Do you personally think that Ottoman rule or European rule was more beneficial for the Arab world?

Apr 2019
162
India
#13
If Ottoman rule was so great, why would a bunch of Arab tribes go out of their way to ally with and seek the aid and protection of the British Empire in the early 20th century?
Because they wanted to endorse their own version of religion and wanted to have hegemony over Islamic world. They were useful idiots for Brits(later for US). On the other hand British wanted to cripple the Islamic world permanently by creating conflicts in their dominion as they saw them as their competition. In addition to this they wanted to keep the Islamic mind stunted by introducing radical version of Islam. They trained many Wahabi clerics between borders of modern Afganistan and Pakistan and send them to Saudi Arabia. This version of Sunni Islam never participated in Indian freedom struggle and later became the prime reason for partition of India. Muslim world used to be far more progressive but they made sure to create border conflicts before withdrawing from the area. Brits also helped to make Shia-Sunni conflict permanent so that Islamic countries keep fighting among themselves. So all in all wherever Brits set their feet they created mayhem just for fun. It will take centuries to clean their mess.
 
Likes: Futurist
Mar 2016
870
Australia
#14
Because they wanted to endorse their own version of religion and wanted to have hegemony over Islamic world. They were useful idiots for Brits(later for US). On the other hand British wanted to cripple the Islamic world permanently by creating conflicts in their dominion as they saw them as their competition. In addition to this they wanted to keep the Islamic mind stunted by introducing radical version of Islam. They trained many Wahabi clerics between borders of modern Afganistan and Pakistan and send them to Saudi Arabia. This version of Sunni Islam never participated in Indian freedom struggle and later became the prime reason for partition of India. Muslim world used to be far more progressive but they made sure to create border conflicts before withdrawing from the area. Brits also helped to make Shia-Sunni conflict permanent so that Islamic countries keep fighting among themselves. So all in all wherever Brits set their feet they created mayhem just for fun. It will take centuries to clean their mess.
Do you have sources for all of these highly emotive and dramatic claims you make?
 
Likes: Futurist
Aug 2009
5,214
Londinium
#15
people should understand there were always empires before the colonists, what colonists did was something really different and much worse. before the ottomans, there were arabs before them there were persians, before them there were babylonians/ assyrians. But these were not colonists, only empires.

i dont really understand when some indians ask the same questions, was mughal empire worse than british empire, my answer is always the same, mughal empire cannot be compared to the british colonists, one was ruling from dehli/india one from london thousand miles away, one infact improved indian economy, one decimated it, one adopted indian culture, while the other tried to impose its own. even though both were foreigners, the mughals came and settled in india and intermarried with the indians and after few generations they virtually looked like rajputs. One lived with the indians the other established black and white towns so that it doesnt mix with them. though the colonial interpretation of indian history since mughal period adopts colour of colonial mindset that mughal colonists came and imposed everything central asian in india, i have always argued this colonial argument, mughals made indian culture golden and indian culture flourished, indian architecture is declared central asian just because of colonial thought process, they think that since they tried to impose their english architecture in india, all the previous foreign rulers of india tried to do the same.

persian empire adopted mesopotamian culture, egyptian culture not the other way around, same goes to arabs who improved the persian gondeshpur academy and created house of wisdom. They were not like colonists who imposed their own institutions and identity over others.

regards
I suggest you read more about ancient middle eastern history before making such false and sweeping statements.

The Persians were masters of colonial rule; moving entire populations to benefit the empire, imposing Persian culture and language among the elites while allowing everyone to do as they wished so long as they didn't rebel and paid taxes - the same as your beloved Mughal rule.

The Ottomans, Assyrians and to a lesser extent the Babylonians all did the same. Check out the population movements under Assyrian or Ottoman rule for starters.

Trying to, and failing, to re define words to suit your own sensibilities and protect your own shortcomings in historical understanding wont work. Is it even needed? We have all seen every single one of your posts; anti-British and pro-Indian why not just ctrl+c and ctrl+v your Historum contribution and stop derailing threads by imposing your own agenda, as you have done here.
 
Aug 2009
5,214
Londinium
#17
He is Pakistani though.
Self-respecting Indian people despise Mughal rule.
You'll forgive me for assuming his Indian given the state of the Asian sub-forum, and the prevalence of "British/west bad - Indian good" threads and opinions.

You've even given an example of the other common theme in Asian section, India-Pak mud slinging.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2019
162
India
#19
You'll forgive me for assuming his Indian given the state of the Asian sub-forum, and the prevalence of "British/west bad - Indian good" threads and opinions.

You've even given an example of the other common theme in Asian section, India-Pak mud slinging.
You've also given me an example of another common theme, assuming things which don't exist.
Where on earth is the mud slinging?
Infact I'm happay that despite being a Pakistani he doesn't deny his ancient Indian roots.
Only thing I dislike is his tendency of going overboard with his accusations. That's why I like annoying him.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions