Originally Posted by
MegadethFan
Are you asserting Muslims wanted to submit the whole world and/or convert enslave or kill others?
I disagree. The Rushidun never went anywhere near the real "west". The closest was, perhaps, the raids conducted on the Spanish coast in response to merchant warfare (totally political as per virtually every other violent encounter of the time) that occurred late in the reign of Uthman (the last of them). The only "West" they confronted, which was done mutually, as I explained, was with the Byzantines. You are correct in asserting that early European, or more generally, Christian views of Islam, in terms of reigning socio-political commentary was highly critical, but again this was entirely due to the displacement of the Byzantines as the main source of power in the region during that time - they were going to be pissed with Islam because he had kicked out Christianity as the reigning authority.
In regards to the concept of jihad, and Islam generally, within mainland Europe, particularly its West heartland, these ideas were, as I correctly described, defined and described during an age of warfare BEGUN by these same Christian groups. It would be extremely ignorant to conflate what is hundreds of years of history in the way you, not surprisingly, have done. The Crusades began in the 11th century - the Rushidun Caliphs had ceased to exist by the beginning of the 8th. The Crusades had nothing to do with religion - Western Europe didnt give care at all about the Eastern remnants of the Roman Empire - and even the Byzantines never considered Islam, as a socio-political force, anything unusually violent or aggressive that it had faced. Europe itself was not Christian in any serious sense until just before this Crusading era, when Catholic hegemony had become king through integration with the Roman administrative system of rule - it still had the process of slowly converting, peacefully and forcibly, the local population. Islam experienced social expansion differently in this way because as it expanded politically, the inhabitants most close to the Arabian Peninsula were primarily Christians and Jews. The Middle East was then, in terms of population, the heartland of Christianity at the time, which meant Islam was embraced, or was implanted, far more easily, however a lack of Roman social organization as was left to the Christians in Europe meant the hierarchy of Islamic theology developed and functioned differently to its European counterpart, but that's another story. But the diverse, unChristian character of the West at that time was the reason why there were so many pagan groups, customs, and even rebellions and social movements at this time that were violently suppressed by Christian rulers.
As I stated above the expansion of Arab rule was entirely political. You speak of dimmitude and violent expansion of Islam, but as I highlighted, and sourced, this was by no means the goal or driving force of these events. This is evident in the fact the identity of 'Muslim' was a very elite, ie an unimposing one and Arab rule was extremely beneficial for its recipients at the time.
No, it was not legitimate at all. There was no mass conversions, no 'subjection' in any serious way. You need to analyze the context of the propaganda of the Crusades, which shows that Western views of Islam were intrinsically linked to the political characteristics of the movement, rather than reality. This is EXACTLY the same as when you read Islamic sources describing the Crusaders when they lived and operated in the region - they must be contextualized.
But it isnt fact at all. It is as much fact as the antisemitism formed in Europe at the same time that dominated Western intolerance with regards to Jews and other religious minorities - Muslims included.
Of course, although that being said there are pacifist tendencies, but I completely agree with what you have just written.
I like to think I represent, as does essentially everyone else, only one side - my own. And I like to think my own side is that of truth and reality. I'd happily change my position when it is invalidated.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
I replied to your question and proved my point and now you are crying about it. haha typical. One document in NO WAY details the motives of the ENTIRETY of a social group especially when the audience of the document is directed to change the minds of the rest of the group, as I outlined - ie, why would you have to change a social group's general thought if it is exactly the same as your own? Answer is - you dont. So the fact this single MB document seeks these ends reveals the fact that it is the ends of a small group who have a long way to go as they themselves outline. I already went through this.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks