AHC: Reverse the Roles of Christainity and Islam

2). Islam is not a terrorist religion (obviously, I can't believe I even have to spell this out). In fact Muslims are not allowed to start wars, and are only given permission to fight as a last resort, in self defence, after all other options have been tried. Hurting or killing a civilian is haram (forbidden).

How do we square this with the many military campaigns fought by the early Caliphates? Are those all somehow interpreted as being in self-defense?
 
Last edited:
InB4 flamewar!:rolleyes::(


Can't we all just get along?:eek:

There isn't going to be a flame war. Funnyhat asked an interesting and good question :)


How do we square this with the many military campaigns fought by the early Caliphates? Are those all somehow interpreted as being in self-defense?

The short answer is, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to square the ideals of Islam with the Arab conquest of the near east after Muhammad’s death. For me personally, this is one of the points that I am still struggling to understand. From what I know of the period, it appears that the ideals of Muhammad were not always lived up to, even immediately after his death.

I suppose that’s probably not surprising, since humans are fallible and rulers rarely live up to the highest ideals of human behaviour.

That said, IIRC the initial conflict started based on two events:

1). Some peaceful Muslim emissaries were put to death by the Persians
2). The Arabs received intelligence that the Romans were about to attack (although this later turned out not to be true, but they didn’t know that at the time)

I don’t believe the political actions of the Ummayyad Caliphs in the period from 632AD onwards should necessarily be seen as representing what ‘Islam’ stands for, since Islam is a personal quest that exists at an individual level, within each of us. It is about emotions, about overcoming the negative part of human nature and instead aspiring towards goodness and charity. Whereas if you bring politics into it, it becomes political and as we know, politics seldom matches up to the highest ideals.

That said, Muhammad’s peaceful occupation of Mecca and the fact that he forgave his enemies, after all they had done against him, and did not seek revenge but instead forgave them all, sets an example of the highest ideals for all to follow.
 
The short answer is, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to square the ideals of Islam with the Arab conquest of the near east after Muhammad’s death. For me personally, this is one of the points that I am still struggling to understand. From what I know of the period, it appears that the ideals of Muhammad were not always lived up to, even immediately after his death.

I suppose that’s probably not surprising, since humans are fallible and rulers rarely live up to the highest ideals of human behaviour.

That said, IIRC the initial conflict started based on two events:

1). Some peaceful Muslim emissaries were put to death by the Persians
2). The Arabs received intelligence that the Romans were about to attack (although this later turned out not to be true, but they didn’t know that at the time)

I don’t believe the political actions of the Ummayyad Caliphs in the period from 632AD onwards should necessarily be seen as representing what ‘Islam’ stands for, since Islam is a personal quest that exists at an individual level, within each of us. It is about emotions, about overcoming the negative part of human nature and instead aspiring towards goodness and charity. Whereas if you bring politics into it, it becomes political and as we know, politics seldom matches up to the highest ideals.

That said, Muhammad’s peaceful occupation of Mecca and the fact that he forgave his enemies, after all they had done against him, and did not seek revenge but instead forgave them all, sets an example of the highest ideals for all to follow.

Thanks for the reply! Interesting.
 
Top