A Brief Overview of European History

Post Reply New Topic

I have discovered an interesting pattern in your post:
Every period you highlighted is concerned with Middle Eastern culture and/or a reference to Christianity...
Except 1941...<chuckle>

The only tentative connection I can see is the usage of: "filthy animals..." where you used it elsewhere as well...

I am starting to think you don't like Nazis...
They were really "hotsy totsy..."...
And looked very cute in their lederhosen...

Mel Brooks obviouly liked them too...
After all, he included them in the play: "Spring time for Hitler in Germany" in his movie: "The producers..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(1967_film)
This is the stage play version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6G3xXrRN50

BTW, I thought discrimination against cultural groups is politically incorrect these days...

Seriously, m8...
This inclusion was simply gratuitous...<chuckle>

A better inclusion, which would be more in context, could have been:
1916:
"When, on June 5th, 1916, the Arabs launched their revolt against the Ottoman Empire, Germany’s ally, their partners Britain and France had already decided to betray commitments given to the Arabs for joining the battle on the eastern front."

Not only does it include a middle eastern cultural reference it shows how the Christian Brits and French behaved badly...

To leave on a positive note...
I am very impressed with your energy...
You remind me of "the ever-ready bunny..."

Good outline!

I do think it's worth going into more detail regarding the Middle East. Islam never existed as a monolithic bloc, except perhaps in its earliest days (the Rashidun Caliphate). Even then, you had the disagreement between the Sunni and Shi'a, with the Sunni preferring that the caliph be selected by the community, and the Shi'ite preferring that the caliph stay within Muhammad's family (hence their support for Ali, who was cousin to the Prophet Muhammad). You also had radical groups like the Kharijites, who eventually became the modern (and not especially radical) Ibadi sect found in Oman.

After the Battle of Karbala, which saw the death of Ali's son, Hussein, and the ascension of the Mu'awiyah to caliph (thus bringing about the Umayyad Caliphate), the Shi'ites tended to stay underground. What's interesting about the Umayyad Caliphate is that it relied heavily on existing Persian and Greek administration. While organized Arabic states had existed (like the Himyarites of Yemen, who practiced Judaism, believe it or not), many Arabs had only recently come from a nomadic lifestyle. Thus, much like the Mongols who conquered China, the Arabs had to depend on the more experienced Persian/Greek administrators.

Non-Muslims were second-class citizens. How bad this was depended largely on who was your local leader. Non-Muslims were exempt from military service, but did have to pay the jizya tax. However, even with the jizya tax, Christians often ended up paying fewer taxes than they did under Eastern Roman rule. This actually helped the Umayyads, since some Christians found Damascus's rule less onerous than Constantinople's. Likewise, the Christians in Egypt were mostly miaphysites (holding the Jesus had a divine nature and a human nature, which co-existed without intermingling), who were at odds with the Chalcedonian patriarchs of Anatolia. So yes, being a second-class citizen was not necessarily that bad in the context of the time. But that doesn't mean it was nice. Like I said, a lot depended on where you were, and who was in charge. Non-Muslims were generally prevented from spreading their religion, which is quite oppressive for Christians, though less of an issue for Jews or Zoroastrians.

I've also read that the Umayyads discouraged conversion to Islam, because they were dependent on the jizya tax.

During this time, the Eastern Roman Empire was still thriving, and they also did a lot to preserve classical heritage (they were, after all Romans who spoke Greek).

The Abbasids ushered in the Islamic Golden Age. They started off as a rebellion of sorts in Khorasan (part of Persia), aided by a man named Abu Muslim. The Abbasids took over and killed most of the Umayyads, except for one who escaped to Spain. The Abbasids also offed Abu Muslim for fear that he'd become too powerful. Here you saw a great flowering of literature, poetry, and so forth (and algebra, early versions of the scientific method, and more).

This is was when Harun al-Rashid reigned as caliph. Interestingly, he made some effort to be friendly toward Charlemagne, partially as a counter to the Eastern Roman Empire which had long been a rival of the caliphs. Harun al-Rashid sent Charlemagne an elaborate water clock as a gift, something that the Carolingian court had never seen.

Many leading Muslims of the time were part of the Mu'tazilite group. What must be remembered is that Islam holds that the Quran is the direct word of God, transliterated (but not created) by the Prophet Muhammad. Traditionalists believed that the Quran is co-eternal with God. The Mu'tazilites argued that this could not be, since God created the Quran, and thus God came first. The Mu'tazilites also held positions that bordered on a sort of proto-rationalism. Their idea was that since the Quran was created by God, it could be interpreted through both reason and revelation, just as nature could be interpreted through reason.

I want to make very clear that I am not endorsing a side here. I'm not a Muslim, nor am I particularly well-versed in the religion's theology. It was more complicated than simply rationalists versus believers. I am simply explaining my (limited) understanding of the situation.

The Mu'tazilites actually had the ear of the caliph. Caliph Al-Mamun supported them, and tried to make Mu'tazila the law of the land. He created an inquisition, called the mihna, to enforce this. However, many common people preferred the traditionalists, and resented the caliph's sometimes brutal attempts to enforce orthodoxy. A scholar named ibn Hanbal led the opposition. ibn Hanbal was arrested, but became something of a martyr (not in a literal sense, as he lived to a ripe old age). He founded the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence. Eventually, the traditionalists won and the mihna (which again, was quite harsh) died out. The Mu'tazilites dwindled and eventually disappeared.

Meanwhile, the Abbasid Caliphate was having trouble with waves of Turkish migration. There was a general decline in Abbasid authority. The Cordoban Caliphate (ruled by Umayyad survivors) ruled Spain, while the Shi'ite Fatimids controlled Egypt. The Turks were a steppe people, similar to the Mongols, and often hired themselves out as bodyguards to the rich and powerful. Because so many soldiers were now Turks, the Turks increasingly called the shots.

This is actually where things link up to the First Crusade. The Abbasids had generally left Christian pilgrims alone. However, the Seljuk Turks tended to be more aggressive and often harassed the pilgrims. This was as serious matter during the time, and explains why the First Crusade was followed with such fervor.

The decline continued over the next few hundred years. The Crusades ultimately accomplished little, as the the European presence in the Holy Land never lasted that long, or extended much beyond the Levant. While Jerusalem was an important part of the Muslim world, it mattered less than Arabia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, or Persia, and the crusaders never reached those areas.

Meanwhile, Europe was having its old set of new developments and ideas during the High Middle Ages, which brought windmills, eyeglasses, and more. While the Islamic Golden Age produced incredible advances in science and art, it's not fair to say contemporaneous Europe was lacking in the same.

The Mongols, of course, laid waste to the Middle East. I'd argue that Islamic civilization has not totally recovered from the Mongol invasion. The early Muslims credited their military and political success to God's favor. Mongol devastation led many to think that they were being punished for failing to be faithful, which led to more orthodox interpretations of religion. ibn Taymiyah was a scholar who argued for a return to the old ways (though I've heard his arguments were much more complex than I'm making them sound).

Still, even later on you had brilliant scholars like ibn Khaldun, who was orthodox but still encouraged people to think about what they heard. In his book, The Muqaddimah, ibn Khaldun warns people about accepting at face value the size of armies given in old epics. He points out that it'd be extraordinarily difficult for smaller kingdoms like Israel to field armies of 600K (as it was claimed to have done in an account), when the much larger Persian Empire was known to have an army of only 120,000.

As I said, the Muslims were one of several groups that preserved classical knowledge (and they deserve credit for it). The Eastern Romans, and parts of the West, also did this. In general, knowledge tends to grow when many peoples communicate. Isolation can lead to intellectual and technological stagnation (China was able to get away with it by virtue of sheer size—there were enough people within China that they had significant intellectual capital even when cut off from the outside world—nonetheless, they suffered when isolation increased under the Ming and Qing dynasties).

Overall, a big part of the problem is this: We recognise that Western culture is complex and yet we insist that Middle Eastern culture is simple.

I'll use slavery as an example. In the past, black Africans have been enslaved by both Christians and Muslims.

When we learn that the Ottoman Turks kept black slaves, we think "See? Islam is pro-slavery!" When we learn that the confederates owned slaves, we never say that the Confederates owned slaves because they were Christian.

Addionally, let's consider war. Is Islamic holy war a part of history? Yes, but so is Christian holy war. We can argue that those medieval kings were starting wars for their own selfish reasons and that they used Christianity as a flimsy excuse ... but we can just as easily say this about Islamic leaders. I doubt that Muhammad wanted Muslim leaders to have harem girls.

Let's extend this perspective not just to the people who start wars, but also to the people who actually fight in them. In the West, we generally agree that men join wars for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes he is drafted. Sometimes, he needs the money. Sometimes, he sincerely believes that his government is doing the right thing. Sometimes he is a blind patriot who will side with his country no matter what. Sometimes he is a racist. Sometimes he is religiously motivated. Sometimes he does it for glory. Sometimes he is out for revenge. Sometimes he thinks that going to war will get him laid. Sometimes he just wants to kick ass because that's manly.

Of course, we, in the West, generally believe that Islamic warriors are always fighting because of Islam. In other words, we are willing to believe that our soldiers are complex and yet we are unwilling to see the same complexity in Middle Eastern men.

That's dehumanisation if you ask me.

Are you serious?...<chuckle>
I gather you are forgetting about the barbarism of ISIS...
Well, I hope you are...

You aren't seriously supporting a terrorist organisation that cuts off the heads of people simply because they have different beliefs or for political purposes...
Who train their children to cut off the heads of toy bunnies...
A group who institutionalised rape...
And are cultural barbarians through destroying heritage sites?...

Talk about dehumanisation...

Mate, boy oh boy did you take a wrong philosophical/moral turn or wot!...

Agreed.



I'd argue that slavery exists for economic reasons, and that religious justifications come later. Neither the Bible nor the Quran prohibits slavery, since it was a fact of life in the ancient/medieval Near East. Parts of the Middle East continued to engage in large-scale slavery as late as the 19th century, at which point the British Empire put an end to the practice. Slavery does continue there today, though in fairness, it also exists in Western societies.



It's worth looking at the original texts. The Quran does consider warfare legitimate if practiced to defend the faith. This made sense, the early Muslims were persecuted by other Arabic tribes, who essentially forced warfare upon them. The Arabian Peninsula of the time was a violent place without any ruling hegemonic power that could keep order. It was similar to some periods of ancient history, which might be one reason that the Quran resembles the Old Testament in many ways.

The New Testament is quite different. It takes a far more pacifistic approach than either the Old Testament or the Quran. Speaking as a secularist, I'd argue that this comes in part because Christianity arose in the Roman Empire. The Romans obviously engaged in vicious persecution against the early Christians. However, Christians in the empire did not have to worry about constantly defending their tribe from rivals. They usually had a certain degree of food security and legal protection (provided no one found out about their faith). The Roman Empire was a safer place, by and large, than either ancient Israel or the pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula.

Of course, Christians have engaged in war many times. Later philosophers, like Saint Augustine of Hippo, helped refine the concept of a "just war" within a Christian context. Part of this was because, by this point, the Christians were the ones running the show. This meant they had to take a more aggressive approach because they had empires to protect (whether or not Jesus would have wanted this is open to question).

Regarding multiple wives: the Quran allows polygamy, but discourages it. A man should only take multiple wives if he can truly care for them, or to do so in order to take care of widows and orphans. The idea is that because so many men died in battle (again, very chaotic place prior to Islam), there weren't always enough to go around. I am fairly confident that the early Muslims would not have approved of the harems associated with later rulers (though the Quran allows concubinage, so you can see how that might be used as justification).

I think it's a mistake to say Islam and Christianity are similar. They are quite different, both because of their origins and their structure. However, those who talk about civilizational conflict tend to forget that both religions also undergo multiple interpretations, that nobody follows their religion perfectly, and so forth. Remember that the Ottoman Empire and France considered cooperation in order to put down the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE, for its part, sent some missives to Safavid Persia to keep the Ottomans in place. Some Muslims helped the crusaders. Some Middle Eastern Christians fought the crusaders. Real life is always complicated and messy.

Regarding your other point, I agree completely. Take a dozen soldiers in any army, and you'll find two-dozen motivations. Religion may be one, but some of the guys in ISIS were embittered former Baathists, some were just drifters with experience in violence, some joined for entirely self-serving reasons, some were forced into it. They might have said they were doing it for religious reasons, but the actual motivations would frequently be murkier and more personal. And that's true for almost any armed force.

Don't be so damn smug.

You are just reinforcing my point when you imply that Daesh represents all Muslims.

Another Thing: It's entirely possible that some of the Daesh warriors are hypocritical. Some of them might be fighting in order to get paid or because they feel that fighting is manly.

Of course they are going to claim that they are fighting in the name of God ... for PR purposes.

If you think that all Islamic warriors are like Daesh, you might as well believe that every Christian is Francisco Franco.

I will be if I want to...<pout>


That statement is illogical and simply wrong...
I didn't imply anything of the sort...

Firstly you neglected to include the word "warrior" in the above statement and thereby changed the context dramatically...
In essence, you created a very nice straw man...
Could you sweep up before you leave?

Are you aware that the biggest victims of these "Muslim warriors" are actually other Muslims?
How do like dem apples, buddy...


It is generally accepted in the west that Islam needs reform...
It is still embracing a medieval culture...
Even the Saudis agree to this and are trying to change outdated cultural thinking...

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/ins ... 18752.html

Check and mate, mate...
Have a nice day...
<Tuvok has left the building...>

Aren't Minoans (and other mediterraneans like Romans and Greeks) Near Eastern populations? They have some mitochondrial lineages similar to NEurope but I would assume those are from paleo-Europeans and were there before there were white looking Europeans. West Asians and Europeans are almost the same people.

https://genetiker.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -13-23.png