Some were Bedouin, but most were not. But no matter, it's still fair to say it was confiscated. Some people occupied the land, some other people drove them off. That's confiscation.
How do you deal with Islam?
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
That isn't people changing though, it is just their environment changing. And most of that improved environment is for only a percentage of the world population.
If you took a person from today and dropped them in the past, they would soon adapt to act as was required then. Same with plucking someone from then and dropping them into the now.
I disagree. Different environments and nurturing techniques can change brain structure and thus the person and their "nature"--number of neural connections, ability of prefrontal cortex to control the emotions from the amygdala, etc.
As for the % of the world that has that improved environment, it is smaller than we should like, for sure. But it is growing.
As for plucking a person from 1000, 2000 years ago, it depends when you snatch them in their development. The odds are that any such person would have been subjected to malnutrition, child abuse (and therefore psychological trauma), a womb awash in a mother's cortisol from stress (at dying, starving, being raped, murdered, etc.), and other factors that would change their propensity to react in a "healthy" manner by our standards (control of anger, getting along, etc.).
Hm. So if you and I are walking in the woods and we see a shiny gold coin in the path, we both struggle to get it, and I end up with it, have I confiscated your property?
I don’t think nomads claim ownership.
Bedouins do claim ownership of land. But it is a collective title, rather than individual. You're trying to claim their rights don't matter because they are different from fee simple?
Ownership means different things to different cultures. And while many cultures might not have the same notions of individual ownership as we find in the West, they might have tribal ownership ideas that would lead to the same thing as we're talking about here.
You have a more optimistic viewpoint on the human condition than I do. The brain eventually adapts and I think it can adapt to barbarity just as well as civilization. It wouldn't be an overnight process but abundance breeds civility and scarcity breeds incivility. You then sprinkle in other external factors and "voila" people.
The edges would be rougher on the person brought forward and more rounded on the one sent back, but each would eventually adapt to their environment.
Actually, I think you're more optimistic than I am. I'm advancing a type of biological "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" argument, to a degree. And saying that the type of tricks you can teach depend on the environment the dog grows up in.
Your point re abundance and scarcity is true, but it also breeds different neural pathway formation, number of neurons or neural connections, etc.
I don’t follow the argument. I understand the concept of collective ownership. That is present in our hirptory and exists in various contexts to this day. It’s certainly possible that Bedouins claimed collective ownership, but nothing you have posted is convincing.
It’s also conceivable the Jews diminishEd some right. But I don’t think “confiscation” is a way to describe it. And I don’t know what that right might be.
Yes, and I will preface this by saying I am not a neurologist, but can't the brain form new pathways throughout life? You can teach old dogs new tricks, it just requires more effort with age.
I still believe we have free will. Sometimes choices are harder to make based on circu.stances but we all have the ability to overcome and adapt.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
No excuse. I crashed and burned on a bad assumption.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Topic is people killing other people in Middle East. Pointing out our own country has that issue is staying on topic
Question was asked about whether the imam saw any problem with Muslims having more than one wife.
Imam responded, "More than one mother-in law can be a problem".
Audience laughed loudly.
Idk. End times maybe? Who knowsThey got around it for centuries, allowing Christian and Jews to exist within Islam, while treating them as second-class citizens (which still allowed them to rise the ranks and live fairly peaceful lives, most of the time):
The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
The Dhimmi
Still, as People of the Book, Jews (and Christians) are protected under Islamic law. The traditional concept of the dhimma (writ of protection) was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were allowed as dhimmis (protected persons) to practice their faith. This protection did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to openly acknowledge the superiority of the true believer – the Muslim.
In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the tribute (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a nonMuslim as a wife).
Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.(4)"
For a nomadic or shepherding society, think of it as a right of use. The farming society is going to think of that differently.
Remember from property class: “property rights” is a bundle of sticks. Each stick representing a different type of right under the umbrella term “property.”
You might like this. Just popped up in my feed:
Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
Before epilepsy was understood to be a neurological condition, people believed it was caused by the moon, or by phlegm in the brain. They condemned seizures as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession, and killed or castrated sufferers to prevent them from passing tainted blood to a new...
Not at the time Islam was founded. Christians didn't start purging non-believers until later.
Because Israel wasn't created by might makes right. They were created by a world governing body - the UN.
Edit: Never mind - I got my posts mixed up. I'm too lazy to go look back and look up what I was replying to. Old age will do that.
Last edited:
Brad, I like you because you can tell me I'm full of shit and actually make me think I agree with you. lol
I'm not saying human behavior hasn't changed ever - I know I said it, but I should have elaborated.
I'm saying when you strip a human being down to a basic being, we're the same as we've always been. Take away our technology, our social norms, etc., and we're no different than someone who lived 5,000 years ago in terms of basic human motivations. And I think Hamas exemplifies that.
I believe Menachem Begin was a member of Irgun.
They were more interested in driving out the British than the Arabs before Israel became a state.
I admit I read about a third of it and skimmed the rest, but this guy is obviously very intelligent and can come to a conclusion that really makes no sense.You might like this. Just popped up in my feed:
Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
Before epilepsy was understood to be a neurological condition, people believed it was caused by the moon, or by phlegm in the brain. They condemned seizures as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession, and killed or castrated sufferers to prevent them from passing tainted blood to a new...phys.org
There are a lot of very smart people who believed defunding the police would help the crime problem.
Coming to a logical (in your mind) conclusion doesn't mean it's right. And think this guy is WAY off the rails. Of course we're all born with a certain personality and behavioral traits - I see it in my grandchildren how they are from birth. Some things don't change. But NO free will? No, I don't buy that.
Wasn't Justinian a convert? I'm not saying individuals didn't persecute others, but I don't think it was the Caholic church's mission to wipe out all non-believers before much later.
'Think' being the key word. I'm not an expert in medieval history.
So, in a sense, it's like one tribe taking land from another tribe, no?
Pretty sure that's happened many times throughout history.
This was the sixth century, while the church was still sorting itself out, and when the emperors could and did sometimes exert a lot of ecclesiastical control. Justinian was one of the emperors who did. He believed that the stability of the empire demanded theological uniformity, and he zealously persecuted not only pagans, but Christian heretics, as well. Most famously, he was the emperor who finally shut down the Academy for good, ending open pagan studies.
Zionist and socialist at the time. Only way they thought they could build the farm.
Oh, OK. He was head of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Who was the 3rd century Roman emperor who converted?
Well, I suppose because they knew more Jews in the ME was bound to cause a war with Arabs.
I was looking him up and saw he just did a podcast with Jordan Peterson. I’ll check it out. He’s also got a great head of hair.
The first emperor who converted was Constantine, in the early 4th century. That's probably who you are thinking of.
Be cautious with the East/West stuff. The Eastern Roman Empire of Justinian was the Roman Empire, as the west had already collapsed and fallen to the barbarians. In fact, Justinian was the last emperor to truly be able to exert authority in both east and west. The inability of his successors to do the same is what led to the Vatican eventually turning to Charlemagne and the Franks for protection.
Edit: Ironically, Constantine was also the one who started the whole East/West thing when he moved his capital to Byzantium/Constantinople. He divided up his unruly empire to make it easier to govern.
If my memory of the history of Rome podcast is correct, Christianity wasn’t the official religion of the empire until Theodosius.
Constantine converted but also continued to tolerate paganism.
I don't understand the relevance. They were expelled from land they previous enjoyed use of. Whether or not you find yourself capable of justifying such expulsion doesn't change the fact that it happened.
If one group of homeless people move into a park where another group of homeless people reside, and the first group leaves, I don’t think words like “confiscate” and “expelled” apply.
Well, okay, but that's not remotely a meaningful analogy to what happened to Palestinian Arabs.
