Santa V God

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The Infidel is an enemy to subdue, conquer enslave or kill. And any method is valid. Lie to them, deceive them, lure them in traps. This is what is taught in their schools. When a Muslim martyr blows himself and however many innocent bystanders to smithereens the mosques do not condemn him, they proclaim with joy his marriage to the virgins in paradise. That is what you are dealing with. Not some deliberately fostered propaganda from some orientalist. A peaceable Islam is a lie. Ask the Hindu's who continue to suffer daily suicide bombs on the Islamic campaign of the Hindu Genocide. A campaign thats been waged for well over a millennium. But dont come back at me again with the crap regurgitated from the Orientalist "scholars" that have infiltrated the western universities. I dont buy that rubbish.

Hi Tao. As you know, I’ve been in your court in calling Netti out on his many rhetorical sins and faulty representations. I just wish our friend would step back, take a breather, and with fresh eyes look at the criticisms. He may find they have some justification. And if he truly is merely humbly speaking out for the underdog, taking such lessons in stride will help him do a much better job of it.

But here I want to call your attention to a couple of things. First of all, a minor misuse of a term that will leave you open for attack. The term “orientalist” in academe is more likely to refer to a denigrator than to a defender of Islam. “Orientalism” was coined to my knowledge by Edward Said to refer to the imposition of Western perspectives onto subject peoples in the Middle East. As I said in a previous post, Said quite rightly explicates the trauma of colonialism, but perhaps provides too much support to the view some people fall into of Arab or Muslim eternal victimization.

Interestingly enough, some time back I did come across a little book called “Occidentalism”, which plays off Said’s work, exposing the pattern of apologists who blame the West for everything that has gone wrong with Islam. You know the list: the crusades, the reconquista, colonialism, U.S. imperialism, etc. Now, I’m no apologist for sins and violence of the West, which are legion, but history shows that Islam was not made up of choirboys either, despite at some periods having by some measures the superior civilization. But all this begs the question: why was Islam so easily traumatized? As I’ve said repeatedly, it does Muslims little service to paint them as perennial victims (or to exaggerate their glories).

But I want also to call attention to your rather extreme and alarmist take on Islam. While in a way I admire your forthrightness and find it preferable to the mealy-mouthed types in the West who would flatter Islam out of it excesses, but who know little or nothing about it – think of the sheer hypocrisy of George Bush calling Islam a peaceful religion – I also think you’re at times painting a picture of a tradition so inherently brutal and corrupt that it would have been incapable of civilization of any description. That I think tends to undermine your quite legitimate concerns about the militancy and paucity of democratic values typical not just of the extremists but of mainstream Islam as well. Islam is certainly a potential threat to our freedoms that should be taken seriously, as are American Christian fundamentalists, but again I think a more measured and sober approach would be more effective.

Just an FYI, not an invitation to debate.

Cheers.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

I just wish our friend would step back, take a breather, and with fresh eyes look at the criticisms. He may find they have some justification. And if he truly is merely humbly speaking out for the underdog, taking such lessons in stride will help him do a much better job of it.

I don't consider Muslims the underdog and they have no need of my defense.

...(A)ll this begs the question: why was Islam so easily traumatized?

Hey there Devadatta. I notice your language is often loaded and sometimes suggests a rhetorical ploys of sorts. In this instance your phrasing would seem to be a commentary on one thing even though you are asking a question about something else. I don't know if this kind of linguistic confusion was intended (maybe you were just speaking figuratively) or whether you were just being sloppy. Anyway:

(1) How can a religion be traumatized? I didn't know a religion had experiential capabilities of any kind.

(2) If you're talking about an empire going into decline or being shattered - which likely would be in the context of a series of military defeats or internal upheavals -- what does that have to do with religion?

(3) What was it - military defeat or internal upheaval and when did the tide turn ?

Thx.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I don't consider Muslims the underdog and they have no need of my defense.


Hey there Devadatta. I notice your language is often loaded and sometimes suggests a rhetorical ploys of sorts. In this instance your phrasing would seem to be a commentary on one thing even though you are asking a question about something else. I don't know if this kind of linguistic confusion was intended (maybe you were just speaking figuratively) or whether you were just being sloppy. Anyway:

(1) How can a religion be traumatized? I didn't know a religion had experiential capabilities of any kind.

(2) If you're talking about an empire going into decline or being shattered - which likely would be in the context of a series of military defeats or internal upheavals -- what does that have to do with religion?

(3) What was it - military defeat or internal upheaval and when did the tide turn ?

Thx.

(1) How can a religion be traumatized? I didn't know a religion had experiential capabilities of any kind.
It’s characteristic of you to demand the kind of rigor that you rarely practice yourself. Of course this is pure diversion. The point is clear: as I’ve already brought forward several times, many people have pointed to the crusades, the reconquista and colonialism as traumatic events in the long history of Islamic culture. Obviously, “trauma” refers to actual human beings not to some abstract entity – perhaps your seizing on this again reflects your preoccupation with essences. But again instead of dealing with the substance you seize on the tangential.
(2) If you're talking about an empire going into decline or being shattered - which likely would be in the context of a series of military defeats or internal upheavals -- what does that have to do with religion?
Good grief. One of the central tenets of Islam is precisely that there is no division between shariah, God’s law, and Earthly government; there is no “rendering onto Caesar”, no separation of church and state. Now, that’s an ideal not an empirical fact. The reality is obviously far more complicated. But Islam as an institution has always and everywhere been tied up with state or imperial power; to try to draw a hard line between military and political events on the one hand and the state of Islam on the other is absurd. Surely, you’re aware that from the time of the death of the Prophet the history of Islam is replete with assassination and counter assassination over inheritance of the caliphate? That the first split in Islam between Sunni and Shia dates from these very early days, and that the split was not about doctrine, not about law, but about this came issue of the caliphate and the inheritance of power?
(3) What was it - military defeat or internal upheaval and when did the tide turn?
(Sigh!) You know how to use Wikipedia. In ten minutes you can get an overview of the long and complex historical rivalry, competition and series of interactions between Islam and the West. There can be no absolute, agreed upon “turning point”, except at the cost of distortion and over-simplification, but only a series of watersheds with complex effects. Your question is trivial.

As you know, Professor Netti, I sent very much the same responses via PM and you know the reasons why. You asked that they be made public. So here you are.

You know, I certainly have a competitive streak, but mere debating for debating’s sake for me is just “an expense of spirit and a waste of shame”. A debate or discussion needs to be productive of at least some small advance in understanding. But it takes willing participants acting in good faith to make that happen.

But you cut and paste your arguments and your frames of reference the way you cut and paste your often badly chosen or very derivative sources, in a kind of flurry of diversion. And while it isn’t necessary to answer every point the other person makes – certainly one can and does pass over points that reflect on fundamental outlooks, without necessarily conceding those points – one does have an obligation to deal in some manner with points of substance to the discussion. Often enough you fail to do that, but merely leap off onto another diversion. Finally, while we're all susceptible of descending into a little bluff and b.s. on occasion, one needs to have some factual base to begin with. One can’t offer useful perspectives from a total vacuum of empirical knowledge. And you’ve committed some howlers, as I’ve noted, including this notion that Islam spread from its Arabic home as a simple function of trade, the way Buddhism spread from India along the Silk Route. I pointed this out in a very gentle way. Tao listed the battles. Either way, I’m not sure the message got through.

Take a look around these forums. You’ll find that long exchanges do exist where the two sides may find points of agreement, or may simply make more clear their contrasting perspectives – in either case, something is learned. The discussion is productive of something.

I’ve learned nothing in my discussions with you. And again, as I’ve already said, I have no interest in its continuance. You’ll have to carry this on with others.

Shanti.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

The term “orientalist” in academe is more likely to refer to a denigrator than to a defender of Islam. “Orientalism” was coined to my knowledge by Edward Said to refer to the imposition of Western perspectives onto subject peoples in the Middle East.

Interestingly enough, some time back I did come across a little book called “Occidentalism”, which plays off Said’s work, exposing the pattern of apologists who blame the West for everything that has gone wrong with Islam.

Hi Devadatta,



I thank you for your concern and the information you provided. I am aware that Said is the founder of Orientalism and I believe I said so a few posts back. My interpretation though is that as well as his criticisms of forced cultural values he was also the leading voice in painting Islam a wholly peaceable religion and that the warfare was a political separateness from the body of the faith. He does not try to sell that to the Islamic world. This is entirely for the western academia that go on to advise our political leaders.
Occidentalism is ringing bells for me, so I will go take a look at that.

tao

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi Devadatta,



I thank you for your concern and the information you provided. I am aware that Said is the founder of Orientalism and I believe I said so a few posts back. My interpretation though is that as well as his criticisms of forced cultural values he was also the leading voice in painting Islam a wholly peaceable religion and that the warfare was a political separateness from the body of the faith. He does not try to sell that to the Islamic world. This is entirely for the western academia that go on to advise our political leaders.
Occidentalism is ringing bells for me, so I will go take a look at that.

tao

Hi Tao. As I said, it was just a minor point. It's just that one could get the impression from your post that "Orientalism" was a form of a apology for Islam of the kind you rightly mention here, when as you know "Orientalism" is a term of oppribrium directed at the West. Just a matter of clarification. And yes, to find a copy of "Occidentialism". It's just a little book, not a serious study, but I think it does provide some politically incorrect balance.


Cheers, Shanti, etc.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

(1) How can a religion be traumatized? I didn't know a religion had experiential capabilities of any kind.
...perhaps you're seizing on this again reflects your preoccupation with essences. But again instead of dealing with the substance you seize on the tangential.

Obviously, "trauma" refers to actual human beings. But your comment about Islam being easily traumatized appears in the context of your comments about self-presentation: "why was Islam so easily traumatized? .... it does Muslims little service to paint them(selves) as perennial victims."

Without any specific information about the adverse impact of certain traumatic evens, how would one presume to characterize Muslims as a bunch of whinny "perennial victims"?? Are you saying, for example, that Muslims should see the forced conversion and the slavery of Muslims during Spain's Christian regime during the 15th century as a positive experience? I guess I don't get the point you are making. It just seems like a random, off-hand remark about Muslims without much substance.

(2) If you're talking about an empire going into decline or being shattered - which likely would be in the context of a series of military defeats or internal upheavals -- what does that have to do with religion?
Good grief. One of the central tenets of Islam is precisely that there is no division between shariah, God’s law, and Earthly government

That's the theory.

If I recall, there are 59 Muslim countries. Only five of these have adopted Sharis as a methology for writing laws. Interestingly, these adoptions/ratifications have been very recent developments. They are also very scattered. Sometimes the process is gradual as opposed to a wholesale adoption that probably would indicate a people's readiness to adopt Sharia as a legal approach to writing laws.

For example, Zamfara was the first of Nigeria's 39 states to adopt Sharia as a legal method. That was in the year 2000. I suspect that lack of consensus concerning specific legal coded could hobble wholesale adoption. As you know, the range of laws and penalties subsumed by Sharia is very broad. Also, they are nconsistently applied and legal codes can in effect vary dramatically between localities.

Dress codes like women covering the head with a scarf or veil are part of a Sharia view. There are some Muslim countries where this head-covering custom has never been observed or only in some regions of the country. I'm just speculating here, but unless such a country were taken over by extreme fundamentalists, it is doubtful that they would change their ways even if the newly introduced Sharia system were deemed a desirable source of legal principles. Existing customs would probably prevail.

A trend toward Sharia may be apparent for countries with a history of internal conflicts that are in the middle of social upheaval. Like Somalia, which I believe is the last country to have made a move toward Sharia. Some observers have reported that initial applications were getting results: "Sharia (Islamic law) operating in Mogadishu has been effective in bringing a semblance of law and order to the city."

At any rate, one might reasonably ask, if Sharia is so centrally important, why has it not been in evidence until recent history throughout Muslim parts of the world?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Also, they are inconsistently applied and legal codes can in effect vary dramatically between localities.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are the only countries that claim to "fully implement sharia in all areas of the law."
Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

However, even Iran and Saudi Arabia could have regional differences in application, especially in tribal areas that are more likely to be influenced by customs.

The point here, of course, is that nothing is written in stone. It would be unrealistic to suggest that "Islamic law" is fully informed by religious doctrine or that doctrine can be inferred from legal applications.

Some observers have reported that initial applications were getting results: "Sharia (Islamic law) operating in Mogadishu has been effective in bringing a semblance of law and order to the city."

Forgot to mention: That was in 2004.


For your interest, here are some general Sharia principles:

The right of freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, or physical annihilation

The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a fair and impartial tribunal in accordance with the Rule of Law

The application of the Principle of Legality which calls for the right of the accused to be tried for crimes specified in the Koran or other crimes whose clear and well-established meaning and content are determined by Sharia Law or by a criminal code in conformity therewith

The right to appear before an appropriate tribunal previously established by law

The right of a public trial

The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself

The right to present evidence and to call witnesses in one’s defence

The right to council on one’s own choosing

The right to decision on the merits based upon legally admissible evidence

The right to have the decision in the case rendered in public

The right to benefit from the spirit of Mercy and the goals of rehabilitation and reconciliation in the consideration of the penalty to be imposed

The right to appeal

Source: Bassiouni, M.C. 1982) Sources of Islamic Law and the Protection of Human Rights in the Islamic Criminal Justice System, in: M.C. Bassiouni (ed): The Islamic Criminal Justice System, London.

[Devadatta]

Well, Netti, I think you're right in one respect. I make myself a little silly by constantly returning to this fraying fray. But then you keep popping up again like a whack-a-mole! At this point, I don't know which of us is nuttier.


I don't have time this evening to respond to your latest points one by one, gving them the relfection they deserve and allowing for any validity I find.


But for the moment, I'd like to ask you: just what is your aim here? What are you trying to maintain? Do you have a thesis? It would be helpful to any further communication if you could just let me know what your bottom line is. Who knows, we may have some agreement there.


Cheers.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

It would be helpful to any further communication if you could just let me know what your bottom line is.

My bottom line is clarity and specificity. That's why I tend toward fairly simple propositions.

Even very elaborate theories of human behavior allow for hypotheses that can be tested and then tested again in new samples to evaluate the stability of the findings.

I say "even elaborate theories." Actually good theories have lots of testable hypotheses. When they're confirmed, the findings in effect confirm the theory.

Who knows, we may have some agreement there.

I thought we did on Essentialism.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

But Islam as an institution has always and everywhere been tied up with state or imperial power; to try to draw a hard line between military and political events on the one hand and the state of Islam on the other is absurd.

Hello Devadatta,

Historically, that connection may be there. There doesn't seem to be widespread consensus on it today. Recall the studies I cited previously indicating no correlation between religiosity and political attitudes in surveys of contemporary Muslims. Perhaps you could cite a study with different results. In the meantime, why represent the connection as an aspect of a "central tenet" or an "always and everywhere" feature of Islam when it does not appear to be present in Muslim populations now and when only two Muslim countries - Iran and Saudi Arabia - claim to be implementing Islamic law in all areas?

(3) What was it - military defeat or internal upheaval and when did the tide turn?

(Sigh!) You know how to use Wikipedia. In ten minutes you can get an overview of the long and complex historical rivalry, competition and series of interactions between Islam and the West. There can be no absolute, agreed upon "turning point", except at the cost of distortion and over-simplification, but only a series of watersheds with complex effects. Your question is trivial.

I never said there was absolute, agreed upon "turning point." I was looking for a description of a process that can be linked to the alleged "easy" traumatization of Muslims. What you consider "trivial" strikes me as rather important. If the Islamic empire came apart because of internal political strife or a failure to respond effectively to various "client states" desire to be autonomous, that's fundamtally different in historical meaning from being by the West. Indeed, it undercuts the notion that Muslims resent the West on account of the humiliating defeats they suffered. Not trivial at all, brother. It may have seemed trivial to you because you didn't see where I was going with my line of questioning.

As it turns out, the more recent variants of the Islamic Empire disintegrated from within because of political forces and incompetent governance; not as a result of military defeat that reduced Muslims to powerlessness. Before that, there were military defeats - principally at the hands of the Turks, Crusaders, and the Mongols -- but the Muslims always rebounded.

I certainly have a competitive streak, but mere debating for debating’s sake for me is just "an expense of spirit and a waste of shame"

Sorry bro, but it's perfectly legitimate to ask somebody to clarify or support their position. It's not self-indulgent. It's just like you and me talking in person and me asking you "ok, so you're saying that?..."

A debate or discussion needs to be productive of at least some small advance in understanding. But it takes willing participants acting in good faith to make that happen.

All off my questions and comments have been purposeful and in good faith. You need to give me the benefit of the doubt rather than assume bad intent. Also, you need to be more patient and give me a chance, so that you can see where I'm headed with my line of questioning. It's not petty or trivial. There's a good reason for it -- even if it's not apparent at the time.

Often enough you fail to do that, but merely leap off onto another diversion.

When I ask for clarification, that's not a diversion. When I present contrary evidence, that's not a diversion. You'd see my line of questioning makes good sense if you just try to understand the intended purpose -- which may mean hanging in there an extra day or so. I have a life too.

Finally, while we're all susceptible of descending into a little bluff and b.s. on occasion, one needs to have some factual base to begin with. One can’t offer useful perspectives from a total vacuum of empirical knowledge.

That's why I like to cite surveys and specific historical record.

And you’ve committed some howlers, as I’ve noted, including this notion that Islam spread from its Arabic home as a simple function of trade, the way Buddhism spread from India along the Silk Route.

Heh, you call that "a Howler?" Muslims ended up taking over the spice trade in China. Even today there are Muslim communities in China. Obviously they got pretty far and it seems even the Chinese were sufficiently impressed to turn over their import business to Muslims.

The view that Islam spread though the spice trade is not my pet theory. It reflects numerous historical accounts. Muhammad himself was a trader. One other thing: I never said this was the only means for the transmission of Islam. For example, the Mongols apparently converted to Islam as a result of living among the Sufis, Islam's Peace and Love people.

Tao listed the battles

Yes, he did and you will recall my response was to ask "What they mean?" Also, which of these were "easy victories because the people preferred Muslim rule to the tyranny they had been living under before?

Moreover, were the various conquests in Tao's list representative of a large-scale evangelization effort? Think about it. Why would Muslims want people to convert to Islam when they could keep collecting taxes from them as long as the "client states" were viable money-making protectorates? Financial self-interest argues against evangelization and forced conversion. The Muslims would have made a point not to try to convert non-Muslims. (Btw, most of the areas conquered were Christian, which means they qualified for protective Dhimmi status as People of the Book.)

Anyway, based on Tao's list of battles/conquests, it looks to me like there were lots of victories for the Islamic armies. That's what it looks like based on the accounts given. Were the accounts written by the victors? As you know, the victors tend to "exaggerate their glories" (your terms) and impose their view of history to the exclusion of their defeated adversaries' version of the story. So why would you take a bunch of hyperactive 8th century warriors word for what happened with these battles?

Shanti to you, too, brother Devadatta.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

For your interest, here are some general Sharia principles:

The right of freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, or physical annihilation

The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a fair and impartial tribunal in accordance with the Rule of Law

The application of the Principle of Legality which calls for the right of the accused to be tried for crimes specified in the Koran or other crimes whose clear and well-established meaning and content are determined by Sharia Law or by a criminal code in conformity therewith

The right to appear before an appropriate tribunal previously established by law

The right of a public trial

The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself

The right to present evidence and to call witnesses in one’s defence

The right to council on one’s own choosing

The right to decision on the merits based upon legally admissible evidence

The right to have the decision in the case rendered in public

The right to benefit from the spirit of Mercy and the goals of rehabilitation and reconciliation in the consideration of the penalty to be imposed

Pretty much like the rights you allready have anyway... Human right... Which is protected by law and is valid to everyone no matter their religion....


The rights are:

We are all born equal and free.
Don't disciminate.
The right to life.
No slavery.
No torture.
You have your rights WHEREVER you go.
All are equal before the law.
Human rights are protected by law.
No unfair detainment.
The Right to trial.
Innocent until proven other wise.
Right to privacy.
Freedom to move.
The right to asylum.
The right to nationality.
The right to family.
The right to have your own personal things.
The right to freedom of thought.
The right to expression.
The right to public assembly.
The right to democracy.
The right to social secruity
Workers rights.
Rights to play.
The rights to food and shelter.
The right to education.
Copyright.
Free fair world.
Reponsability.
The right that no one can take these rights from you.
And the right to know your rights.....

So basically sharia HAS, HAS to abide by these, so of course your rights are going to be like that, but it isn't from your religion they come.... If you understand what I am trying to say?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Anyway, based on Tao's list of battles/conquests, it looks to me like there were lots of victories for the Islamic armies. That's what it looks like based on the accounts given. Were the accounts written by the victors? As you know, the victors tend to "exaggerate their glories" (your terms) and impose their view of history to the exclusion of their defeated adversaries' version of the story. So why would you take a bunch of hyperactive 8th century warriors word for what happened with these battles?
.

Lol, Netti,

Why take the word of anything you read if that is your attitude. Why bother to put forth the results of any study, any survey. Why not just form your own idea and stick with it regardless of the records that do exist? Oh ....hang on.... that is what you do do!!!
By the way in most of the Muslim battles there are multiple sources for the accounts of what took place. Muslims were known for their brutality and lack of mercy on the conquered. Instead of just sourcing from the apologists why dont you go take a real hard look from multiple sources.

tao

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

My bottom line is clarity and specificity. That's why I tend toward fairly simple propositions.

Even very elaborate theories of human behavior allow for hypotheses that can be tested and then tested again in new samples to evaluate the stability of the findings.

Hi Netti. Thanks for your response. What you’re saying here is a laudable intellectual ideal, in its place. On the other hand, can we agree that it’s an ideal that we both have violated on occasion, and humbly leave it at that? As well, neither of us has offered in this discussion anything so exalted as an “elaborate theory of human behavior”.

So what I’m looking for is your sense of where we are in this discussion. Leaving aside quibbles on individual points, what is the substance of what you would like to get across on the general question? What can I learn from you?

Also, there’s this question of a faith commitment. Do you have one? I’ve blathered on ad nauseum about my crackpot theories, so surely you know where I stand. In our discussions at least, you’ve been rather coy. Are you committed to a particular faith or religious theory or not? And if not, how do you rationalize the removal of the factor of religious belief from the social questions under discussion?

I do apologize for my previous ballistic outbursts and loss of patience. But here’s the substance of what I was losing patience with: your continual oscillations between invoking some abstruse methodology on the one hand and using the language of apologetics on the other, and in either case leaving your ultimate frames of reference, not to say your real motives, rather concealed.

So with all respect, if you could respond to the above questions it will help me respond to the material in your posts. And please be assured, I’m not looking for ammunition, but only for the basis of a clear and useful conclusion to this discussion. (And please, take your time to reflect, especially if any of this offends you. I don't require a snap back response.)

Shanti.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Hello Devadatta,

Historically, that connection may be there. There doesn't seem to be widespread consensus on it today. Recall the studies I cited previously indicating no correlation between religiosity and political attitudes in surveys of contemporary Muslims. Perhaps you could cite a study with different results. In the meantime, why represent the connection as an aspect of a "central tenet" or an "always and everywhere" feature of Islam when it does not appear to be present in Muslim populations now and when only two Muslim countries - Iran and Saudi Arabia - claim to be implementing Islamic law in all areas?



I never said there was absolute, agreed upon "turning point." I was looking for a description of a process that can be linked to the alleged "easy" traumatization of Muslims. What you consider "trivial" strikes me as rather important. If the Islamic empire came apart because of internal political strife or a failure to respond effectively to various "client states" desire to be autonomous, that's fundamtally different in historical meaning from being by the West. Indeed, it undercuts the notion that Muslims resent the West on account of the humiliating defeats they suffered. Not trivial at all, brother. It may have seemed trivial to you because you didn't see where I was going with my line of questioning.

As it turns out, the more recent variants of the Islamic Empire disintegrated from within because of political forces and incompetent governance; not as a result of military defeat that reduced Muslims to powerlessness. Before that, there were military defeats - principally at the hands of the Turks, Crusaders, and the Mongols -- but the Muslims always rebounded.


Sorry bro, but it's perfectly legitimate to ask somebody to clarify or support their position. It's not self-indulgent. It's just like you and me talking in person and me asking you "ok, so you're saying that?..."


All off my questions and comments have been purposeful and in good faith. You need to give me the benefit of the doubt rather than assume bad intent. Also, you need to be more patient and give me a chance, so that you can see where I'm headed with my line of questioning. It's not petty or trivial. There's a good reason for it -- even if it's not apparent at the time.


When I ask for clarification, that's not a diversion. When I present contrary evidence, that's not a diversion. You'd see my line of questioning makes good sense if you just try to understand the intended purpose -- which may mean hanging in there an extra day or so. I have a life too.


That's why I like to cite surveys and specific historical record.


Heh, you call that "a Howler?" Muslims ended up taking over the spice trade in China. Even today there are Muslim communities in China. Obviously they got pretty far and it seems even the Chinese were sufficiently impressed to turn over their import business to Muslims.

The view that Islam spread though the spice trade is not my pet theory. It reflects numerous historical accounts. Muhammad himself was a trader. One other thing: I never said this was the only means for the transmission of Islam. For example, the Mongols apparently converted to Islam as a result of living among the Sufis, Islam's Peace and Love people.


Yes, he did and you will recall my response was to ask "What they mean?" Also, which of these were "easy victories because the people preferred Muslim rule to the tyranny they had been living under before?

Moreover, were the various conquests in Tao's list representative of a large-scale evangelization effort? Think about it. Why would Muslims want people to convert to Islam when they could keep collecting taxes from them as long as the "client states" were viable money-making protectorates? Financial self-interest argues against evangelization and forced conversion. The Muslims would have made a point not to try to convert non-Muslims. (Btw, most of the areas conquered were Christian, which means they qualified for protective Dhimmi status as People of the Book.)

Anyway, based on Tao's list of battles/conquests, it looks to me like there were lots of victories for the Islamic armies. That's what it looks like based on the accounts given. Were the accounts written by the victors? As you know, the victors tend to "exaggerate their glories" (your terms) and impose their view of history to the exclusion of their defeated adversaries' version of the story. So why would you take a bunch of hyperactive 8th century warriors word for what happened with these battles?

Shanti to you, too, brother Devadatta.

Hi Netti. When you wrote the above response you were still a little upset, at least that’s my perception. Perhaps you feel you were merely high-spirited!

As I’ve already said in my previous post, our discussion needs a reboot to successively conclude. I will perhaps respond point by point later, if it seems of use. But I have to say now that a lot of what you’re saying here is attacking me for positions I’ve never taken. Some of what you’re saying doesn’t seem to me to be the point at all, for example, all this spice trade business seems extraordinarily tangential. The original issue was your claim that the expansion of Islam in general was the result of this kind of process, when plainly that was not the case. I made this point some time back in a very gentle way. Another example: you make the point that some conquered peoples, given the conditions of the time, welcomed the new, fresh and vigorous (here I embellish) regime of the Muslims, that Muslims had little financial interest in converting the dhimmi since they used them as a tax base through the tax penalty of jizya. None of this is news to me. None of this is for me at issue. You appear to morph every criticism of Islam, no matter what it’s form or reasonableness, into a call for its defense and invent claims to refute that were never made in the first place.

Okay, I hope that wasn’t too intemperate of me. And please do, if you’re interested respond to my last post on the issue of where we stand on this discussion. If we can put this on civil basis, focus on where the different perspectives actually lie, then we can make some progress.

Shanti.

[Devadatta]

Addendum to Netti Netti on the spice trade.


Okay, so perhaps your point is economic reductionism, and certainly from a particular point of view, one certainly can reduce everything to economics. Didn’t I point out that one of the prime motives for the building of civilizations and empires was the protection of trade routes? But you insert the economic turn where it doesn’t belong in the context of arguing the relative violence of Muslim expansion, which confuses the issue while deflecting from any point you’re trying to make. As for the reductionist move, the problem there of course is that reductions are innumerable: everything is economics, everything is ideology, everything is the weather, everything is the collective unconscious, everything is the Will to Power... Yes, everything is everything. Squeezing all of our experience into one dichotomy is no difficult trick. The trick is in trying to grasp, in some small measure, how these innumerable forces interact.


Please don’t take this an attack. I’m still suggesting a reboot. But this spice trade business led me to share my perception that your specific points are not as clearly framed as you think they are.


Shanti.