Hello Devadatta,
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.
Which criticism of Islam was reasonable and by whose standard of reasonableness?
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.
Plainly? Maybe you think the word "plainly" applies. I don't. In fact, the issues are rather controversial. That's why I called attention to the fact that there are different views on the transmission of the religion of Islam. One view is that it happened along international trade routes, which accounts for the fact that Islam got as far as China, where Muslims would eventually take over the import business.
At one point Islamic rulers controlled kingdoms in Persia, Turkey, and India. Based on what we know about the Muslim trade business (for which there are many, many references) the expansion was at least in part a gradual and organic process that did not involve aggressive evangelization spearheaded by warriors types who were pursuing expansionist policies. It appears such policies were to some extent in evidence in the conquest of the Arab Peninsula. However, historical information about how the Arab empire evolved doesn't tell us anything about the spread of Islam to other parts of the world.
The success of Islam appears to be related in part to its ability to adapt to existing cultures. It was possible to introduce the religion with a minimum of disruption. That is, conversion to Islam did not require native peoples to swap out their indigenous beliefs for Islamic doctrine. Even today in Africa we see native tribal religions coexisting with Islam. Muslim medicine men who use sorcery are not unheard of.
Contrary to the notion of hardline theocracy, as late as the 17th century Bengal Muslims were seen participating in Hindu practices. In Saudi Arabia, the palace of Abdul Aziz Al-Saud was used for Christian prayer services even when the Salafists' were having a revival in the 1920s. One could on and on with historical records that attest to Islam's coexistence with other religions, particularly during Islam's Golden Age, which lasted almost 800 years, and which ended with the dominance of a Christian regime that implemented "Convert or Die" policies.
Contemporary Muslim societies confirms that the spread of Islam did not necessarily involve an imposition of a uniform theocratic culture. Indeed, native people's acceptance of Islam was facilitated by the fact that it was a trendy, happening cultural thing that had potential to revive sagging domestic cultures or, in the case of India, because it seemed like a viable alternative to India's oppressive caste system. Survey research has shown that the social and cultural relevance of Islam is a factor in commitment to Islamification. The salience of this factor can be expected to magnify the more Muslims feel threatened by Western cultural hegemony.
I'm not so sure Islam exists in a pure form anywhere. I would go further and say there is no such thing as Islam, just as there is no such thing as Christianity. Further, just because Islam originated in the Arab world, there is no reason to think of it as having an Arabic ethnic identity. Most of the world's Muslims today are in Africa, not in Arab nation states. It is therefore very unclear why anyone intent on understanding Islam would focus only on Arab states. Indonesia has the largest Muslim population of any country in the world. Indonesians are not Arabs.
lifting out of context of some portion of Islamic law because it supports a certain impression, only invites the tit for tat of some other lifting out of context of some other portion that leaves the opposite impression.
Are you saying that context makes a difference in the applicability of universal human rights recognized by Muslim law?
So while one might paste a text on rights and freedoms, another might paste a text on the laws and penalties of apostasy. Neither will increase anyone’s understanding of Islamic law as such.
I disagree. Depending on the level of detail, a discussion of both could add to our understanding.
I don't think it would be hard for you to look back to and see that no one was paying much attention to evidence before I started to cite sources of historical information that directly contradicted certain contentions Islam. It seems you are now suggesting we go back to unsubstantiated claims, stereotyping, and sloppy generalities.
This is not the first time that you've indicated your resistance to new information being introduced into the discussion even though it is directly relevant to factual claims. Where will it stop? With the shuttering of the libraries and burning of history books? Obviously I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.
Again, this is not the first time you have tried to hobble the discussion. My response is to state the obvious: Just because controversies cannot be settled quickly and with certainty, that's no reason to give up on a good faith exploration of relevant facts. Further, just because there are different views and different sets of facts that don't necessarily converge or describe all situations, that doesn't mean there isn't something to be learned.
If nothing else, conflicting evidence can alert us to the fact that there are controversies and thus raise awareness about possible biases. People may also be motivated to do more in-depth searches on their own. To my way of thinking, all of this can be very valuable in preserving ecology of mind by affirming the importance of an open-ended inquiry.
To blame it all on Muslim fanaticism would be simplistic. But to exclude Islam from the analysis hampers our understanding.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that Islam should be excluded from the analysis. I like the way you gloss over the fact that Islam was specifically singled out without much of a rationale. Was is to avoid getting flack for insulting the spiritual character of Jesus or calling Yahweh a false god? And why would anyone on CR take up for Muhammad when someone invokes his character as an explanation for the contemporary geopolitics?....
Think of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest Islamist movements, which began in Egypt.... the Muslim Brotherhood has been a fixture in the Arab world for decades. It’s part of that world of discourse, where its points of view are considered legitimate, however distasteful, or at least alien, many in the West might find them.
I'm curious how you would reconcile your portrayal of the Brotherhood as "distasteful" and "alien" to the description offered by Daniel Williams (Washington Post Foreign Service), who likens the Brotherhood's moral/social platform to "a high school civics book." In a Washington Post article, Williams observes that the Brotherhood promotes freedom of speech and "the independence of unions and professional organizations, transparency of government transactions, a crackdown on corruption and freedom for political prisoners. The Brotherhood is not pressing for Islamic-oriented social changes, such as mandatory use of veils by women or a ban on alcohol."
You want to call that "
alien" and "
distasteful"? I read the Brothers' manifesto. It sounds like it was dictated by Pat Robertson's speech writers. The Muslim Brotherhood renounced violence many years ago and is committed to intellectual evangelization.
I'm puzzled you continue to post these highly questionable characterizations without having done any fact checks and without any real effort to represent balance. Moreover, the general lack of detail in your arguments suggests a reliance on imagery rather than facts.
