THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Translate
Showing posts with label Eastern Question. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eastern Question. Show all posts
Dr Wahid points out that Germany posed no existential threat to Britain by violating Belgian neutrality. It was an imperial war about colonial interests. The Eastern Question was finally resolved when Britain bounced the Ottoman Empire to choose a side.
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall fought on the British side on the basis of false promises made to them by the British.
The legacy of WW1 is that of treachery. The British promised the same piece of land - Palestine - to three different parties ie the American Zionists, the French and the Ottoman Empire.
The wording of the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne can be found in the British Foreign Office website.
The British booby-trapped the Middle East and left a poison pill when they left.
Arab Nationalism making the Turk hate the Arab is denounced.
WW1 was bloodier than the Crusades.
Compared to the peace and stability in the Middle East before WW1, the collapse was swift and sudden.
13:30 Dennis Dale: "We Western Europeans need a goal as a people, we need to achieve. We went to the moon. Islam does not make for that, Islam will destroy that because it is concerned with the rules and moral behaviour." https://t.co/q0d5WAVybf
I did not manage to explain why the Ottoman Empire declined before I was interrupted and accused of being off topic.
I could have made more quickly the point that once you are invaded, conquered and colonised by an imperial power, you cannot afterwards give a good representation of your race and religion.
In diplomatic history, the "Eastern Question" refers to the strategic competition and political considerations of the European Great Powers in light of the political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries. Characterized as the "sick man of Europe", the relative weakening of the empire's military strength in the second half of the eighteenth century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power system largely shaped by the Concert of Europe. The Eastern Question encompassed myriad interrelated elements: Ottoman military defeats, Ottoman institutional insolvency, the ongoing Ottoman political and economic modernization programme, the rise of ethno-religious nationalism in its provinces, and Great Power rivalries.
The most insoluble and dangerous topic of European diplomacy during the 19th century acquires a broad name - the Eastern Question. It refers to the danger posed by the weakness of the Ottoman empire, with the sultans in Istanbul proving unable to control the vast empire assembled by their more warlike ancestors.
The intrinsic danger in the Eastern Question is not the internal threat posed to the sultans. It is the risk of war between the western European powers (Britain, France, Austria, Russia and subsequently Germany) as each nervously tries to ensure that none of the others gains any advantage from the potential crumbling of Turkey.
The greatest fear in western Europe is that Russia, Turkey's nearest neighbour, will continue the process (begun successfully during the 18th century) of expanding south in the Black Sea region and will possibly even reach Istanbul - a gateway of immense strategic importance between the Balkans and Asia.
Russia is closely involved in the two Balkan liberation movements of the early 19th century, in Serbia and Greece. Russian imperial ambitions in this area benefit from a cloak of idealism. The majority of Christians living under Ottoman rule are Orthodox rather than Catholic. As the leading Orthodox power, Russia can claim a natural right to their protection - a fact recognized by Turkey in the 1774 treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji.
The weakness of the Ottoman empire (a state described by the tsar Nicholas I in 1844 as 'the sick man of Europe') provides constant opportunity for western involvement. And the presence of Christians offers a permanent pretext to take an active interest in Turkish affairs.
To add to these other elements, there is one all-important means of achieving power in the region. It derives from the geographical features linking the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. A narrow strait, the Dardanelles, gives access from the Aegean to the sea of Marmara. Another narrow strait, the Bosphorus, leads on past Istanbul and into the Black Sea.
Warships can pass through these channels only by agreement with Turkey or by controlling the banks on either side. Yet the freedom to do so is a major strategic advantage. The Straits become the military and the diplomatic focal point of the Eastern Question.
The Sykes–Picot Agreement known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret 1916 agreement between the United Kingdom and France, to which the Russian Empire assented. The agreement defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia. The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between November 1915 and March 1916 and it was signed 16 May 1916. The deal, exposed to the public in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917 and in the British Guardian on November 26, 1917, is still mentioned when considering the region and its present-day conflicts.
The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia. The controlling powers were left free to determine state boundaries within their areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration in the "brown area" (an area including Jerusalem, similar to and smaller than Mandate Palestine), the form of which was to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca.
The agreement effectively divided the Ottoman Arab provinces outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence. In the Levant, it was initially used directly as the basis for the 1918 Anglo–French Modus Vivendi which agreed a framework for the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. More broadly it was to lead, indirectly, to the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire following Ottoman defeat in 1918.
17:30
Luke Ford:
I don't see anything to admire in Islam in the last 600 years, like what exactly in Islam over the past 600 years, is superior? I just don't see in any way in any direction how Islam has produced any societies that are superior to what Northern Europeans have produced, I don't see a country of high IQ Muslims. Islam is overwhelmingly a low IQ religion, like why on earth would we want to imitate a backward, savage, primitive low IQ religion that's never come close to producing the First World Glory of Western civilisation. I just don't see any impressive Islamic civilisation in the last 500 or 600 years that is superior to what Europeans have produced.
My answer begins at 18:45.
I say patriarchy is the very least Islam would provide that would set things right again in the Western matriarchy.
There is a wealth of difference between looking at a people you don't like and a book you will never read. The reason why these people that you don't like who are invading the West, as you perceive it, is simply because they haven't been following their own religion in the same way that Christians don't follow their own religion which suggests that you do need to follow the basics of your religion in order to protect yourself against your internal and external enemies. The very least of it is to have legitimate children and properly parent them. Even just one generation of not doing it properly means you let in all kinds of toxic ideas like feminism, transgenderism, gay marriage etc that opportunistically enter your body politic which are hard to remove.
LF:
You are not answering my question about Islamic civilisations over the past 600 years that are superior to what white Europeans have produced. I just don't see it. I just don't see any Muslim country with a collection of high IQ Muslims. There isn't even a high IQ Muslim civilisation.
CK
But they have declined. They have come and gone. If you think in terms of a race, obviously the West is in front and Islam is behind, but we have to ask ourselves why they fell behind.
LF:
Because they marry their cousins [just like the European royal families] and they create primitive, barbaric, low IQ backward civilisations where they ...
CK:
The biggest one is the Ottoman Empire and so we have to find out why the Ottoman Empire declined, because it is the biggest representation of an Islamic empire and they apparently, closed the Gate of Interpretation so they ossified the interpretation of the Koran and basically didn't allow any innovation but that was a decision made purely by the Ottoman Empire and not contained within the Koran itself, so when you deliberately distort clear instructions, I suppose you should expect to suffer. In the West now we are supposed to have free speech but everywhere the government and politicians say "You can't say this, it's hate speech, go to jail!" and nobody seems to be able to fight against this. We have so many lawyers but we ...
[muted by LF] who continues:
Dennis, I haven't seen anything in Islam in the last 500 years to admire apart from their willingness to make their group triumphant. Aside from that, I don't see anything in Islamic civilisation that I want to admire.
Dennis Dale:
I don't want to trash them, but it's ridiculous. The greatness of the Ottomans was in the 12th and 13th century. They inherited a great civilisation, maintained it for 3 or 4 centuries and it started to fall apart. The Ottomans are basically a secular empire [Dennis Dale here confuses the Ottoman Empire with the Republic of Turkey established by Kemal Ataturk who established a secular republic after he won the Turkish War of Independence in 1923 and ended the Caliphate in 1924 sending the Caliph into exile] and that becomes sclerotic and can't even survive after WW1. Why would we trade down, Claire? And she keeps telling us that these Muslims that keep coming in, they're not real Muslims.
CK:
I'm not saying they're not real Muslims, and I'm not saying your're trading down. I'm saying that all the rules that you find in the Bible - in the Old and New Testament - you have a clearer version of it in the Koran.
LF:
How is the Koran compilation of laws clearer or more valuable than what we have elsewhere in the Bible?
CK:
The Koran guarantees religious freedom. quran.com/2/256 This is not something that Muslims emphasise because they don't believe in it themselves but there it is, it's in the book.
The other thing is that it could give us the constitutional right not to be taxed more than a flat rate income tax of 20%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums This would prevent the state from expanding and creating a parasitic class.
quran.com/24/2 prescribes the 100 lashes punishment for those convicted of extramarital sex. It doesn't shilly-shally around saying those guilty of fornication won't get to heaven as the New Testament does.
1. Those who practice sin shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 2. You have been washed, sanctified and justified from such sin. 3. Don't be brought under the control of anything outside Christ. 4. The body is for the Lord, not fornication. 5. You are in the body of Christ and at one with Him, so you should not be one with a harlot. 6. We are commanded to flee from it. 7. It is sin against the body. 8. You are the Temple of the H.S. 9. "For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body."
The Torah explicitly forbids adultery. All women were expected to be virgins upon marriage. In the case they were found not to be by a betrothed husband, the punishment was death if the man to whom she married was not the man to whom she lost her virginity. Also if a man and a virgin had sex prior to marriage, then they were forced to marry.
To quote two sources, "The Torah does not outlaw it—as it does many other types of sexual relationships—and the child of such a union is not considered a mamzer (illegitimate). Nonetheless, marital sex is considered ideal, and premarital sex is traditionally not approved of. The negative attitude toward premarital sex, to a large degree, reflects the overwhelmingly positive attitude toward sex within marriage." Likewise, "The only limits placed on sexual activities in the Torah are prohibitions against adultery and incest. In Biblical times, a man was not prohibited from having sexual relations with a woman, as long as it led to marriage. The Bible never explicitly states a woman and man may not have sexual intercourse prior to marriage; therefore, no sanction was imposed for premarital sex, but it was considered a violation of custom."
Despite the fact it is not condemned in the Torah, Orthodox Jews are opposed to premarital sex.
Dennis Dale:
You pay a price if you mould people into a rigid set of rules. There is a price to be paid for that. We've gotten away with a liberal set of rules for a long time because we didn't let in low IQ third worlders to take advantage of it. We're this soft, nice, intelligent white people observing a liberal society things can go pretty well. Things can go bad: there's degeneracy, but it's nothing as bad as when you start letting in people who are relatively savage like you see the Muslim rape gangs in Europe and you're telling me they're not real Muslims because they don't really read the Koran. There are people really trying to define these rules as you say: Muslim scholars. That's Ground Zero of civilisational destruction as I see it. That's where they noted everything: you can't have an imagination, you can't have personal ambition, you can't advance, you can't have curiosity about the natural world. Everything dies in Islam because it has to be forced into these rigid rules that you talk about.
CK:
If they want to follow these ossified rules [in the Hadith] fine, but we don't have to. We don't have to accept their ossified interpretation. We can interpret it in the way that we see fit because they don't have the copyright on it. I keep being accused of saying to white people "Trust these brown Muslims, bring them into your country, let them interpret the Koran for you," but that's not at all what I am saying. I'm saying "Read it, interpret it yourself in a way that suits you, and just acknowledge that you are more likely to follow these rules if they are clearly stated. [Muted by LF.]
The media is to give cover to our neocon politicians to vote for more war. That is all it is for now really. Future historians will look at all the media coverage and ask themselves how people can really be so stupid, but perhaps some of them will be able to read between the lines.
Anyway, it doesn't matter that most people don't believe the media narrative, it is not even there to convince us.
The anti-war demonstrations which I attended in Hyde Park in 2003 showed that most people in the West are anti-war, but our politicians ignored our wishes anyway. It was estimated that about 6 to 11 million people in total turned out in major European cities, and these are the people without access to privileged information!
Ordinary folk cannot be expected to understand the imperatives of what is really an imperial war.
Even now, most people don't really know what the Crimean War was all about. Such non-defensive imperial wars are very hard to explain to the uneducated and uninterested whose role is only to do or die and not to question why.
These days the Eastern Question is not even studied in history lessons.
The media is just another arm of the American Deep State Imperium.
"We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed its moral strength, the Caliphate and Islām.”https://t.co/qUqnaTr4Bk
It would appear that @hizbuttahrir is labouring under the misapprehension that Western imperialism is also nationalism. You can be a nationalist without being an imperialist if nationalism means defending the national interest. @AbdulWahidHThttps://t.co/QcKLk6iVfI
It is surely possible to defend the national interest without descending to xenophobia. Why do Muslims, like liberals and the left, assume nationalism is synonymous with evil? We all live in nation states, so why should we not defend the national interest? @AbdulWahidHThttps://t.co/EWLcbr9GJl
Apparently, Muslims who want to abolish nation states and borders cannot understand that uncontrolled immigration upsets the locals. This is not a secure basis upon which to embark on global government, is it? https://t.co/olRvldwKvq
These Muslims think nationalism is some wicked modern Western imperialist invention, apparenlty ignorant of the fact that the Jewish revolts against the Romans of the second century was also a form of nationalism. https://t.co/kiKg3mrbjL
We all have to start somewhere. Individuals exist in bodies, and countries as nation states. To call nationalism evil is to call the nation state evil, which makes about as much sense as denouncing individuals for necessarily existing as a physical being inhabiting a human body.
The Ottoman Empire ended because it could not reform itself before it was dominated then divided by the European powers. I'm no historian but am pretty sure it was something to do with the Ottomans closing the gate of interpretation. https://t.co/joIiS8g557https://t.co/kiKg3mrbjL
@AbdulWahidHT@tajimustafa@hizbuttahrir Can I take it that you do not intend to discuss these matters with me because I am neither a man nor a Muslim? Is that a constructive attitude to take?
@AbdulWahidHT@tajimustafa@hizbuttahrir Can I take it that you do not intend to discuss these matters with me because I am neither a man nor a Muslim? Is that a constructive attitude to take?
@AbdulWahidHT@tajimustafa@hizbuttahrir Can I take it that you do not intend to discuss these matters with me because I am neither a man nor a Muslim? Is that a constructive attitude to take?
But how will they spread the message of Islam by arrogantly refusing to engage in any discussion?
These unfortunate Muslims who want a Caliphate seem to be as lost as everyone else talking to each other in their own echo chambers disdaining to discuss anything with outsiders.
From the 19th minute
Abdul Wahid talks about the degeneracy of the Ottoman Empire. He claims the success of the military invasion of Turkey would not have been successful but for "the evil of nationalism affecting the Arab world". He calls Mustafa Kemal "the ugly face of Turkish nationalism".
He mentions the Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, but does not mention that Turkey supported the wrong losing side in WW1 ie Germany.
Bernard Lewis is the Islamic scholar beloved by neocons.
Taji Mustafa wants Assad destroyed and says an Islamic financial system would be fairer for the poor and poor nations. He has not heard of adverse possession in English law, clearly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
Yahya Nisbet denounces nationalism and peppers his speech with so many Arabisms in an ostentatious Arabic accent that he must think his Arabisms will get him to Janah more quickly. It is just annoying for non-Muslims who want them to understand whatever they are saying quickly, but what the hell do they care as long as they can wear their piety ostentatiously on their sleeve?
QUESTIONS I HAVE EMAILED TO HIZB UT TAHRIR TODAY
1. Does Hizb ut Tahrir believe it can just abolish the nation state and live in a global Muslim village without engaging in debate with non-Muslims?
2. Is HT confusing nationalism with Western imperialism?
3. Is it impossible in your minds to separate nationalism from Western imperialism?
4. First, tribes must be able to form a city-state before it can form a nation. Do you disagree?
5. Secondly, a city-state must control its surrounding territory before it can become a nation. Do you disagree?
6. Thirdly, a nation must be able to successfully conquer territories outside its own borders to become an empire. Do you disagree?
7. Jews were a tribe of wandering former slaves who through following Judaism conquered enough territory to become a kingdom. Do you disagree?
8. Islam was what first united the Arab tribes which then enabled Islamic imperialism. Do you disagree?
10. Nationhood is a natural aspiration for all those who live in a defined piece of territory. Would you agree?
11. Apparently, HT are Muslims who want to abolish nation states and borders who cannot understand that uncontrolled immigration upsets the locals. Such denial and naivete is not a secure basis upon which to embark on a global Caliphate. Would you agree?
12. HT seem to think nationalism is some wicked modern Western imperialist invention, apparently ignorant of the fact that the Jewish revolts against the Romans of the second century was also a form of nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#History Would you confirm that this is indeed the position of HT on nationalism?
14. The Ottoman Empire ended because it could not reform itself before it was dominated then divided by the European powers. Was this because the Gate of Interpretation was closed? https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3114/muslims-ijtihad
15. God if He exists is a nationalist. http://Quran.com/3/104 is conclusive evidence that God approves of nations who promote their national interest by following His laws. Would you agree?
16. It is surely possible to defend the national interest without descending to xenophobia. Why do Muslims, like liberals and the left, assume nationalism is synonymous with evil? We all live in nation states, so why should we as loyal citizens not defend the national interest or expect our political leaders to do so?
17. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names is a philosophy of calling things by their proper names or things will go awry. If you mean the policies of divide and rule used by Western imperialism, call it that and don't confuse it with nationalism. Is this a subject you are prepared to discuss?
19. Do you really think a transnational Caliphate can spontaneously come into being without first establishing an imperialistic Islamic State? If so, please explain your reasoning.
20. Will you be ignoring my questions because I am neither male nor Muslim?
