Why Don't Others Try To Conquer The World?

[paarsurrey]

Lucky for them that they managed to conquer some cultured and knowledgable empires in the Persians and Romans so that the Arabs started to learn about architecture, construction, science, education, philosophy, etc. The Grand Tent of Cordoba would be less impressive after all.
Europe went backwards largely due to the decline of the Roman Empire and Arab conquests cutting them off from the more lucrative areas of world trade. With declining social conditions religious belief became more extreme and a downward spiral started.
The Muslims, controlling the entire fertile crescent then had the money to fund the arts and sciences and build on the knowledge of the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Chinese, Indians, etc. A rich and successful, multicultural society grew and flourished.
The Arab Golden Age ended when the Arabs ran out of money. The Mongol conquests and changes in international trade meant that the Muslims were no longer awash with money, Europe was again growing wealthy and along with this came scientific and social advancement. The Europeans had the money and facilities to build on the advances made during the Arab Golden Age, just as the Muslims had built on the works of those who came before them.
The Muslims went backwards again, just as the Europeans had done centuries before, until they got so far behind that they were colonised.
People like to construct fancy reasons for the rise and fall of the Golden Age. It started because of Islam valuing knowledge, and declined because of people like al-Ghazali and ibn-Tamiyya making Islam regressive. It's really just about the money though. Societies do well when they have a lot of it and less so when they don't.

It's just as likely that Islam was open and tolerant because of the success of the society, rather than the society was a success because of the openness and tolerance of Islam. With societal decline came the increased popularity of bigoted and insular hardliners like ibn-Taymiyya
History is cyclical, not linear. All cultures borrow from the knowledge and skills of others. As I said earlier, it's silly to look at one snapshot from history as being this special magical time that was better than all the others. They are all important and interconnected. It's like a chain, take one link out and it no longer works. Trying to say that any particular link is the 'best' is just narrow-minded parochialism.

I like what I have not whitened.
The one I had whitened, I could not follow it exactly, please elaborate.
Regards

 

[FearGod]

Might want to read up about that, even if you just read the wikipedia page and you would know 100 times more than you do now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)




You don't really understand the concept of either 'evidence' or 'history' which is the problem.

How for example, do you explain the idea that the Mosque of Cordoba contained 'Visigothic techniques' if they were living in their mud huts at the time? Where do you imagine the stonemasons who built such 'Visigothic techniques' came from? What about the arches in the Mosque based on Roman architecture? Who built them? The Berbers?

[this, btw, is evidence]

The Mosque of Cordoba is an evidence for the Muslim Golden age during the dark age of Europe,
regardless of from where did Muslims gain the knowledge of architecture, still the fact stands that
Europe was sleeping at that point of time, it isn't shameful to admit it, Muslims today are sleeping
and some are trying to wake up.

 

[dust1n]

No, they didn't take whole of Europe, but they take much of south east Europe.

You are forgetting the Ottoman Turks, taking Constantinople, and then continuing west into the Balkan, and then into Central Europe. Centuries of wars, between Turks and German-Austrian.

And that little sorta European area SW of Bulgaria and Greece, etc. But point taken, though these were vastly different time periods from one another.

 

[Augustus]

The Mosque of Cordoba is an evidence for the Muslim Golden age during the dark age of Europe,
regardless of from where did Muslims gain the knowledge of architecture, still the fact stands that
Europe was sleeping at that point of time, it isn't shameful to admit it,

I assume that reading a short wikipedia article was too much effort and you didn't want to have your comicbook version of history challenged.

The Dark Ages relates to the decline in historical records compared to earlier eras, however even some minor local leaders in this period managed to leave better written records than Muhammed and the Rashidun combined.

No one with any knowledge of history has any problem whatsoever about saying the major centres of the Muslim Empire were clearly more advanced at that time. No one has any problem saying Europe was in decline. I'm just trying to correct your misconception about how 'backward' the Dark Ages were and your idea that there was no civilisation left in Europe at the time. Even the idea of 'Dark Ages' is not really used by historians any more, it's an outdated concept.

It's ok though, you still get to 'win' 500 years for your Muslim Golden Age. Don't worry, no one is trying to steal it from you. You can keep it for your boasting if want to see it as a competition.

Just pointing out that your 'Super Muslims' Vs 'Mud Hut Europeans' ideas are not really historically accurate.

It was a decline, not a jump off a mountain. Think of it like a wave, with different parts of Europe on different parts of the wave.

Muslims today are sleeping
and some are trying to wake up.

Not you apparently though.

 

[FearGod]

I assume that reading a short wikipedia article was too much effort and you didn't want to have your comicbook version of history challenged.

The Dark Ages relates to the decline in historical records compared to earlier eras, however even some minor local leaders in this period managed to leave better written records than Muhammed and the Rashidun combined.

No one with any knowledge of history has any problem whatsoever about saying the major centres of the Muslim Empire were clearly more advanced at that time. No one has any problem saying Europe was in decline. I'm just trying to correct your misconception about how 'backward' the Dark Ages were and your idea that there was no civilisation left in Europe at the time. Even the idea of 'Dark Ages' is not really used by historians any more, it's an outdated concept.

It's ok though, you still get to 'win' 500 years for your Muslim Golden Age. Don't worry, no one is trying to steal it from you. You can keep it for your boasting if want to see it as a competition.

Just pointing out that your 'Super Muslims' Vs 'Mud Hut Europeans' ideas are not really historically accurate.

It was a decline, not a jump off a mountain. Think of it like a wave, with different parts of Europe on different parts of the wave.
.

Yes of course not completely backward but they were good for nothing.

 

[Augustus]

Yes of course not completely backward but they were good for nothing.

 

[Etritonakin]

If buddhists or lhpers or pagans did try to conquer world i would fund them , i would even consider joining them.But it seems that only the most boring and dull religions try to counquer the world.I think that's because they are the least intelligence for that reason they strike the simple minded man's intelligence most.So why don't other religions try to conquer the world?They would surely make the world a better , or more fun place.Are the cowards or what?They owe that to humanity , they have to rid world of inferior religions.Otherwise the scum shall inherit the world.

As the saying goes... War is not about who is right, it is about who is left.

Many people who would not want to be conquered have guns, so an attempt at world control by people of some pacifist belief system is not likely to be successful.

Some of the main obstacles to world peace are that not everyone wants peace, not everyone knows how to be peaceful, and even if everyone alive at this moment wanted peace and knew how to be peaceful, the next generation may not.

The reason humans cannot create world peace might be summed up in saying that it is impossible to get life right the first time -and some don't want to get it right, anyway.

Therefore, another opportunity for the willing and willing to learn -separate from the unwilling -would be required.

 

[gnostic]

The Mosque of Cordoba is an evidence for the Muslim Golden age during the dark age of Europe,
regardless of from where did Muslims gain the knowledge of architecture, still the fact stands that
Europe was sleeping at that point of time, it isn't shameful to admit it, Muslims today are sleeping
and some are trying to wake up.

I don't think anyone is denying the golden age of Islam, in Spain. No one is forgetting the advances made by Muslims in those centuries - in architecture, science, medicine, and all.

But you shouldn't also deny that Muslims invaded another kingdom. Islam was spread only in Spain, after they have invaded it.

Part of the reason why Islam had spread, is because of conquests had pave the way for Muslims to have Islam being introduced to the conquered people.

Not all conversions were done by violence in wars or invasions, but there are enough of it.

And like all non-Islamic empires, Islamic empires don't like lose control of the kingdoms they have conquered. When non-Muslims seek to eject muslims from their homelands, seeking to rule themselves, independently, what do you think Muslim rulers or Muslims in general call this act?

Freedom fighting? No, they would call it "rebellion", and try to bring non-Muslims down for seeking independence, with swift forces and violence.

But guess what, when Muslims themselves are not in power and in minority, they would call it freedom fighting, instead of act rebellion. That's double standard. Why is it ok for Muslims to rule non-Muslims, and not non-Muslims ruling Muslims?

That's because no matter who is in power, be they Muslims or non-Muslims, they never seek to let go of powers they have won.

Look at Muhammad himself. He didn't have any power in Mecca, when he started out, and was forced into exile. In Medina, he gained political power, and he used it to benefit Muslims over all others.

Medina wasn't his home, and yet he ruled it. He was only supposed to be mediator between feuding tribes, not a ruler, and yet he banished the Banu Qaynuqa, who lived there longer than Muslims have. Muslims say that Jews have isolated the constitution, when they violate a woman and kill a Muslim, but I don't think that the real reason, and only excuse to what followed. I think the expulsion of the Qaynuqa was not accepting him as a prophet and that the Jews were rich merchants, and sizeable properties. When they were expiulsed, they not only lost their lands, but all their wealth. So in essence, Muhammad and his followers were nothing more than pirates or bandits. So much for the Qur'an teaching, that they should only a fifth of plunders.

Muhammad may only call himself prophet or messenger, but he did rule, even if he did not call himself king, not only Medina and Mecca, but the whole peninsula, because he had an army to do his bidding. Other towns and cities surrendered to him not because of Islam, but because he had a large army to intimidate into surrender without a fight.

Muhammad did not release any of his power, until the day he died.

Just like all after Muhammad, no Muslim rulers that I know of, step down without a fight, when people sought independence from Muslim control or rule.

And beside all that. The dark ages didn't occur in the eastern Roman Empire. Constantinople was still flourishing when the western Roman Empire fell to the Ostrogoths. The dark ages don't apply to all of Europe.

 

[gnostic]

Speaking of architecture, while the west was in serious decline, and Rome had fallen in 473 CE, in Byzantium/ Constantinople, the Hagia Sophia was a pinnacle of Byzantine architecture, when they started building it in 537, hence predating the birth of Muhammad. It was home of the Greek Orthodox Church, before the Ottoman Turks converted into a mosque.

Is the Hagia Sophia show decline of Europe of the Dark Ages, FearGod?

Like I said before, FearGod, the Dark Ages didn't occur in all of Europe.

 

[Willamena]

Conqueroring today's world is entirely too complicated.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Conqueroring today's world is entirely too complicated.

“Adolf Hitler is probably the last of the great adventurer-conquerors in the tradition of Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon, and the Third Reich the last of the empires which set out on the path taken earlier by France, Rome and Macedonia. The curtain was rung down on that phase of history, at least, by the sudden invention of the hydrogen bomb, of the ballistic missile and of rockets that can be aimed to hit the moon.” - William Shirer

That quote is what I thought of when I saw this thread, actually.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The history says they were in the dark ages, i asked you for evidences and not to write a composition.

That's completely untrue.
'Dark Ages' refers more to the comparitive lack of documentation from the period, not to the ignorance of the peoples.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I agree with you.
The truthful religions has nothing to do with conquering the world or occupying lands and territories. The truthful religions wins the hearts and souls of the humans.
Regards

So Islam isn't one of the true religions. Good to know.

 

[paarsurrey]

So Islam isn't one of the true religions. Good to know.

Well that is your wrong idea.
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Well that is your wrong idea.
Regards

I'm not the one who disqualified it based on the fact it spread through violence.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Are you sure you want Buddhism to rule the world? If you do I'm all for it. Just keep in mind that Buddhism isn't in conflict with other religions. But my question is do you want Buddhism to become a reality or everyone to become a Buddhist?

 

[paarsurrey]

[QUOTE="ak.yonathan, post: 4493879, member: 58325"]Are you sure you want Buddhism to rule the world? If you do I'm all for it. Just keep in mind that Buddhism isn't in conflict with other religions. But my question is do you want Buddhism to become a reality or everyone to become a Buddhist?[/QUOTE]
Just by thinking one cannot make one a ruler.
Regard

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I just noticed the possibility that the thread title derives from the fact that, more often than not, people who belong to these religious groups have to note their religion as 'Other' on forms. I think this is quite an appropriate response to leave in the event we take over the world.

 

[ak.yonathan]

[QUOTE="ak.yonathan, post: 4493879, member: 58325"]Are you sure you want Buddhism to rule the world? If you do I'm all for it. Just keep in mind that Buddhism isn't in conflict with other religions. But my question is do you want Buddhism to become a reality or everyone to become a Buddhist?

Just by thinking one cannot make one a ruler.
Regard[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid I don't understand. Please clarify!

 

[Straw Dog]

If buddhists or lhpers or pagans did try to conquer world i would fund them , i would even consider joining them.But it seems that only the most boring and dull religions try to counquer the world.I think that's because they are the least intelligence for that reason they strike the simple minded man's intelligence most.So why don't other religions try to conquer the world?They would surely make the world a better , or more fun place.Are the cowards or what?They owe that to humanity , they have to rid world of inferior religions.Otherwise the scum shall inherit the world.

It's impossible to conquer to the world. One may only succeed in expanding the illusion of control.