Wael Hallaq: The State, Freedom, and How Society Disintegrates
- Thread starter Galool
- Start date
Hallaq is an intresting author. But the islamizcie account is making hallaq look retarded by screenshoting the few fringe views he holds. The idea that china didn't use violence or expand is ridiculous they did towards the interior. He's making him look like a crackpot who doesn't know history
No where does it state that they didn’t use violence. Violence has existed everywhere.
He pointed out that they never used their technology to try and conquer other lands the way european have with colonialism nor was all their discoveries immediately used for military use like Europeans.
There are clear examples stated about ships, gun powder and steam engines. It is clear in this analysis he is correct. Europe is unique in its barbarism.
he gives more examples like the creation of the computer and modern medicine, all meant to be military weapons in origins. Even the gps we use today was created for military purposes. Nearly all western “advancements” are military weapons.
To be fair to him, I think there is surprising truth to it.
China discovered gun powder as well as the cannon long before everyone and they knew of its potential but left it buried in their history and archives.
It was only until the Mongol invasions and consequent pillaging, those scrolls would find their way to the west, upon which rapid innovation of them would begin, for the sole purpose of conquest.
There was a good book that turned into a great BBC documentary that I cant source right now (maybe I will later), that aptly explains why China developed as it did, which was that, it was largely due to its eastern philosophy, namely Confucianism.
I am not maligning Westerners but it was them that set up camp on remote Japanese Islands and sold weapons to the Japanese, whom were in a bloody civil war. Even after the natives in disgust rejected their new arms arms and killed the merchants. America would show up and force them them to barter at (warship mounted) gun point.
Much of this this also bears out in the crusades too.
Historians and academics like John mearsheimer and Samuel Huntington go into in much more detail.
― Samuel P. Huntington in his book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order"
You are missing the point.
I had a chance to listen to the episode, its remarkable.
First, why did the host and his team expose his early vulnerabilities like that lol. In the first few minutes, you can tell he was jittery and just starting to settle in and was asking the host, how long the session would take, I think, in order to determine how in depth he should aim to be. This segment and the next few minutes should have really been cut of. Poor guy
His claim of Arabs not wanting to be neurotic and rule with a "top down" or with an iron fist rule is very interesting, its one of those surprising things I have come across. For example, Roy Casagranda stated this in at least two his lectures,
I think How Islam Saved Western Civilization and A Very Brief History of Western Civilization. Roy Casagranda strikes me as a biased source, for one he is drunk on Liberalism and is married to a Muslim Arab, but what do you know, there may be some truth to it after all.
He is also like some of those linguists (Chomsky, Pinker, Labov), he stresses how language informs the human mind and as a result, like mice looking through the holes of a Swiss cheese, can only think and perceive through their tongue but has a very interesting way of demonstrating it
Wich is that westerners and easterners are divided by their common set of tongues. To him it is the explaining factor why the Chinese went about their empire as they did and also the Arabs going about theirs as they did, ie "You have your religion, and I have mine". To him, this is in contrast to the Westerners went about their conquests.
Muslims seeing their Islamic scientific endeavours as an exercise to understand and grasp god's intellect is something I liked and found interesting and he once again contrasts it with its western counterpart, in this part he was really getting to the core of Liberalism and how the scientific method is being used to realise its ambitions such as multi planetary, transhumanism, ghost in a shell, singularity etc etc. He deviates, or rather the host pushes him forward.
I really do wish he continued with his line of thought here, as I did did want to learn of his thoughts on was the Islamic perspective was/is.
This is something that Aleksandr Dugin has written and spoken about extensively. Well, before Amazon, YouTube, Google, Goodreads did their masters bidding and wiped his books and lectures of the face of the earth. Its interesting because Dugging is said to have Putin's ear, and he rapidly distanced himself from Liberalism and is continuously aligning himself with the east, ie Russia Allows Hijab in Citizenship Application Photos.
Allot of the segments he touches are really interesting but so far he really seems to address them at surface level before moving on, to be fair, I think its the medium. Podcast/Interviews are not suited for such material and at best are meant to compliment them. I will add a book or two of his to my hopeless reading list
First, why did the host and his team expose his early vulnerabilities like that lol. In the first few minutes, you can tell he was jittery and just starting to settle in and was asking the host, how long the session would take, I think, in order to determine how in depth he should aim to be. This segment and the next few minutes should have really been cut of. Poor guy
His claim of Arabs not wanting to be neurotic and rule with a "top down" or with an iron fist rule is very interesting, its one of those surprising things I have come across. For example, Roy Casagranda stated this in at least two his lectures,
I think How Islam Saved Western Civilization and A Very Brief History of Western Civilization. Roy Casagranda strikes me as a biased source, for one he is drunk on Liberalism and is married to a Muslim Arab, but what do you know, there may be some truth to it after all.
He is also like some of those linguists (Chomsky, Pinker, Labov), he stresses how language informs the human mind and as a result, like mice looking through the holes of a Swiss cheese, can only think and perceive through their tongue but has a very interesting way of demonstrating it
Wich is that westerners and easterners are divided by their common set of tongues. To him it is the explaining factor why the Chinese went about their empire as they did and also the Arabs going about theirs as they did, ie "You have your religion, and I have mine". To him, this is in contrast to the Westerners went about their conquests.
Muslims seeing their Islamic scientific endeavours as an exercise to understand and grasp god's intellect is something I liked and found interesting and he once again contrasts it with its western counterpart, in this part he was really getting to the core of Liberalism and how the scientific method is being used to realise its ambitions such as multi planetary, transhumanism, ghost in a shell, singularity etc etc. He deviates, or rather the host pushes him forward.
I really do wish he continued with his line of thought here, as I did did want to learn of his thoughts on was the Islamic perspective was/is.
This is something that Aleksandr Dugin has written and spoken about extensively. Well, before Amazon, YouTube, Google, Goodreads did their masters bidding and wiped his books and lectures of the face of the earth. Its interesting because Dugging is said to have Putin's ear, and he rapidly distanced himself from Liberalism and is continuously aligning himself with the east, ie Russia Allows Hijab in Citizenship Application Photos.
Allot of the segments he touches are really interesting but so far he really seems to address them at surface level before moving on, to be fair, I think its the medium. Podcast/Interviews are not suited for such material and at best are meant to compliment them. I will add a book or two of his to my hopeless reading list
Last edited:
I will admit that its genuinely good surprised to see you share a Christian writers perspective on Islam. 
I was really surprised to see the beautiful art adorned (the giraffes), in what I could only assume to be a Muslim studio, in a Muslim country. But I later on learned they are in New York.
I wonder what is your position in having art of animate objects such as animals (no humans)?
I was really surprised to see the beautiful art adorned (the giraffes), in what I could only assume to be a Muslim studio, in a Muslim country. But I later on learned they are in New York.
I wonder what is your position in having art of animate objects such as animals (no humans)?
I will admit that its genuinely good surprised to see you share a Christian writers perspective on Islam.
I was really surprised to see the beautiful art adorned (the giraffes), in what I could only assume to be a Muslim studio, in a Muslim country. But I later on learned they are in New York.
I wonder what is your position in having art of animate objects such as animals (no humans)?
I shared it because it is an interesting critique of modernism/liberalism and the beauty of Islam coming from a non-Muslim from Muslim lands.
As for drawing and keeping animate objects it’s forbidden.
Ruling on Drawing Animate Beings - Islam Question & Answer
Drawing pictures of animate beings is haram. There is nothing wrong with drawing pictures of inanimate objects such as mountains, trees, planes, cars, etc.
islamqa.info
Yeah i rmeebr watching a video where they talked about this on safina society. In the malik school of fiqh. A compeltet three dimensional figure od a creature with a soul is prohibited ( a human or animal) so like a statue would be haram. But if it was missing some vital part or it was 2 dimensional then it's only makruh. I also think they said it's even less of an issue if it's like a digital creation. Like some art you created online
ZBR
سبحان اللهِ وبحمدِه Free Palestine
War is the key to success as long as you don’t stop, victory is to the last one standing
War unifies with you potential allies
War gives you more land to grow food to grow your population
More capital
Captives
Prestige and res
Superiority of Romans has a lot to do with their bellicosity even according to hadith
Also what he said is true that Western European were constantly fending of invasions from eastern nomads both Slavic Scythian and farther eastern Asiatics constant warfare sharpened them like iron
Many of these attributes that made them so populous and continue to grow in numbers is their bellicosity and also their gentleness to theirselves
