Pakistan BREAKS ceasefire launching ATTACK against India as conflict escalates Watch

verycoolperson
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 week ago
#41
(Original post by Chakede)
why is a surprise to you that Saudi does this - 1300 years ago Saudi ( and Persia ) conquered the current muslim world, they are just trying to maintain control of the their empire
uh not really? lol
0
reply
Chakede
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 week ago
#42
(Original post by Palmyra)
Saudi? Saudi Arabia is an artificial entity that didn't even exist until 1932, before then it was a bunch of separate desert-dwelling clans.
thanks for the pedantry but you know what I mean; Saudis now, 1300 years ago Arabs of arabian peninsula. islam is there colonial totem, spread form small desert tribes into middle east north africa and western asia. paksitan is a meaningless country on its own- it survives off gulf arab handouts , why do you think Saudis bankroll it? for political gain and influence in the region. Saudi would love to see another Islamic state in south east asia, as it would love to see carved out of china, Burma, Russia etc. hence why it sends billions of 'Islamic aid' to build mosques in the worlds poorest areas, like the christian empires did hundreds of years before. Pakistan is another puppet state used to allow the gulf arabs remain relevant in world geopolitics
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#43
Report 1 week ago
#43
(Original post by Chakede)
thanks for the pedantry but you know what I mean; Saudis now, 1300 years ago Arabs of arabian peninsula. islam is there colonial totem, spread form small desert tribes into middle east north africa and western asia. paksitan is a meaningless country on its own- it survives off gulf arab handouts , why do you think Saudis bankroll it? for political gain and influence in the region. Saudi would love to see another Islamic state in south east asia, as it would love to see carved out of china, Burma, Russia etc. hence why it sends billions of 'Islamic aid' to build mosques in the worlds poorest areas, like the christian empires did hundreds of years before. Pakistan is another puppet state used to allow the gulf arabs remain relevant in world geopolitics
The Persian Empire was (originally) not Islamic (Zoroastrian - the world's first monotheistic religion) and famously extolled the virtues of religious tolerance. Indeed, virtually every major world power (regardless of religious ideology) at some point sought to build an empire of sorts.

KSA want to spread their extremist ideology of course, and Pakistan is a puppet of the Persian Gulf Arabs (especially KSA) yes, but I don't believe KSA wants to risk tensions with China to that extent.

KSA themselves are an artificial entity oppressing their Shia citizens that live in the oil-rich Eastern provinces; Trump himself said that KSA would crumble within a week without the US. Trump sees them as a rich cow to milk for hundred billion dollar weapons deals.
Last edited by Palmyra; 1 week ago
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 week ago
#44
(Original post by Palmyra)
The Persian Empire was (originally) not Islamic (Zoroastrian - the world's first monotheistic religion)
Possibly. Depends on estimates of how old Zoroastrianism is vs when exactly Judaism became a monotheist rather than monolatrist religion (both around 700-500 BCE).
1
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#45
Report 1 week ago
#45
(Original post by anarchism101)
Possibly. Depends on estimates of how old Zoroastrianism is vs when exactly Judaism became a monotheist rather than monolatrist religion (both around 700-500 BCE).
Not all that germane to my wider point but thanks

Have you read Shlomo Sands' book on the origins of the Jews?
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 week ago
#46
(Original post by Palmyra)
Not all that germane to my wider point but thanks
Meh, seemed interesting

Have you read Shlomo Sands' book on the origins of the Jews?
You mean The Invention of the Jewish People? Yeah, it's good read and interesting (though quite a while since I read it), though my feelings on it are a bit mixed. When he's talking in more theoretical terms about nationalist ideology and mythology and the idea of Jews constituting a separate "nation" being a modern one, he's very good. However, on some of the harder history he's on a bit shakier ground - my understanding is that most historians of Judaism think he heavily overstates the degree of Jewish proselytising and conversion among non-Levantine communities. Essentially, Sand theorises that Ashkenazi Jews are predominantly the descendants of European converts to Judaism, rather than from Levantine Jewish migrants. I used to think this was a plausible view, but not so much any more. I still think the traditional Zionist/nationalist account of the Jewish diaspora is badly wrong (nationalist narratives of history are almost always wrong), but I think it's more multifaceted than Sand argues.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#47
Report 1 week ago
#47
(Original post by anarchism101)
You mean The Invention of the Jewish People? Yeah, it's good read and interesting (though quite a while since I read it), though my feelings on it are a bit mixed. When he's talking in more theoretical terms about nationalist ideology and mythology and the idea of Jews constituting a separate "nation" being a modern one, he's very good. However, on some of the harder history he's on a bit shakier ground - my understanding is that most historians of Judaism think he heavily overstates the degree of Jewish proselytising and conversion among non-Levantine communities. Essentially, Sand theorises that Ashkenazi Jews are predominantly the descendants of European converts to Judaism, rather than from Levantine Jewish migrants. I used to think this was a plausible view, but not so much any more. I still think the traditional Zionist/nationalist account of the Jewish diaspora is badly wrong (nationalist narratives of history are almost always wrong), but I think it's more multifaceted than Sand argues.
Nice breakdown, thanks. It's interesting you mention the dispute around the origins of AJs, I recently read an article tracing AJs back to Iranian-Slavic Jews and argued they converted Turkic Iranians and Slavs to Judaism:

(Original post by abstract)
Our results suggest that AJs originated from a Slavo-Iranian confederation, which the Jews call “Ashkenazic” (i.e., “Scythian”), though these Jews probably spoke Persian and/or Ossete. This is compatible with linguistic evidence suggesting that Yiddish is a Slavic language created by Irano-Turko-Slavic Jewish merchants along the Silk Roads as a cryptic trade language, spoken only by its originators to gain an advantage in trade.
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/8/4/1132/2574015
0
reply
Chakede
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 days ago
#48
(Original post by Palmyra)
The Persian Empire was (originally) not Islamic (Zoroastrian - the world's first monotheistic religion) and famously extolled the virtues of religious tolerance. Indeed, virtually every major world power (regardless of religious ideology) at some point sought to build an empire of sorts.

KSA want to spread their extremist ideology of course, and Pakistan is a puppet of the Persian Gulf Arabs (especially KSA) yes, but I don't believe KSA wants to risk tensions with China to that extent.

KSA themselves are an artificial entity oppressing their Shia citizens that live in the oil-rich Eastern provinces; Trump himself said that KSA would crumble within a week without the US. Trump sees them as a rich cow to milk for hundred billion dollar weapons deals.
and thanks for the key stage 2 history lesson - everyone and their dog knows that when islam arrived in Persia, it inherited a major empire which then up the stakes in terms of brutality, and eventuality led to its demise. my point was wherever islam spread it dragged the locals backward a few centuries. and ultimatly led to conflict to all those that chose not to convert. the whole concept came from a few small tribes in the arabian desert, and spread across the world by Persians and the mughals
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#49
Report 2 days ago
#49
(Original post by Chakede)
my point was wherever islam spread it dragged the locals backward a few centuries. and ultimatly led to conflict to all those that chose not to convert.
And my point is that this ignores the fact that all major empires/groups/clans throughout history have been involved in conflicts over power/land/resources and this is nothing unique to Islam-related groups.
0
reply
Profesh
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 days ago
#50
Where are the Petrovs of yesteryear?
0
reply
Chakede
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 days ago
#51
(Original post by Palmyra)
And my point is that this ignores the fact that all major empires/groups/clans throughout history have been involved in conflicts over power/land/resources and this is nothing unique to Islam-related groups.
and islam is one of those imperial totems that has been used for conquest / seizing of power land resources and indeed to stir up division when it arrived in the indian sub continent , amoung other places.

if you are now agreeing with me not sure what the point of your intervention was
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (452)
37.95%
No - but I will (89)
7.47%
No - I don't want to (83)
6.97%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (567)
47.61%

Watched Threads

View All