Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I mean it. Blame the Mongols. They're the reason for all the problems in the Middle East.

See, in the early 10th century, the Arabian/Islamic Empire was one of the greatest and most advanced civilizations the world has ever seen. They created algebra, had laws and great centers of learning, were on the verge of some incredible advancements in technology. They were also (relatively speaking, for the times) a benevolent and just culture.

Then the Mongols came... Sweeping down the Asian steppes, the Mongols had already driven countless tribes towards the West, leading to many of the ethnic and cultural divides we see today. The Mongols were a foe very different from any the Arabs had previously faced. They did not take dwellings or land-They pillaged and destroyed and then moved on, always moving, never stopping. They destroyed the great Arab universities and libraries. They slaughtered men, women and children without mercy. They stole and plundered vast amounts of Arab wealth.

In the end, the Arabs drove the Mongols back... But by then, it was too late. Due to this experience, they became more isolated and phobic towards outsiders. They began to detest change, and with the loss of many of their scholars and thinkers and records, their education became more focused on keeping things the same way, because what good had change brought them? Change had brought them the Mongols.

And this is why the Islamic peoples today have a harsh and paranoid culture... It's all the Mongol's fault.

Thoughts? Criticisms?

I think you went back too far. Nobody is complaining about the effects of the Mongols. Many of today's problems in the Middle East can be traced to European colonialization in the past two hundred years.

At 10/9/04 09:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: I think you went back too far. Nobody is complaining about the effects of the Mongols. Many of today's problems in the Middle East can be traced to European colonialization in the past two hundred years.

True, but it all started with the Mongols. Bastards.

At 10/9/04 09:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: I think you went back too far. Nobody is complaining about the effects of the Mongols. Many of today's problems in the Middle East can be traced to European colonialization in the past two hundred years.

Was it really colonization? It seems to me like more of an annexation, there was a distinct lack of white people.

At 10/9/04 10:49 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 10/9/04 09:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: I think you went back too far. Nobody is complaining about the effects of the Mongols. Many of today's problems in the Middle East can be traced to European colonialization in the past two hundred years.

Was it really colonization? It seems to me like more of an annexation, there was a distinct lack of white people.

It was colonization... Civilian contractors came along, after all. Had to support the troops and the citizens that worked down there.

But, the Mongol invasion is what made it so that the Arabs couldn't resist the British occupation. It lowered their technological level by killing off most of their intellectuals. It made them paranoid and strict to adhere to what they already knew, which prevented them from advancing in any way, shape or form. They only got firearms technology when the British came, after all. They could have developed firearms on their own and been a match for the Europeans.

But, because of the Mongols, this did not happen. Chain of events...

Nobody is responding, because once you begin to look at the roots of problems, everyone runs off like scared little school girls.

In other words - Moore and O'Reilly don't provide answers for this.

At 10/9/04 11:58 PM, AndrewJTalon wrote: ........But, because of the Mongols, this did not happen. Chain of events...

If the Mongols hadn't come, someone else would have. The Muslim Empire was massive, and lead the world during those days. But like every empire, it fell. Nothing is permament. Also, Muslims as a whole lost just as much as when Baghdad fell, when they were driven out of Spain.

At 10/10/04 10:26 AM, -Michael- wrote: I can though. It was the Aztecs who caused all these problems. They sacrificied too many Arabs to the gods and when the Arabs were gone, the Mongols came in.

?
Weren't the Aztecs in South America?

Your going back too far; the eastern european countries had to put up with mongul invasion and they turned out far. The fact their religion is so fanatical is to blame. Western european countries were pretty savage in the 10th century, and probably in the 19th century too; blaming the monguls is such an weasy thing to say. The middle east had to put up with crusading armies for about 3, 4 hundred years aswell; they were hardly kind, richard the lionheart showed no hesitation in executing 3000 saracens. Also what about this Barbarossa fellow?, the ghulam? slave warrior who destroyed Outremer (crusader states). He was probably worse than the Monguls (the monguls would let a town off if they surrendered in advance, and rape pillage and burn without mercy if they didnt), he showed the crusaders no such mercy. I dont know much about him but he is well thought of in the middle-east to this day (which is hardly healthy seeing as he was a monster). I dont know enough about the fellow or the middle east really but too much has happened since the 10th century to blame the monguls.

At 10/11/04 10:10 AM, Gutmunchr wrote: The fact their religion is so fanatical is to blame.

You typed on and on about history and crap, yet put this little sentence in, simply to spite me, I'm sure of it.

Name a single instance how Islam is more fanatical than any other major religion. And please remember that a few token extremists are in no way indicative of the rest of the believers.

This is why it's a bad thing to start tracing blame from oneself or nation to history.

Because then, those dirty mongols turned into Russians...and Russians are the beginning of communism! *cough*

And likewise for the Chinese. Damn little monkies........

Honestly. Why can't people or nations take responsibility for screwing up?

At 10/11/04 06:22 PM, EvilGovernmentAgents wrote: This is why it's a bad thing to start tracing blame from oneself or nation to history.

Because then, those dirty mongols turned into Russians...and Russians are the beginning of communism! *cough*

And likewise for the Chinese. Damn little monkies........

Honestly. Why can't people or nations take responsibility for screwing up?

that would be to simple and it defeats the purpus of Nationalizm which is what most people who cant take responsability for what there nation has done hides behind.

There's a difference between shifting all the blame to others, and trying to recognized what caused a problem. When someone says "blame the mongols," he doesn't literally mean blame the mongols, and every bastard child of them that lives today. Similarly when people look at racial issues in the US. No one is blaming whites living today for the slavery of the past.

But that doesn't mean that the transgressions of past generations don't still effect things today. To think that every generation is a new one, and suddenly has equal opportunities with no regard to any prior historical events, is completely ignorant. And it's an argument made too often around here.

At 10/11/04 06:45 PM, red_skunk wrote: There's a difference between shifting all the blame to others, and trying to recognized what caused a problem. When someone says "blame the mongols," he doesn't literally mean blame the mongols, and every bastard child of them that lives today.

Then what does he blame? The mongol invasion, as opposed to the mongols themselves?

Events....that's a different thought.

Similarly when people look at racial issues in the US. No one is blaming whites living today for the slavery of the past.

Some black people with lawsuit in mind would disagree.

However, it's still not good blood to place the transgressions of the past upon the present.

But that doesn't mean that the transgressions of past generations don't still effect things today. To think that every generation is a new one, and suddenly has equal opportunities with no regard to any prior historical events, is completely ignorant.

Hey, that's the whole reason why Eastern Europe, South America and the Middle East is so unstable. Colonialism, revolution, fighting, etc etc.

However, we can't place the responsibility of the past generation(s) upon the present one. That's just a "eye for a eye"

However, the new generation MUST be able to come to terms with their predecessors, and what they accomplished or did.

At 10/11/04 07:26 PM, EvilGovernmentAgents wrote: However, we can't place the responsibility of the past generation(s) upon the present one. That's just a "eye for a eye"

Thas whut I saaaaid.

If the Mongols dealt so much damage to the arabs, how come the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal emprie, both arab empires based extremely far away from arabia, were so succesful after the mongols left?

And How come China is doing so well after the mongols? what abotu Eastern Europe? It's like saying that The greeks are responsible for killng all of the Indians because they travelled to the Iberian penninsula and settled it. And that colonly paved the way for Spain to grow, discover the new world and lead to the attempted genocide of the native peoples.

Red Skunk had it right the first post he had. European colonization/annexation/exploitation is the root of almost 100% of the problems we have today. America colonization/annexation/exploitation created some problems, but not nearly as numerous as the Old World did years ago.

At 10/11/04 06:17 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 10/11/04 10:10 AM, Gutmunchr wrote: The fact their religion is so fanatical is to blame.

You typed on and on about history and crap, yet put this little sentence in, simply to spite me, I'm sure of it.

Name a single instance how Islam is more fanatical than any other major religion. And please remember that a few token extremists are in no way indicative of the rest of the believers.

Islam is the only religion that positively encourages war; we hear it all the time now 'the jihad'; a holy war. The jihad has been used in places like iraq you might say defensively (they invade us we attack them), but that is not the only way it is used. Muslims have declared jihad solely to spread their religion (they conquered north africa in 50 years to spread the religion. In contrast christianity only uses war defensively (true plenty of christian nations have been at war in the past, but rarely in the name of their religion - imperialism had nothing to do with religion, and nor did most of the medieval battles). You might say the crusades were offensive? they were not, christians had been persecuted in the region just 70 years or so before the crusades in that region (the pope was to weak to strike out at the time - didnt have enough influence). Also the ottomen were threatening the eastern christian empire of the byzantines (conquering christian land in other words), and the land the crusaders conquered was in fact christian land originally that was taken by the muslims during the dark ages.

Religion in terms of war has been completely left behind by christians, and at least in england religion is practically non-existant (there are more practicing muslims than christians in england); yet jihads are declared all the time in the muslim world.

But being fair I dont know about the other religions, I know the jews arent agressive (but then they have no nation - except for maybe israel today, who oddly are aggresive, but then israel is more of a political problem than religious). Isnt is buddihists that wont harm anything? I dont know, those far east religions are weird.

Yes you are right you cant label all muslims im not; but islam is still the most agressive religion, there are problems because it is all split up over rightful caliphs? do the lines still exist?

I have too much work to be doing this.

At 10/12/04 06:54 AM, Gutmunchr wrote: Islam is the only religion that positively encourages war;

No it doesn't. All references to how a Muslim should wage war in the Qur'an, are entirely defensive measures. War should always be a last resort. Where ever there is something about war in the Qur'an, it is always followed by "but forgiveness is better."

we hear it all the time now 'the jihad'; a holy war.

Except jihad actually stands for "struggle" or "struggle with truth."

It's a struggle, but it's an internal struggle with your faith. The word for war is something completely different.

Islamist scholars later on basically created the term "lesser jihad" to mean just war, but it has never meant holy war.

The jihad has been used in places like iraq you might say defensively (they invade us we attack them), but that is not the only way it is used.

Hopefully, considering you're not really using it correctly.

Muslims have declared jihad solely to spread their religion (they conquered north africa in 50 years to spread the religion.

No, Muslim's do not actively convert people. Any conquerings by the Muslim Empire, were simply political. The religion had nothing to do with it.

In contrast christianity only uses war defensively (true plenty of christian nations have been at war in the past, but rarely in the name of their religion - imperialism had nothing to do with religion, and nor did most of the medieval battles).

You're out of your mind. Colonialism everywhere began with the church. Why else do you think South America is wholly Christian today?

Colonialism was born on the back of Christian religious thought influenced by white supremacy. The "White Man's Burden" and so forth.

You might say the crusades were offensive? they were not, christians had been persecuted in the region just 70 years or so before the crusades in that region (the pope was to weak to strike out at the time - didnt have enough influence).

There were something like thirteen crusades stretching over a few hundred years. They were offensive.

Also the ottomen were threatening the eastern christian empire of the byzantines (conquering christian land in other words), and the land the crusaders conquered was in fact christian land originally that was taken by the muslims during the dark ages.

The crusades went into the heart of the Middle East, attacking lands where Muslims had ruled since the beginning of the religion - before the dark ages. Additionally, the crusades were during the dark ages as far as I'm concerned.

The crusaders coming back with the bounties of the Muslims helped to sparked the Renaissance.

Religion in terms of war has been completely left behind by christians, and at least in england religion is practically non-existant (there are more practicing muslims than christians in england); yet jihads are declared all the time in the muslim world.

I don't care if they are declared or not. According to the Qur'an, a jihad - even a lesser jihad - can't be "declared," it has to come from the people, with broad popular support.

But being fair I dont know about the other religions,

If I was you, I would go back and read a few books on Islam and Christianity first.

Colonialism was born on the back of Christian religious thought influenced by white supremacy. The "White Man's Burden" and so forth.

Ok i can concede the spanish and the portuguese colonies were about christianity; i dont count them as world players and often forget, they had so much trouble with their empires because they insisted on conversion, French and British empires wer about money not religion.

The crusades went into the heart of the Middle East, attacking lands where Muslims had ruled since the beginning of the religion - before the dark ages. Additionally, the crusades were during the dark ages as far as I'm concerned.

Sure you could say they were in the dark ages, if you take the dark ages as being from about 1100-1(4?)500 instead of about 400-900/1000 AD. Since the beginning of the Muslim religion they had ruled there, but not since the beggining of the Christian religion.

The crusaders coming back with the bounties of the Muslims helped to sparked the Renaissance.

The middle east was more learned earlier on, mainly because they invented paper, parchment deteriorates too fast.

At 10/13/04 06:37 AM, Gutmunchr wrote: Ok i can concede the spanish and the portuguese colonies were about christianity; i dont count them as world players and often forget, they had so much trouble with their empires because they insisted on conversion, French and British empires wer about money not religion.

You are wrong. The Spanish and the British both conquered and colonized for money. There were no overt religious motive involved. Religion was used as a weapon against the peoples. They used religion to make the locals sympathize with the Spanish and the British so they would either be more easily ruled or more easily exterminated. And after both had a foothold, they went on campaigns to Christianize and civilize the "brown people." So the Europeans never used religion as a reason for taking over a people, no they did more nefarious things with religion. They used religion to strip people of their land, their lifestyle adn their culture. They used religon which is supposed to better people's lives, to ruin them.

Sure you could say they were in the dark ages, if you take the dark ages as being from about 1100-1(4?)500 instead of about 400-900/1000 AD. Since the beginning of the Muslim religion they had ruled there, but not since the beggining of the Christian religion.

Just a technicality, anyways the Dark ages refers to the time post West Rome and pre-Renaissance. Therefore the entire crusade timeline existed within the dark ages.

The middle east was more learned earlier on, mainly because they invented paper, parchment deteriorates too fast.

And because at that time the middle east was the center of philosphy, culture and intillectual thought of the time.

And just because a warlike culture starts a religion does not mean that religion will be warlike as well. But if you look at it, the arabs have fought no more than the Europeans have, they were just better at it.

You have very well thought out and valid points.The Mongols were massive hordes of hundreds of thousands of soldiers trained in the arts of warfare.they used brutality and cruelty in their fights.

The Mongols destroyed many Arab Islamic cities of learning.All that they had accomplished was literally wiped out.The arabs ended up regressing and eventually stagnated in the fields of knowledge.

The Europeans who slowly bagen to awake from the dark ages, and who tasted some of the newly learned knolwedge introduced by the arabs were able to rise again and took the lead.

No, the degration of The Muslim Regions of the world occurred after that. Post Mongols empire the Muslim regions turned themselfs into powerful empires that had better technology than most of europe. Towards the 1600's into the 1700's they stopped progressing because unlike the europeans they lost interest in new technologies as well as the economic benefits of colonialization and exploration, in time they became dependent on Europeans; especially on fire arms.

It has nothing to do with the mongols.

The people responsible include not only invaders and colonists but also arabs who submitted to their will, literally bending over and spreading their cheeks without hesitation aswell as all the arab soldiers and commoners who did not fight, innovate and work hard enough to prevent corruption, develop their countries and fight for their freedom.

A bit sketchy... (in terms of considering the billion other well studied variables I'm only vaguely aware about).

But it would make sense... however everything happens because it was destined. And shouldn't kill because of yours/theirs great great great ^921 grandparents actions. That leads to Pol Pot :(...

I'm a believer in the butterfly effect. And I'm not sure it'd be better (in my opinion). If the mongols DIDN'T fuck around. (It may have to the black death you know... which lead to many, many famous people via indirect but likely still interdependant relationships...)

Why don't we just deal with the middle eastern situation as it is?. That past is long gone (But I know what you mean).

P.S. nuking Israel isn't the answer... 400 megatons of fallout in Eastern Europe and the
Medditterannean wouldn't exactly "save" the Islamic world (Think wrath of Russia, the E.U. America,
and many others with interests in that region)

At 1/12/08 09:17 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: No, the degration of The Muslim Regions of the world occurred after that.

I disagree. I think the stagnation and gradual decline began before the Mongol invasion, in the 10th and 11th centuries, in particular after the great success of The Incoherence of the Philosophers, although I won't go as far as to blame al-Ghazâli for single-handedly wrecking Islamic science and philosophy as he more of less echoed the Zeitgeist which was already in favour of a more orthodox form of Islam. After the heyday of the rational sciences like medicine and philosophy, the `ulûm `aqliyya, the attention of universities and madâris shifted towards the religious studies like fiqh and kalâm under pressure of the theologians (`ulamâ') and the rulers that supported them. The Bayt al-Hikma in Iraq, while indeed being destroyed by the Mongols under Hülegü in the 13th century, already shifted towards being more of a religious institute as early as the late 9th century when the Abbasid caliphs fell under the sway of the theologians and the political influence of the Mu'tazilites came to an end. When the Almoravids, also heaivly influenced by the theologians, finally ended the reign of the party kings in Andalusia in the 11th century the last great centre of non-orthodox Muslim thought was destroyed.

Apart from a few exceptions like Ibn Khaldûn (although his contributions were more in the field of the social sciences) there wasn't much scientific progress in the Islamic world after the beginning of the 12th century. The early Ottomans were great statesmen and warriors who cleverly adapted gunpowder technology but they contributed next to nothing to the sciences. These sciences did not initially produce much of a political or military advantage for the West, but in the beginning of the 19th century advances in, for example, medicine and transport were being translated in bigger populations and more versatile armies and the West got a definite edge over the Ottomans and the Mughals. Using this superiority the West gradually 'colonised' most of the Muslim world during the 19th and early 20th centuries and that did little to improve the situation in the region.

It has nothing to do with the mongols.

But with this I can agree.

"shitty mongols why you always have to go bleaking down my wall?"

At 10/12/04 09:54 AM, RedSkunk wrote: I have too much work to be doing this.

At 10/12/04 06:54 AM, Gutmunchr wrote: Islam is the only religion that positively encourages war;

No it doesn't. All references to how a Muslim should wage war in the Qur'an, are entirely defensive measures. War should always be a last resort. Where ever there is something about war in the Qur'an, it is always followed by "but forgiveness is better."

"Only when Muslims admit that 9/11 and 7/7 were the work of Muslim terrorists can we move forward to the next juncture: which is recognising the hard truth that Islam does permit the use of violence. Muslims who deny this, preferring instead to mouth easy platitudes about how Islam is nothing but a religion of peace, make the job easier for the radicals who can point to passages in the Koran, set down in black and white, that instruct on the killing of unbelievers."
Hassan Butt - a British Pakistani and former spokesman of the radical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun who now calls on Muslims to "renounce terror".

Read Surah 4.

At 1/13/08 08:34 AM, Earfetish wrote: Read Surah 4.

Could you name anything in particular that you consider to justify violence against "those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk", or "hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace" (90)?