take any of them. But perhaps we can start with your 'free spirit of enquiry' and let us really see if that spirit is there or not. I will begin by saying Homer, Socrates, and Shakespeare have, perhaps, contributed more to the intellectual enlightenment of mankind than any other three writers and way beyond anything we find in the Qu'ran or Hadith.

Now can you even consider that idea - or will I get the usual stream of abuse?
 
Last edited:
I will begin by saying Homer, Socrates, and Shakespeare have, perhaps, contributed more to the intellectual enlightenment of mankind than any other three writers and way beyond anything we find in the Qu'ran or Hadith.

Now can you even consider that idea - or will I get the usual stream of abuse?
I am sure Homer and Socrates and even Shakespeare would be amused by your words, 1.8 billion adherents to Islam with all that it entails of literature, astronomy, mathematics, architecture, spiritual enlightenment, prophetic medicine, compared to the diminutive fanfare of the former.. Not very difficult for men of reflection and intellect to pick out who offered intellectual enlightenment.. 'the stream of abuse' you receive if we can call it that, will usually crop up when buffoons pose themselves as scholars!

all the best
 
So the 'Democratic' west, has used democracy as a cover to continue their ongoing Colonial, rule, and i suggest Hugo to look at the reality that is beyond what appears as reality....

Let me ask you, do you agree with Al-Tahwai's analysis as I presented it, do you agree that constitutional government, freedom of speech are much to be desired?

The trouble is that you see every criticism or question about Islam as ant-Islamic. Muslim's in France have full citizen ships rights and no more and no less and way more than they would every get under and Islamic government. Yes they demanded rights, rights granted them by a free society and if those same people were in power those same rights would be abolished overnight. You speak of colonialisms and FORGET that the Islamic empires were the result of invasions and subjugation of peoples and slavery - these Muslim conquerors did not give rights they took them away, destroyed cultures and demanded payment and total obedience. NO you don't, can't see it like that can you?
 
Let me ask you, do you agree with Al-Tahwai's analysis as I presented it, do you agree that constitutional government, freedom of speech are much to be desired?

The trouble is that you see every criticism or question about Islam as ant-Islamic. Muslim's in France have full citizen ships rights and no more and no less and way more than they would every get under and Islamic government. Yes they demanded rights, rights granted them by a free society and if those same people were in power those same rights would be abolished overnight. You speak of colonialisms and FORGET that the Islamic empires were the result of invasions and subjugation of peoples and slavery - these Muslim conquerors did not give rights they took them away, destroyed cultures and demanded payment and total obedience. NO you don't, can't see it like that can you?


Although I didnt want to get in this discussion I have to point out 3 things

1 - You say that muslims have great rights in france and are equal - well they are not - Burkha is banned - so if a muslim believes that the burkha is part of her faith well gues what she has zero right to wear it france - why beacsue the french say so. Same thing can be said about all religous symbols in public places - France is an exteme secular society

2 - You talk about Muslim empire being so evil - they were way better on the level of tolerance then anything in europe at the time. Which is odd for any pre modern society If you were a christain you could survive in muslim lands - you couldnt do that in europe if you were a muslim.

3 - You forget that the same tyrants that oppress people in the muslim lands are supported by the west as long as they comply with the western agenda - Saddam Hussien is agreat study so is saudia arabia.

4 - The Quran is a religous book that has followers of over a billion - the same cannot be said for any greek work or work of poetry like shakespeare.
 
Last edited:
You speak of colonialisms and FORGET that the Islamic empires were the result of invasions and subjugation of peoples and slavery - these Muslim conquerors did not give rights they took them away, destroyed cultures and demanded payment and total obedience. NO you don't, can't see it like that can you?

Are you certain this statement reflects the true history or is it just the views of one side?

My ancestors the Tatars (Mongols) were quite bllod thirsty and horrific in their conquests. The children of Genghis and Kubla Khan expanded their progeny throughout nearly all of Asia and into much of Europe. The expansion would have continued if they had not attempted to conquer the Arabs and as a result of the Arab influence accepted Islam and turned to peace. Another side of the picture you present, Islam kept my ancestors from marching into the UK. You should view Muslims as having saved much of the world from what would have been a very barbaric and bloody invasion. My ancestors were not very nice or peaceful people before Islam.
 
1 - You say that muslims have great rights in france and are equal - well they are not - Burkha is banned - so if a muslim believes that the burkha is part of her faith well gues what she has zero right to wear it france - why beacsue the french say so. Same thing can be said about all religous symbols in public places - France is an exteme secular society
I said, Muslims have the SAME rights as everyone else. You argument is totally empty because logically I can argue, according to you, that my religion demands genital mutilation, setting myself on fire or any other idiotic idea so it should be allowed. Similarly, if my wife were in Saudi Arabia she would have to cover her head so her rights therefore would be infringed.

2 - You talk about Muslim empire being so evil - they were way better on the level of tolerance then anything in europe at the time. Which is odd for any pre modern society If you were a christain you could survive in muslim lands - you couldnt do that in europe if you were a Muslim.
I don't think I said Muslim empires were evil - you invented that idea. I said that in general they were no different to anywhere else. There were times when Jews for example were welcomes in Muslim lands though ALWAYS as second class citizens and vice versa. One might look today at say Iran or Pakistan and see how Christians are persecuted as well as those Muslims who are not quite of the right brand. The point I am making is that once we start saying "we don't persecute" it stops you seeing wrong when it staring your face. Let me ask you, a Christian Pastor, a convert from Islam, was murdered on July 16th in the Islamic republic of Dagestan - if the murderer turns out to be Muslim will you speak out against that outrage?

I guess I would find it hard to accept a story of Christians persecuting someone else and you I think would perhaps reject or want to reject the idea that Muslims persecute anyone - that is perhaps natural but neither of us would be honest would we?

3 - You forget that the same tyrants that oppress people in the muslim lands are supported by the west as long as they comply with the western agenda - Saddam Hussien is agreat study so is saudia Arabia.
Are you saying that before the West intervened that Muslim land were governed by benevolent rulers who listened to their people? Its time you took your head out of the sand. If Saudi Arabia is so bad why is it that not a single Muslim cleric there that I know of has objected to the way the place is run? You might also like to know that the Sunni's driven out of Iraq by the Shia speak longingly of the days of Saddam Hussien. I have read Arab history extensively and you will find great individuals who can be admired by anyone but you will not find any who wanted any kind of constitutional rule and I cannot think of a single case were it was not absolute monarchy or some other kind of autocratic rule and one wonders if it will ever be different.
4 - The Quran is a religious book that has followers of over a billion - the same cannot be said for any Greek work or work of poetry like Shakespeare.
True but how many of those billion have actually read the Qu'ran and read it in the own language and if they do and have any education at all they will see it recounts the very same stories found elsewhere centuries before it was known? I don't know how many copies say of Homer's Odyssey have been printed over its 3,000 year existence but I am absolutely sure its several millions and to anyone who has read it is is beyond price and totally unique.
 
Last edited:
Are you certain this statement reflects the true history or is it just the views of one side? My ancestors the Tatars (Mongols) were quite bllod thirsty and horrific in their conquests. The children of Genghis and Kubla Khan expanded their progeny throughout nearly all of Asia and into much of Europe. The expansion would have continued if they had not attempted to conquer the Arabs and as a result of the Arab influence accepted Islam and turned to peace. Another side of the picture you present, Islam kept my ancestors from marching into the UK. You should view Muslims as having saved much of the world from what would have been a very barbaric and bloody invasion. My ancestors were not very nice or peaceful people before Islam.

Of course it is true and ANY Arab or Muslim history will show this. Just consider the Ottoman empire and see how it was created and maintained essentially through slavery. You will also see how the conquered lands fought back in one way or another and how in the end the whole thing collapsed through shifting loyalties, greed, colonialism and lastly perhaps nationalism. There is nothing special here and its just another story of empire building and destruction.
 
I said, Muslims have the SAME rights as everyone else.


:haha:you do have a point-- I guess when everyone gets a scarlet letter and gets hauled to some concentration camp we'll have to ponder your wise words!

all the best
 
Peace Hugo,

Perhaps this thread can be simplified. Maybe we can discuss one point at a time and avoid sensorary overload. At my age it is difficult to see beyond one sentence at a time. In your opinion what one aspect of Islam do you feel is the most unfair to non-Muslims who lived in Islamic lands?
 
I said, Muslims have the SAME rights as everyone else. You argument is totally empty because logically I can argue, according to you, that my religion demands genital mutilation, setting myself on fire or any other idiotic idea so it should be allowed. Similarly, if my wife were in Saudi Arabia she would have to cover her head so her rights therefore would be infringed.

No they dont a muslim wearing the burkha in public does not have the same rights as a person who doesnt wear the burkha - You seriously picked the worst example out there. Your wife isnt in saudi arabia and any other irrelevent unrealistic tangent you like to keep going on about. by the way if you have a problem with saudi arabia talk to the saudi government!

I don't think I said Muslim empires were evil - you invented that idea. I said that in general they were no different to anywhere else. There were times when Jews for example were welcomes in Muslim lands though ALWAYS as second class citizens and vice versa. One might look today at say Iran or Pakistan and see how Christians are persecuted as well as those Muslims who are not quite of the right brand. The point I am making is that once we start saying "we don't persecute" it stops you seeing wrong where it right in your face.

I guess I would find it hard to accept a story of Christians persecuting someone else and you I think would perhaps reject or want to reject the idea that Muslims persecute anyone - that is perhaps natural buy it is not honest is it?

Yes the Jews were treated better in muslim lands - most of the time they had it better then in Christain Europe at the time. Yes and you have a problem with Iran and pakistan but have no idea how muslims are also being restricted in europe - france and the burkha, swiss and the minerats - nobody lives in a eutopia - europe is also going through an increase of Islamaphobia as we speak. But you like to brush that under the carpet - lets not even talk about the newspapers.

You have the copts of egypt - a very old christain community thats been in muslim lands for a long time - nothing similar in europe.

Are you saying that before the West intervened that Muslim land were governed by benevolent rulers who listened to their people? Its time you took your head out of the sand. If Saudi Arabia is so bad why is it that not a single Muslim cleric there that I know of has objected to they way the place is run? You might also like to know that the Sunni's driven out of Iraq speak longingly of the days of Saddam Hussien. I have read Arab history extensively and you will find great individuals but you will not find any who wanted any kind of constitutional rule and I cannot thing of a single case were it was not absolute monarchy or some other kind of autocratic rule and one wonders if it will ever be different

I said what i said - its not what you put above. I think you need to get your head out of the sand and see there is constitutional rule out there in the arab world! you seriously dont even know that just shows how much you have read of arab history. Although the rulers may not follow the constitution is another matter (maybe part of the problem). A great individual is purely subjective - saddam hussien was great in the 8os for the west but a bad guy in the 90s. Yes nice to be pessimistic about other cultures but think your own is a eutopia. Give me a break Hugo - your tangents need to stop and you need use your head a bit more - seriously.

True but how many of those billion have actually read the Qu'ran and read it in the own language and if they do and have any education at all they will see it recount the very same stories found elsewhere centuries before it was known? I don't know how many copies say of Homer's Odyssey have been printed over its 3,000 year existence but I am absolutely sure its several millions and to anyone who has read it is is beyond price and totally unique.

a billion dont think the odyssey is the literal word of God. You seem to have little knowledge of what Islam calls for - it calls people back to the messege of God thats started with Adam! Come on man how long have you been on this forum and you dont even know the basics of Islam.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is true and ANY Arab or Muslim history will show this. Just consider the Ottoman empire and see how it was created and maintained essentially through slavery. You will also see how the conquered lands fought back in one way or another and how in the end the whole thing collapsed through shifting loyalties, greed, colonialism and lastly perhaps nationalism. There is nothing special here and its just another story of empire building and destruction.

They were in power for 800 years! some say the longest living dynasty in the world. slavery which was also happeing all over the world was not just essential for the Ottomans but also for any economic power at its time. Your forgeting about the millet system is an intresting thing to look at maybe it was the main thing that helped them last so long.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top