How Do You View Islam?

[NewToLife]

Addressing the question of great threats to Constantinople I would point out that the true threat at the time was the Mongols, it was the reaction to the Mongol threat that did most to unify Islam under Baybars the Marmeluke. Orthodox and Catholic alike would have had great cause to thank Baybars for halting the mongol threat by leading a unified Egyptian/Syrian force against them. If he had not it is likely that Europe would have been defenseless against the horde and most likely would have fallen to them.

Baybars was of course allied to Byzantium whilst still at war with the crusader kingdoms which had played a role in his rise by providing a constant common enemy to the disparate muslim nations. The Seljuk turks were the ultimate beneficiary of Islamic unity but they were not truly responsible for its emergence.

 

[SolomonVII]

Hypocrisy when actions do not match the actions preached. it exist in all religions.
There is a lot of other reasons to account for the growth of islam, one cannot explain it away with just high-birth rates. Anyway this rates of growth are being experianced in western countries where they were suppose to be assimilated. Although some forms of islam is archaic, other forms are pretty adaptable.

Considering the surge of converts to Islam in America immediately after 9/11, another reason for conversion could possibly be rebelliousness on behalf of youth. What better way for the young adults to spite the hypocrisy of their parents, and assert their independance from them same, than to adopt the religion that seems to most stand against the values that their parents embrace?

For the left-wing radicals in particular, with the demise of Russia as a counterpoint ot western values, anything that rises up in opposition to American values, becomes chic. One rallying cry of this movement is "we are all Moslems now!"

High growth rates of Moslems in Europe still have more to do with the low birth rates of the Europeans, and the way those societies have filled jobs through immigration from Islamic countries of former colonies.

Large Moslem population in neighborhoods in France in particular become a drawing point to the young especially whose friends all from these Moslem neighborhoods. If the people that someone is associating with are all Moslem, conversion is sometimes a way of fitting in.

 

[rooster]

Considering the surge of converts to Islam in America immediately after 9/11, another reason for conversion could possibly be rebelliousness on behalf of youth. What better way for the young adults to spite the hypocrisy of their parents, and assert their independance from them same, than to adopt the religion that seems to most stand against the values that their parents embrace?

For the left-wing radicals in particular, with the demise of Russia as a counterpoint ot western values, anything that rises up in opposition to American values, becomes chic. One rallying cry of this movement is "we are all Moslems now!"

High growth rates of Moslems in Europe still have more to do with the low birth rates of the Europeans, and the way those societies have filled jobs through immigration from Islamic countries of former colonies.

Large Moslem population in neighborhoods in France in particular become a drawing point to the young especially whose friends all from these Moslem neighborhoods. If the people that someone is associating with are all Moslem, conversion is sometimes a way of fitting in.

Hmmmm, it is really interesting to hear about how that religion is growing in the west.(other from intermarriage and birthrate)
I have read somewhere that there are parellels between Mhd's Mecca and medina period with the soft and hard approach that exist in muslim evangelism today.
Anyway once they had made inroads in terms of numbers among the population, they try to make inroads in local politics.
In my country, it is mainly through inter-marriage.

 

[rooster]

Addressing the question of great threats to Constantinople I would point out that the true threat at the time was the Mongols, it was the reaction to the Mongol threat that did most to unify Islam under Baybars the Marmeluke. Orthodox and Catholic alike would have had great cause to thank Baybars for halting the mongol threat by leading a unified Egyptian/Syrian force against them. If he had not it is likely that Europe would have been defenseless against the horde and most likely would have fallen to them.

Baybars was of course allied to Byzantium whilst still at war with the crusader kingdoms which had played a role in his rise by providing a constant common enemy to the disparate muslim nations. The Seljuk turks were the ultimate beneficiary of Islamic unity but they were not truly responsible for its emergence.

The Mongols came out of the Gobi about a hundred and fifty years after the first crusade(which was the period we were discussing).
And the mongols would never threaten the Queen of cities because the horde does not have a navy.
The mongol's main thrust was through the hungarian plains much further north and it would not really bother the byzantines.
The mongol expansion into Christiandom was halted by the death of the Great Khan Ogedei, the hordes rushed back to get involved in the succession dispute.
Also, the horde had been compartmentalised with separate armies and leaders responsible for different areas. The European theater was handled by what would later be known as the Golden Horde, i forgot who was in charge of the Middleeast, the Chagatais? Thus the defeat of the mongols by the muslims had no direct effect on the threat that Christiandom would face from the mongols because the mongols had different armies and generals for each task.

The muslims were not unified by the mongols but by the presence of the latin kingdom in outremer, a unity forged by Saladin. True unity came much later under the ottomans
The force that faced the mongols at Ain Jalut was a purely fatimid force lead by the baybers with their Mameluke slave soldiers. One of the quirks of history was that the General leading the mongol force was a Christian (nestorian i think) after Hulege was recalled after the Great Khan had died.
The mongols also never penetrated deeply into asia minor and limited themselves to periodic raids into syria and anatolia. By the time the succession dispute was resolved, the mongols started preying on each other.

 

[Axion]

The matter i am discussing have nothing to do with the fourth crusade. (Although it was the fourth crusade that dealt the mortal blow to the Byzantines, not the Muslims)

Right. I was just trying to ascertain what era you were talking about. As far as the 4th Crusade is concerned. It did hurt Byzantium, and relieve it of much of its wealth, but the Imperial culture survived and reasserted itself. The Islamic assault was far more deadly, because its method was the annihilation of Byzantine culture and its replacement with that of Islam. The Turkish assault at Manzikert was indeed a fatal blow because it took Constantinople's hinterland away. What we now know as Turkey, with virtually zero Christian population, was the land that fed Christian Constantinople and provided the manpower for the city and its armies. Without that land the city shrank, lot its trade base, and had to depend on mercenaries for protection. It was like New York or London trying to survive without the surrounding rural areas.

"In Italy, Robert Guiscard went to help his brother in Sicily, once the Byzantines had been driven from the mainland. Together Robert and Roger captured Palermo, the Sicilian capital, in 1071. Then Robert got another idea to match his ambitions--could he take Constantinople itself? He decided to try it; in 1081 he crossed the Adriatic with an army, captured Corfu and the Albanian port of Durazzo, and defeated a Byzantine force led by the emperor. Before he could proceed to the imperial capital, though, Byzantine agents launched more revolts in Apulia, forcing the Normans to go home. In 1085 Robert made one more attempt to march east, only to fall victim to the same typhoid epidemic that killed many of his men."

This seems more an adventure than a serious threat to Constantinople. It seems that this Guiscard got no further than Albania and then died of typhoid. Like all nations, Byzantium faced many enemies from all around at various times. But the nature of the Islamic threat was of a diferent order. As others have said, Christian attackers could be absorbed, and gradually assimilated into Byzantine culture. A Christian victory in a Byzantine province meant a new set of boots on the Ducal table, and virtually everything else continuing as before. A Muslim victory was very different.

Many of the population faced massacre or slavery.
The language changed from Greek to Turkish or Arabic.
The whole culture was transformed. No races. No plays.
Arabic writing was used.
The Law changed. Legal protections vanished. Islamic Law replaced roman.
Remaining Christians became 2nd or 3rd class citizens obeying Islamic Law.
You became a foreigner in your own land.
The main Churches became Mosques.
Festivals and public professions of Christianity were banned.
There was constant pressure to Convert to Islam. Conversion back was death.
To get an education or a higher rank job you had to convert to Islam.
You paid high tax, and your children could be taken for the army.

Muslims in their first onslaught under the Umayyads had already made an attempt against the walls of constantinople in the 674. The lands in Asia minor constanly change hands it is nothing new to the byzantines. Yes there was a threat against the byzantines from the muslims, but the situation was not as bleak as immediately after manzikert. Alexius was on the ascendency

1. The Muslims indeed attacked Constantinople around 400 years earlier, but this had been driven back. Virtually all of Asia Minor was regained. It did face almost annual destructive raids from the Muslims, but this again is evidence of Muslim aggression and its continual nature, rather than the contrary.

2. Alexius may have made some minor gains after 1071, but they were small compared to what had been lost. Virtually all of Asia Minor was either in Muslim hands or under attack when the Crusaders arrived. The peasant crusaders were massacred nearly as soon as they left Constantinople.

I am not fighting for the cause of muslim grievance, but the sooner we recognize what was right AND what was wrong about the crusades, the sooner our words would gain credibility.

Yes, but the current period is one where there was one view of the Crusades held up until 40 or 50 years ago - that The Crusades were the finest flower of noble chivalry with righteous knights fighting for Christendom and honour against vile infidels.

Now, however, this admittedly romanticised view has been so completely turned round the other way by anti-christian revisionists, that the Crusades are now seen in caricature form by many in the West as a disgraceful assault by uncouth gold-hungry monsters on cultured peaceable tolerant muslims! This is a complete reversal which is more of a caricature than the original, and is also dangerous in that it gives a false view of history, making Muslims feel justified in their attacks on the west.

I feel it is important that this revisionist caricature is challenged, for it hides the real history, and danger of militant Islam.

The crusade is harmful moreso to christianity itself, because of the travesties and atrocities committed in God's name. Armed conflict against the muslims was necessary and there is no denying of that. There is no re-writing of history here, just that some have decided to read history too selectively.

Evil things happened in the Crusades - as in all wars. There's no denying that. But they were, I believe, a response - the Christian worm turning after nearly 500 years of continuing Muslim assaults.

The issue of militant Islam is still with us, and this is the main problem that needs to be addressed in this thread. There is a "soft" face of Islam, which we are often presented with in the West. The studious academic Muslims who speak gently, believe in co-operation and a sort of secular, westernised Islam. However Islam seems to have within it a dynamic of Jihad. Islam sees its destiny as being the Worlds ONLY religion. Unlike other religions Muslims cannot happily accept being in the minority, or one of a patchwork of faiths. Islam can only be practiced properly under Islamic Law. Society must be run by Muslim values. The courts should impose Islamic Justice. Converting from Islam must be punished. This requires an Islamic State, and the subjection of other religions, pending their eventual disappearance (as in North Africa and Turkey). This inevitably brings conflict.

The real question is, how do we deal with this?

 

[rooster]

My apologises for returning to this so late. I had always wanted to return to this because dispite the early polemics, it has turned out to be a rather interesting conversation.

This seems more an adventure than a serious threat to Constantinople. It seems that this Guiscard got no further than Albania and then died of typhoid. Like all nations, Byzantium faced many enemies from all around at various times.

The normans were not only a threat to the byzantines, but also to the Holy Roman Empire. Althoguh adventurers they are, the campaign against Constantinople was not an advanture.
But this is just my opinion. Various writings also reflect both opinions (yours and mine) and it would be hard to guess what was truly on Alexius' mind as he looks towards the east and what it portends. Perhaps his biography by his daughter could shed some light and i intend to cover that ground some time soon.

But the nature of the Islamic threat was of a diferent order. As others have said, Christian attackers could be absorbed, and gradually assimilated into Byzantine culture. A Christian victory in a Byzantine province meant a new set of boots on the Ducal table, and virtually everything else continuing as before. A Muslim victory was very different.

Many of the population faced massacre or slavery.
The language changed from Greek to Turkish or Arabic.
The whole culture was transformed. No races. No plays.
Arabic writing was used.
The Law changed. Legal protections vanished. Islamic Law replaced roman.
Remaining Christians became 2nd or 3rd class citizens obeying Islamic Law.
You became a foreigner in your own land.
The main Churches became Mosques.
Festivals and public professions of Christianity were banned.
There was constant pressure to Convert to Islam. Conversion back was death.
To get an education or a higher rank job you had to convert to Islam.
You paid high tax, and your children could be taken for the army.

Massacre? could you perhaps point out a few instances from the reign of Abu Bakr leading up to the time of the 1st crusade?
Most saw the early arab conquerers as liberators. The muslims laws and regulation was much easier to live under as compared to the persian or byzantine yoke they were under. All that was required was a poll tax.

People of the book, christians and Jews were treated rather well infact, under the rashiduns, the umayyads and the abbasids.
It us under the turks then things took a turn for the worse.
Conscripting christian children into the soldiery or for service to the state under the Janissery system us instituted under the ottomans.

1. The Muslims indeed attacked Constantinople around 400 years earlier, but this had been driven back. Virtually all of Asia Minor was regained. It did face almost annual destructive raids from the Muslims, but this again is evidence of Muslim aggression and its continual nature, rather than the contrary.

2. Alexius may have made some minor gains after 1071, but they were small compared to what had been lost. Virtually all of Asia Minor was either in Muslim hands or under attack when the Crusaders arrived. The peasant crusaders were massacred nearly as soon as they left Constantinople.

Normadic raiders crossing the steppes in search of plunder had been occuring since time immemorial. At that time the pechenegs and the cumans were also constantly scratching at the byzantine door.

Yes, but the current period is one where there was one view of the Crusades held up until 40 or 50 years ago - that The Crusades were the finest flower of noble chivalry with righteous knights fighting for Christendom and honour against vile infidels.

Now, however, this admittedly romanticised view has been so completely turned round the other way by anti-christian revisionists, that the Crusades are now seen in caricature form by many in the West as a disgraceful assault by uncouth gold-hungry monsters on cultured peaceable tolerant muslims! This is a complete reversal which is more of a caricature than the original, and is also dangerous in that it gives a false view of history, making Muslims feel justified in their attacks on the west.

I feel it is important that this revisionist caricature is challenged, for it hides the real history, and danger of militant Islam.

Since when does objectively reporting history revisionist. Being truthful and honest about the crusade does not obscure the danger of militant islam. Anybody can take facts and twist it to suit any argument.

Evil things happened in the Crusades - as in all wars. There's no denying that. But they were, I believe, a response - the Christian worm turning after nearly 500 years of continuing Muslim assaults.

The issue of militant Islam is still with us, and this is the main problem that needs to be addressed in this thread. There is a "soft" face of Islam, which we are often presented with in the West. The studious academic Muslims who speak gently, believe in co-operation and a sort of secular, westernised Islam. However Islam seems to have within it a dynamic of Jihad. Islam sees its destiny as being the Worlds ONLY religion. Unlike other religions Muslims cannot happily accept being in the minority, or one of a patchwork of faiths. Islam can only be practiced properly under Islamic Law. Society must be run by Muslim values. The courts should impose Islamic Justice. Converting from Islam must be punished. This requires an Islamic State, and the subjection of other religions, pending their eventual disappearance (as in North Africa and Turkey). This inevitably brings conflict.

The real question is, how do we deal with this?

Well the problem is Islam was intended to be political from the very beginning. While Christianity allows itself to be divorced from politics, the sharia does not.
The Sharia does not only have rulings for moral and ethical concerns but it lends itself to be a constitution for a state.
Within Islam, there was no shyness in interpreting the sunnahs and hadiths into political philosophy and political science.
The Islamic way was meant to orientate every sphere of life, from the political to the individual.
Is it a problem. Of course it is, it is not only a problem posed by muslim politcal activist in countries where they are a minority. It is also a problem within secular muslim states where fundamentalist are constantly trying to impose the Sharia over the secualr laws as instituted by the states.
There is a "soft" face of islam and there is a real soft face of islam. I live among muslims, and they are real people not thinking about jihad all day planning to take over the world. They can be productive people in society, perfectly relatable and who themselves deplore the state of fundamentalist islam.
There is great difficulty in converting because their whole previous life would be close to them. Their whole community, family, friends would ostracize them. It is a tremondous tremondous obstacle, unlike when a buddhist or taoist is to convert, their families would normally respect their decision.