Arab ISIS muslims or whatever you want to call them. Look there is no dispute in the fact that religion (islam) is a major factor. They justify their actions it based on religion. however, many other contributing issues are being ignored.
The same Yazidis for example. Do you think their women are free or have more freedom? do you think there are no honour killings? Or the same women that are fighting against ISIS. They are fighting and they are though and that is fantastic. But, the same women are probably subjected to honour-killings if they ignore the family honour and suddenly decide to have a boyfriend.
I remember a few years back when that Yazidi girl was stoned publicly because she decided to date a muslim guy. Back in Holland I used to have friends in refugee camp from Kurdistan. Kurdish people put an extreme importance on the family honour and possibly the honour of tribe (or community or whatever they call them). Let me tell you this. Even if they were politically left and identified themselves as atheists (because some identify with Ocalan's communalism) , still the family honour and how their girls were behaving were extremely important.
The same Yazidis for example. Do you think their women are free or have more freedom? do you think there are no honour killings? Or the same women that are fighting against ISIS. They are fighting and they are though and that is fantastic. But, the same women are probably subjected to honour-killings if they ignore the family honour and suddenly decide to have a boyfriend.
I remember a few years back when that Yazidi girl was stoned publicly because she decided to date a muslim guy. Back in Holland I used to have friends in refugee camp from Kurdistan. Kurdish people put an extreme importance on the family honour and possibly the honour of tribe (or community or whatever they call them). Let me tell you this. Even if they were politically left and identified themselves as atheists (because some identify with Ocalan's communalism) , still the family honour and how their girls were behaving were extremely important.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isi...ation_of_tribalism_islam_cultural_relativism/
I have put some paragraphs from this article. It also talks about legal dimensions and political islam in the nest paragraphs:
The Lethal Combination of Tribalism, Islam & Cultural Relativism
by Azam Kamguian
It is not a democracy and an open society where a man can talk about politics without anyone threatening him. Democracy is when a woman can talk about her lover without being killed. Saud M. El Sabah
I intend to contribute to the debate surrounding honour killings as an activist and writer engaged in issues affecting women in the Middle East and in societies under influence of Islam. I shall examine the legal, social, religious and tribal dimensions of honour killing and will discuss the issue as it stands in the region, in the West and among intellectuals and the academic world. I will conclude my talk with my analysis of what needs to be done.
Is honour killing tribal? Is it Islamic? Is there any justification for violence against women in the religion of Islam? What is the role of religion in honour killing? Can we explain honour killing within the general framework of domestic violence against women? Is honour killing a form of universal patriarchy?
Hundreds of women get shot, burned, strangled, stoned, poisoned, beheaded or stabbed every year in Muslim inhabited countries because their male relatives believe their actions have soiled the family name. They die so that family honour may be preserved. According to tribal and religious culture a woman is a man's possession and a reflection of his honour. It is the man's honour that gets tarnished if a woman is 'loose'. Being killed deliberately and brutally is, in fact, a price that victims pay for attempting to practice their minimal human rights.
It takes far less than a pre or extramarital relationship for a woman to be condemned as dishonourable and deserving of death. There is no 'typical' case one can speak of: 'honour crimes' can include a husband killing his wife for leaving the house too often, a son killing his mother to prevent her from remarrying, a brother killing his sister and her husband for marrying without the family's consent, a man killing his wife for refusing to wear the veil when leaving home. Reputation and rumour play an active role in instigating honour crimes and the killing of women. This phenomenon is comparable to the emphasis on the chastity of wives in Victorian morality. Because the concepts of male honour and female subservience are deeply ingrained in Islam and in tribal culture, honour killings have become commonplace in Arab and Middle Eastern countries, in other Muslim inhabited countries and Muslim immigrant communities in the West.
The available statistics in honour killings show just the tip of an iceberg. The reality is far darker. The statistics do not show the number of female suicides provoked, or engineered to cover up an honour killing, nor the number of mysterious disappearances. Many honour killings never get reported or registered. Many are mislabeled.
In Egypt between 1998 - 2001 suspicion of 'indecent' behavior was the reason behind 79 per cent of all crimes of honour. The women were killed just because of rumours or suspicions that they may have crossed the line. The UN statistics for 1997 show: Yemen 400, Pakistan over 1000, Egypt 52, and Jordan 25 -35. The UN also reported that as many as 5000 women and girls worldwide were killed last year by family members, majority of them for the 'dishonour'.
Tribal dimension
According to tribal culture and values, women's 'misbehavior' is not only a shame on the family but on the community, the village, the tribe, the neighbourhood and the neighbours. The tribe and community participate in the killing by endorsing it. If and when the family fails to kill the woman, the tribe will cast it out. During the pre - Islamic period Arab society was patrilineal and Bedouin, where the highest authority was the father or male members of the family. At the time slavery was rife and women were perceived to be the property of their family or tribe with the potential of bringing disgrace to their kinsmen. The Bedouins before Islam practiced female infanticide. Later, the Islamic religion attempted to regulate sexual relationships and transgressions: prostitution, zina, infanticide were prohibited, and sex out of wedlock and adultery were brutally penalised. Yet, the pre-Islamic code of conduct survived, creating a powerful value system, parallel to Islam and practically and mutually nurturing and supporting one another.
Honour killing has been practiced in Mediterranean societies as well as the majority of Muslim inhabited countries. While most Mediterranean countries have abolished laws condoning such crimes and crimes of honour occur only rarely, most Arab and Muslim inhabited countries still maintain specific articles in their penal code dealing with such crimes.
In addition, the post colonial elite in the Middle East seeking to produce a new woman - who is not supposed to resemble her mother, and must be anything like a modern woman, a Western woman, endorse and support honour killings. Women's honour in this discourse becomes a symbol of national identity. Many Islamists as well as pan-Arabs and tribal sheiks are united on this issue, perceiving leniency towards it to be a symptom of
I have put some paragraphs from this article. It also talks about legal dimensions and political islam in the nest paragraphs:
The Lethal Combination of Tribalism, Islam & Cultural Relativism
by Azam Kamguian
It is not a democracy and an open society where a man can talk about politics without anyone threatening him. Democracy is when a woman can talk about her lover without being killed. Saud M. El Sabah
I intend to contribute to the debate surrounding honour killings as an activist and writer engaged in issues affecting women in the Middle East and in societies under influence of Islam. I shall examine the legal, social, religious and tribal dimensions of honour killing and will discuss the issue as it stands in the region, in the West and among intellectuals and the academic world. I will conclude my talk with my analysis of what needs to be done.
Is honour killing tribal? Is it Islamic? Is there any justification for violence against women in the religion of Islam? What is the role of religion in honour killing? Can we explain honour killing within the general framework of domestic violence against women? Is honour killing a form of universal patriarchy?
Hundreds of women get shot, burned, strangled, stoned, poisoned, beheaded or stabbed every year in Muslim inhabited countries because their male relatives believe their actions have soiled the family name. They die so that family honour may be preserved. According to tribal and religious culture a woman is a man's possession and a reflection of his honour. It is the man's honour that gets tarnished if a woman is 'loose'. Being killed deliberately and brutally is, in fact, a price that victims pay for attempting to practice their minimal human rights.
It takes far less than a pre or extramarital relationship for a woman to be condemned as dishonourable and deserving of death. There is no 'typical' case one can speak of: 'honour crimes' can include a husband killing his wife for leaving the house too often, a son killing his mother to prevent her from remarrying, a brother killing his sister and her husband for marrying without the family's consent, a man killing his wife for refusing to wear the veil when leaving home. Reputation and rumour play an active role in instigating honour crimes and the killing of women. This phenomenon is comparable to the emphasis on the chastity of wives in Victorian morality. Because the concepts of male honour and female subservience are deeply ingrained in Islam and in tribal culture, honour killings have become commonplace in Arab and Middle Eastern countries, in other Muslim inhabited countries and Muslim immigrant communities in the West.
The available statistics in honour killings show just the tip of an iceberg. The reality is far darker. The statistics do not show the number of female suicides provoked, or engineered to cover up an honour killing, nor the number of mysterious disappearances. Many honour killings never get reported or registered. Many are mislabeled.
In Egypt between 1998 - 2001 suspicion of 'indecent' behavior was the reason behind 79 per cent of all crimes of honour. The women were killed just because of rumours or suspicions that they may have crossed the line. The UN statistics for 1997 show: Yemen 400, Pakistan over 1000, Egypt 52, and Jordan 25 -35. The UN also reported that as many as 5000 women and girls worldwide were killed last year by family members, majority of them for the 'dishonour'.
Tribal dimension
According to tribal culture and values, women's 'misbehavior' is not only a shame on the family but on the community, the village, the tribe, the neighbourhood and the neighbours. The tribe and community participate in the killing by endorsing it. If and when the family fails to kill the woman, the tribe will cast it out. During the pre - Islamic period Arab society was patrilineal and Bedouin, where the highest authority was the father or male members of the family. At the time slavery was rife and women were perceived to be the property of their family or tribe with the potential of bringing disgrace to their kinsmen. The Bedouins before Islam practiced female infanticide. Later, the Islamic religion attempted to regulate sexual relationships and transgressions: prostitution, zina, infanticide were prohibited, and sex out of wedlock and adultery were brutally penalised. Yet, the pre-Islamic code of conduct survived, creating a powerful value system, parallel to Islam and practically and mutually nurturing and supporting one another.
Honour killing has been practiced in Mediterranean societies as well as the majority of Muslim inhabited countries. While most Mediterranean countries have abolished laws condoning such crimes and crimes of honour occur only rarely, most Arab and Muslim inhabited countries still maintain specific articles in their penal code dealing with such crimes.
In addition, the post colonial elite in the Middle East seeking to produce a new woman - who is not supposed to resemble her mother, and must be anything like a modern woman, a Western woman, endorse and support honour killings. Women's honour in this discourse becomes a symbol of national identity. Many Islamists as well as pan-Arabs and tribal sheiks are united on this issue, perceiving leniency towards it to be a symptom of
The difference between what you described and Islam is the lack of divinity in the former, hence the potential for reforms.
Every culture has its own retarded traits. It's when you tie those traits to God that reforms become somewhat impossible. Islam is believed by all its followers to be final and absolute. Even if a small group decides to reform it, there will be a crazy group ready to destroy that dream and set the clock back even further. Funny thing is the crazy group is totally justified by the religion while the reformist group is completely damned according to Allah's word. There is evidence of this trend repeating over and over in Islamic history.
Every culture has its own retarded traits. It's when you tie those traits to God that reforms become somewhat impossible. Islam is believed by all its followers to be final and absolute. Even if a small group decides to reform it, there will be a crazy group ready to destroy that dream and set the clock back even further. Funny thing is the crazy group is totally justified by the religion while the reformist group is completely damned according to Allah's word. There is evidence of this trend repeating over and over in Islamic history.
Christianity was the same and believe it or not most religions and ideologies are like that. Except liberalism, and in my opinion that is the key to its attraction.
Point is, as long cultural ties are not weakened and as long in many of these countries we do not see the emergence of bourgeois middle-class, who are educated and question absolutism and absolute values, there wont be secularization of the religion. And that takes time. Even IR has realized this and is the reason why their hardliners who prefer to hold on to statues-qou, are trying to "islamisize" the social sciences. The reason why vezarat oloom and ershad are so important for those hardliners is exactly this.
Point is, as long cultural ties are not weakened and as long in many of these countries we do not see the emergence of bourgeois middle-class, who are educated and question absolutism and absolute values, there wont be secularization of the religion. And that takes time. Even IR has realized this and is the reason why their hardliners who prefer to hold on to statues-qou, are trying to "islamisize" the social sciences. The reason why vezarat oloom and ershad are so important for those hardliners is exactly this.
Comparing Christianity's absolutism to Islam's is very unrealistic. Jesus by all accounts was a man of peace and suffered immensely without advocating revenge. Mohammad on the other hand suffered very little while basing his entire religion on vengeful behavior and then he called it "FINAL"!
There really is no comparison.
There really is no comparison.
Yeah, I have heard this talking point. Spaniards brought Christianity to South America. Is there any evidence of massacres, beheadings, taking salves and what not in history? What you are referring to was Inquisition but what happened there was far cry from Islamic practices.
"Generally, the Inquisition was concerned only with the heretical behaviour of Catholic adherents or converts, and did not concern itself with those outside that religion, such as Jews or Muslims."
It was not about conquering the world and converting people by the edge of the sword. It dealt internally within the Catholic church. Regardless, whatever it was it is over now. We don't see Christian armies today conquering lands, trying people in churches and then burning them at the sake. That's the difference. Everybody realizes that Inquisition was wrong. We, on the other hand, have people who take pride in repeating the atrocities that happened 1500 years ago.
"Generally, the Inquisition was concerned only with the heretical behaviour of Catholic adherents or converts, and did not concern itself with those outside that religion, such as Jews or Muslims."
It was not about conquering the world and converting people by the edge of the sword. It dealt internally within the Catholic church. Regardless, whatever it was it is over now. We don't see Christian armies today conquering lands, trying people in churches and then burning them at the sake. That's the difference. Everybody realizes that Inquisition was wrong. We, on the other hand, have people who take pride in repeating the atrocities that happened 1500 years ago.
It is one thing to suggest Islamic history is bloodier than that of any religion. Although I am not an expert I am guessing there would be a lot of merit to that argument.
But it is another thing to suggest Christianity (the catholic church) reign over Europe was not using an iron fist.
All you have to do is take one western civ class to get that.
But it is another thing to suggest Christianity (the catholic church) reign over Europe was not using an iron fist.
All you have to do is take one western civ class to get that.
Big pile of nonsense. Geography and tribalism main problems of the arabs....really i dont know what to say to this kind of sh...
Tribalism is part of human life since the very early days even until today. Persians were a tribe, they fought other iranian tribes like scythians, sarmatians, bactrians, soghdians and medians... in Germany their whole history was full of bloody war between german tribes...francs fought the saxon, the saxon fought the burgundians, the alemans fought them all, suebians fought the alemanians, anglians and frisians fought the saxon, west gothians vs vandals, vandals vs. francs...turkish tribes fought themselves all over the place and throughout the history, uigurs against oghooz, seljuks against afshars, aq qoyunlu vs. kara qoyunlu... so whats up with that shit about Geography? If tribalism and geography was the main issue of the arabs, so what was wrong with German geography? Where they from desert aswell? what about persians and turks? whats wrong with THEIR geography? And that were just a few examples. The everywhere on this world, everything started with tribalism. Every where on this world we had and still have tribes fighting eachother. Whats so unique about "arab" tribalism? Nothing. Spanish massacred the whole south and middle america a few hundreds of years ago. What was the problem with THEIR geopgraphy? Belgians did horrible things to black people in kongo. What about THEIR geopgraphy? The only thing that made them become more backward was the factor of islam which made war, killing, beheading, stealing,...to a godly suggestion. All those other tribes, be it european, asian, african or american fought and killed too, but they did not do it based on Gods rules and suggestion. Before Islam, arabs where just one out of tens of thousends of other tribes on this world who did not fight or killed more or less than most other tribes in any capacity. Islam brought godly justification to it, islam even encouraged killing and beheading and thats the sad difference. When killing becomes part of a so called godly religion, you have a problem.
Bottom line: Arab tribalism and geography was a no factor. The crap started with Islam. Organized killings in the name of god, organized beheading ceremonies in the name of god, organized raping in the name of god. organized expansionism in the name of god and FOR god.
Pedar jaan, bas kon. vaghti harfi vaase goftan nadaari, bikhiaal sho.
Tribalism is part of human life since the very early days even until today. Persians were a tribe, they fought other iranian tribes like scythians, sarmatians, bactrians, soghdians and medians... in Germany their whole history was full of bloody war between german tribes...francs fought the saxon, the saxon fought the burgundians, the alemans fought them all, suebians fought the alemanians, anglians and frisians fought the saxon, west gothians vs vandals, vandals vs. francs...turkish tribes fought themselves all over the place and throughout the history, uigurs against oghooz, seljuks against afshars, aq qoyunlu vs. kara qoyunlu... so whats up with that shit about Geography? If tribalism and geography was the main issue of the arabs, so what was wrong with German geography? Where they from desert aswell? what about persians and turks? whats wrong with THEIR geography? And that were just a few examples. The everywhere on this world, everything started with tribalism. Every where on this world we had and still have tribes fighting eachother. Whats so unique about "arab" tribalism? Nothing. Spanish massacred the whole south and middle america a few hundreds of years ago. What was the problem with THEIR geopgraphy? Belgians did horrible things to black people in kongo. What about THEIR geopgraphy? The only thing that made them become more backward was the factor of islam which made war, killing, beheading, stealing,...to a godly suggestion. All those other tribes, be it european, asian, african or american fought and killed too, but they did not do it based on Gods rules and suggestion. Before Islam, arabs where just one out of tens of thousends of other tribes on this world who did not fight or killed more or less than most other tribes in any capacity. Islam brought godly justification to it, islam even encouraged killing and beheading and thats the sad difference. When killing becomes part of a so called godly religion, you have a problem.
Bottom line: Arab tribalism and geography was a no factor. The crap started with Islam. Organized killings in the name of god, organized beheading ceremonies in the name of god, organized raping in the name of god. organized expansionism in the name of god and FOR god.
Pedar jaan, bas kon. vaghti harfi vaase goftan nadaari, bikhiaal sho.
Most religions and ideologies are like what? Be transparent. Be clear. What do you exactly mean? Most religions gave you instructions and suggestions on who to behead and how to cut fingers and legs? Cheraa? Cheraa enghadr to mozakhraf migi pedar jaan? Agressivity? Yes. Specially judaism the father of all these abrahamic religions is agressive. Its an angry doctrine. Christianity? Well christianity has changed alot of times, jesus was not a sick terrorist and admited thief and head chopper like mohammad. How is Christianity the same as Islam then? Old testament is more or less jewish, new testament put together by a seleucid greek named paulus who was serving the roman empire. The guy just copied half of the story of iranian god "Mithra" and called it the history of jesus christ. Jesus christ as we know in bible has been nonexistent. Jesus has not been his name, its given to him after his death by Paulus. The guy we know as Jesus has been a dedicated jewish freedom fighter known as Joshua Ben David. The guy was simply a jew who was fed up with that agressive roman occupation of Jerusalem and the hostility of the romans towards Judaism...there are alot of stories to be told in that regard but you know what? Thats exactly the positive side of christianity. A lot of hands were involved, a lot of humans changes something about it, paulus even rewrote the whole old testament and called it the new testament and that means: This religion, is flexible and this religion has been flexible from day one. The whole history of christianity indicates one thing: Flexibility and the ability to change and to readjust.
What about Islam? Who dares to change Islam? Who dares to change even one single word of allahs nonsense? Do you dare?
Whats up with Liberalism?! Whats the point? Explain it because the explanation you provided is not an explanation at all.
What does "secularisation of religion" mean? Why do you randomly put together words which dont belong to each other? Why do you create terms that dont make any sense at all? Secularisation of religon doesnt mean anything because Secularisation is a term you use to explain the separation of religion and the process of governance. You want to keep religion away from state matters. Now what exactly does this bullshit phrase "secularisation of religion" mean?
Hint: You can secularize the society, you can secularize the government but you cant secularize a religion because that would be a comical contradiction in itself.
All in all i dont know what you exactly tried to explain here because whatever you tried, it failed badly because you have not even been able to find a valid term for what you tried to explain.
What about Islam? Who dares to change Islam? Who dares to change even one single word of allahs nonsense? Do you dare?
Whats up with Liberalism?! Whats the point? Explain it because the explanation you provided is not an explanation at all.
What does "secularisation of religion" mean? Why do you randomly put together words which dont belong to each other? Why do you create terms that dont make any sense at all? Secularisation of religon doesnt mean anything because Secularisation is a term you use to explain the separation of religion and the process of governance. You want to keep religion away from state matters. Now what exactly does this bullshit phrase "secularisation of religion" mean?
Hint: You can secularize the society, you can secularize the government but you cant secularize a religion because that would be a comical contradiction in itself.
All in all i dont know what you exactly tried to explain here because whatever you tried, it failed badly because you have not even been able to find a valid term for what you tried to explain.
Unfortunately the spanish probably commited the biggest genocidal acts of mankinds history. They basically did ethnic cleansing throughout the whole middle- and south america. The whole south and middle america used to be indio territory. Nowadays you only see traces of indio blood in some middle american countries, bolivia, ecuardor, peru and chile and paraguay. All other countries like Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela...are close to indio free countries. The "Mestizio" is the closest to what has been left from the indios and its the mixture of spanish and indios as a result of heavy rapping of spanish invadors throughout the whole continent.
However its irrelevant in this discussion because those spanyards did not do all those things quoting Jesus. They were just cruel and horrible invadors and occupiers. There was no religion to prevent them from evolating. Islam is directly keeping people from evolating. Islam timelessly orders people to be like mohammad and his followers and we all know what mohammad was all about.
However its irrelevant in this discussion because those spanyards did not do all those things quoting Jesus. They were just cruel and horrible invadors and occupiers. There was no religion to prevent them from evolating. Islam is directly keeping people from evolating. Islam timelessly orders people to be like mohammad and his followers and we all know what mohammad was all about.
Last edited by a moderator:
China - once again you are making arguments for the sake of arguing. You do make some good ponts but how in the world can you deny the total backwardness that exists in the Arabian peninsula - a ruthlessness, lack of soul, lack of spirit........taht does not exist (at least not to this extent) in any other Islamic country? Yes Islam has scared Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria........but how can you deny the facts of Arab life previous to Islam? Saudi Arabia was the first and only Islamic country to reject the UN initiated articles of basic human roghts in 1948. Every other Islamic country signed and endorsed it. You do understand the difference between Egypt or Syria with Saudi Arabia....they are both Islam infested - so where is the difference coming from? It's the culture.....the way of life.
Khob chi begam Massoud? vaaghean Jafange. Birabt harf mizani. khodetam sarnakhe harf az dastet dar rafte. Az in shaakhe mipari be oon shaakhe. In a lot of cases you even agree with what i am saying and yet you think you are opposing. Saudi Arabia rejecting the human rights articles in 1948, was not based on Arabias pre-islam culture! It was not based on their geography and bullshit like that. That decision was based on their post-islamic nature. That means they have been honest to themselves and their religion. They honestly and rightly knew human rights and Islam do go different ways so they rejected them. They are more honest than a lot of other countries who apporved the same articles and yet they are killing people based on islams doctrine and sharia law. At the end of the day the result is what i am telling you all the time: Its islam. Its because of the rules of Islam and Mohammad that Saudi Arabia and its government as "kelid daare kaabe", are not able to agree with human rights articles because in that case they would oppose their religion and the prophet himself. When you are not a true moslem and a secular, you become turkey after Atatürk or Iran under Pahlavis, you become Iraq under Saddam, Syria under Assad...but when you commit yourself to Islam and its teaching, you become Saudi Arabia or IR Iran. All that senseless bullshit about Geography and Tribalism and bla bla is irrelevant.
As i said before, reading all what you guys write here, i do not spot one single consistent line of thought. You are mixing up a lot of nonsense and call it a discussion.
As i said before, reading all what you guys write here, i do not spot one single consistent line of thought. You are mixing up a lot of nonsense and call it a discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chera nemigiri? bikhodi dari az gheyr ghabel defaa, defaa mikoni. The fact is Islam did not ruin Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabian culture brought Islam to what it is today. If the Saudis rejected basic human rights it was because for the most parts it was against their way of life. Heck they are still into slavery and human traffiking. they are just now catching up with Europe of 500 years ago!!
Based on the latest reports ISIS has pulled out of the city over night. Once the bombings intensified the city was help together. According to the Kurdish commanders ISIS has left behind suicide bombers and some fighters in certain areas of the city which is being cleared by the Kurds. Lets see by when they will gather and attack again.
Mass, i mean we both knew you are into jafang every once in a while but this time its getting ridiculous 
Really mass, where have you been lately? I am asking because you unfortunately have regressed from a base which was not very impressive anyway. Refigh, you dont even know the history of Arabia, you basically dont have a clear idea of history of any country in the world. Pedar jaan, the whole islamic so called literature is full of wars of mohammad and his followers against the opponents of Islam? How could all those guys who opposed him and have been outnumbering Mohammads gang be part of the problem aakhe? In the same Arabia, lived zoroastrian scholars and followers of iranian gods and prophets, in the same arabia, they had wonderful poets. Yazid the guy the shiites are condemning all the time was one heck of a poet, at arabias coastal areas with more moderate climate, people used to drink a good wine. Yazid himself drank wine and wrote excellent poetrys.
Traders and Caravans went from Arabia to Shaam (Syria) more or less securely until Mohmmad made a fun out of caravan dozdi o shabikhoon zani. Omar himself, the second khalif, used to be a good guy before he joined Mohammads gang, a wine lover who had a soft spot for poets of Zoheyr ebn abi salma, a just man. Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Pagans...were living as neighbours for hundreds of years until Mohmmad came and chopped their heads until they said "Ashhad o an laa elaah ha elaalaah va ashhad o an a mohammadan rasool aaalah".
Pedar jaan go and find some poetries of Amr ol Gheys or Zoheyr ebn abi salma or Antar Ebn Shadaad....and you see in their words and thoughts, things that you never saw in post-islam arabic literature again because Islam destroyed that kind of literature. They were writing wonderfull stuff about manhood, women, wine, love, honor...and all that stopped existing after Mohammad and his gang imposed their culture on those people.
Really mass, where have you been lately? I am asking because you unfortunately have regressed from a base which was not very impressive anyway. Refigh, you dont even know the history of Arabia, you basically dont have a clear idea of history of any country in the world. Pedar jaan, the whole islamic so called literature is full of wars of mohammad and his followers against the opponents of Islam? How could all those guys who opposed him and have been outnumbering Mohammads gang be part of the problem aakhe? In the same Arabia, lived zoroastrian scholars and followers of iranian gods and prophets, in the same arabia, they had wonderful poets. Yazid the guy the shiites are condemning all the time was one heck of a poet, at arabias coastal areas with more moderate climate, people used to drink a good wine. Yazid himself drank wine and wrote excellent poetrys.
Traders and Caravans went from Arabia to Shaam (Syria) more or less securely until Mohmmad made a fun out of caravan dozdi o shabikhoon zani. Omar himself, the second khalif, used to be a good guy before he joined Mohammads gang, a wine lover who had a soft spot for poets of Zoheyr ebn abi salma, a just man. Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Pagans...were living as neighbours for hundreds of years until Mohmmad came and chopped their heads until they said "Ashhad o an laa elaah ha elaalaah va ashhad o an a mohammadan rasool aaalah".
Pedar jaan go and find some poetries of Amr ol Gheys or Zoheyr ebn abi salma or Antar Ebn Shadaad....and you see in their words and thoughts, things that you never saw in post-islam arabic literature again because Islam destroyed that kind of literature. They were writing wonderfull stuff about manhood, women, wine, love, honor...and all that stopped existing after Mohammad and his gang imposed their culture on those people.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because they wanted to keep what Mohammad was after - it was all about the poor taking from wealthy.....there was little morality involved.
BTW - I know far more than you.....especially when it comes to the history of the ME. Don't go that route.......but then again, you have to be you.
Do you have any proof to substantiate that or is this your version of "ravayat"!!
I dare you - don't give me assignments.....just go ahead and do share with ISP your impression of their thoughts and mindset.
Pedar jaan - Especially when it comes to History in the middle east, you have to apply logic to see what could be the truth versus what victors left behind as history. If you think Saudi Arabia was some sort of haven for arts and literature before ISlam....you are holding on a significantly suspect theory which does not meet my logical thinking criteria.
BTW - I know far more than you.....especially when it comes to the history of the ME. Don't go that route.......but then again, you have to be you.
Do you have any proof to substantiate that or is this your version of "ravayat"!!
I dare you - don't give me assignments.....just go ahead and do share with ISP your impression of their thoughts and mindset.
Pedar jaan - Especially when it comes to History in the middle east, you have to apply logic to see what could be the truth versus what victors left behind as history. If you think Saudi Arabia was some sort of haven for arts and literature before ISlam....you are holding on a significantly suspect theory which does not meet my logical thinking criteria.