The Qur'an

[baftan]

Fast is not always better. Ask the Aboriginals. Or the Africans, who were the bread basket of the world before the west got their greedy paws on them. Genocide works.

Yet fast is sometimes unavoidable: When western transformation started to radically change human habits and life styles, or wipe out generations of people, it was like the effects of natural disasters. On the other hand, instead of resisting it, some people tried to do different things in this new model, and they adapted certain new strategies for new gains. However, since it has never been controlled by a single person or group, nobody has ever been able to control the speed or area of it. Aborigines or Africans, French or English, Chinese or Brazilian; none of them could stop it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yet fast is sometimes unavoidable: When western transformation started to radically change human habits and life styles, or wipe out generations of people, it was like the effects of natural disasters.

Indeed. And most societies are not recovered from its effects. And some irreversibly so.

 

[baftan]

And some irreversibly so.

It happens in human history time to time. First humans who started to walk on their two feet, their life had irreversibly changed. When ancestors introduced the agricultural revolution, many people were irreversibly transformed, some of them were slaughtered by the armies of empires for thousands of years. Similar type of thing might have happened when the fire was controlled first time, or during any other substantial change in human history. In this sense, western revolution has had its own agenda of transformation, yet it doesn't present a total anomaly in human history.

I suspect that any other radical change in the future would find its own victims in terms of changing them irreversibly. Irreversible changes are unavoidable, positive or negative.

 

[S.A.M.]

It happens in human history time to time. First humans who started to walk on their two feet, their life had irreversibly changed. When ancestors introduced the agricultural revolution, many people were irreversibly transformed, some of them were slaughtered by the armies of empires for thousands of years. Similar type of thing might have happened when the fire was controlled first time, or during any other substantial change in human history. In this sense, western revolution has had its own agenda of transformation, yet it doesn't present a total anomaly in human history.

I suspect that any other radical change in the future would find its own victims in terms of changing them irreversibly. Irreversible changes are unavoidable, positive or negative.

I think it does. Its probably the only society in history that does not honor its victims. Plus, most people in the west, like Michael, have an Eurocentric view of the world and seem congenitally incapable of accepting that there are other points of view. This is not a problem one encounters in the more sophisticated East or even in places where "civilisation" has not "developed" to the satisfaction of western elites.

 

[baftan]

I think it does. Its probably the only society in history that does not honor its victims.

Can you imagine our ancestors, those who were originated from aggressive apes, did not cook their enemies when they controlled the fire? Can you imagine those who upright-standed on their two feet didn't hunt the one who run for their lives on their knuckles? Is it possible to imagine the human ancestors who invented agriculture and domestic breeding did not call the mountain people or other nomadic-hunter-gatherers with degrading names, didn't they occupy the places in the name of their emperors and religions and made slaves from other human beings?

Did they honour their victims? They probably shat on them; raped, slaughtered and dismembered them, considered them as lower level creatures and named them for centuries...

Then western civilization got started. And it had a rich tradition of human ancestors to reproduce, it didn't come from outer space, it has roots and history in our species.

 

[S.A.M.]

Can you imagine our ancestors, those who were originated from aggressive apes, did not cook their enemies when they controlled the fire? Can you imagine those who upright-standed on their two feet didn't hunt the one who run for their lives on their knuckles? Is it possible to imagine the human ancestors who invented agriculture and domestic breeding did not call the mountain people or other nomadic-hunter-gatherers with degrading names, didn't they occupy the places in the name of their emperors and religions and made slaves from other human beings?

Did they honour their victims? They probably shat on them; raped, slaughtered and dismembered them, considered them as lower level creatures and named them for centuries...
.

Thats western civlisation you're talking about.

They live in a black and white world where only "people like us" belong to their tribe.

Have they ever built a single bridge which did not require mass murders of the "other"?

Ever participate in a geopolitical or economic bond where they did not exploit the "other"?

 

[baftan]

Thats western civlisation you're talking about.

At the same time, Aztec civilization, Chinese, Russian, Greek, Mayan, Japanese, Babylon, Islam, Indian, and many others I am talking about. I can not find this isolated angel like wise creature who lived anywhere that witnessed great and necessarily irreversible transformations. I can not see any substantial difference in western civilization in terms of providing pros and cons of any transformations in history.

 

[S.A.M.]

At the same time, Aztec civilization, Chinese, Russian, Greek, Mayan, Japanese, Babylon, Islam, Indian, and many others I am talking about. I can not find this isolated angel like wise creature who lived anywhere that witnessed great and necessarily irreversible transformations. I can not see any substantial difference in western civilization in terms of providing pros and cons of any transformations in history.

They would, actually, all those civilisations had rules of warfare and systems of honour. You're probably thinking of western depictions of their histories as barbarianism

 

[baftan]

They would, actually, all those civilisations had rules of warfare and systems of honour. You're probably thinking of western depictions of their histories as barbarianism

What is honour? Making slaves for Romans from Africans as well as from Germanians well before Western Civilization? Didn't they call these people as barbarians? Didn't Islamic invasion armies legitimise their action calling the rest of humanity as infidels? Or maybe ancient South American civilizations were slaughtering their victims but erecting monuments to honour them.

You should have a better argument to single out western civilization...

 

[S.A.M.]

What is honour? Making slaves for Romans from Africans as well as from Germanians well before Western Civilization? Didn't they call these people as barbarians? Didn't Islamic invasion armies legitimise their action calling the rest of humanity as infidels? Or maybe ancient South American civilizations were slaughtering their victims but erecting monuments to honour them.

You should have a better argument to single out western civilization...

The Romans are western civilisation.

Which Islamic invasion was legitimised by calling the rest of humanity as infidels?

 

[S.A.M.]

South American "slaughters"

Some of the most famous forms of ancient human sacrifice were performed by various Pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas.[42] that included the sacrifice of prisoners as well as voluntary sacrifice. Friar Marcus de Nica (1539) writing of the "Chichimecas": that from time to time "they of this valley cast lots whose luck (honor) it shall be to be sacrificed, and they make him great cheer, on whom the lot falls, and with great joy they crown him with flowers upon a bed prepared in the said ditch all full of flowers and sweet herbs, on which they lay him along, and lay great store of dry wood on both sides of him, and set it on fire on either part, and so he dies" and "that the victim took great pleasure" in being sacrificed.[43]
[edit] Mesoamerica

The Mixtec players of the Mesoamerican ballgame were sacrificed when the game was used to resolve a dispute between cities. The rulers would play a game instead of going to battle. The losing ruler would be sacrificed. The ruler "Eight Deer" was considered a great ball player and won several cities this way, until he lost a ball game and was sacrificed.

The Aztecs and the Incas did sacrifice what are considered unbelievable numbers of prisoners. But the victims were never debased or dehumanised, these were ritual sacrifices and many of the victims also came from their own societies. They were not "the other" and nor were they dishonoured.

 

[Michael]

I agree that People from Europe spread across this globe conquering everyone and everything in their path. IMO it was not ethical. I think Europeans realized this. To justify their expansion that claimed they were spreading the true words of God to the heathens so that they may enjoy God and his Blessing through our lord and savior the Messiah Jesus. This in and of itself helped to see China close off, kill off Xians and collapse. Japan similarly closed off, killed off Xians and about collapsed.

Now, this is the thing. I can sit here and say YES I AGREE this was wrong. Yet, SAM on the other hand seems to think it's wrong when European Xians do it YET when it's Muslims doing it - then it's all good. When Muslims attacked Mecca - that's swell. As if Mohammad being a resident and speaking the language therefor had the right to smash other people's stuff!? :bugeye: Please. Not to mention the Persians. The Egyptians. Constantinople, etc...

And Islam has been as detrimental to those Civilizations as Christianity has been to others.


Could the rise in Christianity across Europe have helped precipitate the so-called dark ages? It's certainly possible. The Enlightenment saw people move past all sorts of dogma, like Kings, Aristocracy, God.

Could the rise of Islam across the ME have helped create a situation where it eventually stagnated and collapsed into what it was when the Europeans found it ripe for the taking? Certainly so. Think about why the ME was somewhat wealthy. They monopolized the worlds best trade routes. What does a middle-man like best? The status quo. How to maintain the status quo? Religion. A person who is taught to submit to religious authority from birth is in the right frame of mind to be controlled by his superstition his/her entire life.

Ideas like "The Qur'an is perfect" find fertile ground in such societies.


One can see a good parallel with Communism. It's much the same.


Stagnate societies show a serious lack of expression. Sure they may have a few sanctioned outlets. You can see this in Communism. North Koreans put on beautiful pageantry for dear leader. And Islamic countries have nice Mosques. But over all there is a lack of expression because the name of the game is control.

That's simply a fact.


Western nations have learned from their past and it's why we are now multicultural. That's doesn't mean we accept all aspect of every culture. Slavery for example. Polygamy is another. Racism still another, etc... but we look into the past and say hey that was wrong. SAM - you on the other hand say it's Islam The Glorious - cotton candy and all. Spain was attacked that was all good because excuse excuse excuse. Persians attacked - defense. Constantinople attacked - had it coming. India attacked - never happened or good thing it did, etc..

 

[S.A.M.]

What you fail to understand though, is that you are doing the same thing your European ancestors did. Your tribalism is equal to theirs. The hand wringing over past crimes and the support for present genocides all inclusive.

Western nations haven't learned a thing. That you think they have is a clue to your inability to understand reality.

 

[baftan]

The Romans are western civilisation.

Which Islamic invasion was legitimised by calling the rest of humanity as infidels?

Romans were Mediterranean civilization, they were consuming agriculture based products and its culture, and they do not qualify as Western Civilization just because today's western countries are using latin based languages. Today's western civilization is also using discoveries of Islamic Civilization, that doesn't define Islamic Civilization as Western Civilization.

General consensus on starting date for modern Western Civilization can go as far as 6 or 7 centuries, definetely not 8 or older. Even Christianity is not a defining feature of western civilization.

About Islamic invasion in the name of Allah, more accurately "to spread Allah's religion across "Dar'ul Harb" (The war zone; The places where Islamic rule is not applied), we have verses in Qur'an, hadiths from Mohammed, traditional discourse and stories about infidels, and whole story of the spread of Islam starting from Mohammed.

 

[S.A.M.]

Romans were Mediterranean civilization, they were consuming agriculture based products and its culture, and they do not qualify as Western Civilization just because today's western countries are using latin based languages. Today's western civilization is also using discoveries of Islamic Civilization, that doesn't define Islamic Civilization as Western Civilization.

You realise that by eliminating Romans as a western civilisation, you just removed the sine qua non of all western thought and institutions?

Much as I would like to, I have to regretfully decline this elimination. The Roman civlisation was a western one.

General consensus on starting date for modern Western Civilization can go as far as 6 or 7 centuries, definetely not 8 or older. Even Christianity is not a defining feature of western civilization.

Uh you can't arbitrarily decide these things.

About Islamic invasion in the name of Allah, more accurately "to spread Allah's religion across "Dar'ul Harb" (The war zone; The places where Islamic rule is not applied), we have verses in Qur'an, hadiths from Mohammed, traditional discourse and stories about infidels, and whole story of the spread of Islam starting from Mohammed.

Then you should have no problem finding ONE invasion in 1400 years justified by the other being an infidel.

 

[Michael]

What you fail to understand though, is that you are doing the same thing your European ancestors did. Your tribalism is equal to theirs. The hand wringing over past crimes and the support for present genocides all inclusive.

Western nations haven't learned a thing. That you think they have is a clue to your inability to understand reality.

Are you referring to the Iraq war? Then I agree. Blatant militarism.

But remember, there are many Indians, Arabs, Muslims, Shinto, etc... living in so-called Western nations, they all share a blame, not just people with European Ancestry.


Books like the Qur'an and the Bible had their time, it's time humanity moves on so that perhaps things like the Iraq won't happen.

 

[S.A.M.]

We're talking western civilisation here. But your putting race into the equation is an example of how you see this stuff.

 

[baftan]

You realise that by eliminating Romans as a western civilisation, you just removed the sine qua non of all western thought and institutions?

If you didn't select Roman part of my paragraph and exclude Islamic contribution I mentioned, you wouldn't end up this conclusion. I bet you will accept ancient Greek civilization as "sine qua non" part of your perception of romantic western civilization. You can do that, it is your understanding of history. However, if you go that far, you must necessarily include Islamic tradition inside of your Western Civilization. They share geography, stories, and blood...

Much as I would like to, I have to regretfully decline this elimination. The Roman civlisation was a western one.

As I said, it's optional. But I wouldn't call a slave labour based agricultural socio-economic land based system as western civilization, just because they occupied the same geography with one part of Western Civilization (Europe part).

Uh you can't arbitrarily decide these things.

Not really, my criteria is the end of dominant world view (Christianity based agricultural culture), new geographical discoveries, Renaissance and resulting substantial developments in arts, science, politics, society, military and secular world view. End of 10 000 year old agricultural socio-economic system. And all these things first started around the dates I mentioned. I wonder what is your criteria for western civilization. I hope it's not "going to church and eating pork".

Then you should have no problem finding ONE invasion in 1400 years justified by the other being an infidel.

Not at all, because infidels are the general names of anybody or regime who was not Muslim. Sometimes dominant Muslim (Sunni) regime declared other Muslims (Shia) as infidels too. And don't confuse legitimizing (making things normal in people's minds) with official war declarations of Islamic Administrations.

But if you are after legitimising Islamic wars among other examples in human history, or trying to show them how rightful and honorable people those Islamic warriors -and their intentions- were, I will not join this game...

 

[Michael]

We're talking western civilisation here. But your putting race into the equation is an example of how you see this stuff.

I don't believe in different races.

You posted:

What you fail to understand though, is that you are doing the same thing your European ancestors did. Your tribalism is equal to theirs.

I'm saying people with ancestry from Arabia, India etc.. people with different belief systems, Shinto, etc...

 

[S.A.M.]

Not really, my criteria is the end of dominant world view (Christianity based agricultural culture), new geographical discoveries, Renaissance and resulting substantial developments in arts, science, politics, society, military and secular world view. End of 10 000 year old agricultural socio-economic system. And all these things first started around the dates I mentioned. I wonder what is your criteria for western civilization. I hope it's not "going to church and eating pork".

So you see post-Renaissance development as western civlisation? Based on your reasoning, its an acceptable hypothesis. After all much of the basis of western civilisation is developments in other parts of the world, we could legitimately also include pre-Renaissance Europe as not western but pre-western.

Not at all, because infidels are the general names of anybody or regime who was not Muslim. Sometimes dominant Muslim (Sunni) regime declared other Muslims (Shia) as infidels too. And don't confuse legitimizing (making things normal in people's minds) with official war declarations of Islamic Administrations.

But if you are after legitimising Islamic wars among other examples in human history, or trying to show them how rightful and honorable people those Islamic warriors -and their intentions- were, I will not join this game...

I am not "after" anything. I am asking you to support your assertion with evidence. I don't care who you classify as infidels. Just show me which invasion was justified on that basis, as you claimed it was.