Jump to content

The barbarians within our gates -- Arab society has collapsed and it won't recover in my lifetime


japantiger

Recommended Posts

The barbarians within our gates -- Arab society has collapsed and it won't recover in my lifetime (lengthy article from the Washington bureau chief of Al-Arabiya:

With his decision to use force against the violent extremists of the Islamic State, President Obama is doing more than to knowingly enter a quagmire. He is doing more than play with the fates of two half-broken countries—Iraq and Syria—whose societies were gutted long before the Americans appeared on the horizon. Obama is stepping once again—and with understandably great reluctance—into the chaos of an entire civilization that has broken down.

Arab civilization, such as we knew it, is all but gone. The Arab world today is more violent, unstable, fragmented and driven by extremism—the extremism of the rulers and those in opposition—than at any time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Every hope of modern Arab history has been betrayed. The promise of political empowerment, the return of politics, the restoration of human dignity heralded by the season of Arab uprisings in their early heydays—all has given way to civil wars, ethnic, sectarian and regional divisions and the reassertion of absolutism, both in its military and atavistic forms. With the dubious exception of the antiquated monarchies and emirates of the Gulf—which for the moment are holding out against the tide of chaos—and possibly Tunisia, there is no recognizable legitimacy left in the Arab world.

Is it any surprise that, like the vermin that take over a ruined city, the heirs to this self-destroyed civilization should be the nihilistic thugs of the Islamic State? And that there is no one else who can clean up the vast mess we Arabs have made of our world but the Americans and Western countries?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/the-barbarians-within-our-gates-111116.html#ixzz3Eq2Hhi6e

Hisham Melhem is the Washington bureau chief of Al-Arabiya, the Dubai-based satellite channel. He is also the correspondent for Annahar, the leading Lebanese daily. Follow him on Twitter @hisham_melhem

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Interesting article.

The Greeks, Romans, Byzantines ruled those lands where Arabs lived and Westernized them in many ways. Then the Moslem Caliphate existed after 700 AD with Arabs in control. The Turks took over and ruled from 1200 until the end of WWI.

The British and French split the area up after WWI and then pulled out after WWII. There is no one entity in charge of the region now. Just dictators, tribes of Arabs, and Islamic groups that want to convert or kill people. Perhaps we should bring back the Turks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article.

The Greeks, Romans, Byzantines ruled those lands where Arabs lived and Westernized them in many ways. Then the Moslem Caliphate existed after 700 AD with Arabs in control. The Turks took over and ruled from 1200 until the end of WWI.

The British and French split the area up after WWI and then pulled out after WWII. There is no one entity in charge of the region now. Just dictators, tribes of Arabs, and Islamic groups that want to convert or kill people. Perhaps we should bring back the Turks.

...Or bring back the classic Muslim Caliphates, as stylized in literature by "Ali Baba", "Sinbad", and "101 Nights", for that matter.

At the height of the Islamic Caliphate(s) [~800-1400 AD, Western Calendar], the Islamic empires were more scientifically and technologically advanced, were more cosmopolitan in trade and commerce, better educated (on the theory that everyone should be able to read the Koran for themselves, rather than just take the organized clergy's word for what scripture says, as in the contemporary Christian Church), had better hygiene, had a greater cultural respect for literature and the arts (although still following the Koranic ban on "graven images" in their art forms), and were more tolerant of other "peoples of the Book" (i.e., the other Abrahamic faiths) than their European contemporaries who were also "westernized" by Greeks, Romans, and Byzantines.

The empires of the Middle East opposing the Greeks and Romans, e.g., the Persians and the Parthians, were not necessarily less advanced or less civilized than the invading "Western" followers of the Olympian gods. For that matter, relatively few Arabs lived in those lands when the Greeks & Romans invaded. (Byzantines being merely the eastern Roman heirs.) Until Mohammed and the expansion/conquests of Islam, Arabian people were mostly confined to the Arabian peninsula. Alexander and the Caesars encountered relatively few Arabs in their conquests.

Yes, things have changed since then, no doubt. But more so because of the blossoming of rationalism and science in Europe than the influence of the Church. And certainly extremism of the sort practiced by ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban is a huge step backwards in civilization.

But the spread of Islam and the classic Muslim Caliphates did not produce a sudden decline in civilization. I am a Christian, I believe in the teachings of Jesus, and I don't blame Christianity for Europe's collapse. (Indeed, Christian monasteries were the last bastion of formal education and learning in Dark Age Europe. Charlemagne patronized monasteries because he saw the value of literacy and learning in governing his empire.) But if one confuses correlation with causality, it would be easier to argue that Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire and the onset of the Dark Ages in Europe.

Actually, the Mongols were responsible for much of the collapse of Mesopotamia and regions eastward (Iraq & Islamic Central Asia)--they pretty much gutted the place, razing entire cities, practicing wide scale genocide in some areas, and crippling agriculture in the region by destroying extensive irrigation systems that had been maintained for centuries. (Although the Mongols did practice a greater degree of religious tolerance than their Christian or Muslim counterparts.)

[And while I realize much of this maybe irrelevant to the thread topic or current times, sometimes I just like to wax "historically". :) ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[And while I realize much of this maybe irrelevant to the thread topic or current times, sometimes I just like to wax "historically". :) ]

By all means, please continue. I happen to enjoy reading such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article.

The Greeks, Romans, Byzantines ruled those lands where Arabs lived and Westernized them in many ways. Then the Moslem Caliphate existed after 700 AD with Arabs in control. The Turks took over and ruled from 1200 until the end of WWI.

The British and French split the area up after WWI and then pulled out after WWII. There is no one entity in charge of the region now. Just dictators, tribes of Arabs, and Islamic groups that want to convert or kill people. Perhaps we should bring back the Turks.

...Or bring back the classic Muslim Caliphates, as stylized in literature by "Ali Baba", "Sinbad", and "101 Nights", for that matter.

At the height of the Islamic Caliphate(s) [~800-1400 AD, Western Calendar], the Islamic empires were more scientifically and technologically advanced, were more cosmopolitan in trade and commerce, better educated (on the theory that everyone should be able to read the Koran for themselves, rather than just take the organized clergy's word for what scripture says, as in the contemporary Christian Church), had better hygiene, had a greater cultural respect for literature and the arts (although still following the Koranic ban on "graven images" in their art forms), and were more tolerant of other "peoples of the Book" (i.e., the other Abrahamic faiths) than their European contemporaries who were also "westernized" by Greeks, Romans, and Byzantines.

The empires of the Middle East opposing the Greeks and Romans, e.g., the Persians and the Parthians, were not necessarily less advanced or less civilized than the invading "Western" followers of the Olympian gods. For that matter, relatively few Arabs lived in those lands when the Greeks & Romans invaded. (Byzantines being merely the eastern Roman heirs.) Until Mohammed and the expansion/conquests of Islam, Arabian people were mostly confined to the Arabian peninsula. Alexander and the Caesars encountered relatively few Arabs in their conquests.

Yes, things have changed since then, no doubt. But more so because of the blossoming of rationalism and science in Europe than the influence of the Church. And certainly extremism of the sort practiced by ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban is a huge step backwards in civilization.

But the spread of Islam and the classic Muslim Caliphates did not produce a sudden decline in civilization. I am a Christian, I believe in the teachings of Jesus, and I don't blame Christianity for Europe's collapse. (Indeed, Christian monasteries were the last bastion of formal education and learning in Dark Age Europe. Charlemagne patronized monasteries because he saw the value of literacy and learning in governing his empire.) But if one confuses correlation with causality, it would be easier to argue that Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire and the onset of the Dark Ages in Europe.

Actually, the Mongols were responsible for much of the collapse of Mesopotamia and regions eastward (Iraq & Islamic Central Asia)--they pretty much gutted the place, razing entire cities, practicing wide scale genocide in some areas, and crippling agriculture in the region by destroying extensive irrigation systems that had been maintained for centuries. (Although the Mongols did practice a greater degree of religious tolerance than their Christian or Muslim counterparts.)

[And while I realize much of this maybe irrelevant to the thread topic or current times, sometimes I just like to wax "historically". :) ]

Since you're "waxing"...have you ever read the biography of St. Patrick? In many circles he is credited with almost singlehandedly reintroducing education and modern thought into Western Europe after the dark ages. He was one tough hombre and quite remarkable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you're "waxing"...have you ever read the biography of St. Patrick? In many circles he is credited with almost singlehandedly reintroducing education and modern thought into Western Europe after the dark ages. He was one tough hombre and quite remarkable.

Beyond his bringing Christianity to Ireland, I really don't know much about him. But thanks for the suggestion..I need to add a good biography of him to my book list. (Can you recommend one particular author/volume??)

I buy a lot of books. Amazon and Barnes & Nobles love me. :-[:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you're "waxing"...have you ever read the biography of St. Patrick? In many circles he is credited with almost singlehandedly reintroducing education and modern thought into Western Europe after the dark ages. He was one tough hombre and quite remarkable.

Beyond his bringing Christianity to Ireland, I really don't know much about him. But thanks for the suggestion..I need to add a good biography of him to my book list. (Can you recommend one particular author/volume??)

I buy a lot of books. Amazon and Barnes & Nobles love me. :-[:whistle:

How the Irish Saved Civilization; Thomas Cahill...not just a biography of St. Patrick; though there are other good biographies of him; but also a good read on the transition of Roman times and the re-emergence of civilization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are articles written by Bernard Lewis where he explains his theory on what went wrong with Islamic societies. Why they were once so successful but have been in failure mode for 700 years while the West excels.

Lewis is a British historian who is considered an expert on the history of the Middle East. He has written several books on this. Below are some links to articles he has written.

Lewis argues that the Middle East is currently backward and its decline was a largely self-inflicted condition resulting from both culture and religion, as opposed to the post-colonialist view which suggests the problems of the region as economic and political maldevelopment mainly due to the 19th-century European colonization. Basically moslem people in the region cannot except responsibility for their situation. They blamed the Mongols, then the Turks, then the French and British. Moslem societies in the Middle East now tend to blame the U.S as the Western super power and also Israel locally for their current bad situation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/01/lewis.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you're "waxing"...have you ever read the biography of St. Patrick? In many circles he is credited with almost singlehandedly reintroducing education and modern thought into Western Europe after the dark ages. He was one tough hombre and quite remarkable.

Beyond his bringing Christianity to Ireland, I really don't know much about him. But thanks for the suggestion..I need to add a good biography of him to my book list. (Can you recommend one particular author/volume??)

I buy a lot of books. Amazon and Barnes & Nobles love me. :-[:whistle:

How the Irish Saved Civilization; Thomas Cahill...not just a biography of St. Patrick; though there are other good biographies of him; but also a good read on the transition of Roman times and the re-emergence of civilization.

Thanks, I'll check into it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are articles written by Bernard Lewis where he explains his theory on what went wrong with Islamic societies. Why they were once so successful but have been in failure mode for 700 years while the West excels.

Lewis is a British historian who is considered an expert on the history of the Middle East. He has written several books on this. Below are some links to articles he has written.

Lewis argues that the Middle East is currently backward and its decline was a largely self-inflicted condition resulting from both culture and religion, as opposed to the post-colonialist view which suggests the problems of the region as economic and political maldevelopment mainly due to the 19th-century European colonization. Basically moslem people in the region cannot except responsibility for their situation. They blamed the Mongols, then the Turks, then the French and British. Moslem societies in the Middle East now tend to blame the U.S as the Western super power and also Israel locally for their current bad situation.

http://www.theatlant...lim-rage/304643

http://www.theatlant...02/01/lewis.htm

Well I wonder where they got that idea? One of the tenets of liberalism the idea of it's always somebody elses fault. It doesn't matter what somebody does it's not their fault. Their parents didn't love them enough or society left them behind or some such something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are articles written by Bernard Lewis where he explains his theory on what went wrong with Islamic societies. Why they were once so successful but have been in failure mode for 700 years while the West excels.

Lewis is a British historian who is considered an expert on the history of the Middle East. He has written several books on this. Below are some links to articles he has written.

Lewis argues that the Middle East is currently backward and its decline was a largely self-inflicted condition resulting from both culture and religion, as opposed to the post-colonialist view which suggests the problems of the region as economic and political maldevelopment mainly due to the 19th-century European colonization. Basically moslem people in the region cannot except responsibility for their situation. They blamed the Mongols, then the Turks, then the French and British. Moslem societies in the Middle East now tend to blame the U.S as the Western super power and also Israel locally for their current bad situation.

http://www.theatlant...lim-rage/304643

http://www.theatlant...02/01/lewis.htm

Lewis may be a widely respected historian, but is he Christian or Muslim? While that doesn't matter to me (and shouldn't), apparently it's important if you wish to promote your book on FOX:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are articles written by Bernard Lewis where he explains his theory on what went wrong with Islamic societies. Why they were once so successful but have been in failure mode for 700 years while the West excels.

Lewis is a British historian who is considered an expert on the history of the Middle East. He has written several books on this. Below are some links to articles he has written.

Lewis argues that the Middle East is currently backward and its decline was a largely self-inflicted condition resulting from both culture and religion, as opposed to the post-colonialist view which suggests the problems of the region as economic and political maldevelopment mainly due to the 19th-century European colonization. Basically moslem people in the region cannot except responsibility for their situation. They blamed the Mongols, then the Turks, then the French and British. Moslem societies in the Middle East now tend to blame the U.S as the Western super power and also Israel locally for their current bad situation.

http://www.theatlant...lim-rage/304643

http://www.theatlant...02/01/lewis.htm

Lewis may be a widely respected historian, but is he Christian or Muslim? While that doesn't matter to me (and shouldn't), apparently it's important if you wish to promote your book on FOX:

Bernard Lewis is Jewish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are articles written by Bernard Lewis where he explains his theory on what went wrong with Islamic societies. Why they were once so successful but have been in failure mode for 700 years while the West excels.

Lewis is a British historian who is considered an expert on the history of the Middle East. He has written several books on this. Below are some links to articles he has written.

Lewis argues that the Middle East is currently backward and its decline was a largely self-inflicted condition resulting from both culture and religion, as opposed to the post-colonialist view which suggests the problems of the region as economic and political maldevelopment mainly due to the 19th-century European colonization. Basically moslem people in the region cannot except responsibility for their situation. They blamed the Mongols, then the Turks, then the French and British. Moslem societies in the Middle East now tend to blame the U.S as the Western super power and also Israel locally for their current bad situation.

http://www.theatlant...lim-rage/304643

http://www.theatlant...02/01/lewis.htm

Lewis may be a widely respected historian, but is he Christian or Muslim? While that doesn't matter to me (and shouldn't), apparently it's important if you wish to promote your book on FOX:

Bernard Lewis is Jewish.

Appreciate the info, thanks.

Naturally, good academicians should keep personal bias or personal background out of their research, although being human, some don't. But in discussions of their academic work, the background of the author/researcher should be irrelevant in the minds of interviewers. If the work itself demonstrates bias, they absolutely should be called on the content of their work. But there should be no presumption of bias simply because they are of a particular race, ethnicity, religious faith, or political lean in their private life.

A question like "You're a Muslim, why are you writing about Jesus?" seems to me as ridiculous as "You're a man, why should we take your medical opinion on female health issues?", "You're a Christian, why did you to write a book about Mohammed?", "You're a creationist, how are you qualified to comment on evolution?", or "You're a vegetarian, why should you study the nutritional value of meat?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...