Western Historians on The Islamic Conquests

P

Proud_Syrian

Guest
Western Historians on The Islamic Conquests

Compiled by The University of Northumbria Islamic Society, with Notes
In his book "Civilization of the Arabs," Dr. Gustav LeBon says, "The reader will find, in my treatment of the Arabs' conquests and the reason of their victories, that force was never a factor in the spread of the Koranic[1] teachings, and that the Arabs left those they had subdued free to exercise their religious beliefs. If it happened that some Christian peoples embraced Islam and adopted Arabic as their language, it was mainly due to the various kinds of justice on the part of the Arab victors, with the like of which the non-Moslems were not acquainted. It was also due to the tolerance and leniency of Islam, which was unknown to the other religions."

http://www.thetruereligion.org/conquests.htm
 
It might be a symptom of cultural prejudice ... gee, d'you think?

A brief comment. There might be an obscure form of cultural prejudice that we haven't accounted for.

In Western history, the tie between faith and politics is inexorable. Yet even without the history of the Catholic Church as an imperial force to contend with, a certain number of problems Christians experienced in history are not specifically related to the doctrine of Christianity, but the realities of being human. This is addressed in the words concerning justice in the short topic excerpt.

We can take any moment in history, isolate it, and judge it according to modern values, but an understanding of the historical context helps.

At thirty, with almost twenty years of resisting Christianity under my belt, I'm just now beginning a refinement process in my regard for that scourge of scourges. Trying to sort out the doctrinal from the human is a mess and a half to say the least.

And I don't, to be honest, look forward to twenty years of similar interaction with Islam. I'd rather improve on that process, and while much of the doctrinal complexities still escape me, that's no reason to go jumping on the other bandwagon. I can comment on my human sympathies and my general understanding of monotheistic dynamics; I can tell you what I read in short bits of the Koran. And in trusting in the human being, I'm extending the same respect I hope for myself.

So the kind of criticism of Islam going around the board is puzzling and infantile to my perception. But how can I take a moment from history, or play a scant connect-the-dots and form judgments against Islam when the rich tapestry of Christian-related experience I've endured is not enough to move me to a final judgment against Christianity and Christians?

The situation seems quite simple to some, I understand. But people in the West, when regarding religions, tend to view any religion according to the "rules" of Christianity. What God equals to Christians, it somehow must equal to others, and the argument is apparently about minor details.

I took Religion forum posters to task a while ago for casting their prejudices over the whole of religion; e.g. an atheist might have a strong anti-Christian bent, but how can those objections be extended to something like Wicca, which views divinity entirely differently? How, indeed, despite Abramic similarities, can we expect the "Christian formulae" to operate with the same consistency when applied to Islam? The "human formulae" are the only ones I can apply so generally.

So here's a hint to my fellows of the Judeo-Christian Western experience: Start with revelation, a key issue of any theistic religion. Truth is "revealed" by God, not discovered solely by inquiry and examination. Beyond that, how each religion treats revelation is quite different, and can offer great insights to the complex ideological creature examined.

I understand more by Western terms about mystical revelation in Islam than I do about orthodox revelation, though to respect an Islamic vein of thought, it should be pointed that even so, both sums equal zero. If that seems paradoxical to a Westerner, they should take another whack at it.

So part of it may have to do with viewing diverse paradigms and an unreasonable expectation that said paradigms, concerning what the observer may see as a single issue--e.g. "God"--should behave similarly under any conditions of human dynamics.

Again, it is an unreasonable expectation.

In the meantime, trading rhetorical firebombs may be ineffective. Targeting the unreasonable, bigoted, or outright insane expectations of the critics might serve the cause better. Rather than simply "shooting back", it may be time to disable the guns.

You cannot simply push the guns back, or else they will advance on the position again. You cannot simply blow them to dust, else they will be rebuilt. You must occupy the position, thereby exercising some regulatory authority over the argument, so that the enemy has a reasonable target to aim for and stops shooting blindly in a panic fire at anything that even seems to move.

Once that is accomplished, the reinforcement scheme should become apparent.

But as long as they have that line of sight, they're going to keep taking the shot. When have we Westerners been any different?

(And that's not just a rhetorical question, that last.)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Edit: It is to my embarrassment, so I'm just hoping nobody notices the difference.
 
Last edited:
"Compiled by The University of Northumbria Islamic Society, with Notes
In his book "Civilization of the Arabs," Dr. Gustav LeBon says, "The reader will find, in my treatment of the Arabs' conquests and the reason of their victories, that force was never a factor in the spread of the Koranic[1] teachings, and that the Arabs left those they had subdued free to exercise their religious beliefs."

Lies, utter lies.

The subjects of the arab warlors had to pay up to 80% tax to keep their non-islamic faiths (that was the case for the mesopotamians).

In addition to that, many had to "give" every third girl born to arab military brothels.

Once again, the liar and islamic apologet "proud syrian" strikes again.

And why anyone would be proud of his nationality is beyond me.
 
Wow

I hadn't realized you were merely an ethnically-affected Anarchist, DJ Supreme. I admit that it forces me to rethink your malfunction.

You raise some interesting points, DJ Supreme. I'm wondering if you can back them either factually or comparatively (preferably both), or if you would just like us to get down, stick our asses in the air, and accept your word as Gospel?

Would you please respond to the topic itself and not its poster? It seems your condemnation of the topic has more to do with Proud Syrian than any coherent, reasonable argument.

And frankly, that act was stale long before you brought your stump-hater tent to town.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Now, if i remember correctly, the thing with the girls to the brothels, and hte boys to the jannissaries, and teh 805 tax, was mcuhly done by the Ottoman empire, a cruel and nasty set up. The earlier arab expansion into israel etc back in the 800's or before, was a bit more civilised, in part because of the courtly influences of the varieties of islam that had developed in persia etc.

Go go Tiassa, thats what i keep forgetting ot do, see the human commonality in the religions, stories of stupidity etc. I hold that peopel are pretty much the same the world over, and what happens is that the religions develop different branches, eg monastics, contemplatives, active spreaders of the wrod, etc to suit the people who are converted and their individual needs.
 
Re: Wow

Originally posted by tiassa
I hadn't realized you were merely an ethnically-affected Anarchist, DJ Supreme. I admit that it forces me to rethink your malfunction.

Would you please respond to the topic itself and not its poster? It seems your condemnation of the topic has more to do with Proud Syrian than any coherent, reasonable argument.

And frankly, that act was stale long before you brought your stump-hater tent to town.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
Click to expand...

Indeed dear friend, these haters just copy and paste from anti-muslim usually christian sites, I counter by refering them to these two very powerful sites:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/misconceptions/index.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com
 
Originally posted by okinrus
Everyone knows that history is the story of the world and that the world is evil.
Click to expand...

The world is not evil my friend, it is some hateful creatures who make it evil.
 
Re: Re: Wow

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
Indeed dear friend, these haters just copy and paste from anti-muslim usually christian sites, I counter by refering them to these two very powerful sites:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/misconceptions/index.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com
Click to expand...

Ah, some haters just copy and paste from muslim terrorist sites. I coutner by "refering" them to these two very powerful sites

http://www.infidels.org
http://atheism.about.com

For people who want to try and find out how the twisted muslim mind worked in terrorism,

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_jihad.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_mosque.htm

This also gives insight into Muslim countries.

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/koran.html
 
Dogtail u just pathetic keep your bullpoo "israel-friendly" deceptionchurch bullshit too yourself please .

This also gives insight into Muslim countries.

And no it doesnt it just gives Pickthal crap out of any context for demonization purpose in the name of Jesus and tells about how Gods name is not Allah and what Ari Fleischers deal is what a bunch of crap man

Can you not even properly refer to what your link says ? Is that too much even ?

:rolleyes:
 
Re: Wow

Originally posted by tiassa
You raise some interesting points, DJ Supreme. I'm wondering if you can back them either factually or comparatively
Click to expand...

if he doesnt i will

the Arabs' conquests and the reason of their victories, that force was never a factor in the spread of the Koranic[1] teachings, and that the Arabs left those they had subdued free to exercise their religious beliefs.

these conquests took place over the span of hundreds of years, under different commanders, perhaps under differing ideologies. just cos plan a worked in zone a doesnt mean that plan a will work in zone b. however this is what the quote implies and i find that laughably simplistic
 
for the record

Prophet Muhammad's Treaty with the Jews (622 C.E.)

Muhammad's Charter to Christian Monks in Sinai (in today's Egypt) at St. Catherine Monastery (628 C.E.)

Treaty of the Surrender of Orihulea, Spain to Muslim Forces" (713 C.E.)

They had to pay a tax called "Jizia" in return for their exemption from military service (not having to join the Muslim armies), and it did not apply to the needy. (On the other hand they did not have to pay the Zakat tax which Muslims paid, roughly 2.5 percent of savings annually (each year). It was usually therefore more money saving not to be a Muslim, yet the majority (the largest number; more than half) chose to adopt Islam.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Bakr, the first caliph (successor to the Prophet Muhammad), had Ten Rules of warfare: "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate (cut up) dead bodies. Do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Don't kill any of the enemy's flock except for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services (following the life of a monk); leave them alone..." - Abu Bakr, first Caliph.

http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/War/War.html
 
Last edited:
these conquests took place over the span of hundreds of years, under different commanders, perhaps under differing ideologies. just cos plan a worked in zone a doesnt mean that plan a will work in zone b. however this is what the quote implies and i find that laughably simplistic

Correct Spookz , conclusion :

Sometimes we were nice , some times we chopped heads .

Imperialism (be it mostly positive or mostly negative) doesnt know 100% mono-evenets , different times different peoples different decisions different events and different results .

And great links . One advice though :

http://http://www.erols.com/zenithco/treaty22.html

2X http wont work ;)
 
fixed links

so! wanna discuss the brutal conquest of india? the destruction of temples? the exorbitant taxation of infidels?(simple ploy, make it uneconomical to be anything but muslim) the massacres?perhaps one of you guys wanna set the ball rolling. infact the topic title is delicious irony as far as indian history as seen thru western authors is concerned but lets see if you figure that shit out yourself.

heh
 
*I counter by refering them to these two very powerful sites (syrian)

*To counter all christian lies and hopeless atheist BS against Islam, I recommend you these powerful sites (syrian)

what are you, just plain stupid?
 
..and don't forget to mention salahuddin ayubi. he is the only redeeming factor in known islamic conquests.

a comparision between him and other islamic commanders/warriors, past & present, would be helpful in self-realisation.
 
Last edited:
Excellent, Spookz

Spookz

Thank you, truly. The links are interesting, and the history in India is equally interesting. And we can certainly get to it faster if there isn't a smarmy bastard running around agitating the deiscussion.

But I admit that part of it is that while there are points to discuss, I just didn't see the poster I was questioning as really out to discuss those points, but rather to lay seige to another poster.

And, given that the seige target is a poster who was recently among a few singled out for specific examination, I see no reason to go stirring things up like that unless people just are looking for more frustrated posts to complain about.

In the meantime, one of the things about history is that history is, to a certain degree, relative. Where I see unique manifestations of common human issues within Islam, many people tend to see--insofar as I can tell--rabid, old-school Klingon warriors, Mongol hordes, and other scourges by warfare.

People list the crimes of Islam, and I look at the histories and nod and say, "Yep, that sounds about human."

On the other hand ... eating Pygmies ... I just don't recall there being anything in the Koran about eating Pygmies. I would probably feel a bit more insecure about an ideological association of tribal superstition covering over a billion people that prescribed the consuming of Pygmies before going to war. It's hard for me to look at what's going on in DRC, Uganda, and elsewhere and say, "Yep, that sounds about human." But I have to recognize a certain aspect of that reality when thinking about people eating Pygmies for vitality in warfare. But come on ... it's 2003, according to my calendar, and the only reason we find the atrocities of DRC or Nepal shocking is because most of the world has gotten past that.

Look at how much discussion exists in the West regarding Western imperial politics. It's the bread and butter of modern short-attention-span pseudo-philosophy. It is the news in our culture.

How can we paint the "Islamic world" and its history as anything simpler? How can "we" be complex human beings that require detailed examination in order to justify judgment against, yet "they" be so simple and separate from our complex humanity that these simple rhetorical Molotov cocktails against Islam tend to separate Muslims from the Western perception of humanity. It is an insult, a defamation, a foundation for xenophobia.

I apologize to all my Western neighbors, for instance, who dislike my regard for Islam, but the thousands of pages of study and the thousands of days of experience I have undertaken in Western culture took time to put together. By such a time frame I'll be fifty (at least) before I can level the kind of condemnations at Islam I already do at Christianity. And those who have been around here long enough to know my posts on religion over the years also know that recently I learned something abstract about those condemnations, which are fewer, more pointed, and vaguely more aware of the human condition than they have been in the past.

I mean, look at me: I call Christianity, in this very topic, scourge of scourges. And I do so rather casually.

I'll be at least fifty before I could possibly know enough about Islam to dare such a phrase with such casual disregard for the perception of presumed blanket authority.

And until my studies and experiences convince me that Muslims are anything other than human--either way--I shall continue to regard them as human beings. And I cannot presume, nor have my studies and experiences indicated, that the human dynamics of the "Islamic world" are any less complex or any less demanding of a rational human sympathy than in "my Western post-Christian world".

Hell, if the world's mightiest nations subscribed to an ideology that cast me as subhuman ... well, quite frankly, I'd be a little pissed off, too. Oh, wait ... I'm an American not-quite-white, non-Christian, pot-smoking dissenter. My government does regard me as subhuman, and I am, in fact, pissed off about it.

This heritage of self-righteous conquest is as much ours in the West as some would claim a heritage of evil and hatred for Islam. I think our imperial history has a more consistent footing in history than the issues raised by some of our more rabit critics of Islam.

Somebody pointed out, in a relative defense of the United States, that no country is a haven of perfection. Neither is any history virginally pure. Neither is any history wholly noble.

Neither is any human being perfect.

At any rate, I do prattle on ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
 
shapeshifting

Qu'wat al-Islam Masjid, Qutub Minar, Delhi:

"This fort was conquered and the Jami Masjid built in the year 587 A.H (Hejira Era) by the Amir Qutub-ud-din Aibak the slave of the Sultan, Shahabuddin Ghori. According to the Epigraphica Indica Arabic and Persian Supplement (1909-10, pp.3-4): "The materials of 27 idol temples, on each of which 2,000,000 Delhiwals had been spent were used in the (construction of) the mosque..." The year 587 H. corresponds to 1192 A.D. "Delhiwal was a high-denomination coin current at that time in Delhi.

Jami Masjid at Malan, Palanpur Taluka, Banaskantha District of Gujarat by Khan-i-Azam Ulugh Khan:

"The Jami Masjid was built by Khan-i-Azam Ulugh Khan...who suppressed the wretched infidels. He eradicated the idolatrous houses and mine of infidelity, along with the idols...with the edge of the sword, and made ready this edifice... he made its walls and doors out of the idols; the back of every stone became the place for prostration of the believer" (1963, pp.26-29). The date of construction is mentioned as 1462 A.D. in the reign of Mahmud Shah I (Begada) of Gujarat.

Hammam Darwaza Masjid at Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh in the reign of Akbar, the Great Mughal:

"Thanks that by the guidance of the everlasting and living (Allah), this house of infidelity became the niche of prayer. As a reward for that, the Generous Lord constructed an abode for the builder in paradise" (1969, P 375). Its chronogram yields the year 1567 A.D. in the reign Akbar, the Great Mughal.

Jami Masjid at Ghoda in the Poona District of Maharashtra by Mir Muhammad Zaman:

"O Allah! O Muhammad! O Ali! When Mir Muhammad Zaman made up his mind, he opened the door of prosperity on himself by his own hand. He demolished thirty three idol temples (and) by divine grace laid the foundation of a building in this abode of perdition" (1933-34, p.24). The inscription is dated 1586 A.D. when the Poona region was ruled by the Nizam Shahi sultans of Ahmadnagar.

Gachinala Masjid at Cumbum in the Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh by Muhammad Shah:

"He is Allah, may he be glorified...During the august rule of...Muhammad Shah, there was a well-established idol-house in Kuhmum...Muhammad Salih who prospers in the rectitude of the affairs of the Faith...razed to the ground, the edifice of the idol-house and broke the idols in a manly fashion. He constructed on its site a suitable mosque, towering above the buildings of all" (1959-60, pp.64-66). The date of construction is mentioned as 1729-30 A.D. in the reign of the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top