Muslims and many historians claim that violence was not the chief way Islam was propagated. That is was the exception to the rule. Can anyone provide reliable and unbiased historical studies to disprove this?
Just read any history of Islam–try one very sympathetic to Islam, such as Marshall Hodgson’s three-volume
Venture of Islam. Hodgson goes out of his way to disprove the claim that Islam spread primarily by violence. But he has an uphill task. He does show that in certain areas (Southeast Asia, for instance) it spread nonviolently. But it’s clear from his narrative (or any other historical account) that Islam took over the Middle East (North Africa to Persia), Spain, India, parts of Central Asia, and much of southeastern Europe through military conquest. The Ottoman Empire came into existence as a state dedicated to holy war against Christians. It’s not true that Islam spread only by conquest, but it certainly gained at least half its territory–I’d say quite a bit more than half–that way. Furthermore, Hodgson makes it clear (this is toward the end of the second volume, discussing mostly southeast Asia) that whenever Muslims reached a certain number they pushed for the introduction of sharia, and this is how many areas became Muslim. In many ways it’s more chilling–outright conquest we can resist, but who’s going to stop Europe from introducing shari’a when a majority of the population asks for it?
Why did he use such a controversial and potentially insulting quote.
Partly no doubt because he was in an academic context, and forgot that he is more than just an academic and that he can’t count on people hearing his remarks in context! But on the other hand, I think he was trying to throw down a challenge. If the Emperor is wrong, then show us. Talk to us about how Islam is a reflection of the divine Intellect. Show us how you as Muslims act “with logos.”
Responding to a theological critique with violence is simply inexcusable. Blaming the Pope for this reaction is nonsensical and unjust. Can’t you see how monstrous it is to refute the claim “Islam is violent” by acting violently? An apology would be a mockery after that. “Oh yes, I’m so sorry, the death of a nun and the burning of churches have convinced me that drawing a link between Islam and violence was completley unfair.”
This quote directly links Muhammed to violence, not just a minority of muslims. This is a direct attack against Islam, or at least it seems so.
The Pope has made it clear that he wasn’t endorsing that part of the Emperor’s remarks. However, Muhammad was a bloody conqueror–just like Moses and Joshua! Suppose a Buddhist were to blame Christian violence on the Biblical record of holy war. That would be a serious critique, and Christian theologian would try to answer it theologically. For Christians to start killing Buddhists in response would be obscene, and everyone would see it as such. But because of reflexive Western self-criticism (an admirable thing in many ways), we give any non-Christian religion a break.
Considering that the Church has a history of violence (i.e. Crusades, Inquisition, Heresy Laws, expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain), I’m having a difficult time defending the Pope.
Obviously that behavior is just as contrary to reason, and nothing the Pope suggested implied otherwise.
Christian and Jewish communities were “tolerated” for centuries in the Muslim world during the Middle Ages, or at least that’s what the historians say.
You should read the historians in more detail. Toleration was bumpy and uneven. For instance, the “taifa” states in medieval Spain were quite tolerant, but then the Almohads took over and swept away this “corruption.” Their intolerance led to Christian intolerance and eventually to the expulsion of Jews and Muslims. But–petty as it seems–the Muslims started it (never mind that they were the invaders in the first place). That doesn’t excuse Christians. But the claim that Islam was more tolerant than Christianity is a dubious one. On the whole, it seems to me that Muslims and Christians treated other religions much the same. Perhaps Muslims have a slight edge, but I’m not sure. The Crusaders, for instance, adopted the Islamic practice of “dhimmitude”–they did not force Muslims to convert. And on the other hand, Islamic “toleration” came with many of the same disabilities inflicted on Jews by medieval Christians–special dress, ritual humiliation, periodic outbreaks of violence at the slightest provocation.
Edwin
