India-Colonia engleza

Da, erau fabuloși europenii în evul mediu, arzând cărți și eretici, murind de ciumă, spălându-se de 2x în viață.

Tot în evul mediu, arabii erau mult mai avansați decât europenii.

veniturile totale ale colonialismului, in toate ipostazele sale, sunt maxim 10% din bugetul Republicii in cel mai bun an.

As zice ca elita musulmana a fost pentru cateva secole superioara dpdv al civilizatiei si culturii elitei europene (evident luam in considerare media). Si nu cred ca e o treaba controversata. Asta nu inseamna ca arabul sau berberul de pe drum era un cititor de Rumi sau Attar - dar nici europenii de pe ogoare nu cred ca stateau la taclale pe marginea ultimelor poezii petrarchiene.

De exemplu, un cronicar arab, dupa ce se revolta la barbaria sistemului juridic al frâncilor bazat pe proba apei sau a focului in opozitie cu administrarea probelor si judecata specifica sharia, remarca cu uimire ca o decizie luata de un print/jude frânc nu poate fi intoarsa nici macar de suzeranul sau, pe cand, la ei emirul poate ignora sau schimba orice judecata.

Existau diferente esentiale dintre sistemele occidentale si levantine, observate de arabi in timpul cruciadelor.

De exemplu, un cronicar arab, dupa ce se revolta la barbaria sistemului juridic al frâncilor bazat pe proba apei sau a focului in opozitie cu administrarea probelor si judecata specifica sharia, remarca cu uimire ca o decizie luata de un print/jude frânc nu poate fi intoarsa nici macar de suzeranul sau, pe cand, la ei emirul poate ignora sau schimba orice judecata.

Rule of law incipienta, bazata pe un sistem procedural primitiv, intr-adevar vs. despotism.

Around  1140,  after  the  treaty  between  Damascus  and  Jerusalem  had  been concluded, Usāma was involved in a dispute with the Frankish lord of Banias, who had stolen some flocks of sheep from Muslim territory. Although the flocks were returned, some of the sheep were lost. Usāma asked for compensation from King Fulk,  who  ordered  “six  or  seven”  of  his  knights  to  come  to  a  decision  about  the case. They decided that the lord should pay for the lost sheep, and Usāma was compensated with 400 dinars. Usāma observed that the knights were “the masters of legal reasoning, judgement, and sentencing.”


Once again, Usāma’s observations were accurate. The “six or seven” knights were  exercising  their  right  to  participate  and  pass  judgement  in  the  high  court. William  of  Tyre  also  mentioned  knights  passing  judgement  in  the  court  when Hugh II of Jaffa was accused of treason in 1134 and in 1174 when a Templar was arrested for killing an Assassin ambassador. The judicial role of the knights is also mentioned in the thirteenth-century treatises; John of Ibelin listed the investigation and judgement of crimes and disputes among the services they owed to their lord, and  Geoffrey  le  Tor  wrote  that  knights  were  obliged  to  make  judgements  and support each other’s decisions.

One  source  may  be  the  pre-existing  Muslim  institutions  that  the  Franks discovered when they arrived. Since the duties of the viscount were recognizable to Muslim authors as those of their own officials, the Franks presumably combined these institutions with their own European forms of administration. Another source may  be  King  Fulk  himself,  whose  accession  to  the  throne  in  1131  was  the  most  significant change in the kingdom between 1120 and 1140. Fulk, who had previously been count of Anjou, replaced many of the kingdom’s officers with members of his Angevin retinue. The dispute between Fulk and Hugh II of Jaffa, for example, may have been part of a larger conflict between the established nobility and the newly-arrived Angevins.

Among the positions to which Fulk appointed members of his retinue were the viscount and chancellor of Jerusalem; the aforementioned Rohard was one of these replacements. It is surely significant that these offices had legal duties  in  Jerusalem.  Interest  in  the  law  was  common  in  Fulk’s  family  in  Anjou, and  his  grandson,  Henry  II  of  England,  was  an  active  legislator. His  sons  and successors in Jerusalem, Baldwin III and Amalric I, were also noted as experts in the law of the kingdom. Perhaps Fulk introduced new laws along with his other changes, and this was one of the reasons that the established nobility resented him.

We moved from Tibnin - may God destroy it - at daybreak on Monday. Our way lay through continuous farms and ordered settlements, whose inhabitants were all Muslims, living comfortably within the Franks... They surrender half their crops to the Franks at harvest time, and pay as well a poll-tax of one dinar and five qirat for each person. Other than that they are not interfered with, save for a light tax on the fruit of their trees. The houses and all their effects are left to their full possession. All the coastal cities occupied by the Franks are managed in this fashion, their rural districts, the villages and farms, belong to the Muslims. But their hearts have been seduced, for they observe how unlike them in ease and comfort are their brethren in the Muslim regions under their (Muslim) governors. This is one of the misfortunes afflicting the Muslims. The Muslim community bewails the injustice of the landlord of its own faith, and applauds the conduct of its opponent and enemy, the Frankish landlord, and is accustomed to justice from him

Deci respectivele initiative erau unice pentru Ierusalim, neputand fi identificate ca atare in Europa continentala

As zice ca elita musulmana a fost pentru cateva secole superioara dpdv al civilizatiei si culturii elitei europene

Daca vorbim de asta, pai nu prea e rule of law...