Santa V God

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Interesting. The Koran seems to hold a key for this sort of thing: While the scriptures describe both good and evil, there is a provision regarding right guidance:

Koran, M.H. Shakir translation

[6.80] And his people disputed with him. He said: Do you dispute with me respecting Allah? And He has guided me indeed; and I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases; my Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge; will you not then mind?

[6.81] And how should I fear what you have set up (with Him), while you do not fear that you have set up with Allah that for which He has not sent down to you any authority; which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know?

[6.82] Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with iniquity, those are they who shall have the security and they are those who go aright.

Hi Seattle. Strangely enough, your quote sets up a form of the dichotomy I was talking about, without even going to the “harder” passages of the Koran or the Hadith. Verse 6.82 provides a moral test for faith, while verse 6.80 invests the ultimate guarantor of both faith and morality in the person of Muhammad. So one believer may focus on the message of morality, while another on the authority of Muhammad. What was the focus, do you think, of the people who burned down embassies over a cartoon of the prophet?

So again, I agree with you that the keys are there for people who choose to use the Koran as a way to peace, and I sincerely hope that this is the destiny of Islam. But I also recognize that the Koran and the Hadith are replete with material that can be used in the cause of oppression and war. In my view, the Koran, like the bible, is not a magic text, whose recitation automatically leads to peace. To anyone who makes this claim (and I’m not saying you are) my challenge is simple: don’t tell me, show me.

Shanti.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi Seattle. Strangely enough, your quote sets up a form of the dichotomy I was talking about, without even going to the “harder” passages of the Koran or the Hadith.

That's why I posted it.

Verse 6.82 provides a moral test for faith, while verse 6.80 invests the ultimate guarantor of both faith and morality in the person of Muhammad. So one believer may focus on the message of morality, while another on the authority of Muhammad. What was the focus, do you think, of the people who burned down embassies over a cartoon of the prophet?

I would say that their focus was on the authority of Muhammad. (Would that be considered as ascribing partners to Allah?)

So again, I agree with you that the keys are there for people who choose to use the Koran as a way to peace, and I sincerely hope that this is the destiny of Islam. But I also recognize that the Koran and the Hadith are replete with material that can be used in the cause of oppression and war. In my view, the Koran, like the bible, is not a magic text, whose recitation automatically leads to peace. To anyone who makes this claim (and I’m not saying you are) my challenge is simple: don’t tell me, show me.

I see it as a way to 'separate the ore from the scum,' as mentioned in Surah 13.16-19, in a way that all can see, imo.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I would say that their focus was on the authority of Muhammad. (Would that be considered as ascribing partners to Allah?

I'm not sure. I suppose the people in question would consider they're simply carrying out Allah's will. But this is for Muslims to decide. I'm not qualified to say. I can only offer my outside perspective.


Shanti.

[Tao_Equus]

The thing is that you cannot apply the same kind of pick and choose that you might with the Bible in Islam. There is the Law of Abrigation which dictates which Surah has precedence and in the 9th and final book, the most violent and bloodthirsty, many of the Surah directly overrule the earlier, (debatably), peaceable revelations. For example there are 124 versus that call for tolerance and patience that have been cancelled and replaced by one, single verse. This verse is called the verse of the sword:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." Surah 9:5

The fact is that if you believe the Koran to be the authority on how you conduct yourself in the name of Islam then it is the extremist Jihad warriors of Al Quida and the Martyrs Brigade that are the most faithful to their religion. In addition all Muslims are under compulsion to lie and deceive in order to bring about a totalitarian global Islamic state.


tao

Source: "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) and was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The thing is that you cannot apply the same kind of pick and choose that you might with the Bible in Islam. There is the Law of Abrigation which dictates which Surah has precedence and in the 9th and final book, the most violent and bloodthirsty, many of the Surah directly overrule the earlier, (debatably), peaceable revelations. For example there are 124 versus that call for tolerance and patience that have been cancelled and replaced by one, single verse. This verse is called the verse of the sword:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." Surah 9:5

The fact is that if you believe the Koran to be the authority on how you conduct yourself in the name of Islam then it is the extremist Jihad warriors of Al Quida and the Martyrs Brigade that are the most faithful to their religion. In addition all Muslims are under compulsion to lie and deceive in order to bring about a totalitarian global Islamic state.


tao

Source: "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) and was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr.

You're a braver man than I am, Gunga Din! I think by rights it should be Muslims who wrestle with the Koran, the Hadith and the problems of abrogation. Unfortunately, that challenge has not been taken up here, to my knowledge, beyond the usual apologetics. So I can understand your wading into this. I believe a stiff challenge is the sincerest contribution one can make on such questions.

Cheers, Shanti, etc.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

You're a braver man than I am, Gunga Din! I think by rights it should be Muslims who wrestle with the Koran, the Hadith and the problems of abrogation. Unfortunately, that challenge has not been taken up here, to my knowledge, beyond the usual apologetics. So I can understand your wading into this. I believe a stiff challenge is the sincerest contribution one can make on such questions.

Cheers, Shanti, etc.

Again I think this is western thinking. We are used to having some personal input into what is or is unacceptable. Of course there are many Muslims out there that only pay lip service to their faith, or that make a concious decision to ignore the violent majority of the Koran, or are just completely ignorant about it. The layout of the chapters of the Koran means you really have to be a scholar to know the details of where Abrigation is applicable. But very many do know precisely what it says and I unabashedly claim that the Islamic scholars who have been attempting, and succeeding, in selling Islam to the west as a religion of peace are deliberately fraudulent, and in that they are being exemplary Muslims. In the Islamic schools across the Islamic world Abrigation is taught and so is the requirement to lie or to trick the infidel , to lay traps that he might be ambushed. This is the Jurisprudence that is taught as standard*, not as the exception as they would have it painted to us.
On September the 11th 1683 the King of Poland broke the siege of Vienna, defeated the Muslim invaders and ended the the 2nd great wave of Muslim expansion. It has been a symbolic date in the schools of Islam since then along with the message that it is duty bound by every Muslim to retake ground won for Allah, that there is shame on the people of Islam until they have done so. Lying, subterfuge, trickery....all valid tools of the cause make it impossible to trust any apologist or those that say Islam is peaceable. The Islamic notion of peaceable actually means the world will be at peace only when Islam is the only religion. And we in the west ignore that fact at our peril.


*From the book Why I left Jihad by Walid Shoebat (a former high ranking Palestinian killer) and the eminent French scholar Bat Ye'or and her book, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

For me this is of a piece with the historical crisis in the Arab and Muslim worlds, its difficult adjustment to modernity, which is taking its own unique form, and again within the common mental sphere of Islam.

So in my view we should not give Islam a pass.

I find argument hard to accept given that the conclusion is based on a premise about adjusting to modernity that does not square with what we know about how Islam influenced the growth of civilation.

In actual fact, the Golden Age of Islam was making tremendous strides in all areas -- including science and medicine -- while Europe languished in the dark ages. Toby Lestere is right: "Islam became one of the world's great religions in part because of its openness to social change and new ideas."

Your premise suggests that there is something inherently unprogressive about Islam. This view is hard to reconcile to the historical record and also ignores the fact that the Koran itself embodies significant advances with respect to human rights and jurisprudence that were literally hundreds of years ahead of any European "Enlightenment" equivalents, including for example rules of warfare protecting noncombatants. In addition, the Koran contains numerous passages that emphasize the importance of learning.

You say we should not "give Islam a pass." Maybe that's shorthand for saying the applications of Islamic warrant further scrutiny. Your position would have more appeal if the premise were substantiated and if the thesis were stated more precisely - i.e., in a way that makes a distinction between a religion from its applications.

Well, I'm not an expert on this either, but we should keep in mind that the control of trade roots was a function of great powers from the earliest civilizations in middle east on, so one can't ignore the imperial dynamic.

I thought the point of trade was to make money.

I'm not sure of your point here. Are you saying that the scriptures lie outside culture?

No. I'm saying there are culural developments that may have occured before or after a religion that donlt necessarily folow from a religion not are they endorsed by a religion. Consider the pre-Islamic tribal practices that are sometimes atributed to Islam in an effort to discredit the religion.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I find argument hard to accept given that the conclusion is based on a premise about adjusting to modernity that does not square with what we know about how Islam influenced the growth of civilation.

In actual fact, the Golden Age of Islam was making tremendous strides in all areas -- including science and medicine -- while Europe languished in the dark ages. Toby Lestere is right: "Islam became one of the world's great religions in part because of its openness to social change and new ideas."

Your premise suggests that there is something inherently unprogressive about Islam. This view is hard to reconcile to the historical record and also ignores the fact that the Koran itself embodies significant advances with respect to human rights and jurisprudence that were literally hundreds of years ahead of any European "Enlightenment" equivalents, including for example rules of warfare protecting noncombatants. In addition, the Koran contains numerous passages that emphasize the importance of learning.

Hi Netti. My original purpose as I said was not to enter into a long exchange, but simply to offer a moderating voice. At the same time I don’t want to be evasive, so let me answer several of your points.

First of all, I wasn’t saying that Islam is inherently incapable of adjusting to modernity. (If it isn’t, then we truly are in trouble.) I was only pointing to its present reality and its now centuries old difficulties and weakness in the face of Western competition. You mention the “golden age” and the achievements of Islamic civilization. Fair enough. These achievements are widely recognized, even by critics like Bernard Lewis. It’s not a bad idea to provide some balance. And I realize that Islam has always been slandered by its blood enemies among Christians. So if your purpose here is to stick up for the underdog, I appreciate that. I’m always for the underdog. (Perhaps you have the plight of the Palestinians in mind? But they’re victims as much of their fellow Arabs as of the Israelis.)

But I think you’d agree that we need broader historical perspective to put this into context. It’s not enough to simply point to a golden age; that golden age was relatively brief. The intellectual decline of Islam began long before the beginnings of the economic and military decline that mirrored Europe’s rise from early modern times and ended in the catastrophe of colonialism. Remember that Islam began with the much the same resources as the West: the moral resources of the Judeo-Christian traditions and the legacy of classical learning. In addition, it had the great advantage of starting fresh at a time when the old empires were receding. Yet after a relatively brief “golden age” and its achievements little further progress was made. The “gates of ijtihad” were closed and the law was fossilized. Not only that, philosophy itself and spirit of free inquiry was essentially shut down (see al-Ghazali, The Incoherence of the Philosophers). Islam has experienced many reform movements since, but these have been almost invariably backward looking, and free inquiry is yet to recover.

So while I agree that in theory Islam has the intellectual resources to meet its challenges – the clarity of its monotheism is one advantage, the simplicity of its core practice is another, the inspiration of its past achievements is yet another – it also has a long history of not effectively doing so, but of instead constantly fighting rearguard actions, and of resorting to brute violence over intelligent and effective action.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

You say we should not "give Islam a pass." Maybe that's shorthand for saying the applications of Islamic warrant further scrutiny. Your position would have more appeal if the premise were substantiated and if the thesis were stated more precisely - i.e., in a way that makes a distinction between a religion from its applications.

But the point is that there is no simple distinction between a “religion” and “its applications”, or again there is a simple distinction only if one posits religion in the abstract as an ideal orthodoxy or as an ideal text, which I can’t accept. In my view, the Koran is embedded in human culture like any other product of culture. It carries with it difficulties and ambiguities from its inception. Certainly, much was added to Islam from various cultures. One can’t say that everything bad simply and directly flows from the text of the Koran. But that’s not the issue. The issue is the pragmatic one of what Islam actually is and has been. Certainly, the Koran is a major player in this, and can’t fully escape the implications of Islamic practice, but its place and reading is for Muslims to work out. You and I are not qualified to decide. We can only provide honest outside perspectives.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I thought the point of trade was to make money.

But isn’t the issue here the violence or lack of it of the first wave of Muslim expansion? Again, I’m taking what I think is the moderate position between “rampaging hoards” on the one hand, and the idea that Islam was simply disseminated as a byproduct of trade on the Buddhist model on the other. Islam had armies. It moved into territories of opportunity and assumed an administrative role and eventually empire. These are not operations that normally exclude violence. As for trade, its role was not passive. As I said (though typos were involved!), one of the primary original impulses to the spread of civilization and empire was precisely the need to control vital trade routes. Again, the vigor of emergent Islam in contrast with the weakness of established power would have made these trade routes targets of opportunity.

Shanti.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

My original purpose as I said was not to enter into a long exchange, but simply to offer a moderating voice.

Perhaps. But you have very clearly been taking positions and making factual claims in connection with these positions.

But I think you’d agree that we need broader historical perspective to put this into context. It’s not enough to simply point to a golden age; that golden age was relatively brief.

How long did it last? And what caused it to end?

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Perhaps. But you have very clearly been taking positions and making factual claims in connection with these positions. How long did it last? And what caused it to end?

Ah, Netti. No more games! Al-Ghazali dates from the 12th century. The closing of the gates of ijtihad dates to around the same time or a little later, depending on your sources. In early modern times (16th century or so) the so-called "gunpowder empires" in the middle east and Asia, including the Ottomans, retained military importance, but were already falling behind the West where it really mattered, in intellectual capital. By the 18th century the Ottomans were essentially on deathwatch, like the latter days of Franco or of the Hillary Clinton campaign. But you can look all this stuff up yourself. I’m not going to swell out my already over-long posts with interminable history lessons or post links to sources you can easily locate yourself.

I suppose you have the crusades, the reconquista and European imperialism as bogeys waiting in the wings? I’m anti-imperialist by nature and would be the last person to minimize the many sins of Christian tradition, but playing the victim card here does an injustice to the victim. It offers no real defense of Islam. Again, honesty is in my view the more compassionate action.

But look, unless you feel absolutely compelled to append some other point, I think we’ve established we have different views on this, so let’s leave it at that, and redirect our contrarian energies where they would be more useful – wherever that might be – for we do indeed have that and a native stubbornness in common.

Shanti.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

But look, unless you feel absolutely compelled to append some other point, I think we’ve established we have different views on this, so let’s leave it at that

This goes beyond taking positions and stating views. It has to do with factual claims and verifiable world history.

...let’s leave it at that, and redirect our contrarian energies where they would be more useful – wherever that might be – for we do indeed have that and a native stubbornness in common.

Yes, we probably do have that in common, though it wouldn't be apparent from a couple of flippant, off-the-cuff posts on fairly complex issues.

Btw, I thought we were making inroads as far as exploring the facts. It seems you're not interested in the facts I have to share. I'm not totally surprised. The reason I talk to myself is because no one else will listen.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

This goes beyond taking positions and stating views. It has to do with factual claims and verifiable world history.



Yes, we probably do have that in common, though it wouldn't be apparent from a couple of flippant, off-the-cuff posts on fairly complex issues.

Btw, I thought we were making inroads as far as exploring the facts. It seems you're not interested in the facts I have to share. I'm not totally surprised. The reason I talk to myself is because no one else will listen.

Well, I’m glad you ended with a happy face! But please do present whatever facts you like. Even if I don’t respond, I’m sure I’ll be enjoying them in silence.

But again I was never interested in a debate on this. I was only suggesting that in your response to Tao’s full frontal assault on Islam you meet him at least some small distance part way and not completely bracket Islam out of consideration in those societies and cultures it has done so much to form.

To recapitulate: Islam (religion) is either a motive force in a given society or it is not. If it is not, then it’s irrelevant, simply not a factor, and therefore not worth defending. If religion IS a motive force, then it is either a positive force, a negative force, or mixed. The new atheists maintain that it’s purely (or nearly purely) a negative force, and whatever positives are associated with religion are not intrinsic to religion but to human experience as a whole. For certain believers or apologists, religion is purely a positive force, and any negative associations are the result of outside forces or errors of application.

My position as you know is the boring old commonsense every day pragmatic one that religion is a mixed force, like all cultural institutions, like all human projects and products.

And that’s why I suggested that we “leave it at that”, for you’ve repeatedly referred to religion as if it’s some kind of essence that can be isolated and more or less correctly applied. For me religion is not an essence but a process, an activity that as I’ve said has no precise boundaries, and whose boundaries are constantly under negotiation.

So when we go through the above train of reasoning, the stack is decked for both of us; we’re bound to come out on opposite sides.

As for the historical record, I seriously doubt that you’re going to find the magic bullet that settles the question, particularly in a forum like this where necessarily our focus is going to be sporadic – after all, we do have lives, don’t we? (Well, sort of!) This isn’t graduate school, at least not for me.

What usually happens with any serious immersion in history is that our sympathies get engaged, and in this case that will dictate whether we locate the difficulties of Islam internally or externally, and to what degrees (and to be clear, by difficulties I mean not just the phenomena of suicide bombers, but also the radical theocracy of Iran, the medieval theocratic kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the long history of despotism in many countries, poorly developed economies, the squandering of oil revenues, the inability for Arabs to unite against who they claim is their common enemy, and so on and on).

Compare Bernard Lewis, a prominent scholar who has written much on Islam, and Edward Said, the author of “Orientalism”. Lewis, from what I know of him is the far deeper scholar, but there’s no doubt that he needs to be read with caution because of his engagement on the side of Israel. Said, on the other hand, invites one’s sympathies in that he’s an advocate for his Palestinian countrymen, and on this side of the pond at least, the Palestinian and Arab point of view is to this day nearly invisible. He has much to say about the trauma of colonialism still operant in the Arab world. At the same time his advocacy tends to paint Arabs as victims, and so again he must be read with caution. It helps to read two authors like this together.

One book I would recommend that seems to me as balanced as humanly possible is Albert Hourani’s “A History of the Arab Peoples”. He writes from inside the culture, sympathetically, and certainly touches on all the achievements of the Arabs and Islam, but he writes accurately and dispassionately, so that you can make up your own mind about the general shape and trends of Arab and Islamic history.

Dipping into history, everyone is going to come to his or her own sense of things. And if after deeper study, you decide that Islam is indeed an essence, a purely positive force, I’m hardly going to try to talk you around. Or let’s put it this way: I don’t have the time or energy available to effect your conversion!

Happy face! (I prefer typing mine.)

Shanti.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

My position as you know is the boring old commonsense every day pragmatic one that religion is a mixed force, like all cultural institutions, like all human projects and products.

And also a highly variable force.

And that’s why I suggested that we “leave it at that”, for you’ve repeatedly referred to religion as if it’s some kind of essence that can be isolated and more or less correctly applied. For me religion is not an essence but a process, an activity that as I’ve said has no precise boundaries, and whose boundaries are constantly under negotiation.

Doctrines aren't quite that flexible.

As for the historical record, I seriously doubt that you’re going to find the magic bullet that settles the question, particularly in a forum like this where necessarily our focus is going to be sporadic – after all, we do have lives, don’t we? (Well, sort of!)

Yes, I have a life too, which is why I appreciate it when somone meets me half ways with basic fact checks.

This isn’t graduate school, at least not for me.

Mmm, I thought middle school kids know how to to use footnotes when citing sources. I guess we can set the standard pretty much anywhere you like.

What usually happens with any serious immersion in history is that our sympathies get engaged,

Actually a basic drive for the truth is what keeps me going.

Compare Bernard Lewis, a prominent scholar who has written much on Islam, and Edward Said, the author of “Orientalism”. Lewis, from what I know of him is the far deeper scholar, but there’s no doubt that he needs to be read with caution because of his engagement on the side of Israel. Said, on the other hand, invites one’s sympathies in that he’s an advocate for his Palestinian countrymen, and on this side of the pond at least, the Palestinian and Arab point of view is to this day nearly invisible. He has much to say about the trauma of colonialism still operant in the Arab world. At the same time his advocacy tends to paint Arabs as victims, and so again he must be read with caution. It helps to read two authors like this together.

Yes, no doubt

One book I would recommend that seems to me as balanced as humanly possible is Albert Hourani’s “A History of the Arab Peoples”.

Thanks for the tip. Hourani has also written one called Islam and European Thought.

I don’t have the time or energy available to effect your conversion!

Well I did have a minute to devote to yours. Actually it took me less than a minute to find this article, which indicates the years 711 to 1492 for Islam's Golden Age.
BBC - Religion & Ethics - Muslim Spain (711-1492): A Golden Age

That's almost 800 years after the death of the Prophet. You would describe this as "relatively brief" and not worth mentioning?

Also, Islam's Golden Age did not end because of inherent properties that led to Islam's decline. It's because Muslims were pushed out of Spain by new Christian regime or used as slaves after being forced to convert to Christianity.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Well I did have a minute to devote to yours. Actually it took me less than a minute to find this article, which indicates the years 711 to 1492 for Islam's Golden Age.
BBC - Religion & Ethics - Muslim Spain (711-1492): A Golden Age

That's almost 800 years after the death of the Prophet. You would describe this as "relatively brief" and not worth mentioning?

Also, Islam's Golden Age did not end because of inherent properties that led to Islam's decline. It's because Muslims were pushed out of Spain by new Christian regime or used as slaves after being forced to convert to Christianity.

It is true that the Islamic states through the middle ages did keep good libraries and in a very few elites scholarship was held in esteem. But the libraries were on the whole booty from Islamic expansion and in that period Islamic study did almost nothing to build upon the knowledge that was already extant. As I have said before, Islam's only real great intellectual achievements during this time was in the arts and in architecture. In the science they did no more than tread water with the knowledge not attributable to them. You have to be a scholar today to know of any work done by any Islamic writer during that time that made any new contribution to human knowledge. There were very few. The Golden age of Islam was not an intellectual achievement but a military one and to try and paint it otherwise is painting a false picture.

tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

It is true that the Islamic states through the middle ages did keep good libraries and in a very few elites scholarship was held in esteem. But the libraries were on the whole booty from Islamic expansion and in that period Islamic study did almost nothing to build upon the knowledge that was already extant.

You mean they should have built on the Christian Flat Earth doctrine?

As I have said before, Islam's only real great intellectual achievements during this time was in the arts and in architecture. In the science they did no more than tread water with the knowledge not attributable to them.

Actually many of the scientific advances of the age were directly to the credit of Islamic civilization and not derivative.

You have to be a scholar today to know of any work done by any Islamic writer during that time that made any new contribution to human knowledge.

Historical shortsightedness is a common problem.

As for the contention that the libraries were on the whole being "booty from Islamic expansion," this is hard to reconcile to the fact that there so many paper shops in Islamic Cordova. If all the books were being brought in, why were there so many paper shops ? The reason is simple: Cordova and other Islamic centers of learning is where the scholars were and that's where the books were being written. The scholars trecked to Spain from Europe.

The reason scholars wanted to be part of Islamic society is also simple: that's where their talents were valued, as you point out. While the Islamic Golden age was peaking, Europe languished in the Dark Ages, an era dominated by Christendom. The Church headed up such notable scientific advances as flat earth doctrine, which I presume you include among the great "knowledge that was already extant."

The Islamic libraries themselves were bookmaking factories. Now why would the libraries need to import books from abroad when so many books were being written by Muslim scholars and were the copied and disseminated everywhere else? Are you saying that there was a recall of the books they themselves had written and distributed?

There was some cultural exchange despite the Christian Crusades. Some books were indeed brought in from elswehere, but many of them came fron other Muslim territories and centers of learning. Btw, they were not typically acquired by force. Rather, they were brought in by women who were employed by the libraries as professional book huntresses.

The Golden age of Islam was not an intellectual achievement but a military one and to try and paint it otherwise is painting a false picture.

Indeed, there are false pictures and your portrayal is one of them. In the article from which I will now quote there was an interesting comment that the Clash of Civilisations is actually just "a clash of ignorance."

"The story about ‘spreading the faith by the sword’ is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims," says Jewish peace activist Uri Avnery in his recent article "Mohammad’s Sword." Since Christians are accorded the same status by Islam as Jews, it might be illuminating to ask whether Jewish minorities were forced under Muslim rule to change their religion. The same question can be put differently: what is Islam’s equivalent of the Inquisition?

"There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on Jews," says Avnery who then adds, "As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time.… In Muslim Spain Jews were ministers, poets, scientists." Avnery goes on to conclude: "That was, indeed, the Golden Age."

In fact, many of the works of Arab polymath Ibn Rushd (Spain, 1126-1198) only survived in their Hebrew or Latin translations, thanks to his Jewish and Christian students in Muslim Spain, and later throughout Europe. For instance, his influential commentary on Plato’s Republic was only recently translated from Hebrew back to its original Arabic! The crucial question, as put by Avnery, regarding the age-old participation of religious minorities in Muslim scientific, cultural and even political life, is: "How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the ‘spreading of the faith by the sword’?"

Europa & the Galileo Myth: The Pope Delusion | On Faith | washingtonpost.com

I don't know what to tell you, friend Tao. Try again?