patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,375 comments by 15,050 users - clambo, Patrick online now
Let's look at the contrary nature of Iran's version of Islam
invite response
2020 Jan 16, 11:31am 1,194 views 8 comments
Comments 1 - 8 of 8 Search these comments
1
socal2
2020 Jan 16, 11:56am
The hardliner Shia theocrats also believe it is Man's job to bring about the apocalypse through war to force the return of their messiah (Hidden Imam).
That is a uniquely dangerous dogma for the nutter Ayatollahs. I don't believe any other mainstream religious sect (including the Sunnis) believes it is Man's duty to bring about conditions for the return of the Messiah.
That is a uniquely dangerous dogma for the nutter Ayatollahs. I don't believe any other mainstream religious sect (including the Sunnis) believes it is Man's duty to bring about conditions for the return of the Messiah.
2
Rin
2020 Jan 16, 12:03pm
Rin
2020 Jan 16, 12:03pm
socal2 says
This is a type of Oliver Cromwellism, where in effect, the imprint of man's work in the world reflects that of Divine Providence and thus, Puritans always have this dog/pony show of showing off their work as a measure of their salvation quotient.
Yes, it's medieval thinking and unfortunately, Islam never got out of the dark ages.
Man's duty to bring about conditions for the return of the Messiah
This is a type of Oliver Cromwellism, where in effect, the imprint of man's work in the world reflects that of Divine Providence and thus, Puritans always have this dog/pony show of showing off their work as a measure of their salvation quotient.
Yes, it's medieval thinking and unfortunately, Islam never got out of the dark ages.
3
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jan 16, 1:06pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jan 16, 1:06pm
Cromwell wasn't medieval, was a complete break with medievalism, and his whole schtick was the opposition to a state controlled Church and unlimited Monarchical powers.
Cromwell loved music (not appropriate in Church), wanted local control of Churches, property rights, real courts and not Monarchical Star Chambers, and tolerated just about everybody, inc. Jews and Catholics (just not in the military). He gave shelter to Hugenot refugees from Europe who created the base of the UK Textile Industry.
He tried to reform Parliament to be more representative and account for huge changes in demographics (instead of scores of rotten boroughs) several times, but naturally Parliament refused to reform themselves.
Under Cromwell, Britain went from a 2nd rate power and agrarian society to a commercial and seaborne powerhouse.
The forces of Superstition made a second attempt with King James II a few decades later, but he was replaced with King Billy the Great.
Cromwell loved music (not appropriate in Church), wanted local control of Churches, property rights, real courts and not Monarchical Star Chambers, and tolerated just about everybody, inc. Jews and Catholics (just not in the military). He gave shelter to Hugenot refugees from Europe who created the base of the UK Textile Industry.
He tried to reform Parliament to be more representative and account for huge changes in demographics (instead of scores of rotten boroughs) several times, but naturally Parliament refused to reform themselves.
Under Cromwell, Britain went from a 2nd rate power and agrarian society to a commercial and seaborne powerhouse.
The forces of Superstition made a second attempt with King James II a few decades later, but he was replaced with King Billy the Great.
4
Rin
2020 Jan 16, 2:26pm
Rin
2020 Jan 16, 2:26pm
NoCoupForYou says
Yes, I got the whole anti-monarchical/CoE piece from him with the idea of putting Parliamentary power at front center, though if you recall, he basically banned theatre and the whole Shakespearean culture, which was perhaps one of England's greatest pre-modern literary contributions to the world.
And sure, he tolerated practicing Catholics, however, he had no problems in slaughtering them in Ireland w/o reproach during his military campaigns over there including non-military civilians.
So yes, as for a Junta, he wasn't the worst of the worst (I mean clearly, Abu Bakr is LeBron James-MVP in that category), however, he wasn't a nice guy either and his legacy will always be controversial.
Cromwell wasn't medieval, was a complete break with medievalism, and his whole schtick was the opposition to a state controlled Church and unlimited Monarchical powers.
Cromwell loved music (not appropriate in Church), wanted local control of Churches, property rights, real courts and not Monarchical Star Chambers, and tolerated just about everybody, inc. Jews and Catholics (just not in the military). He gave shelter to Hugenot refugees from Europe who created the base of the UK Textile Industry.
Yes, I got the whole anti-monarchical/CoE piece from him with the idea of putting Parliamentary power at front center, though if you recall, he basically banned theatre and the whole Shakespearean culture, which was perhaps one of England's greatest pre-modern literary contributions to the world.
And sure, he tolerated practicing Catholics, however, he had no problems in slaughtering them in Ireland w/o reproach during his military campaigns over there including non-military civilians.
So yes, as for a Junta, he wasn't the worst of the worst (I mean clearly, Abu Bakr is LeBron James-MVP in that category), however, he wasn't a nice guy either and his legacy will always be controversial.
5
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jan 16, 3:42pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jan 16, 3:42pm
Rin says
He didn't ban theater because of the plays, but because of the prostitution and drinking and rioting that went on after the shows. It wasn't all Shakespeare, a lot of it was definitely "Cabaret" if not outright "Strip Club/Sex Show" out of Havana 1955.
He also banned dog and bear fighting.
Keep in mind in Continental Europe under Noblemen, you could be flogged to death for wearing a purple shirt or fur hat without the right heritage.
Rin says
Just as Catholics (or anybody) had no problem slaughtering Protestant towns in the 30 Year's War. By 1600s standards, he offered clemency well beyond standard. Once the wall was breeched, then brace yerself Bridgit.
Rin says
He was one of the greatest British Rulers ever, he should have taken the Kingship (which was offered to him but he refused).
Charles I, like his vile descendant James II, was a continental style tyrant who raises taxes without reference to Parliament, ran Courts of Star Chamber with predetermined verdicts, and was determined to take the CoE back to Rome.
, he basically banned theatre and the whole Shakespearean culture, which was perhaps one of England's greatest pre-modern literary contributions to the world.
He didn't ban theater because of the plays, but because of the prostitution and drinking and rioting that went on after the shows. It wasn't all Shakespeare, a lot of it was definitely "Cabaret" if not outright "Strip Club/Sex Show" out of Havana 1955.
He also banned dog and bear fighting.
Keep in mind in Continental Europe under Noblemen, you could be flogged to death for wearing a purple shirt or fur hat without the right heritage.
Rin says
And sure, he tolerated practicing Catholics, however, he had no problems in slaughtering them in Ireland w/o reproach during his military campaigns over there including non-military civilians.
Just as Catholics (or anybody) had no problem slaughtering Protestant towns in the 30 Year's War. By 1600s standards, he offered clemency well beyond standard. Once the wall was breeched, then brace yerself Bridgit.
Rin says
So yes, as for a Junta, he wasn't the worst of the worst (I mean clearly, Abu Bakr is LeBron James-MVP in that category), however, he wasn't a nice guy either and his legacy will always be controversial.
He was one of the greatest British Rulers ever, he should have taken the Kingship (which was offered to him but he refused).
Charles I, like his vile descendant James II, was a continental style tyrant who raises taxes without reference to Parliament, ran Courts of Star Chamber with predetermined verdicts, and was determined to take the CoE back to Rome.
6
Ceffer
2020 Jan 16, 4:45pm
Ceffer
2020 Jan 16, 4:45pm
Sounds like we could use another Charles I in the Democratic Congress and California.
7
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jan 16, 6:23pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jan 16, 6:23pm
Ceffer says
www.youtube.com/embed/RkAbOGxDF6g
Sounds like we could use another Charles I in the Democratic Congress and California.
www.youtube.com/embed/RkAbOGxDF6g
This empire was attacked by the armies of a general Khalid ibn Walid who reported to the first Caliphate Abu Bakr (a namesake also used by the former ISIS leader). Regardless, this group of marauders completely overran the Empire, killing the Emperor, and forcing the surviving family members to flee to China, via the Silk Road, for their lives. At least 3/4 of the population were forced to convert under the sword.
Centuries later, a group of Persians fought back with this notion that the first line of Caliphates were a bunch of lying scumbags who were not the right messengers of Islam. Instead, that role should have been given to a 'nicer' person named Ali bin Abu Talib.
So now, we have the dilemma. If this 'nice guy' were to have ascended the role of Caliphate, he perhaps would not of had the psychotic impulse to hire a thug like Khalid, and thus, wouldn't have the "Sword of Islam", to do his dirty work against civilized nations, ala Byzantine & Persia.
And there's the issue ... in this alternate reality, perhaps Islam ends at the boundaries of Saudi Arabia with perhaps a sliver of the near east and today, Iran is a diverse country of Nestorian-like Christians, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists. And then, aside from anthropologists, no one else in the world today cares about Mohamed and his best friend Ali.