Fall of the Muslim Empire
February 5, 2002 5:43 AM   Subscribe

Fall of the Muslim Empire
posted by bunnyfire (7 comments total)

 
More along those lines here.
posted by techgnollogic at 6:33 AM on February 5, 2002


"For most of its existence, Islam was more egalitarian than the rigidly hierarchical kingdoms of Christendom, which was one of the causes of its great success. For example, in the Ottoman Empire there were only three conditions that impeded a person's rise to fame: if he were a slave, which could be circumvented by buying freedom; if he were a non-Muslim, which could be resolved simply by converting; or if she were a woman, for which there was no remedy. In the West, class and caste distinctions were more dominant and not so easily overcome."

Being a woman is not so easily overcome, trust me (note that was tongue in cheek and sarcastic as hell). Beyond that, I cannot believe any religion or culture that impeded half a population from their basic rights, let alone "a rise to fame" can be called egalitarian. Caste distinctions are mostly a Hindu belief which cannot be ascribed nor attributed to Western Christian thought. Hindu is an eastern religion unto itself. Class distinction in the west has waxed and waned each generation. In ancient Greece, women were citizens and allowed money and property in their own right at the time the supposed "egalitarian" Muslims were in their heyday conquering great swaths of Africa and Spain.

Sol Schindler later misspeaks by suggesting that because the west was successful in our attacks in Afghanistan that we will be successful in destroying the Muslim empire. I think this is bunk. Islam is still the fastest growing religion in the world and our bombing the hell out of Afghanistan has not changed that.

Perhaps instead of saying this nonsense: "take responsibility for its actions, ask how things went wrong and what is needed to get things right, and then perhaps with some injection of democracy, the Islamic world can re-emerge as the major center of civilization it once was. If, however, the Islamic world continues to play the role of victim it will continue in a downward spiral of hate and violence leading to the chaos that invites foreign intervention. The choice is theirs, and they are the only ones who can make it." he can instead point out the active role the United States and other western powers have played that has lead Afghanistan into the poverty-striken, war ravaged nation that it was BEFORE we ever unleashed bombs and slaughtered innocents on our way to promoting democracy and our so-called Christian moral beliefs.

In my opinion Sol Schindler is simply the pot that calls the kettle black. This is the some of the worst "we are right and you are wrong" tripe I have read to date beyond the crap George W Bush's speechwriters turn out for him to read to the nation...
posted by gloege at 6:40 AM on February 5, 2002


The fall of the Muslim empire and the associated rise of the Washington Times / Moonie Empire! All hail the true Father and true Savior of the world, Mr. Sun Yung Moon, good friend of Poppy Bush!
posted by nofundy at 6:44 AM on February 5, 2002


...that we will be successful in destroying the Muslim empire...

First, there is no Muslim empire. Second, there is no war against Islam.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:04 AM on February 5, 2002


Oodles more, straight from the source: Bernard Lewis
posted by techgnollogic at 7:28 AM on February 5, 2002


Yes, this so-called Muslim Empire concept is bunk. Although Islamic nations like to spout rhetoric about brotherhood and solidarity, in reality they're almost completely fragmented, beset by infighting, and largely unable to cooperate with one another on even the most trivial of issues. This is a paper tiger if ever I saw one.
posted by MrBaliHai at 7:53 AM on February 5, 2002


This article is so filled with inaccuracies that I don't know where to start. Samples:
For example, in the Ottoman Empire there were only three conditions that impeded a person's rise to fame: if he were a slave, which could be circumvented by buying freedom; if he were a non-Muslim, which could be resolved simply by converting...

There was no official slavery in the Ottoman empire. Period. Non-muslims rose to become "dragomans" (originally imperial translators but gradually more like foreign ministers), and later even governors of provinces, tradesmen etc.

or if she were a woman, for which there was no remedy. In the West, class and caste distinctions were more dominant and not so easily overcome.

Class distinctions weren't so easily overcome in the Ottoman empire either, and of course women were every bit as invisible in medieval Europe as in Islam.

Modern Turkey, which rose from the shambles of the Ottoman Empire, abolished the office of the caliph and today identifies itself as a secular state, the only Middle Eastern country with a majority Muslim population to do so.

Really? The only secular country in the Middle East? First of all Turkey is not in the Middle East, but Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco (to name those that come to immediately to mind) are definitely secular. Oh and Lebanon of course.

It may be a long time before a truly secular democratic state emerges in the Middle East, but if one does appear, and is followed by others, the whole world will change, and for the better.

Provided that the CIA doesn't topple that government as it did in Iran in the 50s

All this in one short article.
posted by talos at 8:06 AM on February 5, 2002


« Older The Patriots didn't win; Britney did....  |  There has to be something... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments