Your account of history is not the same as mine and I rather we stay on good terms than be right about a different account of history. — Athena

The way I see it, it's just a discussion. We may have different accounts of history, but discussions are supposed to consider different views, are they not? :smile:

Anyway, the fact is that the Greek East was known to the Arabs by its proper name, “Mamlaka al-Rum” i.e., “Kingdom of the Romans”, the Greeks themselves calling it “Empire of the Romans” (Basileia Romaion) right through to 1453.

In contrast, Western Europe in Arabic was either called by the name of individual countries e.g. “Land of the Franks”, or by the generic term “Europe” (Arufa). In the 10th century, Muslim geographers begin to include Western Europe in the “Kingdom of the Romans” but even then it is ruled by the “King of the Romans” (Malik al-Rum), who resides in Constantinople, the Great City of the Romans (Rūmiyyat al-Kubra).

But for some strange reason, in the popular history or mythology of the post-war era the Eastern Roman Empire never existed!

This is why I think it is important to keep history separate from politics and politically-influenced cultural trends. Otherwise, terminology used by historians can be misused as a political or cultural weapon that actually distorts history.

There may have been a “Golden Age of Islam” but this refers to a period within the history of Islam. It should not be read to mean that the rest of the world was in darkness.

The same goes for the European “Dark Ages”. As used by Petrarch who introduced it, the idea referred to certain aspects of cultural development in Western Europe as compared to the Classical era, no to Islam.

It was never meant to compare Christian Europe with the Islamic world. It must have been after WWII, when it was fashionable to denigrate European history and culture, and above all, Christianity, that the trend emerged to contrast a “European Dark Age” with an “Islamic Golden Age”.

The name of the period refers to the movement of so-called barbarian peoples—including the Huns, Goths, Vandals, Bulgars, Alani, Suebi, and Franks—into what had been the Western Roman Empire. The term “Dark Ages” is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies.

- Encyclopedia Britannica

In addition to the value judgment, the term is also based on a number of historical inaccuracies and falsehoods. In reality, Europe experienced a high degree of sophistication and, especially, technological development at this time.

Also, we need to remember that the “Islamic Golden Age” would not have taken place without the Greek and Roman culture preserved by the Greek East which was Christian.

IMHO the claim A, that “Christianity destroyed Greek and Roman culture” is contradicted by the fact B, that the Muslim Arabs got their knowledge of Classical science, medicine, philosophy, etc. from Christian Europe!

As to the Celts, their religion reportedly involved human sacrifice:

According to Roman sources, Celtic Druids engaged extensively in human sacrifice. According to Julius Caesar, the slaves and dependents of Gauls of rank would be burnt along with the body of their master as part of his funerary rites. He also describes how they built wicker figures that were filled with living humans and then burned.

Human sacrifice - Wikipedia

And it would be useful if you had some sources for "Christians starving Celts to death" as personally I am not aware of any ....

I love your use of history to make a point. You are right, Orthodox Christianity in the east maintained ties to Greek and Roman culture and the West did not. The split of which you spoke is very important, and this goes back to the conditions of success or failure. — Athena

Well, the reason I am using history to make a point is that you cannot philosophize about a topic that involves historical events without first establishing what the historical facts are.

History is largely open to interpretation of historical evidence and it can become subject to misinterpretation and distortion.

The idea of “European Dark Ages” is a case in point. Precisely because it is often used to denigrate European or Western history and culture, it is necessary to see what the truth of it is.

The first thing that becomes obvious is that there is a curious tendency among present-day Westerners to forget that the Roman Empire in the 300’s AD was split in two halves: the Eastern part centered on Constantinople (Greece) and controlled by the Greeks, and the Western part centered on Rome (Italy) and controlled by Romans.

Equally forgotten (or deliberately ignored?) is the fact that the Eastern part lasted for more than a millennium and largely preserved the Greek and Roman culture of the original Roman Empire, including the civic structures, public baths, forums, monuments, and aqueducts of pre-Christian Rome in working condition.

In contrast, the Western part from the 400’s onwards was overrun by Germanic tribes, disintegrated into many separate kingdoms, and lost much of its Greek and Roman heritage.

The second thing that becomes evident from this is that if there was anything like a “Dark Ages”, it was a) in the Western half of the Empire only and b) it was not the result of Christian rule but the result of rule by Germanic warriors who were among the greatest fighters Europe had ever seen, but had no advanced culture and no knowledge or experience of running an empire based on urban civilization.

Meantime, the so-called “Golden Age of Islam” came about in Muslim-dominated Persia, through the cultural fusion of mostly Greek and Persian traditions.

For example, all the Greek medical works available to the Muslim rulers of Persia were obtained from the Christian Eastern Roman Empire and translated into Arabic by Christian scholars like Hunayn ibn Ishaq:

Various translations of some works and compilations of ancient medical texts are known from the 7th century. Hunayn ibn Ishaq, the leader of a team of translators at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad played a key role with regard to the translation of the entire known corpus of classical medical literature. Caliph Al-Ma'mun had sent envoys to the Byzantine emperor Theophilos, asking him to provide whatever classical texts he had available. Thus, the great medical texts of Hippocrates and Galen were translated into Arabian, as well as works of Pythagoras, Akron of Agrigent, Democritus, Polybos, Diogenes of Apollonia, medical works attributed to Plato, Aristotle, Mnesitheus of Athens, Xenocrates, Pedanius Dioscorides, Kriton, Soranus of Ephesus, Archigenes, Antyllus, Rufus of Ephesus were translated from the original texts.

Medicine in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

Moreover, this cultural fusion had already started in pre-Islamic times in urban centers like Harran, Ctesiphon, Gundeshapur, Bishapur and Nishapur, where Christian, Sabian, Zoroastrian, Pagan, Buddhist, and other scholars cooperated in the advancement of learning.

So, the Muslim rulers merely continued what the Persians, Greeks and others had already started centuries before, and only after they were forced to do so by the Persian-Arab revolution of 751 that put the Abbasids in charge. At the same time, the Muslim Arab conquests cut off Europe’s links with Asia, arguably imposing a period of relative isolation on the whole continent. The Greek East had established contact with Persia and India, sending emissaries to China to obtain silk worms for the production of silk in the 500’s. Now all trade with India and the Far East had to be conducted through Muslim-controlled lands.

The Greek East itself, whose Christian rulers provided the Muslims with all the medical, scientific and philosophical corpus of the Classical (Greek and Roman) tradition, was under extreme external pressure. It had already become greatly weakened as a result of endless wars with Persia and lost two important provinces, Syria and Egypt, to the Muslim Arabs early on. In addition to being under constant attack from Arabs, Slavs, Bulgars, Germanic and other tribes, the East was infamously attacked by the West.

The Western attack on the Greek East happened as follows. On becoming Pope in 1198, Innocent III called for a Crusade to liberate the Holy Land from Muslim occupation. Unlike in the previous Crusade when the kings of England, Germany and France had personally led the armies, the new call to arms was answered by French and Venetian knights and barons. En route, a plan was hatched to reinstate Eastern Emperor Alexios Angelos (who had been deposed) in return for financial and military assistance in the campaign against the Muslims.

The Greeks rejected the new emperor and the plan ended with the Crusader army in 1204 attacking, conquering, plundering, burning down, and largely destroying Constantinople, with priceless works of art being lost in the process, and many of its citizens slaughtered. The Crusade against Islam turned into a Crusade against Christians and the Pope himself called it “the work of darkness”. The Greeks finally recaptured their capital in 1261 but their empire never recovered.

Fourth Crusade - Wikipedia

We can see why, in these circumstances, Christian Europe at the time was unable to produce a Golden Age of its own. The causes of this were not religious but political. Europe was cut off from the rest of the world by Muslim states in North Africa and the Mid East. The West was too divided and caught up in internal conflict. The East was forced to defend itself against external attacks and gradually lost all its territories to finally fall to the Turks in 1453.

So, I think it is critical to maintain a balance and some degree of objectivity when dealing with historical events that are at the center of the discussion.

Besides, if we are saying that “Islam saved us from the Dark Ages”, then on what basis can we tell the Taliban that they are wrong to enforce Islam in their own country? IMO the “Dark Ages Theory” tends to undermine the Western claim that we can “enlighten” or “civilize” the Islamic world and seems to be the wrong strategy.

Well, I don't know what you are trying to accuse me of. Perhaps you are upset that Labour lost the elections and are trying to take it out on me, even though I have absolutely nothing to do with it - beside the fact that I pointed out to you that Labour was a socialist party which you attempted to deny :smile:

And no, I don't recall advocating dictatorship either. On the other hand, Stalinist Russia was a dictatorship and Labour saw it as a model for Britain ....

1. If none of those religions are superior then it seems pointless to talk of "Islamic Golden Age" vs. "Christian Dark Ages".

2. Greek and Roman religions were just as patriarchal as Christianity.

3. If you define patriarchy as oppression of women by men and matriarchy as oppression of men by women, where is the difference?

Christianity did not carry the math and knowledge of medicine, because they were destroying all that. — Athena

This is not supported by the historical evidence:

Study of Hippocratic and Galenic texts all but disappeared in the Latin West in the Early Middle Ages, following the collapse of the Western Empire, although the Hippocratic-Galenic tradition of Greek medicine continued to be studied and practiced in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). Beginning in the late eleventh century, the Hippocratic-Galenic tradition returned to the Latin West with a series of translations of the Classical texts, mainly from Arabic translations but occasionally from the original Greek. In the Renaissance, more translations of Galen and Hippocrates directly from the Greek were made from newly available Byzantine manuscripts.

Ancient Greek medicine – Wikipedia

one religion is not better than the other — Athena

In that case, I don't think we can say that Islam is superior to other religions.

Father will be divided against son
and son against father;
mother against daughter
and daughter against mother;
and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law
and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.’ — Athena

He is simply stating a fact. He doesn't say he wants conflict to happen, he only predicts that it will happen. He introduced what he thought was a better religion that promoted higher values instead of sacrifices and rituals. So, of course there were going to be tensions between those who accepted the new religion and those who kept adhering to the old one.

it was regained during the renaissance and this ended the Dark Ages and we entered the Enlightenment and Age of Reason that was the beginning of modernization. And if that had not happened we would be as ignorant as people were in the Dark Ages, — Athena

Sure. But it did happen. And if the Germanic tribes hadn't taken over the West, Greek and Roman culture would not have been lost and there would have been no "Dark Ages".

I have been pondering how anyone could write a history book for the East that made them think democracy is their inheritance from the Greeks and Rome? — Athena

Some people seem to think that Islam is superior to anything human civilization has ever produced. But what puzzles me is why so many women feel the need to embrace Islam?

In the Koran, Surah 4, an-Nisa (“Women”), Allah commands that men are to dominate women and beat them if they misbehave or disobey:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them, but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great (Q. 4:34).

Allah then commands that men can marry four wives:

And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess (Q. 4:3)

(“That your right hands possess” is a frequent Koranic expression used to refer to slaves.)

Allah also commands that men who cannot afford to marry free women, can take female slaves and women captured in war instead:

And whoever of you have not the means wherewith to wed free, believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess (4:25)

In Surah 33 al-Ahzab (“The Combined Forces”) Allah gives exclusive permission to Prophet Mohammad to take more wives than four from among women captured in war or any other women “that want to give themselves to him”:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; - this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large) (Q. 33:50)

In Surah 66, at-Tahrim (“The Prohibition”), Allah has a special message to Mohammad’s wives in which he tells them that if they are disobedient and Mohammad divorces them, then Allah himself will give him new, better, submissive and obedient wives:

Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins (Q. 66:5)

Islamic Law says that a Muslim man can divorce his wife or wives by pronouncing the word “talaq” (“divorce”) three times. If divorce is so easy for an ordinary Muslim, presumably, it was even easier for Prophet Mohammad.

The oral Hadith tradition has it that Mohammad had nine wives, and he may well have had more wives or partners:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet used to pass by (have sexual relation with) all his wives in one night, and at that time he had nine wives. (Sahih al-Bukhari 7.62.142)

Obviously, as Mohammad was waging war on the Christian and Jewish tribes of Arabia, there was a constant supply of fresh captive women with whom the Muslim leadership could deal as they pleased.

However, several eye-witness statements from the Hadith relate that Mohammad was eventually poisoned by a Jewish woman in retaliation for the torture and beheading of her husband Kinana, the chief of the Jews at Khaibar:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle (Sahih al-Bukhari 3.47.786)

Muhammad’s Death – WikiIslam

Mohammad’s father-in-law and successor Caliph Omar, was similarly killed by a Persian slave, Piruz Nahavandi a.k.a. Abu Lulu. On seeing Persian children slaves in Medina, Piruz said:

You have been enslaved at such a tender age. This Omar sees eaten my heart. I will take his heart out

So saying, he made himself a dagger smeared with poison and, while Omar was leading the morning prayers, Piruz attacked him, stabbing him six times in the stomach.

Piruz Nahavandi - Wikipedia

Omar’s successor Uthman, Mohammad’s son-in-law, was assassinated by Kharijite rebels, a Muslim sect.

Uthman’s successor Ali ibn Ali Talib, cousin and son-in-law of Mohammad, also was assassinated by Kharijite rebels.

Husayn ibn Ali, Mohammad’s grandson, and son of Ali ibn Ali Talib, was killed by Yazid, second caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate ….

In 750 AD the Umayyads were finally overthrown by a coalition of Arabs and Persians that founded the Abbasid Caliphate. However, in 861 though still under nominal Abbasid suzerainty, most of Persia, including the Abbasid capital Baghdad, was ruled by Persian dynasties such as the Samanids, Buyids, and Saffarids until about 1055. In addition to Baghdad, the learning centers established by these Persian rulers at Balkh, Bukhara, Gorgan, Hamadan, Herat, Isfahan, Khorasan, Khwarezm, Merv, Nishapur, Rey and elsewhere attracted great poets, mystics, philosophers and scholars like the Christian Abu Sahl Masihi, Avicenna, al-Biruni (“the Father of Comparative Religion”), Ferdowsi, and many others.

Following the Turkish and Mongol invasions, the Safavid Sufi Order was established in the early 1300’s from whose members emerged the founders of the Safavid Empire which lasted from 1501 to 1736. The Safavid rulers revived the Greek- and Persian-inspired philosophy of Suhrawardi (who had been executed by the Abbasids in 1191, during the “Golden Age of Islam”), Avicenna, and others.

Suhrawardi – Wikipedia

M. A. Razavi, Suhrawardi and the School of Illumination

I think an interesting question for modern philosophers would be, how to substitute Suhrawardi and others for religious and political extremism and initiate a new era of enlightenment, tolerance, and peace throughout the world.

Are you being sarcastic or is that what you really believe. If that is what you believe we have read different books. — Athena

Well, if you have any evidence that Jesus and St Paul spread Christianity by force of arms, feel free to post it here. :smile:

Anyway, as I said, the issue is very complex, and I don’t think you will be able to fix all the loose ends, to be quite honest. You would need a team of scholars and experts to sort out the historical and cultural background in the first place, let alone anything else ....

IMO the concept of “European Dark Ages” does not really stand to objective scrutiny. The teaching of philosophy in the eastern part of the Roman Empire was carried on without interruption from Plato and Aristotle to the modern era.

Where did the Arabs get Plato and Aristotle from? From the Greeks! Who translated Plato and Aristotle into Arabic for them? The Eastern Christians!

Meantime, the West was overrun by Germanic tribes: the Ostrogoths in Italy, the Franks in France, the Vandals and Visigoths in Spain, etc. Latin and Greek were no longer widely used, and traveling was more difficult. The Western Empire disintegrated into separate kingdoms.

In 797 AD, Irene of Athens became Empress of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Pope Leo III did not like the idea of a female emperor, declared the throne vacant, and in 800 decided to crown Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Emperor of the Western Roman Empire. The Greeks who saw themselves as the rightful heirs of the Roman Empire protested and this developed into hostile relations between East and West. The conflict led to the East-West Schism of 1054 and the Western sacking of the Eastern capital Constantinople in 1204.

So, I think it can be seen that the West lost its Greek and Roman cultural heritage NOT because of the Church but because the Romans lost control of their Empire to Germanic barbarians. And the West began to translate Aristotle from Arabic into Latin, not because his works were not available in the Greek East, but because knowledge of Greek had been mostly lost in the West and because of the animosity between West and East.

Moreover, this happened at a time when philosophy had begun to be suppressed in the Islamic world. After that, the Abbasid Caliphate was taken over by Turks and Mongols (1258) and that was the end of the “Golden Age of Islam”.

The Italian scholar Petrarch who lived in the 1300’s and is widely regarded as the “Father of the Renaissance”, was in fact opposed to the Averroists who only knew Aristotle from Arabic commentaries translated into Latin. He started collecting manuscripts of the works of Classical authors and he was inspired by the Abbott Barlaam of Calabria who had lived most of his life in Greece (as head of the Monastery of St Gregory).

Petrarch had read Augustine and Cicero (a manuscript of whom he had inherited from his father) as well as Plato's Phaedo and Timaeus that were available in Latin translation and received a Greek copy of Homer from the Greek scholar Gen. Nicholas Sygerus. Petrarch’s friend Boccaccio was another prominent promoter of Greek language and literature. Whilst commissioning the translation of Euripides and Aristotle from Greek into Latin, they introduced the idea of studying the Classics in the original Greek. Their follower Coluccio Salutati continued their work and in 1395 founded a chair of Greek at the University of Florence for the Greek scholar Manuel Chrysoloras. Other scholars and philosophers from Greece followed in the next decades.

Petrarch | Encyclopedia

Apparently, Petrarch coined the phrase “Dark Ages” and this was later used by Protestants to attack Catholics and blame them for the “Dark Ages”, etc.

However, 1) Petrarch was referring to the western part of the Roman Empire (the Latin West), 2) as Petrarch (and everyone else) was obviously aware, the Eastern Roman Empire (the Greek East) was still extant (until it was conquered by the Muslim Turks in 1453), and 3) the concept of “European Dark Ages” is out of date and is no longer recognized by most scholars.

There are many other misconceptions about the “Dark Ages” and the same goes for the “Islamic Golden Age” that, incidentally, was coined in the 1800’s as an expression of Western Orientalism.

So, it seems that some are working with outdated concepts from a bygone era and wrong historical data.

See also:

Medieval Monasticism as Preserver of Western Civilization

Is he someone worth reading? — Leghorn

I believe the reference is to the Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno:

Miguel de Unamuno - Wikipedia

Not my favorite author and not exactly ancient. But you can never know. You might find him to your liking.

Your consideration in reading the above should not be what Socrates’ or Plato’s idea of salvation or swteria or lysis is, but what Leghorn’s is; for it is Leghorn, not Plato, neither Socrates, who said that. — Leghorn

Well, I disagree. Personally, I don't care about Jesus when I read Plato.

The discussion was about Socrates, not Jesus. If you want to talk about salvation in the context of Socrates then we are going to discuss it as seen by Socrates, not Jesus.

On the other hand, if it is Jesus you wish to discuss, then I think this would be best done separately.

If not, you always have @Valentinus and Foolo (or "Morosophos" as I think you prefer to call him) to discuss things with :smile:

Are you sure Christianity was not spread by the sword? We might have read different accounts of history? What were the steps of persuasion used? How about economic warfare? — Athena

Absolutely sure. Christianity started as a peaceful movement within the Roman Empire and spread peacefully and gradually through its teachings. In contrast, Islam started as a militarized group that took over Arabia by force of arms and then started invading Christian, Persian and other lands. The Koran explicitly says that Mohammad can have four wives plus as many female slaves captured in war as he pleases. The Bible does not say this of Jesus. There are some huge differences that should not be overlooked IMHO.

Point two, yes, many countries have not modernized as the West did following the renaissance in Europe. And thanks to this discussion, I have been pondering how anyone could write a history book for the East that made them think democracy is their inheritance from the Greeks and Rome? — Athena

If you ask me, I think they couldn’t, because it isn’t. This is precisely why they reject that “inheritance”. They’ve been doing that since the 1100’s.

Point three, would you call the KKK a terrorist organization? How about the Nazis? — Athena

Sure. But (1) KKK and neo-Nazis are racist, not religious fundamentalist, (2) they are not supported by Western governments, or indeed, by the Western public, and (3) they do not attack Muslim countries.

And none of us had equal rights for that long. We sure can not applaud Christianity for our equal rights gains and protection from sexual predators because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are basically the same patriarchial religion. — Athena

If they are all “basically the same”, then there seems to be no point having this discussion! :smile:

And can we keep in mind, at one time Isam was far more advanced than Christian Europe, and can we focus on why that was so? I think it is a mistake to think Christianity is better for democracy than Islam. If it had been for the renaissance and philosophy, we would not be a democracy and we would have protected freedom of speech and would not have liberty. Our failure to understand that and what it means to defend democracy in the classroom has us in deep trouble right. — Athena

We can focus on anything you want, it’s your thread.
But the philosophy was not Islamic. Aristotle was not a Muslim. The eastern part of the Roman Empire never lost its cultural heritage including philosophy. It was only the western part and that was because it was overrun by Germanic tribes that did not have a tradition of philosophy and learning. Nothing to do with Christianity.

Our president in the US was born a nation that began with liberal/classical education and had education to teach citizenship and defend democracy. We stopped that in 1958 and left moral training to the church. That was a huge mistake. — Athena

I am not aware of US education being controlled by the Church. My impression was that it is controlled by liberals of various denominations?

One more thing Kennedy and Biden were/are Catholic and that means universalism. Most US Presidents are Protestant and that means nationalism like the Christian Republic of Germany we defeated in two world wars and now resemble in many ways. — Athena

Sure. But Obama was a Protestant. And they are the presidents elected by the American people who are free to choose different presidents.

I see Christianity as just as good or bad as Islam. — Athena

You are probably right in a sense. However, we shouldn't ignore the differences.

For example:

1. Christianity spread through persuasion, Islam spread through invasion and conquest.

2. There are very few (if any) Christian fundamentalist governments in the world, but many Muslim fundamentalist ones.

3. There are very few (if any) Christian terror organizations, but many Muslim ones.

4. Women are more likely to be oppressed and discriminated against in Muslim than in Christian countries, etc.

I think, ultimately, what matters is not which religion is theoretically "better", but which of them shows more respect for freedom, democracy, and human rights.

Of course some may argue that the US President is "just as good or as bad" as the head of the Taliban, but I think this is debatable.

So what were they? The primordial armchair philosophers? I'm being both ironic and not. — baker

Not at all. They saw themselves as influencers through education. Socrates himself was not interested in active politics. As he points out at his trial:

I have had this from my childhood; it is a sort of voice that comes to me, and when it comes it always holds me back from what I am thinking of doing, but never urges me forward. This it is which opposes my engaging in politics (Apol. 31d)

Plato took a more active interest in politics, but he saw himself more in the role of advisor to rulers.

For example, Syracuse on the Italic island of Sicily was at the time the greatest city in the Greek world. Its ruler, Dionysus II, had been converted to Plato’s idea of philosopher-king by his uncle Dion, a powerful figure at the court and a close disciple of Plato.

Dion persuaded Dionysus to invite Plato as his advisor and in 367 BC Plato made his way to Syracuse where he was received with royal honors, and again in 361. Dionysus did implement some of Plato’s political program, and Plato’s philosophy did gain in popularity and prestige but the political intrigues in which his pupils became involved apparently caused him to turn away from politics.

I doubt a few men can have such influence, so I'd look for another explanation. — baker

Though Plato eventually withdrew from politics (he was already over sixty), he was highly influential throughout the Greek world and his pupils enjoyed the patronage of Greek rulers. His pupil Hermias of Atarneus became ruler over several cities in Asia Minor and Plato’s other pupil Aristotle became tutor to young Alexander the Great. He later founded his own school with royal patronage and became famous in his own right. The Greek rulers who succeeded Alexander were keen promoters of Greek culture and learning and built libraries with philosophical works in every major urban center ….

Might the Taliban realize they bit off more than they can chew? — Athena

They might indeed. But it may equally be a cynical ploy to get the world to recognize their government and start pouring billions in aid into the coffers of their Islamic Emirate.

So since Socrates 1) prays to the gods, and 2) believes in salvation, it follows that he prayed to a god for salvation after his conviction? Is that what you are saying? For what I said, in contrasting him and Jesus, was that the latter did, according to the Gospels, explicitly ask God for deliverance from his fate, while the former never did such a thing in regard to his own. — Leghorn

Well, it was you who brought Jesus into it. Personally, I prefer to read Socrates (or Plato) on his own terms. Salvation may mean different things to different readers. For Socrates salvation or liberation (soteria, lysis) means a release (1) from a life of ignorance, (2) from the prospect of being found wanting by the divine tribunal in the afterlife, and (3) from the cycle of death and rebirth.

If this is his conception of salvation, then it seems reasonable to assume that this is at the back of his mind when he prays to the Gods that his transition from this to the other world may be attended by good fortune.

In fact, he himself says: “But I see clearly that to die and be released was better for me” (Apol. 41d). Clearly, he sees his death as a release (apallage). And he is confirmed in this by his daimonion, the inner divine voice that is his lifelong guide.

But one possibility is more favorable to Socrates than the other, and gets longer shrift in the dialogue. I mean the possibility that life after death is spent among the dead in Hades. — Leghorn

The possibility of life after death seems to be more consistent with Socrates’ views given in the dialogues. This is precisely why he gives the other option first, because he intends to focus on the second possibility, the possibility of life after death, which is in line with his beliefs and teachings.

In fact, my personal impression is that Socrates’ views of afterlife are very close to those of the Orphic tradition as may be seen from the myth of Er in the Republic, the account of afterlife in the Phaedo, etc. The true purpose of his elenctic procedure is to get his interlocutors to hold those beliefs only that (according to Socrates) have been shown through rational argument to be the most reasonable or plausible.

I don't know what can be done about this Christian and Muslim fundamentalism but we can not correct the problem if we do not properly identify it. — Athena

This is exactly the point that I have been trying to make :smile:

Of course fundamentalism, of any denomination, should be opposed. The question is, what can be done about it?

As I said, it is essential to understand how empires operate in order to understand how we got to this point. However, this is only the first step. The second step, which is equally important, is to understand the opponent.

For starters, we must avoid kidding ourselves and romanticizing Islam. The 7th century Arab is an outsider to what we call civilization, i.e., the urban civilization of Greece, Rome and Persia. He is at home in the Arabian desert whose barren expanse is only interrupted by scattered oases. But he is not content in the desert. For he has seen the unparalleled wealth and opulence of Christian Syria when traveling to the seasonal market at Damascus and the rich merchandise carried by the returning caravans which he and his comrades in arms have often raided. He has also heard of Constantinople, the “Great City of the Romans” (Rūmiyyat al-Kubra) “nothing like which was ever built, neither before nor after”.

Presumably, getting their hands on the gold and silver of Greece and Persia, and enslaving their populations, especially the women, was one of the motivations behind the Arab invasions. But the religious aspect of it should not be neglected.

Islam means submission to the will of God as supposedly revealed in the Koran.

Submission means Peace, non-submission means War or struggle between the forces of submission and the forces of rebellion.

Islamic Law (Sharia) divides the world into (1) areas of Peace or Islam, called the “House of Islam”, Dar al-Islam, where Islamic Law prevails, and (2) areas of War or Struggle, called the “House of War”, Dar al-Harb, where non-Islamic Law prevails.

The concepts of “House of Islam” and “House of War” do not appear to occur either in the Koran or in oral Hadith tradition. However, they were introduced by Muslim law-makers during the Muslim conquests and are part of Islamic Law.

Divisions of the world in Islam - Wikipedia

Presumably, Muslims who accept Islamic Law, also accept the division of the world into these two antagonistic camps, in which case it is not difficult to see why Muslim extremists see the existence of territories that are not subject to Islamic Law as a provocation and invitation, indeed obligation, to wage holy war or jihad against the “infidels.”

What compounds the problem is the Muslim belief that Islam was the original true religion that has been distorted by Jews and Christians whose current scriptures teach falsehoods and lead believers astray.

Clearly, the issue is more complex than it may seem.

So, can Islam be reformed? On the available evidence, I tend to doubt it. If we think about it, Christianity emerged within the evolved culture of Greece and Rome. In contrast, Islam had no comparable cultural background. It moderated itself for tactical reasons and through contact with other cultures. But it never reformed itself.

When external pressures force it to do so, Islam will stay within a certain range of moderation. But left on its own, its own inner logic will cause it to return to its unreformed and unmoderated roots.

This may be seen from the example of Pakistan. So long as it was part of British India, surrounded by Hindus, and dominated by European culture, it moderated itself for reasons of self-preservation. After Independence, when its main point of outside contact was Mecca in ultra-fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, it became more and more radical.

Education seems to be part of the problem. When you have millions of Muslim villagers with little or no education except what they are told by radical mullahs, then the outcome is entirely predictable. And, as we can see, there is a growing movement of opposition against Western education.

The name of the Islamist extremist organization "Boko Haram" (active in Niger and other African countries) literally means "Western education is forbidden" or "(Western) Book Forbidden," the only permitted book being the Koran.

Boko Haram - Wikipedia

Granted, I've observed similar with Hindus and the Vedas: They confidently insist that the Vedas say this or that, but couldn't provide a reference if their life depended on it. Not to mention how deeply offended they feel that someone would request an actual textual reference, rather than just taking their word for gold — baker

Correct. The stories they sometimes come up with are .... well, hard to believe. Or if you do believe them then be sure to take a large grain of salt with it. Perhaps Buddhists tend to be more down-to-earth.

Personally, I've only read the Dhammapada, Visuddhimagga, some Jataka stories, and the Tibetan Book of the Dead. (I may read more in my next life if I have the time :smile: ) But if there were any “Buddha quotes” that I found interesting or important, I would definitely try to check the sources before I believed them.

Come to think of it, perhaps Buddhists tend to be more relaxed about non-Buddhists misquoting their texts and don’t rise up in arms every time it happens. Possibly, they also are less inclined to protest as they have less influence in the West than Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Well, every country does what it can.

Besides, Afghanistan was a US-UK-NATO joint operation. After it became clear that the war on Taliban could not be won by military means, the whole project became pointless and politically unsustainable.

You just can’t win a war against an opponent based in Pakistan by sitting in Afghanistan. The real problem is Pakistan but there is no political will to solve that problem.

Once Trump had decided to get out of Afghanistan and the other NATO members were unwilling to carry on without the US, there was nothing the British could have done about it.

BTW this discussion could perhaps be continued elsewhere as it looks like @Athena wants her thread back ….

It is futile to attack something that is not a centralized power, but like an invasive species, impossible to get rid of and spreading everywhere. — Athena

There may not be a global center for the whole Muslim ummah, but there are centers of radicalism that can be tackled if there is a political will to do so. And you can take counter-measures against the governments that support them.

Seeing that Muslims demand Islamic states for themselves, perhaps the solution would be for non-Muslims to demand their own states? China and India seem to already be doing this.

Otherwise, I think the conflict is bound to continue until one side defeats the other ....

Do you take that phrase (Apology, 40c) to mean that the soul changes its form or essence after death? — Leghorn

I think the idea that Socrates would no longer be Socrates has little basis.

It is true that according to Socrates some souls are “likely to pass into the bodies of asses and other beasts of that sort” but this refers to “those who have indulged in gluttony and violence and drunkenness, and have taken no pains to avoid them” (Phaedo 81e).

Clearly, it would not apply to Socrates who, by his own standards, has led an exemplary life.

On the contrary, those who (like Socrates) love learning and have pursued philosophy and have departed in a perfectly pure condition, join the race of the Gods (82b-c).

Who are the terrorist? They are not a nation and wars are against nations, not a handful of nuts cases. Oh, the terrorists are Muslims. — Athena

They are not a nation, but many (especially the fundamentalists) see themselves as one world-wide Muslim community or ummah.

And they see Westerners exactly as we see them, i.e., as the "bad guys".

Additionally, though most Muslims are not terrorists, they do agree with Islamic Law. And the problem with Islamic Law is that it tends to become more and more oppressive in addition to encouraging extremism.

The terrorists' reasoning is that if 75% of Muslims want Sharia Law, then it is right for them to fight the 25% that do not. And this goes for non-Muslim countries too. If Muslims are a minority, this means that Islam is being "suppressed" and this situation needs to be redressed by creating a Muslim majority.

India is a good illustration. The Muslim minority in British India demanded their own state. In 1947, they got Pakistan and Bangladesh. But some Muslims chose to stay behind in India and now the fundamentalists among them (and those of Pakistan) demand that they be liberated from infidel "oppression".

As fundamentalism is popular with the uneducated masses (and even some of the educated classes), politicians tend to encourage it for their own agenda, and one wave of fundamentalism is followed by a more radical one, just as the Mujahedin were followed by the Taliban and the Taliban by al-Qaeda ....

How about starting a thread focusing on this jockeying to control world resources and the different styles of occupation and PM me. — Athena

Totally agree. It does look like the thread has veered slightly off course. :gasp:

But at least @ssu's pictures have brought some color to it ....

the UK of today is quite different from the Empire it had in the past. It doesn't have the similar aspirations and not the similar will for imperialism as in the past. — ssu

Well, we know that.

But it is wrong to assume that the British have no influence. It's just that they prefer to operate in a more behind-the-scenes way than the French.

And Pakistan is still a member of the British Commonwealth which has exactly the same map as the British Empire:

Member Countries - The Commonwealth

In any case, Britain and Pakistan are the main culprits responsible for the mess. And America is not far behind. It was the Americans (as well as Britain and others) that encouraged Muslim radicals from all over the world to flock to Pakistan and join the Mujahedin in the jihad against the Soviets.

In addition to the Mujahedin, three important terror organizations emerged under Zia, (1) Harkat al-Jehad al-Islami (HUJI), founded in 1980 by JUI, and (2) Lashkar-e Taiba (LET), founded in 1987 by Muslim Brotherhood operatives with the assistance of ISI and bin Laden. HUJI focused on Afghanistan and LET on India.

The third (3) was Maktaba al-Khidmat founded in 1982 by Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Azzam's deputy was Osama bin Laden who was funding the Mujahedin. The CIA and ISI were encouraging and helping them along .....

From that point, things got more and more lethal. US Deputy State Secretary Richard Armitage did tell the Pakistanis after 9/11 in 2001 that the US would bomb them back to the Stone Age if they didn't sort out the terrorists. But the Pakistanis have carried on playing their usual double game, and the West got fooled one more time.

An interesting question is, why was ISI director general Mahmood Ahmed in Washington at the time?

Again, reincarnation was an ubiquitious belief of the ancient Indo-European cultures. Pythagoreans certainly accepted it, and it was arguably accepted by Plato, hence the myths concerning recollections from previous lives. — Wayfarer

Correct. Myths are often interpreted as the basis of beliefs, but the reality is that more often than not it is the other way round: myths serve the purpose of illustrating existing beliefs.

IMO this certainly seems to be the case in Socrates and Plato.

You quoted my words, and they are before your eyes, and yet you seem not to be able to make out the last two: “for salvation”. — Leghorn

Socrates does pray to the Gods, does he not? And he believes in “salvation” (soteria) or “release” (lysis) of the soul by God or through righteous conduct (Rep. 621c; Phaedo 67a).

Don’t I deserve then to learn from you where exactly it fails to convince? And I am not speaking of the large question, whether Socrates was an atheist, but the small one, whether he would ordinarily be expected to employ all those phrases reminding us that the popular Greek account of the afterlife consists of “things said”. I have been arguing that he would not be so expected. You appear to have given up attempting to refute my evidence. Does that mean we have come to a tacit agreement on that small point? — Leghorn

I’m afraid there is little chance of any such agreement. His statements containing phrases like “as they say” do not in the least sound like “reminders” to me. They are simply statements of fact and do not constitute evidence of secret messages to atheist supporters in the jury (or among readers of Plato’s dialogues).

And anyway (just out of curiosity), if you are not arguing that Socrates is an atheist, what is it that you hope to achieve?

I think it's just an issue that we just should remember, because too many times we see everything from the prism of the West doing things in the World. Having the typical narrative that nearly all bad happens in the World because of the US (or something like that). The US is just one actor and in these regions the countries themselves have their own independent objectives and agendas. To think of them just as pawns or victims of the US or the West is just wrong. — ssu

Sure, but at the same time we can't ignore the West. As I said, it is essential to understand the concept of empire.

The British always had a special interest in Northwest India and Afghanistan. After the 1947 partition when Northwest India became Pakistan, the British focused on Pakistan.

On partition in 1947, Pakistan ceased to be part of the British Empire but became part of the British Commonwealth which replaced the Empire, and Pakistan’s leadership retained close links to British military and intelligence.

In the same year, Pakistan went to war with India over Kashmir. After the war, in 1948, the British created Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs (PIIA) as a sister organization of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) through which they directed Pakistan's foreign policy.

India was run by Fabian Socialists like Nehru and was getting closer to Soviet Russia. So, it was in the interest of the British to encourage Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan to prevent Russian penetration of the region.

In fact, the British were highly active throughout the region. In 1953, British MI6 together with the CIA staged a coup in Iran to prevent a communist takeover (and to get their hands on Iranian oil).

The Iranian Revolution of 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took over, was used by Britain for the same purpose of preventing Iran from turning left and getting closer to Russia.

Britain and the Iranian Revolution – Middle East Eye

Obviously, Britain and America’s anti-Russian stance meant that there was an interest in backing anti-communist Muslim fundamentalism in the region. The Islamization of Iran was taking place at exactly the same time as the Islamization of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Gen Zia ul-Haq had been trained by the British and had served as an officer in the British Indian Army. He also had close links to the Deobandis, Jamaat, and the Islamic clergy assembly Jamiat Ulema-e Islam (JUI).

In 1977, as Muslim fundamentalism was on the rise, Zia seized power in a coup and started a comprehensive Islamization program in Pakistan. Under Zia hundreds of thousands of students were radicalized in religious schools run by Jamaat and JUI.

Following Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher heaped praise on Zia, announcing that Pakistan was now on the frontline in the war in Afghanistan and started arming Pakistan. Pakistan has had a leading hand in Afghanistan ever since.

Mark Curtis, Britain, Islamisation and state terror in Pakistan

So, when talking about Afghanistan, it is important to understand the role played by Britain and its close Pakistani ally.

This is why there are demos in Afghanistan against Pakistan:

Afghanistan: Taliban fire warning shots at protest in Kabul - BBC News

It's an interesting history just why it then went into the backwardness and only was abruptly awakened by Napoleon invading Egypt. — ssu

The Arabs did not have an advanced culture. Persian literature, for example, describes them as "uncivilized":

In the Shahnameh (Book of Kings) the great Persian poet Ferdowsi wrote:

Damn this world, damn this time, damn this fate,
That uncivilized Arabs have come to
Make me a Muslim
Count Iran as a ruin, as the lair
Of lions and leopards.
Look now and despair

- A. Pagden, The 2,500 Year Struggle Between East and West, p. 178

The Persians had an established tradition of cultural syncretism based on urban centers like Ctesiphon and Gundeshapur where Christian, Sabian, Zoroastrian, Pagan, Buddhist, and other scholars were active in the promotion of learning.

With the exception of religion and culture, the Arabs adopted the more advanced cultures of the conquered populations.

But, over time, they realized that those cultures were a challenge to Islam. And that was when they started executing people especially those influenced by Greek philosophy like Mansur al-Hallaj (922 AD) and Suhrawardi (1191 AD):

Al-Hallaj - Wikipedia

Suhrawardi - Wikipedia

This was when Muslim rulers began to turn against “foreign sciences” i.e. the cultural elements that had provided the foundations of "Islamic civilization" and this eventually brought their downfall. The decline of Islamic culture began in the 1100’s, before the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258.

We also need to bear in mind that under Muslim rule non-Muslims including Christians and Jews were regarded as second-class people and were tolerated only if they accepted Muslim superiority and paid a religious tax called “jizya”. And of course they had restricted rights.

A person can justify just about everything with a quote from the Bible or the Koran. — Athena

Correct. However, this isn't about "a person". It is about the Muslim Arabs who invaded Egypt, Syria, Persia, and many other countries in the 7th century AD, i.e., immediately after the emergence of Islam. Without the Arab invasions, the enslaved non-Arabs would have not been enslaved.

This link addresses the Koran and rules for war — Athena

Sure. But we don’t know to what extent those rules were actually observed.

Plus I don't think the Arabs were under attack, so their invasions don't really qualify as "self-defense". I think the prospect of booty and of securing an easy life on the back of the conquered populations was the primary motivation.

What do you think Afro-American culture is? — Athena

No idea. I'm assuming it's got to do with music styles, etc.?

According to the UN Gender Inequality Index 2020, African countries rank among the worst in the world:

Uganda 131
Sudan 138
Tanzania 140
Cameroon 141
Congo 150
Niger 154
Sierra Leone 155
Central African Republic 159
..........

On average, Africa is on par with Pakistan (135) or worse.

Compared with US (46), UK (31), and OZ (25), Africa seems to be miles behind the West.

Gender Inequality Index (GII) | Human Development Reports

Is African-American culture less male-dominated? And if yes, why?

I will vote in favor of Native American traditional consciousness, a love of the creator, and purpose of caring for the land. There is talk of turning over the national parks to the care of Native Americans and I think this is an excellent idea. — Athena

Sounds good to me. However, I think another interesting question is why there has never been a Native American president? What is the cultural, social and political mechanism that prevents this?

Socrates, on the other hand, though begrudgingly, accepted his fate without appeal to a god for salvation. — Leghorn

I don't think this is entirely accurate.

Socrates does actually pray to the Gods before drinking the hemlock:

But I may and must pray to the Gods that my departure hence be a fortunate one; so I offer this prayer, and may it be granted (Phaedo 117c)

I just don't think your interpretation sounds very convincing. Obviously, it isn’t your fault, it’s just that the evidence seems insufficient to establish that Socrates is an atheist.

But I do appreciate your effort.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I have a nagging suspicion that people like Plato would dismiss me as living an unexamined life. While I think that I lead an examined life, I seriously doubt they would. I know Christians and some other religious/spiritual people who tell me, with great ease and a considerable dose of contempt, that I "barely know myself", that I "don't know how things really are", that I "should sit down and finally look at myself", that I'm "not honest with myself (or others)", and so on. — baker

Well, personally, I tend to take the opposite view. Some (most) people do not do enough examination and others too much. Examination (exetasis) must be practiced in moderation and using one’s better judgement, in order to prevent it from developing into something that we don’t want. In other words, examination needs to be individually calibrated and ideally with a bit of guidance from someone that has some experience and is in a position to offer advice.

Socrates does appear to be an extreme case, but I think this is a false impression caused by his elenctic method and apparent questioning of everything. However, I think this serves the primary purpose of educating others which also seems to be Plato’s objective in the dialogues.

To be perfectly honest, you do not sound like someone who lives an unexamined life, maybe more like a bit of a (self-)doubter, in which case I think Plato may advise you to take it easy :smile: At the end of the day, it is impossible to be absolutely certain of everything at all times and in all places. We cannot live on doubt alone, we need some degree of certitude or even “ideology” or “dogma”, as well as faith and hope (all in moderation).

Socrates himself appears to take the advice of priests, priestesses, poets, and others whenever he thinks that what they say makes sense. And, of course, he listens to the inner daimonion, the “sign” and “voice” that arise in his mind and offer him guidance, for example, by advising him against a particular course of action.

As stated before, the ultimate decision belongs to the nous, to that aspect of the soul that knows and understands and that has an intuition or recollection of what is true, beautiful, and good.

And whenever the soul gets a specially large share of either virtue or vice, owing to the force of its own will and the influence of its intercourse growing strong, then, if it is in union with divine virtue, it becomes thereby eminently virtuous, and moves to an eminent region, being transported by a holy road to another and a better region (Laws 904d).

The purpose of examination is not an end in itself, but only a means of reconnecting us with that higher knowledge within us that has direct access to truth. It must lead to introspection and to an inquiry into who or what we are.

This may or may not make sense in the beginning and may not be fully attained in this life (or ever), but with practice a degree of clarity, discernment and insight begins to take hold, like an inner conversion or transformation that leads to a new experience of life and of ourselves. And this in itself makes it worth the effort.

What is it about Buddhism that seems to invite so much ignorant but confident misrepresentation or even invention? — baker

I think in the first place this may have to do with the fact that it is impossible to establish with 100% certainty which quotes can be attributed to the historical Buddha.

Second, the Buddhist texts form a large corpus that few Westerners bother to read.

Third, the phenomenon of fake or self-appointed "gurus" that probably started the minute gullible Westerners with spare cash began to take an interest in Indian religions.

Fourth, Buddhist teachings may also have been distorted for political reasons.

I have a big problem with that because it goes against the Koran. — Athena

Well, it’s a shame you weren’t there to tell them. They certainly thought it was in line with the Koran. After all, this is why they invaded all those countries, to bring Islam to them! And raping, enslaving, etc., was the reward and “lawful booty” they thought was due to them as per the Koran.

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" (Koran 33:50).

"But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" … "Allah gave you mastery over them." (Koran 8:69; 71).

Women and children were the first to suffer, being abused in all sorts of ways by the invaders who were not accountable to anyone.

Conquests had brought enormous wealth and large numbers of slaves to the Muslim elite. The majority of the slaves were women and children. In the wake of the conquests an elite man could potentially own a thousand slaves, and ordinary soldiers could have ten people serving them.
The marketing of human beings, particularly women, as objects for sexual use meant that elite men owned the vast majority of women they interacted with, and related to them as would masters to slaves.
As the size of the harem grew, men indulged to satiety .... Under these conditions satisfaction by perverse and unnatural means crept into society, particularly in its upper classes ...

- Abbasid Caliphate: Status of Women – Wikipedia

See also Nabia Abbott, Two Queens of Baghdad

The prospect of sex seems to be central to the Islamic project. Arabia at the time of Mohammad was inhabited by many Christians and Jews in whose tradition paradise was a place of happiness and enjoyment of a range of pleasures from food to sexual relations (Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anith 25a, Kethuboth 77b, Berakoth 57b).

Similarly, the Koran promises pure virgins for the right believers:

Verily, We have produced the women of Paradise in a new creation and made them virgins, devoted and matched in age, for the companions of the right.
(Al-Waq’iah 56:35-38)

And the Hadith tradition promises 72 virgins as a reward for waging war on non-Muslims:

There are six rewards with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood, he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, he secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head and its gems are better than the world and what is in it, he is married to seventy two wives among the pure maidens of Paradise (At-Tirmidhi 1663).

Obviously, enjoying female slaves captured by invading other countries was regarded as a foretaste of paradise and must have been part of the motivation behind the invasions.

And as Mohammad married Aisha at the age of six (and apparently consummated the marriage when she was nine) it is obvious that female slaves were regarded as ripe for sex at an age when they were virtually still children .....

Right. By first killing the Afghan president. I wouldn't use the term "protect" there. — ssu

Thanks. I’m not sure your observation is of much help to Athena though.

The truth of the matter is that the Marxist Kabul government aimed to extend communist rule to the rest of Afghanistan. This resulted in a Muslim insurgency that Kabul was unable to suppress. The Soviets intervened to reinforce communist rule.

They did kill Amin, who was the leader of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (not “president”), but replaced him with Karmal whom they regarded as more competent and reliable.

So, the Soviets intervened to protect the communist-led regime, not a particular individual.

At that point, Carter ordered US assistance to the anti-communist Mujahedin.

Milestones: 1977–1980 - Office of the Historian

Of course Pakistan had (and still has) an interest in extending its influence over Afghanistan. No one disputes this.

so I am asking you to attempt to make all this information more comprehensive to me. Why all the different organizations? Do they have different justifications for existing? Do they have different stated purpose? — Athena

Well, I think a detailed account may be beyond the scope of this thread or forum.

However, as I was trying to explain to @ssu, it is essential to understand how empires operate.

Suppose you are one of the liberal imperialists running the British Empire. You are sitting in front of the fireplace in your large house in the English countryside, holding an imperial map in one hand, and a glass of Scottish whiskey in the other.

Your main concern is to keep your empire together. As you examine your map, you notice three critical spots (among many others): India, Afghanistan, Egypt.

India is one of the most important parts of your empire. To protect India, you must make sure that Napoleon, the Russians or anyone else don’t get their hands on Afghanistan and get access to the Indian Ocean. To control trade with India, you need the Suez Canal and for this you need to control Egypt.

At the same time, there is mounting Muslim resistance to British rule. You can’t afford to upset all the millions of Muslim natives from Northwest India to Egypt. So you must play one resistance group (and the occasional pro-British group) off against another. Once this has been understood, everything else happens against this background.

The main Muslim revivalist movements in 1800’s British India were the Aligarh and Deobandi movements.

Sayyed Ahmad Khan was a pro-British Indian Muslim from Delhi who worked for the East India Company. In 1875, he founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College of Aligarh which later became the Aligarh Muslim University, India’s first Muslim university.

The people associated with the Aligarh University started the Aligarh Movement that later spawned the All-India Muslim League, the Caliphate Movement, and the Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan.

At about the same time, the Deobandis formed their own movement whose founders were connected with the Anglo-Arabic College of Delhi, a.k.a. Delhi College, which was organized by the same British East India Company and was obviously another British operation. The Deobandis established Muslim religious schools in British India (which in 1947 was divided into India and Pakistan).

The Soviets aimed to expand their influence in Afghanistan by introducing communism there with a view to eventually taking over. In 1979, they invaded Afghanistan to protect the communist-led government there. Many Afghans fled across the border to Pakistan where they were radicalized in Deobandi schools funded by Pakistan, Saudi, America, and Britain, and organized by Jamaat. In addition, they were trained, funded, and armed by Pak (ISI), US (CIA), and UK (MI6, SAS), becoming the Mujahedin guerrillas fighting the Soviets.

After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the same Jamaat-Deobandi infrastructure that was used to radicalize the Mujahedin, was used to radicalize the Taliban. Taliban founder Mullah Omar graduated from a Deobandi school in Pakistan, joined the Mujahedin and founded the Taliban in 1994.

From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban held about two thirds of Afghanistan until they were beaten by a coalition of Mujahedin and Western forces, after which the Taliban withdrew over the border to Pakistan from where they have been launching attacks into Afghanistan until they seized power again in 2021.

In the meantime, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928) created Islamic Jihad that collaborated with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Remember that both India and Egypt were under British occupation. Egypt and India were connected through the Suez Canal which was controlled by the Suez Canal Company (which was co-owned by the British). The Muslim Brotherhood was created by employees of the Suez Canal Company.

British occupation means the British run the military and intelligence. If you add military and intelligence, you get Military Intelligence (Section) 6 = MI6 a.k.a. SIS (Secret Intelligence Service)!

How does MI6 operate? By funding and training local organizations that act in line with British interests. And the same goes for the CIA and others.

In this case, we can clearly see the British connections of the Aligarh, Deobandi, and Muslim Brotherhood projects. (There are many others in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere.)

Different groups may represent different Muslim denominations or factions within denominations purportedly fighting against the "corrupting" influence of western religion and culture. As various mass movements emerge, organizations are founded by foreign governments or local groups to manipulate those movements in line with their agendas. Just like with political parties, allegiances may change over time and this keeps the situation fluid. Organizations may also set up new outfits for reasons of deniability. A religious organization may found an educational or political offshoot, and a political organization may found a paramilitary group or terror organization, in order to divert attention from the original founders, etc.

But, regardless of who is behind these groups, the general effect is that they encourage a gradual shift in the direction of radical, anti-western Islam. To make matters worse, as America and Europe are opting out of political and military involvement, other powers like China, Russia, and Islamic states are ready to back these groups to secure a slice of the geopolitical cake (in the form of oil or other interests) for themselves, and this exacerbates the problems for the Western world and for freedom and democracy ....

For one thing, the objective of both Christianity and Buddhism, as I pointed out in a previous post, is to ameliorate/abolish suffering. It's telling, no?, that one simple but not so easy way to do that is to behave i.e. we need to act morally. What this suggests is the intuition that we are our own worst enemy; see the problem of evil & the free will defense.

As for the link between Buddhism and psychology, all I can say is the latter reduces humans to things, objectifies them, kinda like how naturalists study animals in the wild and in captivity; I'm not comfortable with that even though it seems the right way to go about it. — TheMadFool

True. Buddhism does seem to be closer to psychology than other traditions.

Could this be why it is less popular? In India, at least, after some initial successes it got nearly wiped out by Hinduism (and to some extent by Islam) and it has never recovered.

Last night, a group of covid deniers stormed the studios of Slovenian national television. — baker

I think the fact that it happened on television means that it could be some kind of PR stunt including by the state. But you would need more info than that to decide either way.

Speaking of which, China seems to be making lots of money from selling face masks, protective suits, ventilators, and other Covid-related stuff. Could it be that it created and released the virus for some hidden agenda?

Still, generally the Muslim Brotherhood is viewed to be founded in Egypt by Hassan Al-Banna. — ssu

The Muslim Brotherhood may have been physically founded in Egypt. But I am talking about the ideology.

The ideology started in British India in the 1800’s with Muslim revivalist movements like Aligarh Movement and the Deobandi Movement.

Together with the All-India Muslim League they initiated the Caliphate Movement to restore the Islamic Caliphate. This was an international movement with members all over the Muslim world.

Muslim Brotherhood founders al-Banna and Qutb were in the Caliphate Movement.

Maududi who wrote Jihad in Islam in the early 1920's, founded Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan that spawned the Mujahedin movement in Afghanistan.

Zawahiri who was a follower of Qutb founded Islamic Jihad which teamed up with al-Qaeda in Sudan.

The Deobandis of Pakistan with Saudi funds ran the Islamic schools from which the Taliban were recruited.

So, it’s the Deobandis and Jamaat on the Pakistani side, with some involvement from the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic Jihad on the Egyptian side. Of course, they spawned other organizations through which they have supported the Taliban and international Jihad.

My focus has been the obvious similarity between how both christianity and buddhism adopt the carrot-and-stick approach to morality vis-à-vis hedonism (pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of suffering). Do good, the rewards will be great; commit evil deeds, the repercussions will be severe. — TheMadFool

Good point. But I think human culture in general works that way, education and legal systems, from cradle to grave we are conditioned to feel that our behavior attracts punishment or reward.

Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself; — TheMadFool

But that's how it tends to be seen in the West where life is fast and furious and all we have time for is five minutes to de-stress before rushing back to work ....

This is incorrect. Muslim Brotherhood was started in Egypt. — ssu

The Muslim League started the Caliphate Movement in 1919 to restore the Ottoman Caliphate and was of course in touch with Muslims from other countries, including Egypt.

Abul Ala Maududi was a leading Islamist ideologue who wrote al-Jihad fi al-Islam. (Jihad in Islam).

Maududi taught that the destruction of the lives and property of others was lamentable (part of the great sacrifice of jihad), but that Muslims must follow the Islamic principle that it is better to "suffer a lesser loss to save ourselves from a greater loss". Though in jihad "thousands" of lives may be lost, this cannot compare "to the calamity that may befall mankind as a result of the victory of evil over good and of aggressive atheism over the religion of God."

Abul A'la Maududi – Wikipedia

Maududi was a member of the Caliphate Movement and inspired the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928) and Jamaat-e Islami which he personally co-founded in 1941.

MB and JI were the largest Islamist organizations that gave birth to the modern Jihad movement:

Qutb [of MB] and Maududi [of JI] inspired a whole generation of Islamists, including Ayatollah Khomeini, who developed a Persian version of their works in the 1970s.
The works of al-Banna [of MB], Qutb and Maududi were also to become the main sources of reference for the Arabs who fought alongside the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s ...

Analysis: The roots of Jihad - BBC

But perhaps the news hasn't reached Finland yet .... :smile:

It would be great to have two of me. One to take care of mundane life and one to stay in the forum. We could come together over dinner and share our different experiences. — Athena

Dinner is definitely the key word. You wouldn't need to be careful what you say. And, as Virginia Woolf said:

One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.

:smile:

The Northwest Native Americans did war with each other and then they formed a federation and preached peace is the process of reasoning. — Athena

I agree that Native Americans have an interesting history and culture. But I think the main culture that is currently on the rise tends to be not Native American but Afro-American. Other cultures that I can think of around the world are Chinese Communist and Islamic. And they all seem to be male-dominated ....