/his/ - History

not to go /pol/ but Islam triggered a domino knocked over domino which knocks over more dominoes. With the various empires leeching all the wealth out of it and shit government in general.

>>33292

>NATO of course supports them, theyre BFFs with Israel.

Since when did Saudi Arabia became friends with Israel?

>>33292

>If you're speaking about modern day

Please do not do this.

>>33321

What's wrong with that?

>>33357

>>3147

>>33320

Saudis just tolerated Israel because of America.

But the house of Sauds eventually hates secular arabs like ba'athis, forever butthurt over radical wahabite like Al-Qaidah & ISIS, and will not be able to reconcile with other islamist like muslim brotherhood.

That would be enough for wahabite/salafite/saudist hater like >>33292 to say they're bff with israel.

>>33282

They got pretty fucked by Mongols and the Ottomans. European empires then played assburgers and drew their own arbitrary borders, leading to current dysfunctional states. Islam's mentality doesn't help either, but it's not the only reason to blame.

To throw a bone and spark a historical discussion; Europe was pretty fucked during the 400-800 period, after Western Roman Empire went to shit and before Charlemagne finally managed to get Europe's shit together.

This is more a question of modern politics as opposed to history, but long story short, the natural decline that hits most civilizations as well as the mongols sacking Baghdad.

>>33292

Pakistan managed to keep some of it's former cultural characteristics as well. Now it's some mix between Indian, Persian, and some Islamic cultural elements.

>>33282

After the First World War the UK and France just carved up the Middle East with a complete disregard of nationality and ethnicity and so, when they left, you had all these people under one roof who really did not want that. You then had a number of CIA coups that attempted to remove anti-Western governments but actually made people hate the West even more. Then there was the fact that a lot of groups hated eachother so whichever group was in power had a lot of terrorist attacks against them which was then responded to with mass-killings by police and army. You can't really compare all of these middle-eastern countries to eachother though, there's such variety between them all.

>>33282

They are just going through what European Christianity was ~500 or so years ago in the reformation.

>>33380

And, slightly earlier, the Crusades.

>>33282

Right now they're experiencing rapid social and economic change that's disrupting the order created during the fallout from the nomadic invasions of the 11th-15th centuries. Unfortunately many of these old institutions were established as a religious and tribal order in the absence of stable, native government. The Chinese went through similar upheavals starting a century and a half ago, periodically killing millions.

>>33282

The main thing you have to understand here is TIME

Those ancient civilizations you mention where already gone or had really declined by the time mohammed showed up. In fact we're are far closer in time to the beginning of islam than they were to say the age of the pyramids or sumer

Muslims didnt even exist at the same time western rome (THE rome) did, and romans themselves are closer to our era than to say the akkadians

Hipsters like to talk about the christian dark ages as if it was a big loss for humanity but the fact is that the kiloyear event and later on the bronze age collapse where the real dark ages. Those two events fucked up all those advanced ME civilizations, its basically why nobody knows how pyramids where build because egypt was thrown into such a turmoil that the technology and know-how were lost forever.

The mycenaeans had toilets, bathtubs and indoor plumbing in the year 1300 BC, even two thousand years later these things were state-of-the-art

>inb4 ancient spaceships

Nah I wont go there, sure we lost a lot of potential, POTENTIAL technological advancement, but there is no guarantee that the egyptians would figure out steam power or the mycenaeans would discover electricity and make light bulbs

>>33375

>UK and France just carved up the Middle East with a complete disregard of nationality and ethnicity and so, when they left, you had all these people under one roof who really did not want that

How much of that was classic D&C and how much was a matter of interests over key areas and resources?

There's a long-running tale among arabs and the left in the west that the euro powers did this to make sure those countries would become unstable and stay undeveloped and a bid for a future colonial takeover and restoration of the old order

>>33282

The main thing you have to understand here is TIME

Those ancient civilizations you mention where already gone or had really declined by the time mohammed showed up. In fact we're are far closer in time to the beginning of islam than they were to say the age of the pyramids or sumer

Muslims didnt even exist at the same time western rome (THE rome) did, and romans themselves are closer to our era than to say the akkadians

Hipsters like to talk about the christian dark ages as if it was a big loss for humanity but the fact is that the kiloyear event and later on the bronze age collapse where the real dark ages. Those two events fucked up all those advanced ME civilizations, its basically why nobody knows how pyramids where build because egypt was thrown into such a turmoil that the technology and know-how were lost forever.

The mycenaeans had toilets, bathtubs and indoor plumbing in the year 1300 BC, even two thousand years later these things were state-of-the-art

>inb4 ancient spaceships

Nah I wont go there, sure we lost a lot of potential, POTENTIAL technological advancement, but there is no guarantee that the egyptians would figure out steam power or the mycenaeans would discover electricity and make light bulbs

>>33375

>UK and France just carved up the Middle East with a complete disregard of nationality and ethnicity and so, when they left, you had all these people under one roof who really did not want that

How much of that was classic D&C and how much was a matter of interests over key areas and resources?

There's a long-running tale among arabs and the left in the west that the euro powers did this to make sure those countries would become unstable and stay undeveloped and a bid for a future colonial takeover and restoration of the old order

>>33282

>Iran

Is Persia really even that fucked? I've heard life in Iran isn't that bad, but NATO propaganda just loves to depict Shiites as ">muh terrorists"

cough cough due to Israeli interests cough cough

>>33809

Depends. You can have a fairly nice life so long as you don't criticize the regime or happen to be a woman.

>>33831

The government that they helped install? Why would that government be fearful of the US and it's allies? It's not like we've tried to depose them or anything like that.

>>33839

The current government, not the US-UK installed one.

>>33292

If anyone is still reading this just dropping in to say that Assyrian continuity is easily proven linguistically, culturally and genetically. Read a book, honestly.

I mean it literally is in majority part due to Islam.

>>33282

The horrid division of the Ottoman eyalets in the aftermath of WWI by the French and English thoroughly fucked the peoples there because they dint consider the strong ethnic and cultural ties that governed the populace in those places, that basically set these made-up states into a one way course to a Rwandan genocide. The second, gigantic nail in the coffin, is the introduction of Jewish refugees from WWII, which coupling that with the fact that Jewish Zionism was at its Zenith, PLUS the fact that NATO wanted this Jewish-led Israel to be its police state in the area led to the polarization of the currently fucked-by-the-brits-and-french countries to respond with equal hostility to jewish hostility, and the thing snowballed from there

>>34635

you've still got those horrific straight lines bordering Iraq and Palestine which almost certainly created unrest.

>>34635

>This french mandate was dissolved by syrian nationalists however who embraced the colonial borders, because bigger=better apparently..

That's the worst part, the world need some more balkanization, but instead of each group going their own way they all want to be the dominant one.

>>34641

>horrific straight lines

If you take a look at google eart, you gonna see that this horific line becomes much less horrific when you realize it divides an inhospitble desert, except for the southern part where its some greyish wilderness in which I cant find any settlements either.

Maybe the french left the line as it was because Iraß and palistine or their keepers at that time (britain?) wouldnt have allowed any clay to be taken from them.

>>34655

I know that feel, nationalism is fucking awesome if its nonexpanisive there is noone around (or noone who gives a fuck) who can feel opressed because he is the minority and ruled by another people.

While the french proposed this mandate for syria, they probably would have reacted allergical about the Bretagne wanting to be independent.

And when this is impossible due to scattered populations and fears of loosing too much power in the face of greater nations, federations seem like a better idea then an ethnic group playing the topdog for others.

But that would requiere a pacifistic "I dont annex your shit even if im stronger" approach which seems to be quiet rare amongst the states of the world.

>>34635

As far as i know, Syra was one of the best countries in the ME to live in (pre ISIS, obv.)

Majority of the population was middle class (i think). Has a massive professional work force, really secular, etc. I know shit about the modern state of Syria but what little I do know seems to suggest that Syria actually had a good run, of course, untill they allied Russia, which of course made angry the US… which suspiciously led to the Arab Spring trying to oust a hella lot of anti-US rulers and try to replace them with friendly US rulers

>>33809

>>33813

>>33826

>>33831

>>33839

>>33843

This is when Iran went to shit, the end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran.

>>34677

Yeah, my old Spanish teacher went on holiday there a few years back, before everything went to shit, and said that it was one of the happiest places he had been to. Everything was colourful and the people were nice, enjoyed a good standard of living too. Their attitude towards Assad was basically to not mess with him and he won't mess with you.

Then it all fucked up.

>>34677

>>34685

NatGeo had an article about Syria back in 2009.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/11/syria/belt-text

>>34685

That un-bombed city. Fuck geopolitics

Dysgenics in the case of Iran and Iraq. Sudan was never good.

>>34685

;_;

I need to ask my local Yazidi-Kebab man about Assad next time I eat there.

>>33292

>I bet you never heard of Himyarites who even converted to Judaism, most people think "Yemen was always Arab

Wasn't there some Jewish king of Yemen who tried to kill all the non-Jews in the kingdom? Around the 500's IIRC.

>>34846

I think Judith did that in Ethiopia in 10th century

>>34634

We survived because of resilience, and because we contributed a lot to those who conquered our land. For example, it was Assyrian/Syriac scholars such as Hunayn ibn Ishaq. We mostly all have Assyrian DNA. The Arabic admixture is somewhat evident in some of the villages, but we are mostly homogeneous, especially due to the forbidding of intermarriage between Muslims and Christians

Islam.

>>35079

I don't like this meme.

>>33282

>OP dosent want islam jam

>anons give him islam jam

>no one mentions the relevant past 100 years of history

Shit OP, sorry mane

>>35132

But these countries were even fucked way before the last hundred years.

Euros started shafting around the 1700s.

So please provide something else then Islam-jam instead of vague smugness about how its obvious that the cradle of civilisation would have stayed relevant, strong and unfucked after that major religious shift that grew stronger over the centuries if it werent for reasons beyond their control which you dont list up because they are so obvious.

>>35086

So you don't like the truth? Islam can completely destroy societies as we have seen before many times in history, you just don't want to face reality because 'muh islamaphobia'.

>>35144

no, it was more because OP said he wanted alternatives to "muh Islam destroys everything", I understand how Islam has benefited and hindered historical society.

>>35098

>Surely these laws must be disadvantegous in times and enviroments which differ from 600 a.d arabia, thus making islamic societies stagnant or at least highly inflexible.

Your explanation of Islamic law and society is very incomplete. There has always been a division of divine and secular law, and it doesn't have any more laws on every day life than Catholic Canon or the various community and royal laws of Europe. Even the ban on usury is no different than those in Judaism and Christianity, and Muslim merchants pioneered several workarounds that Italian merchants themselves adopted to circumvent religious restrictions on usury. Women were not barred from work either, making up a constant portion of the rural and urban workforce throughout Middle Eastern history. When Averroes is speaking of women in gilded cages, he's talking about Muslim noblewomen, a phenomenon that was common for his social class regardless of religion. I highly suggest tackling this subject not from non-historical sources like the one you linked, but from surveys and studies of Middle Eastern history by actual archaeologists and historians. Without exploring exact examples of how and why such stagnation would occur due to legal custom in the Muslim world, this is just begging the question.

The rest of the post is unfortunately confusing modern Wahhabi and even modern Sunnism as the original, uniquely puritanical religion preached by Muhammad that the region has slowly regressed towards.

>>35192

>Could you link me any credible sources that explain how Wahhabism is not the same as the original teachings of Mohammed?

That doesn't seem hard to answer with just one factual detail: it's a movement that began in the 18th century which violently conquered said heartland of Islam in the 20th century. Thus the extraordinary claim here is how Wahhabism is the same as Muhammad's original religion despite a gap of over a thousand years, and how ownership of the Muslim holy sites gives them the authority to determine this having conquered the place rather than having been elected by any broad Islamic consensus as guardians.

>>35193

>despite a gap of over a thousand years

But the Wahabbi movement itself only relies on the quoran which has-according to the absolut consensus of all muslims as far as I know (directly dictated by Gabriel etc)-never changed over these thousand years while the conquered muslims often had a few foreign nonquranic elements mixed in their beliefs.

The little schirk.

Furthermore, luck in war is directly attributed to the will of Allah in the quoran. An example is that story about the elephants going to wreck mekka denying service.

So ownership over the sites by force can be indeed interpreted as the will of god.

*Shirk

>>35195

Which is to say the movement relies on exactly the same sources that all Muslim movements throughout history have relied upon, making them just another interpretation among hundreds with no better claim to the original spirit of the religion than any of the modern Christian sects have on being the one true faith preached by Jesus Christ. The Wahhabi movement is no different, even in their claim to be spiritually pure by readily attributing their own local practices of the Nejd and the revolutionary theology of Abd al-Wahhab as what Islam was meant to be originally.

And no, might did not make right in intramuslim affairs. This is evident especially in the denunciation of the Umayyad usurpation or in any single civil war since. We're not talking about can-be or may-be interpretations to justify events after the fact, we're talking about the clear spontaneity of a movement that did not descend from a mystical Islamic tradition handed down directly from its founder, but a modern religious sect based on its contemporary politics, culture, and reactionary drive against much older traditions. One is free to believe Wahhabism represents the original teachings of Islam's founding prophet, but that is in the end a belief.

>>35201

Modern Saudi Wahhabism is a combination of Wahhabi theological claims of revitalizing Islam into a new age of faith and East Arabian Hanbali scholarship, which is reliant on both the Quran and the Hadith which rejects tradition as anathema to its creed and instead relies on textualism. The discrepancy between multiple meanings of Quranic verse was not about literalism, but interpretive legal ruling. For a work like the Quran, obviously religious yet also written in poetic verse, textualism is as much guesswork as Sufi layered-meaningfulness.

All speculative theology aside, it still leaves us with the problem that we don't know what Muhammad preached outside of what's written in the Quran, the interpretation of which is not usually independent of the Hadith which postdate Muhammad and contentious in of themselves.

>>35203

>claims of revitalizing Islam into a new age of faith

Seems legit, there can only be one who is right as long as the book does not state otherwise like hindus do-highlanderstyle.

>East Arabian Hanbali scholarship, which is reliant on both the Quran and the Hadith.

Ah, so the Hadith is the stuff written about mohammed around 150-200 years after his death which was then used by Hanbali to justifie "textualism" as opposed to interpreting the vague arabic rhime-collection about convincing pagans to monotheism dictated by an angel the same way the gorillion sects of early (and modern) christians broke their head about how to interpret the elaborate allegorys of jesus?

And just the same way katholicism managed to come on top and get the power to brand the other christians as hereitcis around 200-1200 A:D, the wahhabis managed to do what catholicism did around 1700-2000, though there have been some aggressive caliphs before who also tried to do so but failed in the end because they got their ass whopped in a war?

Would be interesting to see if the muslims world/single contries stagnated everytime a Hadith-endorser got in power.

Could I also say by extension that a Kuffar can simply judge wheter a muslim is inheritently hostile by seeing if he/she regards the Hadith as more as a bunch of illegitimate historical sidenotes (hostile) or disregards it completely in favour of the sunna alone?

sry for making this borderline political/nonhistorical but I neither trust muslims nor the liberal press or the overly simplistic stance of local rightwingers concerning these questions, so im always curious when I get a somewhat neutral perspective like the one of people like peter scholl latour.

>>35201

>to read it in pure arabic and to take it literally this way

From a linguist's point of view, here's already a predicament — how can we be so certain about a language that has been spoken 1400 years ago. There are for example numerous puns in Shakespeare's English that average reader won't understand due to pronunciation and vocabulary evolving. Scholars could easily fabricate claims about Classical Arabic.

Then again, there's actually a theory that Koran wasn't even originally written in Arabic, but in Syriac, which was lingua franca at the time Koran was written (by Luxenberg, if you want to read more on this). It is a fact though that early Koran was written without vowel marks and without the diacritic dots, meaning that several consonants were written with the same letter leading to ambiguity.

>>35204

More complicated than that even, Hanbali jurisprudence is actually based on two (conflicting) 10th century Iraqi theologians claiming to be followers of ibn Hanbal, someone who was said to be a student of Shafi'i (another school founder) from the 9th century. So we're dealing with a complex game of telephone here:

Muhammad -> his contemporaries -> three generations of people passing on sayings and anecdotes -> 9th century Hadith scholars and compilers -> 10th century students founding schools of law and theology.

Also, it was the Hanbalis who tended to get branded as heretical or ignored as marginal for most of Islamic history until the Ottoman era.

>>33831

It's semi secular and is exactly what their people wanted

>OP said "inb4 Islam Jam

>Thread becomes Islam Jam

>>33292

>it's called Xeer

[triggered]

>>35264

It was bound to happen.

Also nobody said much else but maybe somethng something mongols.

So people start talking about what makes these people notable in the first place, their religion.