Conflict

[Shahed]

Salute All. I just read this essay, thought it was very interesting. So I post it here for you all to enjoy.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


There will be a time when your religion will be like a hot piece of coal in the palm of your hand; you will not be able to hold it. The Prophet of Islam was gazing into the future while he talked to his followers early in the 7th century in Arabia. Would this mean there would be very few Muslims? someone asked. No, replied the Prophet, They will be large in numbers, more than ever before, but powerless like the foam on the ocean waves.
After September 11, 2001, the prediction of the Prophet seems to be coming true. Islam has become as hot as a piece of coal for its followers. Let me give you an example of what has happened in my own family. One of my relatives was in the second tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11th. When the first plane struck its target, he rang his father in New Jersey immediately, to say that something terrible had happened and he was coming home. He put the phone down, and we never heard from him again. Can you imagine the horror of my cousin's father? Like hundreds of Muslim families he suffered the loss of someone in the terrorist attacks. Like hundreds of thousands of Muslims he felt shocked and disgusted by the carnage. But Muslims like my relative suffer twice-over, because this carnage was committed in the name of our religion.

Yet many Muslims now feel themselves in the dock, accused of belonging to a so-called terrorist and extremist religion. The war on terrorism President George Bush declared after September 11th threatens to stretch into the century. But, as a result of incessant attacks by well-known figures on the Koran, the Prophet, and the customs and traditions of our religion, for many Muslims it appears to be a war against Islam. For many of us therefore, on both a global and personal level, this is a time of challenge and despair.

For better or for worse the 21st century will be the century of Islam. The events of September 11 saw to that. The hijackers of the four American planes killed not only thousands of innocent people. Their terrible act also created one of the greatest paradoxes of the 21st century: Islam, which sees itself as a religion of peace, is now associated with murder and mayhem.

Consider Islam today: There are about 1.3 billion Muslims living in 55 states, and the Muslim population is growing fast. About 25 million Muslims live in the West - in fact, a third of all Muslims live in non-Muslim states. But Islam is the one world religion which appears to be on a collision course with its neighbours.

We know that for the first time in history, due to a unique geopolitical conjunction of factors, Islam is in confrontation with all of the major world religions: Judaism in the Middle East; Christianity in the Balkans, Chechnya, Nigeria, Sudan and sporadically in the Philippines and Indonesia; Hinduism in South Asia; and, after the Taliban blew up the statues in Bamiyan, Buddhism. The Chinese, whose culture represents an amalgam of the philosophy of Confucius, Tao and Communist ideology, are also on a collision course with Islam in China's western province.

Why is it that Islam now appears to be clashing with so many neighbouring civilisations? Perhaps because we are entering into what I call a post-honour world. I think that the dangerously ambiguous notion of honour - and the even more dangerous idea of the loss of honour - propels men to violence. Simply put, global developments have robbed many people of honour. Rapid global changes are shaking the structures of traditional societies. Groups are forced to dislocate, or live nearby other groups. In the process of dislocation they have little patience with the problems of others. They develop intolerance and express it through anger. And this is not a problem unique to Islamic countries. No society is immune. Even those states that economists call developed fall back to the notions of honour and revenge in times of crisis. President Bush himself spoke using the rhetoric of honour after September 11th. Like a sheriff whose town had been hit by bad guys, he spoke of a great nation that had been attacked, and the fitting reply that he would mete out. He used words like dead or alive. He called the enemy a slithering snake. Bush did not speak in terms of geopolitics, but in the simple terms of honour and revenge.

Besides, the traditional Muslim division of the world has collapsed: What Muslims once saw as the distinction between dar al-harb- the house of war, land of anarchy and disbelief - and dar al-Islam - the house of peace or Islam in which they could practice their faith and flourish - is no longer valid. In the last decades of the 20th century the division has become largely irrelevant. Muslims can freely practice their faith and flourish in the United States and elsewhere; meanwhile they have been persecuted in Iraq. After September 2001, the distinction disappeared altogether. Muslims everywhere felt under siege. The entire world had become dar al-harb.

The events of September 11th appeared to push the world toward the idea of the clash of civilizations, but they also conveyed the urgency of the call for dialogue. We may not like words such as post-modernism and globalization, but only with the compassionate understanding of other civilizations, through the development of the scholarship of inclusion, can we resolve some of the deleterious consequences of globalization. We need to address the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and the growing sense of despair, especially in the latter. The tragic confrontation among the great faiths taking place in the Balkans, the Middle East, and South Asia, the mindless cycle of violence, must be checked in this century through the dialogue of civilization. Long-term work needs to be started to build the confidence of communities. Serious and urgent rethinking is required by policy-planners and policy-makers in the corridors of power, not only in Washington, London, Moscow and Paris but also in Cairo, Islamabad, Kabul, and Tehran.

There has been dialogue in the past. A thousand years ago in Muslim Spain, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived and worked together to create a glorious civilization, where libraries, public debate and learning flourished - and this at a time when the rest of Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages. And five hundred years ago in India, Akbar the Great ruled over a territory that encompasses modern-day India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. A Muslim who was married to a Hindu princess, his reign ushered in a remarkable century of tolerance - each week he hosted meetings between leaders of all the faiths. I have even seen this wisdom in our own time, when last year the former Archbishop of Canterbury called together a similar meeting of religious leaders. Representatives from Christian, Jewish, and the Muslim faiths gathered together to discuss our common goals, and how we could create peace and harmony in our troubled times.

I suggest a formula for the new millennium: If justice and compassion flourish - and are seen to flourish - in the Muslim world, if its rulers are people of integrity, and if Muslims are allowed to practice their faith with honour, then Islam will be a good neighbour to non-Muslims living outside its borders. And it will provide a benevolent and compassionate environment to those living inside them. It will continue to resist attempts to subvert its identity or dignity. Because resistance can take the form of a Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan who believed in human rights and fought within the law, or resistance can take the form of an Osama bin Laden who fights outside of it.

I hope that one day we embrace this new formula, so that the whole world can become dar al-Islam - the house of peace.

[Shahed]

About the author

Professor Akbar Ahmed is probably the world's best known scholar on contemporary Islam. He is the former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain, and has advised Prince Charles and met with President George W. Bush on Islam. He is now Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies and professor of International Relations at American University in Washington, DC.

Dr. Ahmed is the author of many books on contemporary Islam, including Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society, which was the basis of the BBC six-part TV series called Living Islam. His Postmodernism and Islam: Predicament and Promise was nominated for the Amalfi Award, and his Jinnah Quartet, a four-part project on Pakistan's founding father, M.A. Jinnah, has won numerous international awards.

Professor Ahmed is about to publish Islam Under Siege: Living Dangerously in a Post-Honour World (Polity Press, May 2003)

[Kansuke]

Hello My Friend.

Excellent. Thankyou for sharing this with us, knowlege opens alot of doors to the minds eye.

*Bows


Kansuke.http://www.planetbaldursgate.com/allclasses/KensaiL.jpg

[Shahed]

Greetings Dear Friend http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Glad you liked it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
As you pointed out, Knowledge does open a lot of doors.

*bows*

And you shall know the truth; and the truth shall set you free
John 8:32

Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error.
The Quran 2:256

[kataphraktoi]

www.answering-islam.org

from a former muslim, will his knowledge open doors or will he be branded an apostate of islam for committing haram?

It is a very nice read indeed Seljukl Sinan, for all my anti-stances I do find some Muslim writers refreshing, believe it or not I have a Quran in my room too.
U won;t find me reciting the Shahada but the poetry of the Quran is commendably resplendent.

[el_slapper]

Olé. Islam is at a turning point of its very existence, as was christianity during religion wars. That will be hard times, but no one should accuse anyone because of its religion. Only because of its acts.

[Alrowan]

that was a good read... both christianity and islam are peaceful religeons, it just takes a few people to mess them up though... How many times have we seen people in power fall in love with thier power and use it to use others... basically thats whats happened all over the world, but you can go on blaming religeon for one mans choices

[A.Saturnus]

Very good essay.

I think one serious problem is identification. People always identify with their religion, their nation, their colour of skin or their ethnical group instead of just be themselves. Palestinians celebrating the 11th of september because brothers of faith have done a stroke against an enemy of the faith don`t see that what Bin Laden did and will do brings no good for the Muslems in the world. Bin Laden isn`t an ally of Muslems, he`s their enemy, he`s the enemy of everyone who wants peace on this planet. Identification makes people choose sides because they think they must stand by those who are like them instead of just choosing the right side.

[Lord Of Storms]

A good read very insightful...

[MonkeyMan]

A good essay, nice to see someone who can get their point across without resorting to generalisations or recriminations.

[ErikJansen]

Thanks for sharing this with us Sinan.

[Swordsman]

Very thought-provoking essay As a born cynic (A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ) I've kinda resigned myself to the view that religion is often times just a good excuse for rationalizing a course of action (war, colonization, etc.). Too bad that the basic tenets of the world's great religions are so often corrupted.

[Shahed]

WOW

I really appreciate your comments folks.

*bows deeply*

[kataphraktoi]

What you need now are apologies from both sides for crimes they've committed against each other.

[Swamp Thing]

An interesting essay, but I did find some generalisations and flaws within it:

We know that for the first time in history, due to a unique geopolitical conjunction of factors, Islam is in confrontation with all of the major world religions

World religions by their nature are bound for conflict with one another. Each comprises a system of morality, a particular world perspective, a sense of divine purpose and hegemony, a cultural-religious base and mode of historical interpretation and lineage.

Fusing these togethers, plus the benefit of several hundred years, churns out a partiuclar type of civilisation. If the world religion is also fused with the notion of a world state, then conflict is likely.

Take for example Byzantium and the Caliphate from the 7th century onwards. Both sought impose a certain model of civilization. Byzantium was the Christian Empire, the image of heavan on earth. As God ruled over heavan, so the Emperor was ordained to rule over earth.

The Caliph was the sucessor of the Prophet, and was expected to protect the faithful, expand Dar-al Islam and to wage war against the unbelievers until they would either convert or submit and pay taxes. This philosophy of war is articulated in medieval Islamic jurisprudence, and the numerous wars waged by the Caliphs Yazid, Harun Al-Rashid and Ma'mun fit into this pattern.

Both offered a competing world-perspective, and since religion had yet to detach itself from the political sphere (classic Islam cannot do this, strictly speaking), we can expect conflict to continue.

There has been dialogue in the past. A thousand years ago in Muslim Spain, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived and worked together to create a glorious civilization, where libraries, public debate and learning flourished - and this at a time when the rest of Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages. And five hundred years ago in India, Akbar the Great ruled over a territory that encompasses modern-day India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. A Muslim who was married to a Hindu princess, his reign ushered in a remarkable century of tolerance

Muslim spain was an Islamic civilisation. Though Christians and Jews were tolerated and to some extent participated in that culture, their respective positions were just that, tolerated. It was not, and nor was it ever, an equal partnership. Jews and Christians were people of the book, but they held subservient positions to the Arabic ruling class. The civilisation was in essence quite colonial, establishing itself as a dominant 'imperial' culture at the expense of others.

As regards the Mughals, Akbar was quite compassionate, but he was also an exception to the rule. Indians were idolators and thus were not extended the 'privileges' given to Christians and Jews. Islamic rule could be VERY brutal and unjust, and the idea of a glorious cultural melting-pot is based on our own notions of multi-cultural equality. In terms of power-relations, only one mode of civilisation could be dominant. An empire of state could function in no other way throughout the medieval period.

Those are my thoughts

[Swamp Thing]

Sorry, one last thing, Islam does not mean peace.

If the entire world was Dar al-Islam, it would be the abode of submission.

Salam

[A.Saturnus]

Very good comment Swamp Thing and welcom to the org. Religion can have a positive influence on individuals but it has almost always a negative influence on politics. The task of modern religions is to become a private thing instead of a political thing. Christanity is about to do this in many parts of the world but for Islam there`s still a longer way to go.

[kataphraktoi]

Islam is the complete guide to spiritual, economic, social and POLITICAL matters, a political framework needs not be imposed on Islam to make it a poltiical force, it is already a political force unto itself whereas Christianity has always required a political framework to be imposed upon it to be a political force, take Constantine the Great, the idea of ROman political universalism was enmeshed with Christianity's spiritual universalism. Christianity has no political framework unto itself because neither the founder or the immediate followers ever foresaw nor planned for Christianity to be a political force, and you are right Saturnus religion is really a matter of private persuasion which is what Christianity was essentially before the sweeping ascent of a political Christianity under Constantine.

This begs the questions:
Is Bush's Christianity in Politics a product of Christianity or in spite of Christianity with the infusion of political ideology enmeshed with a context of spiritual dimensions?

Is Islam's worldview of Dar al Islam likely to cause a cultural conflict or is there an aspect of this worldview that allows generally a non-muslim and muslim world side by side to co-exist?

Is there a reversal of roles where Islam the leading world power once and the leading military leader has become the victim to their former victims? Consider this, Christendom was the inferior opponent of Islam and often kow-towed to Islamic superiority and hence the victim but after a certain time in history the roles were reversed and the ascent of the West has caused Muslims to explain the superiority of the West over Islam.

If this is the case then can the questions be put forward that is the Muslim attitude of the West the same now as it was back then?
Is Islam feeling the Imperialism it once exercised over the West? This is one of history's turning points where aggressors are now the victims and victims the now aggressors.

Here;'s another thought, are the suicide bombers of today the same as the Crusaders?? Each antagonist was a product of a culture of victimisation where retaliation was seen as just and in religious terms a holy act?

Could the Suicide bombers who killed themselves in the name of Allah resemble the Crusaders who butchered and masascred their way to Palestine in the name of God???

So here's a basic pattern:
Christendom the victim.
Islam 7th expansion and conquests, Europe on backfoot suffer Muslim attacks, the Crusades a culmination of anger against the Muslims who have not only reduced Christendom but victimised them as well.

Islam the victim.
Christendom transforms itself into colonial powers, turned the tables on Islam and conquer their traditional lands, allowinf Kafir missionaries into their muslim lands, colonial imperialism exploited these lands and aroused the anger of the Muslims in Islamic lands. In case of Palestine it has reached a stage of Suicide bombers the culmination of anger.

What a funny world, whatever you sow you reap.

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Mar. 20 2003,10:46)]Very good essay.

I think one serious problem is identification. People always identify with their religion, their nation, their colour of skin or their ethnical group instead of just be themselves. Palestinians celebrating the 11th of september because brothers of faith have done a stroke against an enemy of the faith don`t see that what Bin Laden did and will do brings no good for the Muslems in the world. Bin Laden isn`t an ally of Muslems, he`s their enemy, he`s the enemy of everyone who wants peace on this planet. Identification makes people choose sides because they think they must stand by those who are like them instead of just choosing the right side.
yes but you see all these people see it america funding isreal who then kills them palestinians saw that as americans getting what they deserve as people will see the bombing of afghanastan being what osama and the goverment for hiding him deserve

(btw on america i do not beleive they deserved it)

and sorry to inturept from the topic was a very good article

[PrithviRaj Chauhan]

Hello all, http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I do appreciate this insightful post . Hopefully its depth may enlighten all who read it.
I would like to counter some of the comments made on Akbar's rule in India however ...and a particular statement of indians being idolist ..
1. The Mughals were very much unliek the typical muslim rulers of the middle east . They never ruled all of India ..even though their domain included presetn day Pakistan and Afghanistan . They only controlled regions of India around New Delhi . Southern India was ruled by the Great Marathas and descendants of the Cholas . Both of these were powerful Hindu states. Western India was controlled by the Rajputs(Hindus) and Sikhs. These people are fierce warriors and the Mughals had to broker a peace treaty with them to ensure the survival of Mughal trade routes.
2. There are not a lot of westerners who learn/know Indian history thus we are taken lightly ....believe me Gandhi was the least of our products. We have stocks of fierce warriors in the Sikhs,Rajputs, Marathas and the Gorkhas . You are free to read about any of these on the internet to learn more. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif..also read about Prithviraj Chauhan:).
3. India today is a country of a billion people . Discovery channel only shows you our snake charmers unfortunately. SO for the Naive ones amongst you we are one of the most powerful economies in the world . Greatest source of software production . Silicon valley is basically Little India. Not to even ponder into our military prowess. read about it on the internet if you want:).
4. Indians have always had great respect for other cultures and are a very tolerant people . Thus we have never conquered or pillaged another's land . Our own is a land of plenty . However Indians are not submissive or easily defeated . Hope this is refreshing for everyone . I had to make such a long post cause i like any other wish to communciate clearly and clear doubts about my country.:)
Good day everyone . Great board. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Jai Hind http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[A.Saturnus]

I must say, I don`t know much about the ideological background of Islam. Was it meant to be political from the beginning? However, the modern conflict can not be reduced to a struggle between religions. Since the religion wars after the medieval period, organized religions have lost more and more influence in the West. Today, all Western nations are more or less secular. I believe this is - however indirect - one reason for the europification of the modern world. Maybe the loss of a organized religious antagonist for muslemic crusaders is an explanation for their anti-Americanism. For them, maybe America seems to be not only the cause of all their problems but also the idealization of the secular, western society they antagonize.
Can it be that for islamic fundamentalists, hating and attacking America is a way to convince themselves of their faith?

[Shahed]

Welcome to the Org PrithviRaj Chauhan, my Hindustani Brother. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Araay shukar hay kay aap bhey a gaya huzur.
In logoon ko kuch sumjahnay http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Gregoshi]

Hello Swamp Thing and PrithviRaj Chauhan. Thanks for joining us and contributing to this fascinating topic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[PrithviRaj Chauhan]

Hi All,
Thnks for the welcome Gregoshi Great board This place rocks.....Sinan bhai kaise hai aap? kuch to samjhana hi padega ..in logo ko dhimaak kum jo mila hai http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif . Aap ki post hamesha bahut acchi rehti hai .
Minor addition : Muslims and Islam in general is a very scientific religion ...after all middle east and India prospered when europe was in teh dark ages . The zero was born near the Ganges in India. Then the digits are a tribute of Arabic traders which took it to europe. Let me tell you something which might blow your minds away . Just after the southern [/B]Iberian peninsula was reclaimed by the Spanish . The Spanish were able to exploit muslim research from the universities of captured cities to fuel their discoveries in the new world . Their are sum records that indicate the moors reached north america before Chritopher Columbus. Of course the Christian powers at the time covered this up . After all even the compass is an arab invention . The arab trade routes were modelled on free capitalism before European powers introduced military control and colonialism Who is the barbarian? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
There were no problems of very serious nature in the middle east before the United states and U.K decided to create Israel without popular mandate and out of Zionist influence. If they wanted to make a Jewish homeland ...why not make one somewhere in California Theses two global bullies have created the biggest problems in the middle east and nwo they are in there again to fix things.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif I would wanna be a suicide bomber if sumbody robbed my home and then noone listened to me. It is obviously a last resort http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif . Forced poverty, suffering and dirty politics cause a lot of religious strife when 2 distinct communities are involved. Dont blame Islam ..study the root of the problem to get the result.. If you cut the branches ..more will grow to replace it. take care http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Open your eyes and learn the truth [B]Sorry I had to make tht bold hope everyone got sumthing out of it.

[Exile]

An interesting and fair article. A fine selection Seljuk Sinan.

[Swamp Thing]

Sorry, I should have clarified.

The Indians were considered idolators by the Islamic conquerers, and thus were not entitled to the subordinate but protected status given to Christians and Jews.

PrithviRaj Chauhan, certainly the land of India was plenty, but it did not stop the Marathas from causing the Rajputs grief. As I remember from my studies, many Rajput clans considered the British as saviours from Maratha raids.

Also, I would caution everyone against actively using the term 'Dark Ages'. Byzantium was still a cultural beacon, and many states such as the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy and the kingdom of the Franks (which gave birth to the empire of Charlemagne), where not as primitive as popular belief has made out.

PrithviRaj Chauhan, not to get political, but Europe suffered for centuries from Arabic colonialism and imperialism. We can trade the morality of history till we become history ourselves.

[Shahed]

AHH Swamp Thing

Apologies, earlier I did not notice you were new.
Welcome aboard. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Limited by time, I can add briefly:

To my knowledge, Akbar was the most religious of all the Mughals. He devised his own religion borrowing from the main religions of the land he ruled. Judaism, Hinduism, Islam & Christianity. He called this religion the Ain-e-Akbari.

Most of the Mughal emperors were known for their religious tolerance, and Christians, Jews and above all Hindus formed a part of the society on an equal basis with Muslims.

Source: The Padshanama - The Book of Kings
....Katholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

I would be very grateful if you could provide me a link or source that states otherwise.

Thank you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Swamp Thing]

Well, if creating your own religion does not make you devout, I don't know what does http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Here is an interesting essay from a site I've been studying.

I've only started studying this specific era though, so my mind is certainly open to change.

http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/islam.html

Nothing in history is absolute in benefit or hindrance, I just view things in a neutral light.

By the way, I like the name, though the Byzantines kicked the but of the Seljuks more than once

[PrithviRaj Chauhan]

Swamp Thing I Agree that Islamic invaders caused much grief to the Europeans ....However I am hard pressed at the end of all speculation that it was nearly not as much as was caused by Christianity in the New World...After all its not like a majority of your kind was killed off is it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif As was the case in South America where a few million Aztecs were killed off after the conquistadors were paid a ransom of gold enuff to fill a room with the dimensions 21 feet long 7 feet high and 7 feet wide. By all means Islamic invaders were nothing compared to, and even vastly exceeded by, their Christian equivalents in terms of brutality and morality.
2 There is no recorded enmity between the Marathas and the Rajputs. They were not allies . That proved to be the problem . Since the only way British could control India was by divide and rule . Thus the conniving British laid seeds of distrust between the Indian kingdoms. A united Indian front would have sent the Brits back to the isle they came from after their intentiosn of invading had been cleared when their original pretext of peaceful trade waned away . Comprehensively may I add.

All in good spirits everyone I dont wanna start one of those internet wars..I would appreciate if noone would use abusive or defaming language as i have behaved myself . Being as massive guy (I can back that up )it does distress me to no end when sum internet dweeb goes off at me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif . Once again I appreciate honourable conduct above all and would go about it by setting a example myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif Good day everyone. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Swamp Thing]

Actually, according to the accounts I have studied most natives were killed by disease, something that is a matter for nature. True they were introduced by Europeans, but the continued technological and cultural development of many parts of the world meant that sooner or late the American continent would have been colonised. The Aztecs were central american, not south. The southern civilization were the Incans.

Christian expansion was no more brutal than Muslim, the only difference is the relative time-span. The original colonial escapades of the Caliphate have had more than a thousand years of assimilation to heal old wounds. There is still much strife in North Africa between Berbers and Arabs, and the Turkish conquest of Anatolia was thoroughly violent, ending and absorbing the native Greek population. You should also study the campaigns of the Ottomans, which turned Greece into a cultural and economic back-water by the 16th century, and of course the massacare of the Armenians in the early 20th century.

What I'm saying is don't argue that one form of conquest was worse than the next. There is always a moment in history to prove otherwise.

I'll get back to you on some quotes for Maratha-Rajput conflict, but if you can, try read the accounts of Baron Theophilus Metcalfe when he was in India.

Cheers

[PrithviRaj Chauhan]

I have lived in North Africa (Libya). There is no such strife that u speak of . It also will surpirse you that Libyans arent always waving Katyushas or burning that star spangled banner http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif . I hope your source of Information is not the CNN http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif . North Africa is a peaceful place..and Libya for one has very high standards of living. My father has been working in the Oil Ministry there for 21 years now and I lived there for 15 years. I was never arguing about the morality of war. I was merely stating the facts. The natives died of disease deliberately intorduced by the Europeans . We all know that . The Missionaries Of the time gave Indians blankets infected with chicken pox and other such diseases. First indications of biological warfare......Ironic keeping with current times.:)
They would be colonialised eventually? Your mentality disturbs me my friend . I dont know where you are coming from where u seem to address this as a inevitable process?
Please do elaborate on the soundness of your statement. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
So much for the freewill of people. However we all know that such ideals are more used now a days when they are convienient. Colonialism is brutality and a crime against humanity. When did Arab raids into Europe ...ever compare in anyway with European colonization of the New World by Europeans ... ohhhhhhh puuulllleaseeeee .
My accounts of History in India are drawn from the writings of courtiers of Maharana Pratap of the Rajputs and Ranthambor and Shivaji Maharaj of the Marathas as well as the writings of the Gems of Akbars court. Aside from the 4 yrs of Indian history i have learned in my schooling in India. No offence but why would i be interested in the accounts of a westerner in my country ...who would be unwelcome and pro-British anyway.. when there are sources of great Indian historians and courtiers who lived in those times at the disposal of every Indian who studies India's history.

[PrithviRaj Chauhan]

Adding on to that ....any conflict between Marathas and Rajputs was a result of distrust sowed as a result of the British Divide and Rule policy . I have said this in my earlier post as well. There was no enmity between Marathas and Rajputs. They are not clans . They are Kingdoms with quite effeicient armies tht used cavalry flanks, gunpowder, and infantry tactics very well.. If u go to India even today u can see the majestic and ingeniously designed forts.
Thats why the British has to keep them divided or they would have been sent packing. Individually though these kingdoms couldnt take on the tactical and resource depth available to the British .
No offence to anyone I use only facts and yes I can be stingy at times. Good day everyone. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Swamp Thing]

Rajputs are not organised into clans?

Strange, so families such as the Rathores of Jodhpur, or the Sisodiya who ruled Mewar did not exist? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

The inhabitants of the New World had no immunity to Small pox, measles, and the like. Many of these could be transmitted by simple traders and explorers. This was how the Black Death arrived in Europe, carried by Genoese merchants from the Crimea.

To treat the introduction as a deliberate act of biological warfare is a major exageration. What proof can you offer?

As regards Berbers, is there not a substantial amount of strife in Algeria, especially Kabylie, where native Berbers wish their language to be given equal status to Arabic, as well as considerable ethnic tensions?

Check out some of these older stories:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/1307282.stm

http://www.worldpress.org/0801nations2.htm

It is a historical rule that all civilisations expand from their initial borders, and come to colonise other lands.

Take for example the Chinese. For dynasties such as the Han, Sui, Tang, and initially the Sung, the power-base of Chinese culture had always been the areas north of the Yangzte river. The south was traditionally home to non-Chinese tribal peoples such as the Miao.

Gradually, as the various kingdoms expanded, the south became home to increasingly more Chinese. The decisive shift came in during the 12th century when the Sung had to move to the south following invasion. The south was a region ultimately colonised and conquered by the Chinese.

The reason I bring this point up is simple, if a region or people are open to conqest, then they shall be conquered. The reasons may be economic, social, or purely militaristic, it really does not matter. Hypothetically speaking, if the Europeans had not colonised America, then the Chinese, if they had not become isolationist during the Ming Period, could have easily done so. Or perhaps even Islam. The expansion of Islam in the 7th was itself a colonial enterprise, exporting a military and cultural elite that ruled over a subject population.

Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, it is an intersting book and offers a good theory as to why Europe expanded.

I will get back to you about the Marathas

[PrithviRaj Chauhan]

Hi ,
Havent been around in a while seems thishread has gone dead...too bad it is a very educational one andn keeping with the need of the times.
Swamp Thing on a lighter note I must admire your knowledge . Funny that u mention Guns,Germs , and Steel. I did read through that book many times when I drop by the local Chapters:).
Even it does quite clearly represent the excesses committed by European invaders in the New World. It does have entire chapter committed to the Spanish atrocities in South America. Clearly speculating is useless...what or what not the Aabs and Chnese may have done or not...nothing can be proved speculation is for dreamers. Also Eastern cultures seem to manage just fine without plundering and destroying other living things in God's domain. Clearly even Indian kings possesed sizable navies which traded as far off as Europe in the time fo the Gupta's that they chose not to conquer is perhaps more a question of dignity rather than capability.
In India there is no concept of clans and such. Rajputs are a division of Kshatriyas. Kshatriyas are the warrior class of Hinduism . These classes were created to put into place a efficient economy and taxation system as well as to create specialist societies. This system has been vastly misread by westerners as a biased system ...but I wont go into that it takes a book by itself. The Rajputs were ruled by different families and the seat of power often shifted between Ranthambor ,Mewar, and Jaipur . That can be compared to having a George Bush or a Bill Clinton....and seats of power can be likened to the changing of capitals...which was often dictated by Geo-Political forces.
Hope this cleared some of your doubts about the vastly different hierarchy that existed in India and even does today... it is grossly misread by outsiders because they try to draw parallels with their own society which do not exist. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif If they would just get that straight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif . Anyway waiting to hear about the Marathas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif Take care everyone and have a very good day http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Swamp Thing once again thank you for being courteous in your arguments and the inputs:)

[Sjakihata]

Why use religion at all?

I believe Marx knows that answer to that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif