Is there a problem with selective historical memory in the Arab World?

[luchog]

Christendom has even found it difficult to accomodate different versions of Christianity in the same place.

And this is different from Muslim history how? There was infighting from the very earliest days of Islam, starting with the fight over the succession when Muhammed died. Then there were the constant sectarian bloodbaths: the Sunni vs. the Shi'a, the Shi'a vs. the Ishma'ilis, everyone else vs. the Sufis, and so on. And for all the supposed "enlightenment" and "tolerance" of the Islamic empire, Christians, Jews, etc. were oppressed as often as they were tolerated, and the Zoroastrians endured repeated pogroms and were forced underground in order to maintain their religion. Pagan religions fared far worse, and were often exterminated outright. Even the vaunted "tolerance" amounted to little more than second-class citizen status, sometimes less.

 

[CapelDodger]

It may be nasty. Just look at some of the Aztec art that has come down to us. But that is no excuse for a Pizzaro or the enslavement of the "heathens."

Not at all. I do wonder, though, why these American religions are so bloodthirsty. They seem to hark back to some common source. But I digress.

I would bet the Conquistador were more interested in shiny metals than the souls of the natives. Still it is a conveinant mindset to have the natives be below you for not believing in your particular myths.

That's often been a use of religion. Also of perverted Darwinism. Not everybody's a natural-born killer who can shed their normal, social inhibitions to order. When defending home and family it's different, of course, but offensive war often needs justification.

BTW,
The last comment about the Atlantic getting bigger. As you said, "Is there a hint of cultural superiority there?"

Moi?!

It's more about sheer terror.

 

[CapelDodger]

And this is different from Muslim history how? There was infighting from the very earliest days of Islam, starting with the fight over the succession when Muhammed died. Then there were the constant sectarian bloodbaths: the Sunni vs. the Shi'a, the Shi'a vs. the Ishma'ilis, everyone else vs. the Sufis, and so on. And for all the supposed "enlightenment" and "tolerance" of the Islamic empire, Christians, Jews, etc. were oppressed as often as they were tolerated, and the Zoroastrians endured repeated pogroms and were forced underground in order to maintain their religion. Pagan religions fared far worse, and were often exterminated outright. Even the vaunted "tolerance" amounted to little more than second-class citizen status, sometimes less.

I can't point to many examples of second-class status for Muslims in Christendom because there weren't any until the Russian Empire conquered the Caucasus. That was associated with massacre and ethnic cleansing. I can point to second-class status for Catholics under Protestants, and Prods under Catholics, with associated blood-baths. I can't call to mind a Christian state with intermingled Catholic and Orthodox, apart from the Russian Empire to a small extent (there's a Ukrainian Catholic Church, as I recall, which dates back to the days of Greater Poland). The one precluded the other. Second-class status of Jews was more than commonplace, but they were at least allowed a status. Muslims weren't. Nor were heretics.

The contrast between homogeneity in Christendom and diversity in the Islamic world is glaring. Consider the Middle East today, a fractal patchwork of communities, and the crude block-structure of Christendom.

Motes and beams.

 

[CapelDodger]

Please don't put thoughts in my head from what you seem to think an 'Merrican would think. I brought that list up of things to point out the hypocrisy of only talking about the alleged sins against Islam. I have no idea where I implied I am somehow fine with Christian oppression of people.

Nor did I infer that. On the other hand, you didn't explicitly disown the Crusades before you made your point. And your reaction to the piece you cited seems to have been, not to the point being made, but to the failure to disown a list of things that are on your mind.

The list you brought up is what I might expect of an informed 'Murrican. Not necessarily well-informed, but a cut above the masses. At least you're aware of the subjects, if not terribly much about them. And you left yourself wide-open on the sex-slave thing, I felt it my duty to exploit it. If you don't consider the wider context you can get messed about by people like me.

 

[CapelDodger]

And, speaking of the "land for Muslims, Christians, and Jews", this is not exactly what happened to the Christian / Pagan population in the Middle East, Persia, etc. during the time of Islam's conquests. It was Islam or death.

Where do you get this crap from? Do you just pluck it out of your bigotry, or are you being fed?

During the early conquests of Islam it was a capital offence to convert to Islam unless you were a Bedouin or a Jew. People were impaled for it - that's how to treat a tax-evader. There were no forced conversions. A generation or two later conversion was allowed but only through a Bedouin patron. A nice piece of social engineering.

Muslim societies were also mono-cultural.

What, until yesterday? They suddenly became diverse? The expulsion of 700,000 people from Palestine 60 years ago can't explain that. There are millions of people, all apparently well-settled, living in intermingled communities in the Islamic world. Your statement is blatantly false.

The rest of your stuff has, I think, been addressed in my recent posts.

 

[Giz]

Capel - "The list you brought up is what I might expect of an informed 'Murrican. Not necessarily well-informed, but a cut above the masses. At least you're aware of the subjects, if not terribly much about them. And you left yourself wide-open on the sex-slave thing, I felt it my duty to exploit it. If you don't consider the wider context you can get messed about by people like me."

1) As if Islamic societies didn't practice slavery (you're western British Isles - don't you have any "The Moors Head" pubs around you, from the days (up to around 1700 I think) when the Algerine galleys were raiding for slaves?)

2) This should perhaps be emphasised - the situation now vis a vis The West and Islam is more important than comparisons between 10 century Europe and Islam. Also, no-one else is claiming that one side has been vastly superior through history - simply that it is rubbish to treat one side as matyrs/victims/heroes and the other as lindisfarne wannabees.

3) Has it ever occured to you that other people might actually know some history as well?

4) related to 3), you often - regretably I may add - strike me as a rather James I type of character...

 

[Mike B.]

Nor did I infer that. On the other hand, you didn't explicitly disown the Crusades before you made your point. And your reaction to the piece you cited seems to have been, not to the point being made, but to the failure to disown a list of things that are on your mind.

The list you brought up is what I might expect of an informed 'Murrican. Not necessarily well-informed, but a cut above the masses. At least you're aware of the subjects, if not terribly much about them. And you left yourself wide-open on the sex-slave thing, I felt it my duty to exploit it. If you don't consider the wider context you can get messed about by people like me.

I acknowledged the “sex-slavery” in America, as would most Americans, or ‘Mericans as you so charmingly put it.

You seem to think you have made some sort of profound point by bringing it up. I still think it is a diversion from the issue. The issue wasn’t that the West’s hands were clean or that Arabs or Muslims were uniquely cruel. The issue was the ability to be self-critical about these things. From what I have seen, there is very little of this going on. It is instead a world-view in which Islam has always acted on purely the defensive, or that the West is uniquely intolerant or Islamo-phobic without acknowledging their own intolerance.

(Granted I may be wrong and this type of thing is going on all the time, and am willing to be shown it is.)

I have no desire to engage in personal issues with you, but you might be better served by toning down the condescending attitude you are manifesting. Perhaps I will now go back with the “proles.”

 

[Mike B.]

Capel - "The list you brought up is what I might expect of an informed 'Murrican. Not necessarily well-informed, but a cut above the masses. At least you're aware of the subjects, if not terribly much about them. And you left yourself wide-open on the sex-slave thing, I felt it my duty to exploit it. If you don't consider the wider context you can get messed about by people like me."

1) As if Islamic societies didn't practice slavery (you're western British Isles - don't you have any "The Moors Head" pubs around you, from the days (up to around 1700 I think) when the Algerine galleys were raiding for slaves?)

2) This should perhaps be emphasised - the situation now vis a vis The West and Islam is more important than comparisons between 10 century Europe and Islam. Also, no-one else is claiming that one side has been vastly superior through history - simply that it is rubbish to treat one side as matyrs/victims/heroes and the other as lindisfarne wannabees.

3) Has it ever occured to you that other people might actually know some history as well?

4) related to 3), you often - regretably I may add - strike me as a rather James I type of character...

Once agian Giz says it better than me.

 

[Giz]

Once agian Giz says it better than me.

Once again I find myself nodding sagely to one of your posts!

 

[CapelDodger]

Capel - "The list you brought up is what I might expect of an informed 'Murrican. Not necessarily well-informed, but a cut above the masses. At least you're aware of the subjects, if not terribly much about them. And you left yourself wide-open on the sex-slave thing, I felt it my duty to exploit it. If you don't consider the wider context you can get messed about by people like me."

1) As if Islamic societies didn't practice slavery

Why as if? My words are not about Islamic society. They're about Mike B.

2) This should perhaps be emphasised - the situation now vis a vis The West and Islam is more important than comparisons between 10 century Europe and Islam.

Were that true it would not mean that the history of West-Islam relations is of no importance. Those relations have been continuous in Europe, not so much in the Americas.

Also, no-one else is claiming that one side has been vastly superior through history - simply that it is rubbish to treat one side as matyrs/victims/heroes and the other as lindisfarne wannabees.

What's the "else" meant to convey? I'm not claiming that any culture inherits superiority over another. I am pointing out that the evidence before us - and the evidence could be examined at any other period in the last thousand years, if you like - is that Islamic culture can accomodate diversity better than Christendom.

3) Has it ever occured to you that other people might actually know some history as well?

Where do you think I learnt it from?

4) related to 3), you often - regretably I may add - strike me as a rather James I type of character...

You mean the guy that didn't get blowed up by Catholics? We have that in common. I've heard two PIRA bombs go off, but both at a distance.

 

[Giz]

Why as if? My words are not about Islamic society. They're about Mike B.

Mike B practices slavery? Sorry, practices sex-slavery? Should I report him to a mod?

Were that true it would not mean that the history of West-Islam relations is of no importance.

No one has claimed that. However some feel that:
1) Current toleration is more important than the toleration shown 1000 years ago.
2) Neither "side" is pure as the driven snow and so seeking special victim status is:
a) incorrect.
b) unhelpful.

I am pointing out that the evidence before us - and the evidence could be examined at any other period in the last thousand years, if you like - is that Islamic culture can accomodate diversity better than Christendom.
.

Pick an arbitrary time period and rose tinted spectacles and I'm sure you can. It doesn't change the main point (which you labour mightily to avoid) that it is the position now we are interest in, NOT the position from 900 AD to 1200 AD.

 

[bigred]

Nobody should really use history as excuse for modern politics, simply because nobody's historical hands are clean. Go far enough back, and everyone's wading in blood and entrails and feasting on corpses. It's human nature.

History should be a caution to people to behave better, not a source for talking points for whatever agenda someone's pushing.

Funny how people conveniently forget that when ripping on Christians. :Inquisition:

 

[Giz]

Funny how people conveniently forget that when ripping on Christians. :Inquisition:

It's a bit different to the above. Up there we've been talking about the clashes and behaviour of states.

The behaviour of the Inquisition is a tale of authority (claiming to be the good guys, following the prince of peace etc), with the collusion of the secular arm of the state, oppressing "little people".

It's one thing to say "Christian King X was bad but so was Muslim Vizier Y", but is anyone saying "Yeah so those athiests got burnt, it's not as if they didn't burn a few catholics or invade the papal demesne" cuz they, like, didn't.

It's like one wouldn't probably caveat a study of the holocaust with "of course everyone has good and bad points; some dictators made the trains run on time and some Jews were mean" becuase it, like, misses the point.

(Incidentally, whilst I do see inquisition denial/minimisation as akin to a lesser form of holocaust denial, the above is not intended to offend you. And if it does seem mean - well, everyone has some good days and some mean days - yep?)

 

[CapelDodger]

Mike B practices slavery? Sorry, practices sex-slavery?

Not so much, no. Brings up Muslim sex-slavery back in Jeffersonian days, yes. Leaving an open flank. I'd be remiss in not pointing it out, with a modicum of sting. Spare the rod, etc.

 

[Mike B.]

As you can see Giz and others, he is still labouring mightily to avoid the main issue. By engaging in baiting, diversions, personal attacks, arguing about points nobody made, and indulging his own rather unattractive bigotry about the 'Merican masses, he thinks he can avoid the issue. For some reason, he doesn't want to deal with the real issue, as has been pointed out a number of times to him, but still he still wants to provide a strawman type argument.

 

[Skeptic]

What, until yesterday? They suddenly became diverse? The expulsion of 700,000 people from Palestine 60 years ago can't explain that.

Well, no. But the expulsion of 1,000,000 jews from Arabia at the same time, together with the constant harassment and discrimination against Christians in the post-colonialist "freed" Arab states that caused mass immigration of Christians to Europe and elsewhere, CAN explain why Arab countries today are far more monolithically Islamic than they were, say, 100 years ago.

There are millions of [non-Muslim] people, all apparently well-settled, living in intermingled communities in the Islamic world. Your statement is blatantly false.

Well, if you ignore the occassional civil war against them, as in Lebanon, or Islamist Jihad against them, as in Algeria, or nationalist government and islamist movements working together against them, as in Egypt's treatment of the Copts, or simply their genocide for being non-Muslims, as in Sudan, or...

...I could go on, but, hey, it's too easy. Sorry, CD, but to look at the Muslims world and consider it respectful of human rights takes a rather special type of blindness. You simply WANT it to be true, so as far as you're concerned, it is, and that's that.

 

[Giz]

As you can see Giz and others, he is still labouring mightily to avoid the main issue. By engaging in baiting, diversions, personal attacks, arguing about points nobody made, and indulging his own rather unattractive bigotry about the 'Merican masses, he thinks he can avoid the issue. For some reason, he doesn't want to deal with the real issue, as has been pointed out a number of times to him, but still he still wants to provide a strawman type argument.

I wish I'd said that several posts ago.

 

[Giz]

There are millions of [non-Muslim] people, all apparently well-settled, living in intermingled communities in the Islamic world. Your statement is blatantly false.

.

Actually, if you include present day Andulasia then there are millions of well-settled people living in intermingled communities.

What's up with the rest of the muslim world?