Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Your Favourite Muslim Intellects

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Your Favourite Muslim Intellects
    Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 11:39
You are talking about Shah Ismail. Iran was allready converted when Shah Abbas took the crown. I agree with you that what Shah Ismail did was wrong even though he mass converted people without any real resistance.

And the wars between Safavid Persia and The Ottoman Empire was political, self interests that is. Declaring them the sunnites and us the shiites was just a way to unite the people, a cheap trick. A trick that the ottomans themselfs succeeded with btw as a great amount of sunni kurds changed sides in favor of the ottomans in those wars.


Edited by Shompis
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 11:47

"Acting like an european is an insult I presume? Is that what you are implying. As said, for us the nation has allways came first, that is why we were successfull no matter what religion, what king we had. This is why we were united even though we also have had turkic kings. These same turkic kings like Shah Abbas had the same ideology like many iranians have today, nation comes first, religion come second.

And if someone asks me what I am, I say a citizen of earth, then iranian, persian and last muslim."

Unification of some groops has one equal point, that is mostly one language, one religion and one country. IF you begin with ethnics you wont be succesfull.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 11:54
And that is why iranian is greater to me than being a persian. That is why an azeri turk is equal to a persian in my eyes. That is why an azeri turk is the supreme leader in Iran even in such a corrupt regime, of course a non shia would never get a high position in Iran in the current state.

I am not really a nationalist per se. And I am definitely not religious either. And a unification under one religion will never happen, sorry but just look at the state of the muslim countries today, you really think they care about each other? It is allways about self interest, the man is a selfish being and an opportunist.   
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 11:54

Originally posted by Shompis

You are talking about Shah Ismail. Iran was allready converted when Shah Abbas took the crown. I agree with you that what Shah Ismail did was wrong even though he mass converted people without any real resistance.

As far as I know, Shah Abbas I (great Abbas) is the one declaring Shiesm as the religion of his state and forcing it on all of his people.

http://isfahan.anglia.ac.uk/glossary/abbas/abbas1.html

Shah Abbas I was the first of the Safavid Shahs to establish Persia as a homogeneous state, enforcing, often brutally, adherence to Shi'ism, and imposing Farsi as a unifying language throughout the land.

But anyhow, I guess the point I talked about earlier and which Day I also re-enforced is clear. What brought Iranians togather was what you called "the trick" of religion. So religion is what unified them, not race or nationalism. What nationalism first of all? Nationalism is based on ethnic or common values? If Shah Abbas or Shah Islamil had enough common values to form their unified Iranian state, why do they need religion to be unified too? the Answer is the one you said :

Originally posted by Shompis

  Declaring them the sunnites and us the shiites was just a way to unite the people, a cheap trick

In fact at that time, your citizenship is your religion. If you are a Shiah Kurd, you are expected to help the Safavid and from them, if you are a Sunni Kurd, you are expected to help the Ottomans and be of them.

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 11:58

Originally posted by Shompis

. I agree with you that what Shah Ismail did was wrong even though he mass converted people without any real resistance.

I wasn't concerned about if it is wrong or right, I asked you if he was a nationalist Iranian, why did he oppress the religion of Ancient Perisa? for the sake of argument of course.

Originally posted by Shompis

And a unification under one religion will never happen, sorry but just look at the state of the muslim countries today, you really think they care about each other? It is allways about self interest, the man is a selfish being and an opportunist.   

I don't think anyone in this thread said we want to unite with you or about unification of religion. We are talking about the past. What united people that time and Ibn Sina time was not only ethnicities, but religion. In fact, religion was more for sure.



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 12:06
But you neglect the very fact that Ibn Sina, at the time was persecuated because of his believes in particular attributed to Aristoteles. And this was a time when several different iranian dynasties were emerging and resisting the khalifates.... Why were they resisting? It wasnt religion, it was politics, it was power etc. There was no unification back then, as much as there is none today. And there is a reason why there are several different shiite sects, all of them emerged from political reasons. Originally it wasnt a clash of ideologies but they are today as the other indifferences(political most likely) are long solved or dissapeared.
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 12:18

Originally posted by Shompis

But you neglect the very fact that Ibn Sina, at the time was persecuated because of his believes in particular attributed to Aristoteles. And this was a time when several different iranian dynasties were emerging and resisting the khalifates.... Why were they resisting? It wasnt religion, it was politics, it was power etc. There was no unification back then, as much as there is none today. And there is a reason why there are several different shiite sects, all of them emerged from political reasons. Originally it wasnt a clash of ideologies but they are today as the other indifferences(political most likely) are long solved or dissapeared.

I wasn't pushing for Ibn Sina's origin to be a turk. I just searched and couldn't find except he was a turk and posted the link. If you think he is of a Persian origin, then sure he might. very possible too. Post the link you found for us to share please.

Now, do not confuse that every clash at that time has to be for religious reasons. Nationalism as you are describing today was only born recently and imported from outside the Middle East. As I mentioned to you, if Safavids were hardcore Persian and Iranian nationalist, I am truly suprised their prosecution of Zoroastrians. Wasn't it the ancient religion of Perisa? They could have pushed for Zoroastrianism instead as Mongols pushed for Buddism converting every mosque in Iran to a buddhist temple before their conversion to Islam. It is not difficult to do for them. Therefore, religion was a factor not nationalism of ancient Persia.

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Super Goat (^_^) View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 22-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 180
  Quote Super Goat (^_^) Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 18:05
wow u guys sure are good at gettin off topic..

mine would have to be ibn batuta, not sure if hes considered an "intellect", but i bet reading his books are more entertaining than The cannon
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Oct-2005 at 03:10

Ibn Rushd, Ibn Al Hytham,  Ibn Al Nafees, Ibn Hazm and many more

for the moment i think Ibn Rushd is my favourite

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Oct-2005 at 13:58

I am so happy so many of you are sharing who is ur most fav islam intellect...

But i just wondering how can this topic is leading to ethnic perspective.. come on guys...

anyhow.. thanks for the mosque picture.. it's awesome..

*whtever the ethnic of the intellect is... he is Muslim.. tht's the only matter"

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.088 seconds.