Two events in history which put flourishing Islamic world into reverse gear

[Kambojaric]

Well I am not entirely sure since I am not super religious but I read once that the prophet had his followers memorize the revelations orally and later on, it was written down.


This is a perfectly logical and rationally explanation towards saying that the Quran was created, though it is the word of god.

The mainstream theory on the Quran today is that since it is the word of God, hence it is impossible to speak or act against it. The Mu'tazila (again as far as I know, I am not claiming to be a scholar or specialist on them and am open to correction), claimed that since the Quran is created as you say, it is susceptible to error, since man is inherently a creature of error. The word of God is infallible but the Quran came to us through a medium that is flawed, i.e a man writing words down on a piece of paper. This as you see can become an extremely controversial topic.

True but the Al-Mu'tazilah sect would still be considered as too orthodox by most Muslims nowadays. Besides it also had some faults that are ignored nowadays which is also partially why it never really survived its relatively short heydays.

Anyway the life of the founder of the Al-Mu'tazilah school is certainly interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasil_ibn_Ata

and how his views interact with those of a titan like Hasan al Basri (ra).

In what way do you believe they would be perceived as too orthodox? I am interested in learning different opinions about them and it would be great if you could suggest some literature on them?

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

The mainstream theory on the Quran today is that since it is the word of God, hence it is impossible to speak or act against it. The Mu'tazila (again as far as I know, I am not claiming to be a scholar or specialist on them and am open to correction), claimed that since the Quran is created as you say, it is susceptible to error, since man is inherently a creature of error. The word of God is infallible but the Quran came to us through a medium that is flawed, i.e a man writing words down on a piece of paper. This as you see can become an extremely controversial topic.

I can see how that is controversial. But seriously if the middle east is fine with Assad being leader of Syria then how crazy is it that someone fucked up when writing the Quran on paper? It does not push any fault on Allah or the last prophet. it just shows how as humans we make mistakes.

 

[That Guy]

This is my model of a Muslim super state in North Africa which is connected to 3 sea lines of communications. This is how a viable state looks like.

* Superstate in white colors.

View attachment 358992

It's a mix of well off and poor nations. How would you go about addressing integration, both economically and militarily?

So you rather be pan-islamic then nationalistic?

I have very little stake in anything that happens in Muslim nations, as I live in Canada. My personal feels are irrelevant.

But since you asked, I'm not pan-Islamic, nor am I a nationalist. If Muslim nations do come together, it will likely be in the form of a EU type of union, where each state still maintain sovereignty. In my opinion, this is the most likely outcome, but will likely never happen.

The second scenario I see is if the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) actually gets its act together, and declares a Caliph and a Caliphat, neither of which is likely to happen.

 

[Al-Andalus]

The mainstream theory on the Quran today is that since it is the word of God, hence it is impossible to speak or act against it. The Mu'tazila (again as far as I know, I am not claiming to be a scholar or specialist on them and am open to correction), claimed that since the Quran is created as you say, it is susceptible to error, since man is inherently a creature of error. The word of God is infallible but the Quran came to us through a medium that is flawed, i.e a man writing words down on a piece of paper. This as you see can become an extremely controversial topic.



In what way do you believe they would be perceived as too orthodox? I am interested in learning different opinions about them and it would be great if you could suggest some literature on them?

Basically any Muslim (Muslim as well as non-Muslim actually) society that lived this far back in time would be/is perceived as orthodox in today's world. You just have to take a look at something as simple/rather unimportant in the wider picture like the role of the hijab/niqab in today's society in the Muslim world and how it is discussed nowadays. In particular in the West in relation to the Muslim communities here but not only in the West. Less than 100 years ago almost every Muslim woman wore a hijab or some kind of headscarf. There was nothing "strange" about it or "oppressing" etc.

Take a look at the various traditional dresses worn in the Muslim world just 100 years ago when the Ottoman Empire still existed.

This is apparently a traditional Ottoman dress (people can Google the photo themselves):



(traditional dress worn in Bosnia during that era)


and here is WW2 footage from Albania (Tirana the main city). Notice the women except two of them. Now imagine how it must have been on the countryside in Albania.

And how quickly that changed just 1 decade later in all 3 countries.

In essence most Muslim personalities would be considered as "Wahhabis/Salafis" (to use two buzzwords/words that are used to highlight conservative/orthodox strains within modern-day Islam) if they had lived today by most Muslims if they actually bothered to scrutinize their lives, views and actions. In fact I have concluded the same with most non-Muslim communities as well. Essentially back then cultures were dominated by conservatism and what was then considered liberal would naturally be considered as something conservative in today's world. Which might as well become the case in say 100 years when people look back at our current era and what was considered liberal and non-liberal etc.

My point is that people (at least the societies and those in power/decision-makers/those that can influence the discourse) are slowly moving away from religion/becoming less observant which basically nullifies the importance of which sects are predominant and which are not. I mean at the end of the day all Muslim sects have much more in common than the opposite.

As for reading material, I have quite a few good books written about them in Arabic. Not read anything about them in English but I would be very surprised if there were not a lot of literature. I mean the Al-Mu'tazilah school is often used in today's discourse in terms of what theological changes the Muslim world is in need of etc.

Anyway overall I am quite positively inclined towards the Al-Mu'tazilah expect for a few disagreements which some would say were not only minor but it is what it is. Everything in moderation as I use to say.

 

[Kambojaric]

I can see how that is controversial. But seriously if the middle east is fine with Assad being leader of Syria then how crazy is it that someone fucked up when writing the Quran on paper? It does not push any fault on Allah or the last prophet. it just shows how as humans we make mistakes.

Is it fine with him being the leader of Syria though ? And the position you took makes logical sense, but you will find that some Muslims will go to the extent of killing individuals who have a different approach to a core issue of their faith.

Basically any Muslim (Muslim as well as non-Muslim actually) society that lived this far back in time would be/is perceived as orthodox in today's world. You just have to take a look at something as simple/rather unimportant in the wider picture like the role of the hijab/niqab in today's society in the Muslim world and how it is discussed nowadays. In particular in the West in relation to the Muslim communities here but not only in the West. Less than 100 years ago almost every Muslim woman wore a hijab or some kind of headscarf. There was nothing "strange" about it or "oppressing" etc.

Take a look at the various traditional dresses worn in the Muslim world just 100 years ago when the Ottoman Empire still existed.

This is apparently a traditional Ottoman dress (people can Google the photo themselves):



(traditional dress worn in Bosnia during that era)


and here is WW2 footage from Albania (Tirana the main city). Notice the women except two of them. Now imagine how it must have been on the countryside in Albania.

And how quickly that changed just 1 decade later in all 3 countries.

In essence most Muslim personalities would be considered as "Wahhabis/Salafis" (to use two buzzwords/words that are used to highlight everything bad nowadays by many Muslims) if they had lived today by most Muslims if they actually bothered to scrutinize their lives, views and actions. In fact I have concluded the same with most non-Muslim communities as well. Essentially back then cultures were dominated by conservatism and what was then considered liberal would naturally be considered as something conservative in today's world. Which might as well become the case in say 100 years when people look back at our current era and what was considered liberal and non-liberal etc.

My point is that people (at least the societies and those in power/decision-makers/those that can influence the discourse) are slowly moving away from religion/becoming less observant which basically nullifies the importance of which sects are predominant and which are not. I mean at the end of the day all Muslim sects have much more in common than the opposite.

As for reading material, I have quite a few good books written about them in Arabic. Not read anything about them in English but I would be very surprised if there were not a lot of literature. I mean the Al-Mu'tazilah school is often used in today's discourse in terms of what theological changes the Muslim world is in need of etc.

Anyway overall I am quite positively inclined towards the Al-Mu'tazilah expect for a few disagreements which some would say were not only minor but it is what it is. Everything in moderation as I use to say.

Interesting. However what is to say an adherent of the al mu'tazilah in the modern era would not have adapted with time just as other sects have. If you brought a Hanafi, Salafi, Wahabi whatever from the 1800s to the modern era, they would most probably not understand or recognize their own partners in faith due the change in our attire. However people change with time and there is nothing to suggest that in a hypothetical scenario where mu'tazilaism remained the main school of thought in Islam, that adherents of this sect would have refused to change their attire or appearance.

 

[GiannKall]

Of course Nobels will go to westerners. Muslims, Indians, Chinese, Russians have very few chances to take Nobel. They will only if they promote western agenda

 

[Al-Andalus]

Interesting. However what is to say an adherent of the al mu'tazilah in the modern era would not have adapted with time just as other sects have. If you brought a Hanafi, Salafi, Wahabi whatever from the 1800s to the modern era, they would most probably not understand or recognize their own partners in faith due the change in our attire. However people change with time and there is nothing to suggest that in a hypothetical scenario where mu'tazilaism remained the main school of thought in Islam, that adherents of this sect would have refused to change their attire or appearance.

My point was merely that Al Mu'tazilah school, at least nowadays, is supported/admired/talked positively about by Muslims who mostly have overall liberal views compared to mainstream Islam regardless of sect (Sunni or Shia). "Hipster Muslims" if I may say. However those same individuals are often not aware of the overall conservative nature of Al Mu'tazilah school and that doctrines main key followers, compared to today's standards in much of the Muslim world.

I am not saying anything about 9th century Al Mu'tazilah school not being able to reform 1200 years later in today's society (or reforming gradually), if that doctrine had gained "supremacy", but rather that the doctrine during its heydays would be considered (as well) as an orthodox branch of Islam overall today. Which is not really that surprising considering the distance in time and the fact that most Islamic sects have much more in common than the opposite.

I am not arguing about the positives or negatives of the al Mu'tazillah but rather questioning whether them having gained supremacy back then and kept it to this day, would have changed many of the problems that the Muslim world faces. Probably a few of them but certainly not all of them, thus I question the rationality of those, who see that school as some kind of savior.

This conclusion of mine might sound like I have a problem with the school but that is, as I wrote before, not the case although, as I also wrote before, I do have a few reservations, some more important than others, when it comes to areas of their doctrine.

Of course Nobels will go to westerners. Muslims, Indians, Chinese, Russians have very few chances to take Nobel. They will only if they promote western agenda

The Nobel prize is not really the final nor the single benchmark either. I don't know how many Nobel prizes China has, but I doubt that winning such a prize is the main concern of Chinese scientists and intellectuals to be honest with you. As for bias, I see it as evident. At least partially.

In fact the Muslim world should create something along the Nobel Prize to encourage science in the Muslim world and motivate the youth to explore that field. At least people would be able to identify with such a thing better.

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

I am not arguing about the positives or negatives of the al Mu'tazillah but rather questioning whether them having gained supremacy back then and kept it to this day, would have changed many of the problems that the Muslim world faces. Probably a few of them but certainly not all of them, thus I question the rationality of those, who see that school as some kind of savior.

You bring up an interesting point. I still think corruption and bureaucracy are the main things pulling the middle east and Muslim world behind.

 

[Al-Andalus]

You bring up an interesting point. I still think corruption and bureaucracy are the main things pulling the middle east and Muslim world behind.

That's why, whenever I am discussing Islamic history, sects etc. try to distinguish between theology in its pure form and everything else although such a distinction, for obvious reasons, is harder to make in the Muslim world let alone this far back in time. However it is possible to make such a distinction.

I still believe that most of the problems in the Muslim world, at least our part of the world, have little to do with religion (any religion for that matter) in itself (pure form) but rather various other reasons. If people insist on using religion in particular Islam as the scapegoat, I usually and IMO rightly (at least this is what I believe) point out that this is often rooted in a insufficient, ineffective or wrong interpretation/application of the religion in the society/political system/by the masses/influential clerics.
Anyway discussions such as these are complicated, often controversial and can last for long so I will end it here and say that although the Muslim world faces many problems, the overall tendency is nevertheless for things to move in a better direction (if you look past all the negatives in the media and look at the actual data) and that certain events in the past have indeed contributed to the dismiss of the Muslim world compared to the rise of the West for instance, but that those events have not contributed to that solely by their own but that tons of other factors have done so as well. Factors that you could write several books about and which have been written by many authors in Arabic, English and probably many other languages.

Anyway I believe that intellectuals within the Muslim world should be discussing such topics more frequently and more openly and that the masses (Muslims) should be tolerant in this regard. I see this gaining more and more popularity in KSA, the GCC and much of the Arab world. I mean free speech in this regard. Unfortunately there are people who are not interested in discourse or solving problems but to not have their world views challenged by anybody at anytime which is a big problem for any kind of progress in a society. That tendency itself is the root of many of our problems as I see it.

Enough of talking. Will watch some NBA (The Beard's team vs Westbrook) before I close down for today/tonight.

 

[Kompromat]

I have no problem with that, Afghanistan and Pakistan were a single country for centuries. We don't produce enough Nobel scientists because our general social structure needs a thaw through viable statehood or wars of conquest between Muslim countries.

Maybe Afghanistan should annex Pakistan?

The tiny state of Israel has 185 Nobel Laurates.
From that follows that Muslims must create superstates to get more laurates .

No. The purpose of this super state is to have powerful Muslim states like Egypt or Algeria or both to annxe failed Muslim states which border them so their growth can be mainstreamed to unleash their potential. The purpose is not to build a greater Egypt or Algeria but to create a new viable country which provides greater security and economic growth to countries like Chad and Niger.

Cut out Niger and Chad then we should be good.

You don't have to unify them, you just have to overthrow their Govt's and give them the opportunity to become part of a country with vast population, resources and 3 Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs). Economics will do the rest.

They will never get along with north african nations. As much as I would love to think that people are tolerant in North Africa, they simply aren't. A black Muslim would be accepted but a black christian? Even then Niger and Chad are vastly different from the rest of North Africa, These two nations have 100s of languages,tribes and dialects. It would take Trillions of dollars and 100s of years to unify them and centralize them.

I'm actually mixing countries with little or no 'National Power' with those who do. Economics will have to be shared, full spectrum military conscription for 30 years with each super state having at the most minimum 1 million uniformed men at arms for 30 years, then they will adopt standing armies and quit conscription.

It's a mix of well off and poor nations. How would you go about addressing integration, both economically and militarily?


I have very little stake in anything that happens in Muslim nations, as I live in Canada. My personal feels are irrelevant.

But since you asked, I'm not pan-Islamic, nor am I a nationalist. If Muslim nations do come together, it will likely be in the form of a EU type of union, where each state still maintain sovereignty. In my opinion, this is the most likely outcome, but will likely never happen.

The second scenario I see is if the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) actually gets its act together, and declares a Caliph and a Caliphat, neither of which is likely to happen.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The tiny state of Israel has 185 Nobel Laurates.

Source?

And here is science Nobel Prizes by country by per capita. I refuse to accept that there exists such a thing as 'Muslim Word' other than as a conveniece. Looking by country gives us the nuanced product. Pakistan as can be seen is ahead of India

Per 10 million Nobels. There are over 190 countries in the world. Most don't even make it on the list including that bastion of civilization, Saudia Arabia. Too many dollars not enough neurons.

Rank

Country Nobel
laureates[1] Population
(2015)[2] Laureates/
10 million
— Faroe Islands 1 48,199 207.473
1 Saint Lucia 1 184,999 54.054
2 Luxembourg 2 567,110 35.267
3 Switzerland 20 8,298,663 24.100
4 Austria 18 8,544,586 21.066
5 Denmark 10 5,669,081 17.640
6 Sweden 17 9,779,426 17.383
7 United Kingdom 104 64,715,810 16.070
8 Norway 8 5,210,967 15.352
9 Netherlands 19 16,924,929 11.226
10 Germany 89 80,688,545 11.030
11 United States 327 321,773,631 10.162
12 Israel 8 8,064,036 9.921
13 Cyprus 1 1,165,300 8.581
14 Hungary 8 9,855,023 8.118
— European Union[6] 346 505,150,401 6.849
15 New Zealand 3 4,528,526 6.625
16 France 37 64,395,345 5.746
17 Canada 20 35,939,927 5.565
18 Finland 3 5,503,457 5.451
19 Belgium 6 11,299,192 5.310
20 Latvia 1 1,970,503 5.075
21 Slovenia 1 2,067,526 4.837
22 Australia 11 23,968,973 4.589
23 Ireland 2 4,688,465 4.266
24 Lithuania 1 2,878,405 3.474
25 Czech Republic 3 10,543,186 2.845
26 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 3,810,416 2.624
27 Croatia 1 4,240,317 2.358
28 Italy 13 59,797,685 2.174
29 Japan 22 126,573,481 1.738
— Hong Kong 1 7,287,983 1.372
30 Poland 5 38,611,794 1.295
31 Russia 16 143,456,918 1.115
32 Belarus 1 9,495,826 1.053
33 Azerbaijan 1 9,753,968 1.025
34

Romania 2 19,511,324 1.025
35 Portugal 1 10,349,803 0.966
36 South Africa 4 54,490,406 0.734
37 Argentina 3 43,416,755 0.691
38 Spain 2 46,121,699 0.434
39 Taiwan 1 23,381,038 0.428
40 Venezuela 1 31,108,083 0.321
41 Morocco 1 34,377,511 0.291
42 Algeria 1 39,666,519 0.252
43 Ukraine 1 44,823,765 0.223
44

Turkey 1 78,665,830 0.127
45

Egypt 1 91,508,084 0.109
46

Mexico 1 127,017,224 0.079
47

Pakistan 1 188,924,874 0.053
48

Brazil 1 207,847,528 0.048
49

India 6 1,311,050,527 0.046
50

China 5 1,376,048,943 0.036

Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita

And if you must haul around this 'Muslim' thing then why not compare the Hindu world, the Black World or even the Christian World to see results? It's not like the open defacating Hindu civilizations has reached the stars or the Negroes of Africa are marching into the future with colonies being set up on Mars. Let's face it right now only the Western world which mostly is another euphemism for the 'White world' that is doing well for around 400 years.

 

[Al-Andalus]

Source?

And here is science Nobel Prizes by country by per capita. I refuse to accept that there exists such a thing as 'Muslim Word' other than as a conveniece. Looking by country gives us the nuanced product. Pakistan as can be seen is ahead of India

Per 10 million Nobels. There are over 190 countries in the world. Most don't even make it on the list including that bastion of civilization, Saudia Arabia. Too many dollars not enough neurons.

Rank

Country Nobel
laureates[1] Population
(2015)[2] Laureates/
10 million
— Faroe Islands 1 48,199 207.473
1 Saint Lucia 1 184,999 54.054
2 Luxembourg 2 567,110 35.267
3 Switzerland 20 8,298,663 24.100
4 Austria 18 8,544,586 21.066
5 Denmark 10 5,669,081 17.640
6 Sweden 17 9,779,426 17.383
7 United Kingdom 104 64,715,810 16.070
8 Norway 8 5,210,967 15.352
9 Netherlands 19 16,924,929 11.226
10 Germany 89 80,688,545 11.030
11 United States 327 321,773,631 10.162
12 Israel 8 8,064,036 9.921
13 Cyprus 1 1,165,300 8.581
14 Hungary 8 9,855,023 8.118
— European Union[6] 346 505,150,401 6.849
15 New Zealand 3 4,528,526 6.625
16 France 37 64,395,345 5.746
17 Canada 20 35,939,927 5.565
18 Finland 3 5,503,457 5.451
19 Belgium 6 11,299,192 5.310
20 Latvia 1 1,970,503 5.075
21 Slovenia 1 2,067,526 4.837
22 Australia 11 23,968,973 4.589
23 Ireland 2 4,688,465 4.266
24 Lithuania 1 2,878,405 3.474
25 Czech Republic 3 10,543,186 2.845
26 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 3,810,416 2.624
27 Croatia 1 4,240,317 2.358
28 Italy 13 59,797,685 2.174
29 Japan 22 126,573,481 1.738
— Hong Kong 1 7,287,983 1.372
30 Poland 5 38,611,794 1.295
31 Russia 16 143,456,918 1.115
32 Belarus 1 9,495,826 1.053
33 Azerbaijan 1 9,753,968 1.025
34

Romania 2 19,511,324 1.025
35 Portugal 1 10,349,803 0.966
36 South Africa 4 54,490,406 0.734
37 Argentina 3 43,416,755 0.691
38 Spain 2 46,121,699 0.434
39 Taiwan 1 23,381,038 0.428
40 Venezuela 1 31,108,083 0.321
41 Morocco 1 34,377,511 0.291
42 Algeria 1 39,666,519 0.252
43 Ukraine 1 44,823,765 0.223
44

Turkey 1 78,665,830 0.127
45

Egypt 1 91,508,084 0.109
46

Mexico 1 127,017,224 0.079
47

Pakistan 1 188,924,874 0.053
48

Brazil 1 207,847,528 0.048
49

India 6 1,311,050,527 0.046
50

China 5 1,376,048,943 0.036

Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita

And if you must haul around this 'Muslim' thing then why not compare the Hindu world, the Black World or even the Christian World to see results? It's not like the open defacating Hindu civilizations has reached the stars or the Negroes of Africa are marching into the future with colonies being set up on Mars. Let's face it right now only the Western world which mostly is another euphemism for the 'White world' that is doing well for around 400 years.

What have the number of neurons to do with the number of Nobel Prizes won? I hope you realize that KSA has barely an native population the size of 25 million. That's 8 times smaller than 200 million + big Pakistan which has 2 Nobel Peace Prize winners of which only 1 single needed any neurons to win that Nobel Peace Prize to begin with.

Or 80 million big Iran whose 2 Noble Peace Prize winners is firstly a non-Iranian (An British women named Doris Lessing - very Iranian-sounding, whose only ties to Iran is that she was born there and lived there from the age of 0 to 5) and a peace activist.

As for Muslim Nobel Peace Prize winners, may I inform you of the fact, that 6 of the 12 Muslim Nobel Peace Prize winners are Arab and another one is of Arab descent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates

As for KSA being a bastion or civilization, what it represents/can lay claim to (Arab culture and Islamic culture) are indeed civilization bastions. Some of the most influential in fact.

Lastly as for IQ:

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

Anyway I gather that it was an attempt at trolling not that it bothers me at all but a bit of perspective does not hurt.

No. The purpose of this super state is to have powerful Muslim states like Egypt or Algeria or both to annxe failed Muslim states which border them so their growth can be mainstreamed to unleash their potential. The purpose is not to build a greater Egypt or Algeria but to create a new viable country which provides greater security and economic growth to countries like Chad and Niger.



You don't have to unify them, you just have to overthrow their Govt's and give them the opportunity to become part of a country with vast population, resources and 3 Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs). Economics will do the rest.

True but for such a superstate to become even a remote possibility the countries that should/will join forces will have to have more in common than just religion. Your initial proposal faced this problem as I cannot see anything that binds say Sierra Leone together with Egypt or any other Arab state in Northern Africa, except for religion and a colonial past which all Muslim countries expect for KSA and Iran (on top of my head) share and most non-Western countries. Not much IMO.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Arab descent

The only thing Arab about Arab descent is they speak Arabic. You know there is precious little beyond that to tie them together anymore than a English speaking Jamaican, a English speaking Fijian, a English speaking Maori and English speaking American to tie them together.

In my blunt view ( I know your a sorted type of guy so not intended against you ) the two things theat have held up the Muslim world such as that exists is.

1. Arabs (native of Arabian Peninsula) or as I like calling them Oily Arabs.
2. Oil

These are two things that when they converged meant bad, real bad news for the Muslim world and of course MENA as you like to call it, inferring that it is something special and class apart of the rest.

 

[Al-Andalus]

The only thing Arab about Arab descent is they speak Arabic. You know there is precious little beyond that to tie them together anymore than a English speaking Jamaican, a English speaking Fijian, a English speaking Maori and English speaking American to tie them together.

In my blunt view ( I know your a sorted type of guy so not intended against you ) the two things theat have held up the Muslim world such as that exists is.

1. Arabs (native of Arabian Peninsula) or as I like calling them Oily Arabs.
2. Oil

These are two things that when they converged meant bad, real bad news for the Muslim world and of course MENA as you like to call it, inferring that it is something special and class apart of the rest.

You are very wrong and you have been told that and been proven wrong in many previous debates. Not because I said so but because it is wrong historically, culturally, linguistically and most important genetically. All of which have been and can be confirmed by numerous widely accepted sources. As well as politically. I am sorry to say that no matter how much it may annoy you which it does for some strange reasons as you are a Pashtun and thus have as much authority/knowledge/ties to the region discussed as an Bangladeshi or Nigerian more or less.

But sure KSA/Arabia has no ties to Islam and Arab civilization either nor some of the oldest known civilizations on the planet and continuously inhabited cities etc. Let alone the oldest recorded presence of humans outside of Africa. In fact everything started with oil. Even when 3 of the 11 largest empires in history (more than any other ethnic group in the top 15) were created by the ancestors of mostly modern-day Saudi Arabians, and ruled territory from France to modern-day China, including your ancestral land.

It's all fiction.

Oh and did I forget that oil and gas and gold, and phosphate, and copper and tons of other precious minerals. I shall end it here.

Have a nice day and keep the trolling alive.

Oil.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

You are very wrong and you have been told that and proven this many times before. It is wrong historically, culturally, linguistically and most important genetically. As well as politically. I am sure to say that.

Look mate, lets agree to disagree on that until maybe some other time. It's my opinion that in the heart of the sterile KSA a harsh, trying, scarce, difficult, base culture was formed given the conditions and nothing changed century after century, almost detached from the world, indeed even most invaders avoided it as hundreds of miles of desert and sand offered nought but trouble.

Then came along oil and like Ebola Virus was vectored out of Deep Africa another type of Virus, more potent, more dangerous when mated with dollars became articulated across the Muslim world and wrought destruction in poor regions those petrodollars could buy entire governments out.

It's not a accident that majority of 9/11 heroes were Saudi's, it's not a accident that their mentor was Osama Bin Laden although all of them needed neurons which were provided by a Pakistani - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.