Is monarchy the best model for the Middle East?

Mouthwash said:

But indeed I've made arguments, which you've made every effort to ignore, as to why they should be separated; the fact that they have the same mythical figures doesn't negate it somehow.

Click to expand...

I responded to the points I disagreed with most strongly because I felt that they undermined your position. I did so by raising points of my own. Have you made any effort to answer those points?

Even if I were to go that route, Judaism and Christianity are both products of the same religious tradition- the Talmud and the Gospel are their different answers to it. Islam claims lineage from Ishmael and believes that even the OT was corrupted.

Click to expand...

From a Christian perspective, Judaism is part of its past, but from a Jewish perspective, they're not the same tradition at all. Christianity is seen as a rejection of the tradition. By having Jesus fulfill the laws, by emphasizing the need to be "circumcised in your heart," by changing the whole doctrinal framework from Yahweh to a trinity, Christianity is a substantial change. In fact, the whole emphasis of Christianity has been faith, salvation, and the end of times. Judaism is about covenant with God and the laws to follow in this life. Only Christianity is focusing on the individual and getting into heaven. That's why I disagree with your points as they relate to this thread that Islam is somehow a tribal, group-based religion while Christianity and Judaism are religions focused on the individual. The point about the emphasis on the rules to follow in this world, as opposed to salvation, is essential to both Islam and Judaism. Or, more importantly, it was central to those religions at the time that matters most. Obviously, I'm not talking about Reform Judaism or anything like that here.

Mouthwash said:

There's only one thing that explains American politics, and that's apathy. So you might see 'dynasties' but they aren't mandated, they are just the product of opportunism.

Click to expand...

Not one for sweeping generalisations, are you?

When I was talking to Owen: "If I could offer my own theory, I would say that Islam was entirely too apolitical for its own good. It rode on the backs of empires and never had to form its own institutions like Christianity did. So a memetic selection process did not place, or at least not with the vigor of the church."

Click to expand...

That's not a theory. Theories are explanatory; that doesn't explain anything.

Clans and extended family usually overlap. For everybody that did not marry one of their cousins, how many would marry someone from their clan? And even in a clan of thousands, intermarriage can create a very tight gene pool. I don't have any data on this, unfortunately, but maybe I can find some literature.

Click to expand...

You still haven't explained what you mean by "clan". If you're not using it as a shorthand for "extended family", what does it mean?

I was hoping for some discussion of how Arab countries do their politics; maybe with some level of detail.

Click to expand...

If you could explain a single one of your claims, you could have discussion. We're going round in circles because you dodge every request for explanation that's put to you.

To be honest, in the OP, I simply drew a correlation between monarchical regimes and stability. Afterwards I argued that Islam sociologically disposed towards tribalism, without really referring to monarchy. So it may be that I'm falling out of my purview, but I don't see where I really ever had the burden of proof.

Click to expand...

You're making an argument. Arguments carry a burden of proof. You're not exempt form that because you started the thread.

Traitorfish said:

Not one for sweeping generalisations, are you?


That's not a theory. Theories are explanatory; that doesn't explain anything.


You still haven't explained what you mean by "clan". If you're not using it as a shorthand for "extended family", what does it mean?


If you could explain a single one of your claims, you could have discussion. We're going round in circles because you dodge every request for explanation that's put to you.


You're making an argument. Arguments carry a burden of proof. You're not exempt form that because you started the thread.

Click to expand...

Watch out TF, he'll put you on ignore if you keep pointing out the flaws in his 'argument.' If he has one; thus far I've only seen statements he treats as fact with no support.

Louis XXIV said:

I responded to the points I disagreed with most strongly because I felt that they undermined your position. I did so by raising points of my own. Have you made any effort to answer those points?

Click to expand...

No, because I agree with them. I think you've failed to explain how they undermine my position. Yes, Judaism and Islam are both 'rules-based' religions which focus on this world rather than the next. But I think that they go about it in two very incompatible ways.

From a Christian perspective, Judaism is part of its past, but from a Jewish perspective, they're not the same tradition at all. Christianity is seen as a rejection of the tradition. By having Jesus fulfill the laws, by emphasizing the need to be "circumcised in your heart," by changing the whole doctrinal framework from Yahweh to a trinity, Christianity is a substantial change.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Of course Jews regard Christians as heretics. This is precisely because of the fact that they have a great deal in common, and that Christ's sacrifice is presented as an eschatological theory, fulfilling the role of the Jewish Messiah. Muslims aren't seen as heretics, they are seen as 'others.'

Traitorfish said:

That's not a theory. Theories are explanatory; that doesn't explain anything.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I think it explains a great deal. Owen talked about how religions are constantly updating and evolving, while I think Islam has had an extremely hard time with that after its first five hundred years.

You still haven't explained what you mean by "clan". If you're not using it as a shorthand for "extended family", what does it mean?

Click to expand...

It is an extended family, but also I think it meets your definition of clan because they typically claim ancestry from individuals or groups. In Palestinian society these clans typically number in the thousands.

Can we just call this a failed thread already?

I suppose it is a failed thread.

Honestly, bringing in Islam into the argument isn't the best idea, as you seem to depend on someone with a lets say a bias, to back your own points.

If I could offer my own theory, I would say that Islam was entirely too apolitical for its own good. It rode on the backs of empires and never had to form its own institutions like Christianity did. So a memetic selection process did not place, or at least not with the vigor of the church.

Click to expand...

This is entirely false.

Islam and empires didn't merge nor did Islam ride on the backs of empires. Empires rode on the back of Islam. Have you ever heard the claims of Muhammed's infallibilty? That was a political tool adopted by the Abbassid dynasty because they were descendants of Muhammed's family. There was a formal islamic clergy. The Ulema were a force to be reckoned with. There were times when kings backed down from actions when scholars condemned their actions (and there were times when kings executed scholars, but I don't think that undermines my argument). I would go more in depth but I think my point has been made.

jackelgull said:

This is entirely false.

Islam and empires didn't merge nor did Islam ride on the backs of empires. Empires rode on the back of Islam. Have you ever heard the claims of Muhammed's infallibilty? That was a political tool adopted by the Abbassid dynasty because they were descendants of Muhammed's family. There was a formal islamic clergy. The Ulema were a force to be reckoned with. There were times when kings backed down from actions when scholars condemned their actions (and there were times when kings executed scholars, but I don't think that undermines my argument).

Click to expand...

Perhaps that is so, but it makes little difference. Islam has never had to fend for itself.

Mouthwash said:

Perhaps that is so, but it makes little difference. Islam has never had to fend for itself.

Click to expand...

I was unaware the trend of young people living with their parents well into adulthood began with Islam.

Seriously, this thread is a failed thread specifically because your posts in it have been vague at best, flat-out moronic at worst. Such as this post. "Fend for itself?" WTF is that supposed to mean? That the world's second-largest religion was spread entirely by emperors and monarchs? How does one then explain its arrival in Indonesia and the Philippines, where it was brought by traders? Especially the Philippines, as they were already under the control of the Catholic Spanish Empire by that time? Or was it only able to do that because its mum's friend got it the job?

Such a stupid post.

Mouthwash said:

No, because I agree with them. I think you've failed to explain how they undermine my position. Yes, Judaism and Islam are both 'rules-based' religions which focus on this world rather than the next. But I think that they go about it in two very incompatible ways.

Click to expand...

Alright, if you explained this before, I apologize, but please lay out clearly how they go about it in two very incompatible ways. I still don't follow.

You're missing the point. Of course Jews regard Christians as heretics. This is precisely because of the fact that they have a great deal in common, and that Christ's sacrifice is presented as an eschatological theory, fulfilling the role of the Jewish Messiah. Muslims aren't seen as heretics, they are seen as 'others.'

Click to expand...

That's not true, at least not historically. Muslims, at first, were seen as heretics because it was the only framework where there was terminology to describe what they were. It was always seen differently from something like Paganism. People knew they had a radically different interpretation of the same God, which fell under heretical belief.

Cousin marriages could be one of main reasons why the civilization of Islam collapsed.

They have been commonly practicing inbreeding for 1400 years (50 generations) by now.

Articles about cousin marriages in Islam (already Muhammad started this custom) and their implications:

http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Islam

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mmunities-putting-hundreds-children-risk.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/n...oom-why-are-muslims-more-violent-and-criminal

Imagine that Muslims are like Habsburgs, except that they are much more numerous (not dozens, but millions).

"Cousin marriage doubles gene risk for babies":

http://tribune.com.pk/story/572403/cousin-marriage-doubles-gene-risk-for-babies-study/

Check also this video lecture (45 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

The Daily Mail and Jihadwatch? Well, just be careful you don't drown us in high-brow, scholarly opinion!

careful, what you say could be construed as elitist and beside the point.

On a more serious note, how is the cousins marriage thing relevant to the topic at hand. I fail to see the connection.

jackelgull said:

careful, what you say could be construed as elitist and beside the point.

Click to expand...

I just wonder how Mouthwash will feel about somebody citing so notoriously anti-Semitic a publication as the Daily Mail in support of his anti-Arabism. That's gotta create all kinds of internal conflicts.

Jackelgull - I don't know why you started talking about cousin marriages but you mentioned them already on first page and then a discussion about it started. This study says that inbreeding may be good only if 100% of marriages are inbred. But either 100% or 0%, while 50% is actually the worst option:

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005bbc_407.pdf



But if they already marry first cousins then they should at least consider moving to cities:



Well certainly the Muslim world is not an "enriched environment":

http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368

(...) The lack of interest in science and human development in the Muslim World is also clear in the UN Arab Human Development Reports (AHDR). AHDR concludes that there have been fewer books translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year:

"The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa'moun's [sic] time (the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year." (Eugene Rogan ”Arab Books and human development”. Index of Censorship, vol. 33, issue 2 April 2004, p. 152-157). "70 percent of the Turkish citizens never read books." (APA, 23 February 2009). (...)

Click to expand...

Also this article:

http://europenews.dk/en/node/21789

Does any of this have a point?

Yes, that Islamic monarchy is the worst model for the Middle East... (or anyone else).

Of course Islamic republic is not better. Generally secular republic is the best.

John Walker said:

Jackelgull - I don't know why you started talking about cousin marriages but you mentioned them already on first page and then a discussion about it started. This study says that inbreeding may be good only if 100% of marriages are inbred. But either 100% or 0%, while 50% is actually the worst option:

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005bbc_407.pdf



But if they already marry first cousins then they should at least consider moving to cities:



Well certainly the Muslim world is not an "enriched environment":

http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368



Also this article:

http://europenews.dk/en/node/21789

Click to expand...

Interesting, but I didn't even post on the first page. Someone else made the point about cousin marriages and I failed to see the correlation between stable Islamic monarchies and cousin marriage.

and I think at this point, this thread has run out of steam is just a bunch of quibbling for the sake of it.

Louis XXIV said:

Alright, if you explained this before, I apologize, but please lay out clearly how they go about it in two very incompatible ways. I still don't follow.

Click to expand...

I have. You've failed to acknowledge it in any way.

That's not true, at least not historically. Muslims, at first, were seen as heretics because it was the only framework where there was terminology to describe what they were. It was always seen differently from something like Paganism. People knew they had a radically different interpretation of the same God, which fell under heretical belief.

Click to expand...

My argument once again stands totally unrefuted. Yes, I'm sure because it views Christianity and Judaism as distortions of God's original message, and believes different things about their holy figures, it was at times viewed as simply heretical. But I can find examples against literally any sociological or intellectual phenomenon. Even if the case was overwhelming that Protestantism created literacy among the common people, you could certainly find areas where it didn't, or where literacy and individualism regressed.

That post doesn't mention Judaism at all individually, so I'm at a loss at how it addresses the point I asked you to address.

Even judged in a vacuum, I don't see how it elevates tribal society. To me, it seems like it elevates patriarchal society. The wife can be beaten because she is disobedient. But there's nothing that suggests Judaism is different. While wives may not fall under the umbrella, certainly children do:
Deuteronomy 21:18
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father or his mother even when they punish him, his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you."

How is this different, besides that it deals with a child instead of a wife? I'll note that, unlike the example you gave, which doesn't even mention a broader social network, this one includes village elders into the decision-making process. If your point is that the tribe is elevated over the individual, this goes far closer to that (with your example, there's no indication of anything more than a contract between family and God). In the end, it's about punishing the individual for disobedience for a collective good.

I see no examples that you raised suggesting that Judaism emphasizes individual rights. Nor do I see any other examples in your post about how Judaism and Islam go about it in very different ways.

Louis XXIV said:

That post doesn't mention Judaism at all individually, so I'm at a loss at how it addresses the point I asked you to address.

Even judged in a vacuum, I don't see how it elevates tribal society. To me, it seems like it elevates patriarchal society. The wife can be beaten because she is disobedient. But there's nothing that suggests Judaism is different. While wives may not fall under the umbrella, certainly children do:
Deuteronomy 21:18
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father or his mother even when they punish him, his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you."

Click to expand...

It's harmful to think of religions like Judaism and Christianity as being monoliths; you can't just say "according to Christianity [insert assertion]" unless it is a foundational Christian belief. You right now are taking a quote from a tribal code of ancient Palestinians, and acting as if it is equivalent to modern Rabbinic injunctions.

How is this different, besides that it deals with a child instead of a wife? I'll note that, unlike the example you gave, which doesn't even mention a broader social network, this one includes village elders into the decision-making process.

Click to expand...

Certainly early Judaism was patriarchal, but it never permitted anything resembling wife-beating; polygamy is frowned upon even in the Torah, and the rights of wives, rather than their simple welfare, has always been mandated.

The Sura passage asserts that men and women fulfill inherently different roles; the men control the household and can take multiple wives, disciplining them as he sees fit. I don't see how this is remotely the same thing as patriarchy, and it's still how almost all Muslim countries operate today. So I think it supports the view that Islam is 'tribalism elevated to a universal principle.'

I see no examples that you raised suggesting that Judaism emphasizes individual rights.

Click to expand...

http://www.beki.org/domestic.html

There was also a series of laws from Halakha about the rights of individuals in regards to the twelve tribes and it seemed practically liberal to me, but I can't find it online. It focused on limiting tribal rights, and the rights of landowners for the sake of the poor or those who are in bad situations.

Nor do I see any other examples in your post about how Judaism and Islam go about it in very different ways.

Click to expand...

That was the jist of the whole thing.

Could Mouthwash please define "patriarchy" and "tribalism" for the benefit of the audience?