- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The myth of the Caliphate
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:54 am to Bayou Sam
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:54 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
Seems to me the argument is that the Caliphate, in the sense of a divinely-ordained political order supposed to gather all Muslims into unity--is an invention of the second half of the 20th century, and that most radicals who follow this ideal are ignoramuses who don't know their history.
What a ridiculous notion. Muhammad established the first Caliphate by conquering Mecca and Arabia and turning them into a unified religious and political state (the Caliphate). Ever since the death of Muhammad it has been the role of his successors, the Caliphs, to serve as the supreme political and religious leader of the unified Islamic state. And the Caliphate immediately expanded via military aggression from the very beginning under the rule of the very first Caliph, Abu Bakr. Islamic expansion, violent expansion, immediately broke out throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even Spain. From its very inception Islamic tradition as well as the historical record shows that the Caliphate was a militant, expansionist political and religious power focused on unifying the Muslim populations through violence, forced conversion, and any other means at its disposal in order to create an Islamic empire. You want to speak of history, well explain why the founder of Islam as well as his very first successor (and subsequent Caliphs) viewed it as their duty to not only serve as the political and religious leader of the Caliphate, but almost always sought to expand its borders through force and violence.
Invention of the 20th century? Islamic imperialism is innate to Islam and has been present since its birth.
2
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:22 am to Tom288
Hey T...you ought to read "The Transhumanist Wager", if you have time. I think you'd get a kick out of it. Melo-dramatic in the portrayal of some characters (his team's antagonists)...but thought provoking nonetheless...in light of imminent technological progress.
Bottom line. You'll likely live to be HUNDREDS of years old. Take your time, buddy.
Bottom line. You'll likely live to be HUNDREDS of years old. Take your time, buddy.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:35 am to joshnorris14
quote:
An anecdote doesn't disprove of the reality that Christians were openly christian in the Ottoman empire.
Indeed. They just had to pay a tax and acknowledge the religion of Islam was superior to all others. Ottoman law may have tolerated other religions, but that didn't stop the usual persecutions that occur when a larger group has control over a smaller group. Also...while the Ottomans did tolerate Christians living in their lands to a certain point, they had no tolerance for those Muslims who converted to another religion. Ottoman law required the execution of all former Muslims and children of non-Muslims of a Muslim father in accordance with the Sharia law on apostasy.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 11:49 am to RCDfan1950
There is no doubt that modern, western liberalism far, far outstrips whatever toleration there was Islamic states. But still, paying a tax to worship is better than getting decapitated because you're a pagan.
Robert Spencer, however, is not exactly an unbiased historian. And anyway, the merits of Islamic toleration are not really the point of the article.
Robert Spencer, however, is not exactly an unbiased historian. And anyway, the merits of Islamic toleration are not really the point of the article.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 11:55 am to Tom288
But Islam was disunified shortly after the death of the Prophet. The author's point is that there can be no successor to the Prophet, because the Prophet was special, after all. All other pretenders are just using his example to legitimate their power.
In just the same way, the Christian kings of Europe, beginning with Constantine, styled themselves as representatives of Christ on earth, which also served to justify their imperial aspirations.
In just the same way, the Christian kings of Europe, beginning with Constantine, styled themselves as representatives of Christ on earth, which also served to justify their imperial aspirations.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 12:00 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
But still, paying a tax to worship is better than getting decapitated because you're a pagan.
Which is what the Ottomans did to Muslims who converted away from Islam.
Tom288 spelled it out the best above. Islam has *always* been militant. Islam spread so fast in the 7th and 8th centuries not because it was this radical new religion that everyone could get on board with, but because the Caliphs who followed behind Muhammed conquered vast amounts of territories and forced the inhabitants to convert or suffer the consequences.
Ever wonder why the First Crusades happened? Pick up a book. Christians didn't go to the Holy Land to kill Muslims for the heck of it. Much of North Africa and the Middle East were Christian lands in the years leading up to the birth of Muhammed. Within 100 years of his death, however, this was no longer the case.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 12:07 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
But Islam was disunified shortly after the death of the Prophet. The author's point is that there can be no successor to the Prophet, because the Prophet was special, after all. All other pretenders are just using his example to legitimate their power.
That's all well and good, but still doesn't change the fact that Islam has always been a violent and militant force that has used conquest to push its beliefs down the throats of the vanquished.
quote:
In just the same way, the Christian kings of Europe, beginning with Constantine, styled themselves as representatives of Christ on earth, which also served to justify their imperial aspirations.
Not even close.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 12:15 pm to RollTide1987
This is a mix of truth and falsehood. All human societies have *always* been militant. Christianity was not militant because it emerged within the Roman Empire. At first it was, arguably, asocial, because it expected all of society to be engulfed soon in the eschaton. But as soon as it became integrated into society, it became "militant" as the state religion of the Roman Empire.
Islam was always social, and therefore militant. It was a movement that did not expect the apocalypse to come soon, but tried to reform the world according to true worship (monotheism) and justice--albeit with all the hypocrisies such are projects are heir to. This is why Jews and Christians and other quasi-monotheists could be tolerated. They did not force the conversion of these people. This is also why Islam had staying power. They were not simply a band of robbers and zealots, but rulers people of diverse persuasions could live under--in this sense, they were a lot like their Roman predecessors.
The Crusades are a totally different story, and beside the point here. They weren't as bad as some people say, nor were they the purely defensive struggle against the mean ole Muslims that Spencer and his Christianist ilk make them out to be.
Islam was always social, and therefore militant. It was a movement that did not expect the apocalypse to come soon, but tried to reform the world according to true worship (monotheism) and justice--albeit with all the hypocrisies such are projects are heir to. This is why Jews and Christians and other quasi-monotheists could be tolerated. They did not force the conversion of these people. This is also why Islam had staying power. They were not simply a band of robbers and zealots, but rulers people of diverse persuasions could live under--in this sense, they were a lot like their Roman predecessors.
The Crusades are a totally different story, and beside the point here. They weren't as bad as some people say, nor were they the purely defensive struggle against the mean ole Muslims that Spencer and his Christianist ilk make them out to be.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 12:15 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Not even close.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and "pick up a book."
Posted on 7/11/14 at 12:23 pm to Bayou Sam
Ok, ok, I'll play. This is from Eusebius of Caeserea's Oration to Constantine. Eusebius is one of the most important nicene-era fathers of the Christian Church. This is a 17th century translation, so forgive the old spellings:
Here Eusebius explains why the Empire was providentially ordained:
quote:
Constantine’s Empire resembleth the celestiall Empire because as there is one God, and not two, nor three, nor more (for to introduce a multitude of Gods, is to take away the essence of God) so there is one universall King and Emperor.
Here Eusebius explains why the Empire was providentially ordained:
quote:
All the ancient Nations of the earth were heretofore divided, and so distributed into Provinces, Prefectureships, Tyrannies, and many kinds of Government. Hence arose continuall wars . . . for the cause hereof was their erroneous worshipping of many gods. But as soon as Christ assumed a body to be Champion as it were against the power of the Devil . . . all erroneous worshipping of Devils ceased, and their power was overthrown . . . : for then one God was preached among all men, and then one universall Roman Empire flourished. And suddenly the cruell hatred of Nations amongst themselves which had continued many ages, was extinguished. And as one knowledge of God, one Religion, and one saving Gospel of Christ was delivered unto all men: so when one Emperor did at one time govern all the Roman Empire, tranquility and peace reigned everywhere
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:50 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
Perhaps you should take your own advice and "pick up a book."
You were alluding to the practice of Divine Right. Which, as far as Christendom was concerned, did not pop up until the late medieval period.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:56 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
Christianity was not militant because it emerged within the Roman Empire.
This is such bullshite. Christianity was not militant because its followers worshipped a man who stood for the exact opposite. It became "militant" in the 5th and 6th centuries because it had to be. With the Roman Empire collapsing around it, the papacy was the only thing that stood between Rome and the barbarian hordes. Research Pope Leo I for more information on that. After the Roman Empire collapsed completely it was the Church who preserved and led civilization through the Dark Ages in the early medieval period.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:02 pm to Bayou Sam
You seem pretty learned/authoritative, Sam...did you read Spencer's book?
I'm far from being a scholar, but as I recall, Spencer's book is footnoted out the wazoo, and boring as all getout because it's mainly historical minutia with the logistical records and daily bookkeeping of the powers that ruled.
BTW...it's seems pretty much a moot issue to argue the doctrinal legitimacy of the movement; as it's that very argument that is causing the trouble. We've all been waiting for *Moderate*
Muslims to step up. But I suspect that there are so few...it would be suicide to do so. God help them. And us.
I'm far from being a scholar, but as I recall, Spencer's book is footnoted out the wazoo, and boring as all getout because it's mainly historical minutia with the logistical records and daily bookkeeping of the powers that ruled.
BTW...it's seems pretty much a moot issue to argue the doctrinal legitimacy of the movement; as it's that very argument that is causing the trouble. We've all been waiting for *Moderate*
Muslims to step up. But I suspect that there are so few...it would be suicide to do so. God help them. And us. 
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News