Saudis now want to behead blogger Raif Badawi

Jippy said:
If they're dead it won't hurt them.
Click to expand...

Lets say that Mrs Jippy was arrested in SA on fallacious grounds of being an enemy of the state (it happens a lot over there). Mrs Jippy was sentenced to decapitation and crucifixion. How would you feel seeing the decapitated and crucified body of your loved one? I am assuming that you didn't frame her in the first place.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Lets say that Mrs Jippy was arrested in SA on fallacious grounds of being an enemy of the state (it happens a lot over there). Mrs Jippy was sentenced to decapitation and crucifixion. How would you feel seeing the decapitated and crucified body of your loved one? I am assuming that you didn't frame her in the first place.
Click to expand...
Wait does he put just the head or the crucified body in a frame? What kind of frame? What room do you hang that in?
 
JustAFan said:
Wait does he put just the head or the crucified body in a frame? What kind of frame? What room do you hang that in?
Click to expand...

I just got a picture frame made and they want to charge me $220 after using a 66% off coupon! Just imagine how much it would be for a person-sized frame...
 
Vooon said:
Very likely, the Arab world had an innovative peak during the Middle Ages if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

It has to do with prosperity.

The peak of Islamic culture as westerners would perceive it would coincide with a period in history where the Islamic world was arguably the wealthiest area on earth. The controlled the overland trade routes between the Orient and the Levant. Wealth brought prosperity, enlightenment, education and tolerance. Ironically during this same period, Europe was at its most impoverished and militant. It was launching religious wars and strictly speaking acting very similar to radical Islamic groups today.

So what changed? The emphasis on global commerce changed. The Islamic world, once the middle-men of global trade, which saw rise of two of the greatest land empires in history, the Mughals and the Seljuk->Ottomans, saw themselves cut out of the pie. Advances in sea navigation allowed Europe to bypass the Middle-east. Trade became more efficient through the Indian Ocean and then around the Cape. All that overland trade began to be funneled through the seas, and there were no great Islamic naval powers. They had never needed it.

Then the death blow fell with the discovery and exploitation of the New World. The Islamic world was completely cut out of that cash cow. While Europe exploited new found riches, it also solidified its naval superiority. The silk road essentially ceased to exist. Portugal, England and then the Netherlands conquered their way to Asia setting up trade outposts which allowed a near total economic hegemony over the wealth flowing out of Asia. The great Islamic land empires literally withered on the vine.

Through the 18-20th centuries, these Empires were dismantled and largely colonized by western powers. They were broken up. While this was happening, these states were experiencing increasing levels of poverty. This created a radical movement within the religion.

The poorer a region or culture is, the more it is exploited or has been exploited, the more militant elements within it can become. In the 9th and 10th centuries with Europe at the tail end of nearly a millennium of brutal impoverishment, we also see the most militant, irrational, and illogical period in Christian history. Our ancestors were launching brutal holy wars, and decapitating people for believing the wrong version of the same religion. The West was able to move through a period of secularization based on the economic prosperity it enjoyed by circumventing overland trade through the middle-east and later by exploiting the New World for resources and wealth. On the flip side, the Islamic world has never really had that opportunity. People have been so busy fighting for scraps, and those in power so vested in keeping the status-quo, there have been no reformations, no secularization, no Renaissance. Though to be far, Islam gave a major helping hand in the Renaissance, as without Islamic texts and Islamic scholars the knowledge that the Renaissance was born from, would have never been available to western scholars.

So now we have these monarchies in the middle-east that are benefiting from untold riches, a new age silk road, but they are born from that dark period in Islamic history, where they were dirt poor. The militant tendencies that emerged during those dark periods still exist within these monarchies. Now its simply an issue of greed within these monarchies. The wealth is there, but the monarchies are absolutely complicit in hoarding it. Western interests also have an interest in seeing these rulers remain in power. Who knows what would happen if suddenly Saudi Arabia was run by a secular government, even just a more demographic government. Would they see it in their own best national interests to pump their countries wealth out of the ground to foreigners as fast as they possibly can? Probably not. There would be a lot of massive oil companies finding their assets being seized and nationalized.

So in the West it remains in our best interests to prop up these Oil-monarchies. It's in the best interest of these kings and princes to just sell as much oil as quickly as possible and to keep their people impoverished and repressed. In a circular way, we are helping to continue this system of impoverishment that gives militant Islamist the ammunition they need to continue to entrench themselves and build their own bases of power.

What a wonderfully convoluted, fecked up world we live in!
 
Nucks said:
It has to do with prosperity.

The peak of Islamic culture as westerners would perceive it would coincide with a period in history where the Islamic world was arguably the wealthiest area on earth. The controlled the overland trade routes between the Orient and the Levant. Wealth brought prosperity, enlightenment, education and tolerance. Ironically during this same period, Europe was at its most impoverished and militant. It was launching religious wars and strictly speaking acting very similar to radical Islamic groups today.

So what changed? The emphasis on global commerce changed. The Islamic world, once the middle-men of global trade, which saw rise of two of the greatest land empires in history, the Mughals and the Seljuk->Ottomans, saw themselves cut out of the pie. Advances in sea navigation allowed Europe to bypass the Middle-east. Trade became more efficient through the Indian Ocean and then around the Cape. All that overland trade began to be funneled through the seas, and there were no great Islamic naval powers. They had never needed it.

Then the death blow fell with the discovery and exploitation of the New World. The Islamic world was completely cut out of that cash cow. While Europe exploited new found riches, it also solidified its naval superiority. The silk road essentially ceased to exist. Portugal, England and then the Netherlands conquered their way to Asia setting up trade outposts which allowed a near total economic hegemony over the wealth flowing out of Asia. The great Islamic land empires literally withered on the vine.

Through the 18-20th centuries, these Empires were dismantled and largely colonized by western powers. They were broken up. While this was happening, these states were experiencing increasing levels of poverty. This created a radical movement within the religion.

The poorer a region or culture is, the more it is exploited or has been exploited, the more militant elements within it can become. In the 9th and 10th centuries with Europe at the tail end of nearly a millennium of brutal impoverishment, we also see the most militant, irrational, and illogical period in Christian history. Our ancestors were launching brutal holy wars, and decapitating people for believing the wrong version of the same religion. The West was able to move through a period of secularization based on the economic prosperity it enjoyed by circumventing overland trade through the middle-east and later by exploiting the New World for resources and wealth. On the flip side, the Islamic world has never really had that opportunity. People have been so busy fighting for scraps, and those in power so vested in keeping the status-quo, there have been no reformations, no secularization, no Renaissance. Though to be far, Islam gave a major helping hand in the Renaissance, as without Islamic texts and Islamic scholars the knowledge that the Renaissance was born from, would have never been available to western scholars.

So now we have these monarchies in the middle-east that are benefiting from untold riches, a new age silk road, but they are born from that dark period in Islamic history, where they were dirt poor. The militant tendencies that emerged during those dark periods still exist within these monarchies. Now its simply an issue of greed within these monarchies. The wealth is there, but the monarchies are absolutely complicit in hoarding it. Western interests also have an interest in seeing these rulers remain in power. Who knows what would happen if suddenly Saudi Arabia was run by a secular government, even just a more demographic government. Would they see it in their own best national interests to pump their countries wealth out of the ground to foreigners as fast as they possibly can? Probably not. There would be a lot of massive oil companies finding their assets being seized and nationalized.

So in the West it remains in our best interests to prop up these Oil-monarchies. It's in the best interest of these kings and princes to just sell as much oil as quickly as possible and to keep their people impoverished and repressed. In a circular way, we are helping to continue this system of impoverishment that gives militant Islamist the ammunition they need to continue to entrench themselves and build their own bases of power.

What a wonderfully convoluted, fecked up world we live in!
Click to expand...
 
Nucks said:
It has to do with prosperity.

The peak of Islamic culture as westerners would perceive it would coincide with a period in history where the Islamic world was arguably the wealthiest area on earth. The controlled the overland trade routes between the Orient and the Levant. Wealth brought prosperity, enlightenment, education and tolerance. Ironically during this same period, Europe was at its most impoverished and militant. It was launching religious wars and strictly speaking acting very similar to radical Islamic groups today.

So what changed? The emphasis on global commerce changed. The Islamic world, once the middle-men of global trade, which saw rise of two of the greatest land empires in history, the Mughals and the Seljuk->Ottomans, saw themselves cut out of the pie. Advances in sea navigation allowed Europe to bypass the Middle-east. Trade became more efficient through the Indian Ocean and then around the Cape. All that overland trade began to be funneled through the seas, and there were no great Islamic naval powers. They had never needed it.

Then the death blow fell with the discovery and exploitation of the New World. The Islamic world was completely cut out of that cash cow. While Europe exploited new found riches, it also solidified its naval superiority. The silk road essentially ceased to exist. Portugal, England and then the Netherlands conquered their way to Asia setting up trade outposts which allowed a near total economic hegemony over the wealth flowing out of Asia. The great Islamic land empires literally withered on the vine.

Through the 18-20th centuries, these Empires were dismantled and largely colonized by western powers. They were broken up. While this was happening, these states were experiencing increasing levels of poverty. This created a radical movement within the religion.

The poorer a region or culture is, the more it is exploited or has been exploited, the more militant elements within it can become. In the 9th and 10th centuries with Europe at the tail end of nearly a millennium of brutal impoverishment, we also see the most militant, irrational, and illogical period in Christian history. Our ancestors were launching brutal holy wars, and decapitating people for believing the wrong version of the same religion. The West was able to move through a period of secularization based on the economic prosperity it enjoyed by circumventing overland trade through the middle-east and later by exploiting the New World for resources and wealth. On the flip side, the Islamic world has never really had that opportunity. People have been so busy fighting for scraps, and those in power so vested in keeping the status-quo, there have been no reformations, no secularization, no Renaissance. Though to be far, Islam gave a major helping hand in the Renaissance, as without Islamic texts and Islamic scholars the knowledge that the Renaissance was born from, would have never been available to western scholars.

So now we have these monarchies in the middle-east that are benefiting from untold riches, a new age silk road, but they are born from that dark period in Islamic history, where they were dirt poor. The militant tendencies that emerged during those dark periods still exist within these monarchies. Now its simply an issue of greed within these monarchies. The wealth is there, but the monarchies are absolutely complicit in hoarding it. Western interests also have an interest in seeing these rulers remain in power. Who knows what would happen if suddenly Saudi Arabia was run by a secular government, even just a more demographic government. Would they see it in their own best national interests to pump their countries wealth out of the ground to foreigners as fast as they possibly can? Probably not. There would be a lot of massive oil companies finding their assets being seized and nationalized.

So in the West it remains in our best interests to prop up these Oil-monarchies. It's in the best interest of these kings and princes to just sell as much oil as quickly as possible and to keep their people impoverished and repressed. In a circular way, we are helping to continue this system of impoverishment that gives militant Islamist the ammunition they need to continue to entrench themselves and build their own bases of power.

What a wonderfully convoluted, fecked up world we live in!
Click to expand...
That's an amazing read, could you elaborate on the bolded part if I may ask? Wasn't quite clear to me.
 
Sir Matt said:
I just got a picture frame made and they want to charge me $220 after using a 66% off coupon! Just imagine how much it would be for a person-sized frame...
Click to expand...
I'd rather get her stuffed tbh.
 
Nucks said:
It has to do with prosperity.

The peak of Islamic culture as westerners would perceive it would coincide with a period in history where the Islamic world was arguably the wealthiest area on earth. The controlled the overland trade routes between the Orient and the Levant. Wealth brought prosperity, enlightenment, education and tolerance. Ironically during this same period, Europe was at its most impoverished and militant. It was launching religious wars and strictly speaking acting very similar to radical Islamic groups today.

So what changed? The emphasis on global commerce changed. The Islamic world, once the middle-men of global trade, which saw rise of two of the greatest land empires in history, the Mughals and the Seljuk->Ottomans, saw themselves cut out of the pie. Advances in sea navigation allowed Europe to bypass the Middle-east. Trade became more efficient through the Indian Ocean and then around the Cape. All that overland trade began to be funneled through the seas, and there were no great Islamic naval powers. They had never needed it.

Then the death blow fell with the discovery and exploitation of the New World. The Islamic world was completely cut out of that cash cow. While Europe exploited new found riches, it also solidified its naval superiority. The silk road essentially ceased to exist. Portugal, England and then the Netherlands conquered their way to Asia setting up trade outposts which allowed a near total economic hegemony over the wealth flowing out of Asia. The great Islamic land empires literally withered on the vine.

Through the 18-20th centuries, these Empires were dismantled and largely colonized by western powers. They were broken up. While this was happening, these states were experiencing increasing levels of poverty. This created a radical movement within the religion.

The poorer a region or culture is, the more it is exploited or has been exploited, the more militant elements within it can become. In the 9th and 10th centuries with Europe at the tail end of nearly a millennium of brutal impoverishment, we also see the most militant, irrational, and illogical period in Christian history. Our ancestors were launching brutal holy wars, and decapitating people for believing the wrong version of the same religion. The West was able to move through a period of secularization based on the economic prosperity it enjoyed by circumventing overland trade through the middle-east and later by exploiting the New World for resources and wealth. On the flip side, the Islamic world has never really had that opportunity. People have been so busy fighting for scraps, and those in power so vested in keeping the status-quo, there have been no reformations, no secularization, no Renaissance. Though to be far, Islam gave a major helping hand in the Renaissance, as without Islamic texts and Islamic scholars the knowledge that the Renaissance was born from, would have never been available to western scholars.

So now we have these monarchies in the middle-east that are benefiting from untold riches, a new age silk road, but they are born from that dark period in Islamic history, where they were dirt poor. The militant tendencies that emerged during those dark periods still exist within these monarchies. Now its simply an issue of greed within these monarchies. The wealth is there, but the monarchies are absolutely complicit in hoarding it. Western interests also have an interest in seeing these rulers remain in power. Who knows what would happen if suddenly Saudi Arabia was run by a secular government, even just a more demographic government. Would they see it in their own best national interests to pump their countries wealth out of the ground to foreigners as fast as they possibly can? Probably not. There would be a lot of massive oil companies finding their assets being seized and nationalized.

So in the West it remains in our best interests to prop up these Oil-monarchies. It's in the best interest of these kings and princes to just sell as much oil as quickly as possible and to keep their people impoverished and repressed. In a circular way, we are helping to continue this system of impoverishment that gives militant Islamist the ammunition they need to continue to entrench themselves and build their own bases of power.

What a wonderfully convoluted, fecked up world we live in!
Click to expand...
That's a good balanced read. I'm so sick of all these "the Islamic world never benefited to the world" claims.

I'm not an expert on this topic but as far as I understand Greek philosophy survived in the Middle East while it was more or less forgotten in Europe until the Renaissance. The modern univiersity system is also based on the Islamic, at least according to Diarmaid MacCulloch.
 
Sciences and philosophy in general owe a lot to the Islamic world. The Abbasids were very open handed to scholars and alchemy, algebra and geography made a lot of headways under their rule. This was pretty crucial since Europe was busy burning witches at the time.

Secularism usually accompanies economic prosperity. Problem is without a democratically elected government in those gulf countries, it's hard to see the common people getting better living conditions anytime soon.
 
Nucks said:
It has to do with prosperity.

The peak of Islamic culture as westerners would perceive it would coincide with a period in history where the Islamic world was arguably the wealthiest area on earth. The controlled the overland trade routes between the Orient and the Levant. Wealth brought prosperity, enlightenment, education and tolerance. Ironically during this same period, Europe was at its most impoverished and militant. It was launching religious wars and strictly speaking acting very similar to radical Islamic groups today.

So what changed? The emphasis on global commerce changed. The Islamic world, once the middle-men of global trade, which saw rise of two of the greatest land empires in history, the Mughals and the Seljuk->Ottomans, saw themselves cut out of the pie. Advances in sea navigation allowed Europe to bypass the Middle-east. Trade became more efficient through the Indian Ocean and then around the Cape. All that overland trade began to be funneled through the seas, and there were no great Islamic naval powers. They had never needed it.

Then the death blow fell with the discovery and exploitation of the New World. The Islamic world was completely cut out of that cash cow. While Europe exploited new found riches, it also solidified its naval superiority. The silk road essentially ceased to exist. Portugal, England and then the Netherlands conquered their way to Asia setting up trade outposts which allowed a near total economic hegemony over the wealth flowing out of Asia. The great Islamic land empires literally withered on the vine.

Through the 18-20th centuries, these Empires were dismantled and largely colonized by western powers. They were broken up. While this was happening, these states were experiencing increasing levels of poverty. This created a radical movement within the religion.

The poorer a region or culture is, the more it is exploited or has been exploited, the more militant elements within it can become. In the 9th and 10th centuries with Europe at the tail end of nearly a millennium of brutal impoverishment, we also see the most militant, irrational, and illogical period in Christian history. Our ancestors were launching brutal holy wars, and decapitating people for believing the wrong version of the same religion. The West was able to move through a period of secularization based on the economic prosperity it enjoyed by circumventing overland trade through the middle-east and later by exploiting the New World for resources and wealth. On the flip side, the Islamic world has never really had that opportunity. People have been so busy fighting for scraps, and those in power so vested in keeping the status-quo, there have been no reformations, no secularization, no Renaissance. Though to be far, Islam gave a major helping hand in the Renaissance, as without Islamic texts and Islamic scholars the knowledge that the Renaissance was born from, would have never been available to western scholars.

So now we have these monarchies in the middle-east that are benefiting from untold riches, a new age silk road, but they are born from that dark period in Islamic history, where they were dirt poor. The militant tendencies that emerged during those dark periods still exist within these monarchies. Now its simply an issue of greed within these monarchies. The wealth is there, but the monarchies are absolutely complicit in hoarding it. Western interests also have an interest in seeing these rulers remain in power. Who knows what would happen if suddenly Saudi Arabia was run by a secular government, even just a more demographic government. Would they see it in their own best national interests to pump their countries wealth out of the ground to foreigners as fast as they possibly can? Probably not. There would be a lot of massive oil companies finding their assets being seized and nationalized.

So in the West it remains in our best interests to prop up these Oil-monarchies. It's in the best interest of these kings and princes to just sell as much oil as quickly as possible and to keep their people impoverished and repressed. In a circular way, we are helping to continue this system of impoverishment that gives militant Islamist the ammunition they need to continue to entrench themselves and build their own bases of power.

What a wonderfully convoluted, fecked up world we live in!
Click to expand...

Great post, wish we had a like button for stuff like this. I wrote something similar here - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/maajid-nawaz.403441/page-7#post-17404247

I would only add that it is no coincidence that the major influence on Wahhabi ideology, Ibn Taymiyya, wrote his major works during another time of crisis in the Islamic world, the aftermath of the Mongol conquests. Having said that, speaking specifically of Wahhabism, it rose in a part of the Islamic world which had gone relatively untouched by the great peaks of Islamic civilisation - Najd was always a remote backwater beyond the reach of whatever central authority dominated the region at any time.
 
VorZakone said:
That's an amazing read, could you elaborate on the bolded part if I may ask? Wasn't quite clear to me.
Click to expand...
Saudi Arabia pumps out much more oil then it needs to, simply to export the majority of it. It can sustain itself and its population sufficiently with maybe half the current oil output. A democratically elected and future thinking government would be unlikely to to pump away at this rate.

I don't agree with his point about oil companies getting shut/nationalised though. Because as far as I know the Saudi government already controls nearly all its oil output via its own national oil company.
 
I remember from our history classes that the Islamic presence and cultural influence in the Iberian peninsula, until the end of the reconquista, was extremely important for Portugal. It helped us evolve scientifically more quickly than the rest of Europe at that time. Islam was far ahead in astronomy and navigation, and the knowledge garnered from them boosted our age of discovery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.