You are told a myth about the rise of the west, that the scientific revolution, industrial revolution, the discovery of civil rights, liberty and freedom happened because Europeans started doing "science" out of nowhere.
1/
This is a myth. The actual reasons for the rise of the west were endless wars and conflicts which led to advances in military technologies, strategies, which led to more bloody wars, which led to more advancement in weaponry which helped Europeans in global domination. 2/
The ship building projects carried out by England, Portugal and The Netherlands are cases in point.
(This is called fluyts, a cargo ship by the Dutch)
3/
In Europe, where wars would extend to decades and centuries, like the Hundred Years War, Eighty Years War, Thirty Years War, and later on WW1 and WW2 are the latest examples of the long running history of war and violence which is ingrained into the consciousness of Europe. 4/
The unparalleled aggression and violence in Europe was unmatched by any region of the world.
In fact, wars became the staple feature and defining characteristic of Europe.
Only a European would have said that the nature of Man is to be in constant state of violence -Leviathan 4/
This is why at the time when millions of paintings and great architectural designs were being built, guns were also manufactured in exponential numbers.
5/
In the same vein some of the most important works of Newton and Galileo was the study of trajectory of projectiles and the causes of deviation in artillery.
Scientific advancements went hand in hand with military technological advancement
6/
It was for this reason that guns had become so refined and accurate that a handful of Portuguese conquistadors wiped out the native Americans who were numerically superior to them.
7/
The wealth stolen from the natives was showered on the Northern European countries, which led to patronage for science and arts, and more instability because now there was more to fight for, which led to more bloody wars and decades long conflicts.
8/
It was not that the native Americans were primitives and uncivilised. In fact they were more Civilized than their European counterparts.
The inca empire had a sophisticated system of law and order, tax, and a high culture. The only reason they were dominated is because... 9/
...they were inferior in weapon technology.
10/
Map of all the recorded battles in history of the past 2,000 years. 11/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Elica argues that even if the acts of the IDF were as brutal or terroristic as Hamas we can still make no moral equivalencies. Because the IDF is protecting its people, whereas Hamas wants to kill everyone. The diff. is "INTENTION".
Let's explore this logic of liberal warfare 🧵
Liberalism warfare logic:
Kill as many civilians as you like so long as you express remorse & regret at the end. That's why Guantanamo Bay, the vast network of American torture cells in Europe, the brutal sanctions, etc., were legally and morally justified by liberals.
- Talal Asad, On Suicide Bombing
As Elica says, the intention is different. IDF can self-referentially justify its actions and claim moral superiority.
When we look at the history of western warfare we see how the lines between civilian and combatant was blurred deliberately sometimes.
"5000 years of history" is a myth that the British colonial historiography created where they divided the history of the region into 3 distinct phases: Ancient (Indic), Medieval (Islamic), Modern (British Colonialism).
This was parallel to how West's history was framed during 1/
the Enlightenment era in the West. This historiography justified the colonial rule as a just rule to liberate the "native Indians" from the despotism of the foreigners, i.e., Muslims.
2/
The narrative was further accepted by the Republic of India. Nehru wholeheartedly endorsed this fictitious colonial historiography churned up by British colonial officials who were part-time historians.
one of the biggest mathematical astronomers of his time. The topic of debate was the relationship between science and philosophy as distinct schools of thought.
The debate is long but the important point is this:
By this time, it was understood as a given that mathematical astronomy and scientific endeavours are not supposed to be under the authority of doctrines of natural philosophy such as Aristotelian physics and cosmology.
Aligarh was not pro-British except for Sir Syed. It produced some of the most vocal anti-colonial figures. The Muslim League leadership were grads of Aligarh.
The Deoband became politically active in the 1920s during the Khilafat movement, which was led mostly by modernists.
Kalam and Iqbal are also modernists in their theological and political orientations.
Figures like Mahmud Hasan & Ahmed Madani of Deoband were active in the Khilafat movement & had good relationships with modernists like Azad, Shaukat Ali Muhammad Ali and even Hindu figures.
2/
But even then, major figures of the Deoband movement like Ashraf Ali Thanawi were politically quietest.
For instance, he discouraged Muslims from participating in the Kashmir uprising in 1931. But figures like Ahmed Madani were politically active.
I always respond to counter-arguments when they are backed up by academic references. That's why I have decided to respond to this brother because he made a strong case. Let's begin. Bismillah.
🧵