History questions not worth their own thread V
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
*If?*
How do you tolerate all of the primitives?
Wrymouth3
Emperor
Been reading some good historiography on the Peasants' War from Engels (It really is fun stuff), while Engels goes on his proletariat tirade he seems to suggest the peasants changed from "subjects" to "objects." Can anyone explain this? I'm actually going to be doing Holy Roman Empire stuff in grad school and want to get as much knowledge possible before starting.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
In some parts of ancient Palestine they did. But rather not in entire region which we call Palestine.
And by the way, modern Israel is also not equal to entire Palestine, but covers just part of it.
And I am a descendant of Charlemagne.
If you're of European ethnicity, you are too.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/GenealComp1.html
http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/50523412948/we-are-all-royalty-descended-from-charlemagne
sophie
Break My Heart
Ethnicity and Genetics are not intrinsically tied.
Yes, very well I misused the word "ethnic". Thank goodness you were here.
H4run
Deity
:/ as a muslim myself I don't think that is correct, as one of the poster said we use to terms Ummah, which is ignore the difference of race, tribes and nation, brotherhood is re-define from brotherhood of blood, race, nation and tribes (asabiyah) to brotherhood of faith (Ummah).
and like 80 percent of muslim is non Arab, and many of early companion or the companion of the Prophet (that count as living sunnah, or one of the religious reference) are non Arabs, like Salman The Persian, Suhayb The Roman, Bilal The Abyssinian, Zayid Ibn Harithah non of them originated from Arabs and there's also numbers of Jews that convert to Islam in the early time. Just to say to make a parallel of Islam and Judaism with Ishmael and Isaac are not quite correct.
As Muhammad state in his Last Sermon to the assembled pilgrims in Mina:
“O people! Your Lord is one Lord, and you all share the same father. There is no preference for Arabs over non-Arabs, nor for non-Arabs over Arabs. Neither is their preference for white people over black people, nor for black people over white people. Preference is only through righteousness.”
Also from the passage of the Quran :
“O humanity! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah are the most righteous from among you.” [Sûrah al-Hujurât: 13]
And above all the boasting of ancestor, tribalism, racism, consider to be the coal of hell, it mean it surely deliver you (for your arrogances) to the fire as it state in the hadith :
“Allah has removed from you the arrogance of jahiliyyah (day of ignorance/dark age) with its boasting and glorification of ancestry. People should give up their pride in Asabiyyah (tribalism, nationalism, racism) because it is a coal from the coals of hell. But if they do not give this up, Allah will consider them lower than a lowly dung beatle which pushes itself through feaces, Man is either a God fearing believer or an unfortunate transgressor” (Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi).
As also Ibn Taimiyya said “Anything outside the call of Islam with regard to lineage, land, nationality, school of thought and ways is jahiliyya (pre-Islamic dark ages)”
And as state by Ibn Khaldun in his Mukaddimah most of the Islamic scholar, Jurisprudence are non Arab, like Imam Bukhari (the scholar of Hadith), Tirmidzi, Al-Ghazali, too many to mention etc.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Well, my literature teacher mentioned that thing about Ismael and Isaac while asking a Muslim student there is in class (there are more than one, but she was the one that was speaking back then) and she didn't add or reject anything. In any case, point out where did I say that non-Arabs can't be Muslims or Islamic scholars.
That's fair enough. But it was a popular sort of claim to make in the past. Obviously, objectively speaking, it isn't a particularly accurate claim to make. But it was nonetheless made and sincerely believed.haroon said:
Suhayb probably was an Arab. He just happened to speak Greek fluently because that was what he was raised speaking. The borders were pretty porous with lots of interaction across them.haroon said:
Perhaps a little graphic representation can clarify it for you:
conversion <---> dynastic ancestry
religion<-------->genetics
You read that particular bit correctly.
We try to educate them. If that fails, all is lost. Perhaps you are familiar with the primitives' paintings?
JEELEN said:
Typical. You claimed that it was "figurative" I noted that the people who made those claims meant them to be take literally. I also made a related point that a perception that descent from Ishmael was important was not an impediment to conversion. People could and did come up with means - however contrived they might seem now - of making it all work.
H4run
Deity
It is not a claim but it is a religious order, doctrine, law or in the Islamic terms this is part of the shariah. And of course in history some muslim seduced by the sweetness of tribal pride, as every vanity and arrogance do taste sweet, so they went ashtray from the "ummah" principle and drew themselves back to the way of tribalism or asabiyah (back to the call of Jahiliyah). The easiest example Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf, in that case you are right, but that is remark of the act of impious and the move back and front from Islam (pious) to Jahiliyah (impious) or Jahiliyah to Islam (with its revival) it's mostly how many muslim scholar interpret-ate their history.
However this is not to be consider Islamic even (the tribalism) is condemn by Muslim scholar (ex : every ulama condemn Hajjaj even Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz forbid Hajjaj to enter his city out of disgust), and this action usually related and take as a reason for the fall of the muslim
Masada is right while Haroon is wrong here, your statement is correct in this case.
H4run
Deity
You never claim that, I just use that as an example that the Islamic world been dominant mostly by the non Arab.
Yeah, and I think that's the right way to treat it i.e. derision. But I'm not making the case for it in the contemporary world, I'm merely noting that it was a view that was held in the past however problematic theologically.
It's one of the few bits of sahabah knowledge I have.haroon said:
H4run
Deity
It is not at all problematic in my view, in one part of history it is been implemented and it mark as piety (in the reign of the two big Umar for example, one is Umar Ibn Khattab other Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz) or also in other time the muslim abandon the egalitarian concept of ummah and regress to the concept of Jahiliyah, for example Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf.
In the contemporary the raise of nationalism and nation-state in Muslim countries, as Ali Allawi stated the muslim drawn into nationalism or asabiyah (with many nationalist youth movement like Genc Turks or the young Turks). While now in many countries many organization (politic or not politic) from mystic Islam till revivalist group (Ikhwanul Muslimin, Anadolu Genclik, name it) calls peoples to goes back to the very concept of ummah.
Backthen there was Mustafa Kemal Attaturk (a Turkish nationalist), he and his group found a tradition that make every student before the class started -be that is Turkish, Armenian, Kurdish, or Greek, must say something like "how happy I am to be a Turkish/ne mutlu Turkum diyene", while in our contemporary time Erdogan erased that tradition, and a very much difference and have cosmopolitan view (ummah) that effected pretty much by the view of Erbakan.
- Status
