Your Favorite Empire

[Vetalia]

No, that's not true and I'll tell you why.

The Kwantung Army was the Japanese Army's forces in Manchuria. They were essentially independent- this had never been a problem. But they killed the Warlord of Manchuria ON THEIR OWN PRETEXTS. The Japanese Government didn't want to take Manchuria for themselves. It was the Army that did it; they had too much independence and that is what caused half the issues that led Japan to war.

Also, in Marco Polo Bridge, the Japanese signed a treaty with the Chinese across the bridge once the first conflict had stopped. The opposing military leaders on either side of the bridge were friends, so this was easy. After a few weeks or days of peace, shots were fired ONCE AGAIN from the Chinese side. The Chinese started it.

In a sense, we're actually 100% in agreement then. The Kwantung Army was out of control and they could no longer attempt to realistically rein it in; the actual Japanese government was quite opposed to war but the power of the military was so great it was impossible to resist unless they wanted to suffer serious consequences. They ended up making the decisions, not the legitimate regime...it's a shame considering how strong Japan's economic performance and development of civil institutions had been in there preceding 60 or 70 years.

It's true that Japan didn't start the war in a technical sense, but I believe it was inevitable given the circumstances.

[Conserative Morality]

Your point being?

If tolerance is what you're looking for, the Khan is your man.

[Vandengaarde]

No, that's not true and I'll tell you why.

The Kwantung Army was the Japanese Army's forces in Manchuria. They were essentially independent- this had never been a problem. But they killed the Warlord of Manchuria ON THEIR OWN PRETEXTS. The Japanese Government didn't want to take Manchuria for themselves. It was the Army that did it; they had too much independence and that is what caused half the issues that led Japan to war.

Also, in Marco Polo Bridge, the Japanese signed a treaty with the Chinese across the bridge once the first conflict had stopped. The opposing military leaders on either side of the bridge were friends, so this was easy. After a few weeks or days of peace, shots were fired ONCE AGAIN from the Chinese side. The Chinese started it.

In a sense, we're actually 100% in agreement then. The Kwantung Army was out of control and they could no longer attempt to realistically rein it in; the actual Japanese government was quite opposed to war but the power of the military was so great it was impossible to resist unless they wanted to suffer serious consequences. They ended up making the decisions, not the legitimate regime...it's a shame considering how strong Japan's economic performance and development of civil institutions had been in there preceding 60 or 70 years.

So you therefore agree that the Japanese Empire was not imperialist?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Your point being?

If tolerance is what you're looking for, the Khan is your man.

Oh. Yeah, the Mongols were pretty cool too.

[Fedeledland]

If tolerance is what you're looking for, the Khan is your man.

Oh. Yeah, the Mongols were pretty cool too.

Yes. From Genghis Khan to the conversion of the Ilkhans to Islam, the Mongols were pretty cool. After that, they pretty much went in decline, became a "meh" and later a "what?"

[EnragedMaldivians]

You liked the medeival Islamic empire"s."

Problem solved.

I don't know why people get their knickers in a twist when I make use of a term colloquially.

Because each dynasty was distinct, with own history, ambitions and territorial borders - and MUST be respected as such.

It would be like calling the Athenian league and the Macedonian Empire colloqually as the "Greek Empire."

[Zyberkalicystan]

byzantine
british is a close second though

[Farnhamia]

They co-existed, Buffy, and certainly Cordoba was a marvel, but only Muslims were first-class citizens, and then only men. It was the Middle Ages, you know.

Women have quite a few rights, strictly according to the Qu'ran. Modern interpretation of Shariah law is derived from pre-Islamic tribal conditions. For example, maternity compensation and alimony were concepts championed by Islamic tradition. Women are equal before the eyes of Allah.

Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women and the humble men and the humble women, and the alms giving men and the alms giving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember-- Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward.

Before the eyes of a being who doesn't exist? I expect better from you, Buffy. A reward after you die is horseshit and always has been, always will be.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes. From Genghis Khan to the conversion of the Ilkhans to Islam, the Mongols were pretty cool. After that, they pretty much went in decline, became a "meh" and later a "what?"

Yeah. Genghis was great, Ogodei was alright, Mongke was great again, and then it all kind of fell apart.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I don't know why people get their knickers in a twist when I make use of a term colloquially.

Because each dynasty was distinct, with own history, ambitions and territorial borders - and MUST be respected as such.

It would be like calling the Athenian league and the Macedonian Empire colloqually as the "Greek Empire."

Honestly, I don't give a shit.

[Vetalia]

So you therefore agree that the Japanese Empire was not imperialist?

I do believe they were but that's a meaningless term in and of itself. Every major power at that time was imperialist because the mindset was that colonies were necessary to support the country's population and economic growth and provide it with a zone of control that would allow it to project its power beyond its borders. If they were, so were Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and so on...even the US still retained some colonial possessions from its brief period of empire building.

I think in some ways the biggest problem was in some ways they had progressed too unevenly as a nation, which led to the dangerous situation in the 1930's.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Women have quite a few rights, strictly according to the Qu'ran. Modern interpretation of Shariah law is derived from pre-Islamic tribal conditions. For example, maternity compensation and alimony were concepts championed by Islamic tradition. Women are equal before the eyes of Allah.

Before the eyes of a being who doesn't exist? I expect better from you, Buffy. A reward after you die is horseshit and always has been, always will be.

That's not the point. The Qu'ran was the PRINCIPLE law of many, if not most, of the caliphates. It being a gender-equal document is therefore somewhat important.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:
They co-existed, Buffy, and certainly Cordoba was a marvel, but only Muslims were first-class citizens, and then only men. It was the Middle Ages, you know.
Women have quite a few rights, strictly according to the Qu'ran. Modern interpretation of Shariah law is derived from pre-Islamic tribal conditions. For example, maternity compensation and alimony were concepts championed by Islamic tradition. Women are equal before the eyes of Allah.

Surah Al-Ahzaab 33:35 wrote:
Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women and the humble men and the humble women, and the alms giving men and the alms giving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember-- Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward.

Outside the realm of possibility that his views changed over the course of his career? holy books contradict themselves? - and that gender equality wasn't upmost in his agenda?

And as far as the Sunni tradition, the hadiths might in practice be even more important as legal documents and they certainly were not gender neutral. Quran only Muslims are considered heretics.

But the Islamic "empire" under him was pretty cool too. Merely by dint of his diplomatic genius.

[Fedeledland]

Yeah. Genghis was great, Ogodei was alright, Mongke was great again, and then it all kind of fell apart.

Meh. Personally, my favorite Mongols were Arghun and Genghis. They were very tolerant and seeked alliances with the West.

[Vetalia]

Honestly, I don't give a shit.

Yeah, when you use the term Islamic Empire, it clearly refers to the scope of Islamic civilization from its early formation to its peak under the Umayyad caliphate. Splitting hairs is only really useful if we were discussing which of those periods was most influential or whatever.

[Conserative Morality]

That's not the point. The Qu'ran was the PRINCIPLE law of many, if not most, of the caliphates. It being a gender-equal document is therefore somewhat important.

The Quran is gender equal in spots, like spirituality, but not all over.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Because each dynasty was distinct, with own history, ambitions and territorial borders - and MUST be respected as such.

It would be like calling the Athenian league and the Macedonian Empire colloqually as the "Greek Empire."

Honestly, I don't give a shit.

Fair enough.

[Farnhamia]

Before the eyes of a being who doesn't exist? I expect better from you, Buffy. A reward after you die is horseshit and always has been, always will be.

That's not the point. The Qu'ran was the PRINCIPLE law of many, if not most, of the caliphates. It being a gender-equal document is therefore somewhat important.

And yet in practice, women were cloistered, expected to remain in the home and not really afforded the same rights as men. This is still the case, as we see in honor killings, for example, or in the covering of women. Not dictated by the Quran but still a part of Islam. Yes, it's nice that Mohammed said nice things about women when he was doing all the scribbling, but it's how it works out in practice that counts.

[UberWeegeeia]

The Romans.
Seriously, they had an awesome language, they crucified criminals to deter others, and they had arena's! WHERE THE FIGHTING WASN'T SCRIPTED.

[Buffett and Colbert]

That's not the point. The Qu'ran was the PRINCIPLE law of many, if not most, of the caliphates. It being a gender-equal document is therefore somewhat important.

The Quran is gender equal in spots, like spirituality, but not all over.

Feel free to link to a verse. It's not the pinnacle of feminism, but it's been twisted and misconstrued horribly over the centuries with regards to this.

[Conserative Morality]

The Romans.
Seriously, they had an awesome language, they crucified criminals to deter others, and they had arena's! WHERE THE FIGHTING WASN'T SCRIPTED.

That's it? That's all you have? Centurion, get the swagger stick.

[Buffett and Colbert]

And yet in practice, women were cloistered, expected to remain in the home and not really afforded the same rights as men. This is still the case, as we see in honor killings, for example, or in the covering of women. Not dictated by the Quran but still a part of Islam.

That makes no sense.

Yes, it's nice that Mohammed said nice things about women when he was doing all the scribbling, but it's how it works out in practice that counts.

Muhammad's wife was a successful businesswoman, for example.

[Farnhamia]

The Romans.
Seriously, they had an awesome language, they crucified criminals to deter others, and they had arena's! WHERE THE FIGHTING WASN'T SCRIPTED.

Trust me, one gladiatorial show and you'd be wishing for scripted combat.

[Conserative Morality]

That makes no sense.

It makes sense in the same way that the Church kept women down in Medieval Europe despite the evidence for such oppression in the bible being sketchy at best. It's Christianity, whether or not it was in the Bible.

[EnragedMaldivians]

And yet in practice, women were cloistered, expected to remain in the home and not really afforded the same rights as men. This is still the case, as we see in honor killings, for example, or in the covering of women. Not dictated by the Quran but still a part of Islam.

That makes no sense.

Yes, it's nice that Mohammed said nice things about women when he was doing all the scribbling, but it's how it works out in practice that counts.

Muhammad's wife was a successful businesswoman, for example.

His first wife Khadijah. He was quite a nice fellow when he was preaching in Mecca.

A different story once he went to Medina and started to attain power. I don't understand why people who are not Muslim think that the Qur'an is a cohesive, non-contradictory document that can be seperated from the individual circumstances under which Mohammed operated in his quest to convince people of his status as the final messenger of God.

And 4:34 is a verse that springs to mind. Along with inheritance laws, and judicial philosophy regarding witnesses.

I do like him though, in so far as he was somewhat of a philosopher king.