Criticism of Islam

[DooDoot]

Split from this topic: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=30869



Islam started in around 600AD rather than in 1000AD, the first date mentioned in the article. Studying history will find two violent nomadic tribes who took over Islam & commenced the heavy violence: (i) Turks; & (i) Mongols. These tribes caused as much bloodshed to Muslims. Many of these Mongols were Buddhists or educated in Buddhism. The Islamic Empire was the pinnacle of world civilization & wealth, which is why it was a prize for many violent plunderers.

The Kara-Khanid Khanate (Persian: آل افراسیاب‎, translit. Āl-i Afrāsiyāb, lit. 'House of Afrisyab'‎) was a Turkic dynasty that ruled in Transoxania in Central Asia, ruled by a dynasty known in literature as the Karakhanids (also spelt Qarakhanids) or Ilek Khanids.[6] Both the dynastic names of Karakhanids and Ilek Khanids refer to royal titles with Kara Kağan being the most important Turkish title up till the end of the dynasty.[7]

The Khanate conquered Transoxania in Central Asia and ruled it between 999–1211.[8][9] Their arrival in Transoxania signaled a definitive shift from Iranian to Turkic predominance in Central Asia,[10] yet the Kara-khanids gradually assimilated the Perso-Arab Muslim culture, while retaining some of their native Turkish culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara-Khan ... ate#Origin

Mongol invasions and conquests took place throughout the 13th century, resulting in the vast Mongol Empire, which by 1300 covered much of Asia and Eastern Europe. Historians[which?] regard the destruction under the Mongol Empire as results of some of the deadliest conflicts in human history. In addition, Mongol expeditions may have brought the bubonic plague along with them, spreading it across much of Asia and Europe and helping cause massive loss of life in the Black Death of the 14th century.

Large areas of Islamic Central Asia and northeastern Iran were seriously depopulated, as every city or town that resisted the Mongols was subject to destruction. Each soldier was required to execute a certain number of persons, with the number varying according to circumstances. For example, after the conquest of Urgench, each Mongol warrior – in an army group that might have consisted of two tumens (units of 10,000) – was required to execute 24 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_in ... ntral_Asia

[Kim OHara]

... The Islamic Empire ...

Would you call the British Empire the "Christian Empire"?
If not, why not?


Kim

[Coëmgenu]

... The Islamic Empire ...

Would you call the British Empire the "Christian Empire"?
If not, why not?


Kim

I'd call it "a" Christian empire.

[DooDoot]

Studying history will find two violent nomadic tribes who took over Islam & commenced the heavy violence: (i) Turks; & (i) Mongols. These tribes caused as much bloodshed to Muslims. Many of these Mongols were Buddhists or educated in Buddhism. The Islamic Empire was the pinnacle of world civilization & wealth, which is why it was a prize for many violent plunderers.

Good videos about how the Turks started the decline of secular free-will intellectual scientific Islam. A Buddhist group of medical scientists seems to be mentioned in the 1st video.





Parts 3 & 4 on You Tube.

[DooDoot]

Would you call the British Empire the "Christian Empire"?
If not, why not?

Thanks Kim. Probably not because my impression is the British Empire started as a (Protestant) commercial empire, which then occasionally used Christianity to justify its ends. Also, there seemed to be a prominent Jewish role in the British & Dutch Empires, which is rarely discussed, but started with the financing of William of Orange (DYOR). From what I have learned, Islam started as a religion & became an empire by sheer unintended chance. Like the Roman Empire, it became a commercial empire exploiting taxing different cultural groups; despite starting as a religious movement.

[Kim OHara]

Would you call the British Empire the "Christian Empire"?
If not, why not?

Thanks Kim. Probably not because my impression is the British Empire started as a (Protestant) commercial empire, which then occasionally used Christianity to justify its ends.

Is there any significant difference between this and the various Arabic empires which happened to have Islam as their local religion? Or the "Buddhist" kingdoms and empires of Southeast Asia? Or the (polytheistic) Roman Empire?
What I'm getting at is that all empires are fundamentally about land, resources and power, and that the religion of their founders is incidental. When that religion is pressed into the service of emperors, kings, feudal lords, presidents, prime ministers, tax collectors, etc, that religion (whichever religion it is) is distorted and misused.
So let's be fair. Call them Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Persian Empire, Mongol Empire, Khmer Empire, etc - not Christian Empire, Islamic Empire, Buddhist Empire, etc - because there never has been and never can be an empire formed, governed and sustained by religion.


Kim

[SarathW]

because there never has been and never can be an empire formed, governed and sustained by religion.

I would say all empires are sustained through some sort of religion. Even the communism is a form of religion.

[lyndon taylor]

The principle religious order today is unfettered capitalism IMHO

[Polar Bear]

Would you call the British Empire the "Christian Empire"?
If not, why not?

Thanks Kim. Probably not because my impression is the British Empire started as a (Protestant) commercial empire, which then occasionally used Christianity to justify its ends.

Is there any significant difference between this and the various Arabic empires which happened to have Islam as their local religion? Or the "Buddhist" kingdoms and empires of Southeast Asia? Or the (polytheistic) Roman Empire?

... because there never has been and never can be an empire formed, governed and sustained by religion.


Kim

Well, Muhammad unified the Arabian Peninsula, was a statesman and a military leader, so there is a difference. Muhammad, the founder of the religion of Islam, set a precedent for expanding the religion via state expansion, military campaigns, taxes, etc. His direct successor became a Caliph, and it is from this direct continuation of Muhammad's political-religious leadership that all the Islamic empires gain precedent.

[DooDoot]

Is there any significant difference between this and the various Arabic empires which happened to have Islam as their local religion?

Judged on the basis of imperialism, including cultural or religious imperialism, i would say there is no significant difference.

What I'm getting at is that all empires are fundamentally about land, resources and power, and that the religion of their founders is incidental.

Sure. I agree.

So let's be fair. Call them Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Persian Empire, Mongol Empire, Khmer Empire, etc - not Christian Empire, Islamic Empire, Buddhist Empire, etc - because there never has been and never can be an empire formed, governed and sustained by religion.

Mmmm... I tend to disagree here because I have heard, which is logical, that the early Muslims believed they were spreading morality (by the sword); similar to how the US masqueraded as invading Iraq to free the Iraqi people. Personally, I view Islam as a political religion; similar to how Christianity sought to civilise & save indigenous people in Australia. Political religion is described in the Old Testament, where the Hebrews say they invaded Canaan, genocide the local people so to not be polluted by their lifestyle, and then establish a moral society governed by the Torah.

[chownah]

What about the "Holy" Roman Empire?
Also, I think that at the time of the crusades europe might have been described with respect to christiainity in a fairly similarly way to how the kingdoms of the middle east were at the time of the "islamic empire".

Poorly written but I hope someone gets the idea.
chownah

[Kim OHara]

Is there any significant difference between this and the various Arabic empires which happened to have Islam as their local religion?

Judged on the basis of imperialism, including cultural or religious imperialism, i would say there is no significant difference.

What I'm getting at is that all empires are fundamentally about land, resources and power, and that the religion of their founders is incidental.

Sure. I agree.

So let's be fair. Call them Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Persian Empire, Mongol Empire, Khmer Empire, etc - not Christian Empire, Islamic Empire, Buddhist Empire, etc - because there never has been and never can be an empire formed, governed and sustained by religion.

Mmmm... I tend to disagree here because I have heard, which is logical, that the early Muslims believed they were spreading morality (by the sword); similar to how the US masqueraded as invading Iraq to free the Iraqi people. Personally, I view Islam as a political religion; similar to how Christianity sought to civilise & save indigenous people in Australia. Political religion is described in the Old Testament, where the Hebrews say they invaded Canaan, genocide the local people so to not be polluted by their lifestyle, and then establish a moral society governed by the Torah.

The examples you give seem to support my contention that governments, up to and including emperors, use religion far more than follow it. It's a convenient pretext for invading, slaughtering, raping, enslaving ... all the usual stuff ... but it is rarely, if ever, the underlying reason for that stuff. The reason, of course, is power and its byproducts, money and sex.
And the religions, rightly understood and followed, all say that we should be nice to each other.

I will say it again, differently: an "Islamic Empire", like a "Christian Empire", is a contradiction in terms.


Kim

[DooDoot]

The examples you give seem to support my contention that governments, up to and including emperors, use religion far more than follow it. It's a convenient pretext for invading, slaughtering, raping, enslaving ... all the usual stuff ... but it is rarely, if ever, the underlying reason for that stuff. The reason, of course, is power and its byproducts, money and sex.

Since you have expressed the above so clearly, I will agree here.

And the religions, rightly understood and followed, all say that we should be nice to each other.

Mostly, yes, except official Quranic Islam of Muhammad does have the doctrine of defensive war, which Uma the 2nd Caliph (in the video) construed into a defensive war of attack, i.e., attack the country that is attacking you merely than just defend your territory.

I will say it again, differently: an "Islamic Empire", like a "Christian Empire", is a contradiction in terms.

Based on the original tenets of Islam that included defensive war, yes, the Empire masquerading under Islam certainly went beyond military defensiveness. However, Islam differs from Buddhism & Biblical Christianity in that has does have an official doctrine of war & militarism for the protection of the Ummah (Community).

[chownah]

I will say it again, differently: an "Islamic Empire", like a "Christian Empire", is a contradiction in terms.

It might mean that a christian empire is an empire which uses christian doctrines as the justification for its acts....etc. This makes sense in that isn't the justification for an empire's acts how empires are classified? For instance don't we call it the roman empire because its actions were justified by the edicts of the roman emperor?....or something similar?
Question: how do we classify empires?
chownah

[Coëmgenu]

I will say it again, differently: an "Islamic Empire", like a "Christian Empire", is a contradiction in terms.

It might mean that a christian empire is an empire which uses christian doctrines as the justification for its acts....etc. This makes sense in that isn't the justification for an empire's acts how empires are classified? For instance don't we call it the roman empire because its actions were justified by the edicts of the roman emperor?....or something similar?
Question: how do we classify empires?
chownah

Splitting ethnic and religious identity is a generally a newer phenomenon, although people have been converting from X to Y or Y to X since there was X and Y to switch between. For instance, when the Turks, aforementionedly, raided much of Europe, they were called the Saracens by the Europeans. A completely different "identity category" than either Muslim, Turk, Arab, etc. They were not called the Mohammedan Empire or something similar of the like, because Islam was often understood by the Europeans to be a heretic Christianity, rather than its own religion.

To be fair, no one really cared back then how someone "self-identified". For instance, the "Saracens" referred to all Europeans (& Christians generally) as "the Franks".