Clash
With Islam: A Historical Perspective
Sunday, January 13, 2008
.
There is no denying
that the modern caliphates of Islam represent a danger to global peace and
security, particularly nations like Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, and
Saudi Arabia. The tension felt between religions in the Middle East has led to
ethnic violence, even among the disciples of Islam itself with warring
factional and sectarian violence among Kurds [who are actually monotheistic
adherents splintered from Jewish, Zoroastrian, Christian and Islamic beliefs],
Sunnis, and Shiites. What is ironic about this, perhaps, is that the Prophet
Muhammad originally united the Arab states from the tribal warfare which
defined the divisive geopolitical situation on the Arabian Peninsula from the
earliest known history. Tribal wars between pagan peoples had made the peoples
of the Middle East unable to rise up as a unified force and create an empire as
had the peoples of Rome, Constantinople, and Cairo. When the Muslims took Mecca in
630 A.D., Muhammad unified the Arab peoples with a single act of symbolism:
Then along with his companions
Muhammad visited the Ka'aba. The idols were broken and the stone gods were
destroyed. Thereupon Muhammad recited the following verse from the
Qur'an:"Say the Truth is come and falsehood gone; Verily falsehood is ever
vanishing."
The idolatry symbolism of Islam is a large part of understanding the religion.
It has led to a greater focus by adherents in the plain words there is "no
god but God", leading to radicals to believe that other religious symbols
represent the same idolatry destroyed by Muhammad in 630 A.D. The Taliban, for
instance, destroyed the ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan because they
[ignorantly] believed that Buddhists worshiped them. But this goes against
nearly 1,500 years of Islamic harmony with the symbols, religions, and cultures
of other peoples.
After the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam spread
easily across the Middle East and North Africa because it enabled people to
believe in one God, removing the factional warfare which splits nations, and
removed the kind of bureaucracy and hierarchy found within the older religions
like Judaism and Christianity. But a fundamental difference existed within
Islam which allowed it to prosper in the Middle Ages. The first was the
separation of theology and reason, leading to innovation and technological
advancement which dwarfed that of the Christian fiefdoms of Europe. The Dark
Ages of Western Europe and the Papal rule had caused Christians to believe that
science, philosophy, and even writing was considered heresy, punishable by
death.
Islamic scholars and artisans brought to the fore a
cultural revolution, and within it the jewel of human civilization, now under
American occupation: Mesopotamia. Baghdad became the centre of Dar al-salam
[the Muslim world], a city with the most influential thinkers, artists, and
engineers in the world. From this epicenter of human innovation began what is
arguably the genesis of the renaissance which enabled huge breakthroughs in
health care, science, mathematics, and masonry. Throughout Baghdad, and indeed
throughout Dar al-salam, Christian churches and Jewish synagogues were
respected and their people left to their own worship. In practically everywhere
throughout Dar al-salam, the peoples enjoyed a prosperity and harmony virtually
unknown today. A part of this harmony can be understood in the historical
triumphs of Islamic leaders:
An important turning point in
the history of Palestine came in the year 637, when it was conquered by the
armies of Islam. This meant the genesis of a period of peace and harmony in
Palestine, which had for centuries been the scene of wars, exiles, looting and
massacre, and which saw new brutality every time it changed hands, a frequent
occurrence. The coming of Islam was the beginning of an age when people of
different beliefs in Palestine could live in peace and harmony.
Palestine was captured by Omar, the second caliph after the Prophet himself.
The entry of Omar into Jerusalem, the incredible tolerance, maturity and
kindness he showed towards people of different beliefs, introduced the
beautiful age that was beginning. The British historian and Middle East expert
Karen Armstrong describes the capture of Jerusalem by Omar in these terms in
her book Holy War:
"The Caliph Omar entered Jerusalem mounted on a white camel, escorted
by the magistrate of the city, the Greek Patriarch Sophronius. The Caliph asked
to be taken immediately to the Temple Mount and there he knelt in prayer on the
spot where his friend Mohammed had made his Night Journey. The Patriarch
watched in horror: this, he thought, must be the Abomination of Desolation that
the Prophet Daniel had foretold would enter the Temple; this must be Antichrist
who would herald the Last Days. Next Omar asked to see the Christian shrines
and, while he was in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the time for Muslim
prayer came round. Courteously the Patriarch invited him to pray where he was,
but Omar as courteously refused. If he knelt to pray in the church, he
explained, the Muslims would want to commemorate the event by erecting a mosque
there, and that would mean that they would have to demolish the Holy Sepulchre.
Instead Omar went to pray at a little distance from the church, and, sure
enough, directly opposite the Holy Sepulchre there is still a small mosque
dedicated to the Caliph Omar."
The harmonious interlude of Islam and Christianity would
come to an abrupt end when a sudden aberrant act by
an Egyptian ruler, would bring the hordes of Christian fanatics to the Holy
Land. In 1009 A.D. Fatimite Khalif of Egypt al-Hakim inexplicably ordered the
razing of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The invaders started by demolishing
the tomb itself, the dome and the high parts of the buildings until the
destruction and rubble made it impossible to continue. After the conquering of
Palestine, Christians were forbade to visit the church, nor pray in the ruins.
The act was widely viewed in the Islamic world as barbaric and condemned by
Islamic leaders throughout the world as madness.
This created quite a stir in Europe, where Pope Urban II
urged a sudden reclamation of the Holy Land for Christianity. The fervency in
Western Europe became so strong that nearly one hundred thousand Christian
soldiers marched into Palestine via the Byzantine allied territories, and
massacred the Muslims en route. Anti-Islamic sentiment in Western Europe was
palpable, as Christian leaders urged every man of able body to go forth to the
Holy Land and reclaim Jerusalem for Jesus Christ. When, finally, the crusaders
reached the city of Jerusalem they killed every man, woman, and child within,
including those Christians taking refuge in Christian sanctuaries. None were
spared.
This sudden attack on Dar al-salam was, as an
understatement, completely unexpected. Most Islamic leaders believed that at
first it was merely another attack from the Byzantines, but few even knew of
the existence of the Northern Armies and their Kingdoms. The ensuing crusades
which came to the Holy Land seemed very difficult to understand, given that
Muslims had always lived peaceably with Christians and Jews prior to the
Northern conquests. Despite the attacks, only the first crusade had been
successful to a degree, and only to secure frontier cities in the Islamic
empire. Attacks on Syria and Egypt were easily repelled, and later led to the
removal of Christian rulers from all of the Middle East.
If one looks at the modern perspective of conflict with
Islam, the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 stand out as a similar
historical event to the attack on the Christian Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
The disproportionate response of violence to the Middle East from a modern
perspective, echoes the past mistakes of the Middle Ages and the crusades. The
reason for this is that much like the aberrant violence from al-Hakim, the
actions of Osama bin Laden were widely condemned in the Islamic world as well.
The horror of September 11 was unanimously censured by Muslims throughout the
world, and it has since been pointed out that radical Islam represents but an
insignificant fraction of the population of Muslims who have lived peacefully
for centuries.
It is true that the fervency of radical Islam has reached
the highest levels of government in many countries today, and nations like Iran
represent an example of the worst parts of the religion. But within Persia
remains a people who, like those throughout Dar al-salam, still believe in the
unifying tenets of Muhammad and the tolerance and acceptance displayed by
benevolent Islamic leaders for fourteen centuries since. While the Middle East
may be home to the worst acts of violence in the world today, the roots of
Islam can hardly be blamed for the intolerance and hateful religion which
exists in isolated and factional groups today. And if history has taught us
anything, there may be something which comes along that makes the
Christian-Islamic war seem insignificant in comparison. After all, while the
crusaders were a mild annoyance to the Muslim world, the barbarian invasions
from Mongolia were utterly devastating. One wonders if a third force will come
into play soon, rendering the spat between the Americans and Iran seem quite
playful.
1 comments:
Red Tory said...
Tribal wars
between pagan peoples had made the peoples of the Middle East unable to rise up
as a unified force and create an empire as had the peoples of Rome,
Constantinople, and Cairo.
Sorry, but your re-writing of history here is appallingly wrong. Might I draw
your attention to the Assyrian Empire, the Hittite Empire, the Median Empire to
name but a few examples of empires that rivaled those which you mention, in
addition to the Persian Empire, the Parthian Empire, and so on that arose
amongst the Aryan peoples in the region and which bestrode much of the known
world of their time.
I would also question your use of the word “pagan” in this context and wonder
what exactly this means. You seem to be suggesting that there is a connection
between “paganism” and “tribalism” — a contention quite clearly contradicted by
two of the examples you cite: the Romans and the Egyptians.
Otherwise, it’s a pretty good effort in such a limited format to at least make
some attempt at dispelling the now all too commonly held notion that Islam is
by nature inherently evil and/or wickedly intolerant. That said, one shouldn’t
be too eager to romanticize the pre-Renaissance ''convivencia'' or to ignore
the profound cynicism motivating the Christian crusades either. It’s a heavy
subject that doesn’t lend itself well to a cursory blog post. (That’s not meant
as a criticism, by the way. A for effort and all that.)
January
14, 2008 12:02 AM HYPERLINK
"http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=1047431167101441186&postID=778346288432082622"
http://unambig.blogspot.com/2008/01/clash-with-islam-historical-perspective.html
