He says the Persian have always belonged to the Shia sect... I'm sure that this is wrong, at least for the kings and emperors. What he says about their culture somehow improving the warlords' religion to a more religious, philosophical religion sounds plausible however....even their national poet idol was supposedly sunni
@@adrianhoseini1334 Yes, I really recommend this video on this very topic if you are interested. th-cam.com/video/pjCHLdAofHw/w-d-xo.html Apparently Shiism started as a mere attempt to stand out by the Saffavid Empire but obviously became a much more distinct branch as time went on.
Hashim Bajwa Hashim Bajwa it's not profound that he did not know the Muslim world. He acknowledged such things in the preface, so you have to read the whole book. Russell was not a historian, if you don't see his project here then the fault is not his. But back to your point, from a historical and philosophic perspective could you please point out where Russell went wrong.
Hashim Bajwa Hashim Bajwa Unfortunately for ''mahomet'' and his psychotic wishes of world domination for his followers Russel did understand the disgusting nature of islam or better said *mohammedanism* . The term *mohammedanism* is exact because in the quran *86% of the claims are made by mohammed* and not even ascribed to the so called ''allah'' . (one of the many pagan deities from old Arabia that muhammed chose to be his idol)
The incoherence of philosophers By Al-Ghazzali, written in the 10th century of the common era, the 4th of the real era, comes to mind when hearing this. Nothing is original, everything is derived. This is the thesis of Russel, who neither literature, nor the history of the topic. Indeed the greekc contributions were minimal, the Sanskrit was non-existent. Translation is a dead end, these texts had been supposedly around for centuries with nothing being done to them because there were no people of intellectual capacity able to comprehend them anymore, not to mention these not original. Greeks were primarily Middle Eastern people, they lived there for most of their history. Their script came from there. Most of their people settled there permanently. To try to latch on being a northerner to people of the Mediterranean vis-a-vis anachornism is laughable and herein russel shows his folly in attempting to take the contributions of another and assigning to himself somehow, as if it is somehow to his credit. It appears to me that Russel is indeed a product of his time, unlike any of those that he mentions in this video.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
He says the Persian have always belonged to the Shia sect... I'm sure that this is wrong, at least for the kings and emperors. What he says about their culture somehow improving the warlords' religion to a more religious, philosophical religion sounds plausible however....even their national poet idol was supposedly sunni
Thanks for the correction.
In the book i'm reading it says that they have "long belong to the Shia sect", is atleast this statement true?
@@adrianhoseini1334 Yes, I really recommend this video on this very topic if you are interested. th-cam.com/video/pjCHLdAofHw/w-d-xo.html Apparently Shiism started as a mere attempt to stand out by the Saffavid Empire but obviously became a much more distinct branch as time went on.
@@varun76890 as a persian i appreciate you sending this, thank you!
Russel did not know about muslims profoundly
Hashim Bajwa Hashim Bajwa it's not profound that he did not know the Muslim world. He acknowledged such things in the preface, so you have to read the whole book. Russell was not a historian, if you don't see his project here then the fault is not his.
But back to your point, from a historical and philosophic perspective could you please point out where Russell went wrong.
Hashim Bajwa Hashim Bajwa
Unfortunately for ''mahomet'' and his psychotic wishes of world domination for his followers Russel did understand the disgusting nature of islam or better said *mohammedanism* .
The term *mohammedanism* is exact because in the quran *86% of the claims are made by mohammed* and not even ascribed to the so called ''allah'' . (one of the many pagan deities from old Arabia that muhammed chose to be his idol)
@@rocksparadox yawn
Neither than many Muslims...
Lets not forget that Muslim politics was radically different in Russell's time, nearly a century ago.
There is no such a thing by the name of Muhammadan, its Islam.
It’s what the West calls Islam, because Muslims spend more time worshipping Muhammed than their God
The book was written in 1945
The incoherence of philosophers By Al-Ghazzali, written in the 10th century of the common era, the 4th of the real era, comes to mind when hearing this. Nothing is original, everything is derived. This is the thesis of Russel, who neither literature, nor the history of the topic. Indeed the greekc contributions were minimal, the Sanskrit was non-existent. Translation is a dead end, these texts had been supposedly around for centuries with nothing being done to them because there were no people of intellectual capacity able to comprehend them anymore, not to mention these not original. Greeks were primarily Middle Eastern people, they lived there for most of their history. Their script came from there. Most of their people settled there permanently. To try to latch on being a northerner to people of the Mediterranean vis-a-vis anachornism is laughable and herein russel shows his folly in attempting to take the contributions of another and assigning to himself somehow, as if it is somehow to his credit. It appears to me that Russel is indeed a product of his time, unlike any of those that he mentions in this video.