Islamic-Christian relations

[Leo Caesius]

I thought most Assyrians lived further south, closer to Baghdad. Of course, those are more modern figures...the massacres I mentioned earlier could have had an effect.

Most of them live in Iraqi Kurdistan; Nineveh is smack dab in downtown Mosul today, and so Mosul is still is something of an Assyrian cultural capital. A close friend of mine who defected to the US several years ago was born in Mosul, and had quite a few Armenian and Christian classmates. After the massacres, the remaining Assyrians in Turkey fled - some to Iraq, some to Syria, some to Lebanon, and some to the West. Over the last few decades, many of the Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq gradually moved down south to Baghdad (after all, there's little to do elsewhere in Iran) and from there to places like Germany, Sweden, California, and so on.

There are a bunch in Worcester, MA. The former professor of Iranian at my uni is married to one. She and other members of the community often attend lectures here, especially ones on Aramaic and Assyriology. One of them mistook me for an Assyrian (it happens sometimes) and subjected me to a long lecture about how "the kids" aren't learning Syriac. She never bothered to actually ask me if I was Assyrian (no) or if I knew Syriac (oddly enough, yes).

 

[Ian the Admin]

Until fairly recently, most Muslims considered themselves to be part of the West (look, for example, at the relationship between the Muslims and the British in India).

I am 110% positive about this. From the Islamic POV, Christians and Jews were always accorded a preferential status as members of the same religious tradition as the Muslims - namely, communities with a prophet and a divinely inspired revelation. All of figures whom they hold most dear - Moses, Jesus, John the Baptist, and many others, right up to the time of Muhammad, were considered to be Muslims. Additionally, they continued and built upon the intellectual traditions of the Hellenistic Near East, and never made the sharp break with late Antiquity that most historians seem to intimate.

You seem to be mixing up two VERY different things - on the one hand the common religious tradition shared between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and on the other hand European-derived "Western" culture.

Islam certainly always had more tolerance for Jews and Christians, "people of the book", than for pagans. There was a common religious tradition, and some common cultural ancestry (Greek knowledge was at one point better known in the Islamic world than in Europe). But Muslims didn't consider themselves "western" in the European-culture sense of the term. Certainly not at the height of Islamic civilization when Europeans were regarded as barbarians. Not during the Ottoman Empire, which until the last minute didn't pay much attention to European culture or achievements. And once the colonial era was underway, the colonized populations generally didn't regard themselves as culturally the same as the colonizers.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Continuity and Identity

But Muslims didn't consider themselves "western" in the European-culture sense of the term. Certainly not at the height of Islamic civilization when Europeans were regarded as barbarians. Not during the Ottoman Empire, which until the last minute didn't pay much attention to European culture or achievements. And once the colonial era was underway, the colonized populations generally didn't regard themselves as culturally the same as the colonizers.

Well, look - I don't consider this construct - "East vs. West" to be particularly valid. Where, after all, do you place the Greeks? The Cypriots? The Turks? What about Algeria? Algeria was part of France before Savoy. Is the Caucasus Eastern, Western, or something completely different? You say that Muslims didn't consider themselves "western" in the European sense of the word, throughout much of history, but I'd be surprised if anyone did - even the "Europeans" (whoever they are).

In a sense, "the West" is every bit as artificial as "the Orient," a region which nobody can pin down, which appears on no modern maps, and which has no defining characteristics, outside of fiction. I'm not trying to project these artificial terms into past, as you seem to think that I am, but merely adopting these terms so that the discussion doesn't descend into postmodern abstractions.

My understanding of the situation is that the "Muslims," as a group throughout much of history, found themselves surrounded - by Europe to the north and west, by India and Central Asia to the East, and by Africa to the South - and that they identified most not only with their predecessors in the Near East but also with Europe. When Mehmet Fatih conquered Constantinople, he didn't raise the place to the ground and establish a new capital. He sought, very deliberately, to continue in the mold of - not eradicate - the Byzantines, religion notwithstanding.

The Persians had a concept, farr, which goes far to explain the situation to me. In times when a dynasty was on the out, the farr of the land (often represented by a ram or an eagle) would flee from the outbound ruler and shack-up with a new, more legitimate ruler. In general, I see this as the case in the Near East - loosely speaking, the Muslims believed that the farr of the classical civilizations and monotheistic religions of that region had been bestowed upon them.

Farr - Pahlavi xwarrah, Avestan xwarnah - is cognate with our word corona. Whenever I talk to Iranians, they always manage to work in the fact that their language is "Indo-European." Every time. Without fail. There is a very good reason for this, and it is not that every Iranian has become afflicted with a passion for linguistics.

 

[Xen]

How about this

The Muslim conquerors take Jerusalem and move north to Damascus when they are defeated by the Byzantine Empire. After another loss at Nazareth that leaves many Muslims dead, an Arab Cleric, well call him Abu, says he had a dream that God wishes for Muslim's not to attack other people of the book, and he will protect them. Abu then says in his dream God commands the Muslims to west into Africa. Instead of conquering the Byzantine Empire, the Arab's move across to the Horn of Africa and launch an invasion.

The Muslim's control of Africa worked wonders for the continent. The Arab armies built roads, taught science, and united the people of Sub-Sahara Africa under a single religion and language. The old tribal system wasn't completely destroyed, but it became more like the Arab tribal system. The Muslim's then turned their attention to India.

There were only three crusades against the Muslims, the first in 1099 took Jerusalem from the Muslims, the second lost it in 1170, and the third tried to take it back, but ended up pushing the the Crusaders out of Palestine all together. The other crusades came as the Church declared war on the pagan religions of Europe.

A great Turkish Empire was built out of the north Caucasus area and into Central Asia, uniting the Turkish speaking people. The Turkic Empire was very advanced in science, and kept itself on par with Europe. Other than a few spats with Muscovy, the Turkic Empire got along well with most of Europe.

 

[Ian the Admin]

Well, look - I don't consider this construct - "East vs. West" to be particularly valid. Where, after all, do you place the Greeks? The Cypriots? The Turks? What about Algeria? Algeria was part of France before Savoy. Is the Caucasus Eastern, Western, or something completely different? You say that Muslims didn't consider themselves "western" in the European sense of the word, throughout much of history, but I'd be surprised if anyone did - even the "Europeans" (whoever they are).

A classification doesn't have to be exact to be useful. "The west" has always included the US and Western Europe, and you can argue about various other countries but there is clearly a region with a lot of common cultural experience (first world nations, ex-imperial powers, NATO members, etc, predominantly Christian religion, etc).

 

[Leo Caesius]

A classification doesn't have to be exact to be useful. "The west" has always included the US and Western Europe, and you can argue about various other countries but there is clearly a region with a lot of common cultural experience (first world nations, ex-imperial powers, NATO members, etc, predominantly Christian religion, etc).

Forgive me, Ian, I know this is going to sound snide, but your statement to me sounds suspiciously like "Eastasia and Oceania have always been at war." A "West" which includes the US and Western Europe - WENSA if you will - has only existed for the last two centuries, if even that - and I'd rather take the bird's eye view of things and examine the sources of this division from its very inception. WENSA is a reality today, sure, but so much has changed in the recent past to create this reality.

I agree that a classification need not be exact or even, for that matter, accurate to be useful. It is clearly useful to discuss both the commonalities and the differences that exist between two groups in contact. Nonetheless, I do not see the utility of looking at the history of Muslim-Christian relations as a dichotomy along the lines of East v. West, North v. South, Good v. Evil, Us v. Them, etc. We don't examine the history of contact between other groups in this manner!

Think of western histories of the contact between Mongols and the Chinese, or the Japanese and the Chinese. What about the Aztecs and the Maya? The various groups within the Middle East and Europe, respectively? We don't couch them in these terms. Most histories of Muslim-Christian relations are better relegated to the sphere of histories of religion, because they presuppose as their starting point a fundamental religious gulf and fail to analyze the many commonalities that exist. More recently, people have tried to emphasize these while maintaining the traditional structure but, IMHO, this is just a bandaid applied to a gushing wound. We need to completely rewrite the history of the region.

I can imagine a history where the Ottoman Empire "graduated" into a commonwealth of states, united by their shared history and culture. It's not impossible. I can imagine a federal India, within which Muslims, Hindus, and other communities receive equal representation. I can even see a Middle East without artificial nations divided by confessional groups - no Israel and Lebanon per se, but with Christians and Jews participating fully within political life. All three of these scenarios could have emerged in the last century or two, and yet we (as a world) blew it.

We chose to highlight our differences, deny that people of different confessional backgrounds can collaborate, and split the world along religious lines. Now we sit back and say "see, look at the mess we've created - this proves that Jews, Christians, and Muslims simply can't live together!" This, in a nutshell, is the source of the great division between us today, and it was man-made, not inevitable.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Gala Event - 50th Anniversary of the CS

Feb. 28, 2004 | JERUSALEM (AP) - Dignitaries from the region and around the world gathered in the capital of the province of Palestine today to celebrate the 50th aniversary of the Cemaat-ı Şarki or "Eastern League." Among them are the heads of state of Rumania and Georgia, recently admitted to the League, and hopefuls Greece, Oman, and the Emirates. Conspicuous in its absence was a delegation from the Transitional Islamic State of the Nejd (TISN), which shares a border with the League on two sides and is protesting the expansion of the League to the southeast.

"If we agreed to all of the Wahhabis' demands, we'd all be wearing beards and keeping women behind closed doors," said President Dr. Levon Ter-Petrosian, whose country, Armenia, holds the League's rotating presidency this year. "At any rate, who really cares? It's not like anyone actually cares what goes on Riyadh or any other part of that sandbox."

Indeed, no one does. The eyes of the world are upon the League today. When asked about the Yahud separatists in Palestine, Dr. Ter-Petrosian chuckled. "What, those nutcases? I suppose they have a point - the Jews outnumber everyone else in Palestine two to one. There are even more Jews in Palestine than there are in Medinet Ugandah. However, anyone can see that the secessionists are a very small minority - most of Palestine's Jews prefer to remain within the League and enjoy the benefits of the strong Lira and the ease of trade within our borders. Besides, I doubt they would enjoy such freedoms as they enjoy in the League - where else but here could an obscure academic such as myself become President?"

Dr. Ter-Petrosian is not the only academic in attendance today. Dr. Ali Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah Mohammed Reza, has recently graduated from Harvard University's Program in Iranian and is enjoying the festivities. When asked what future Iran held for him, he replied "I'm not a politician like my brother (current Iranian President Reza Pahlavi). I'd just be happy to find a position in Iranian studies somewhere."

Heads of state aren't the only ones who are enjoying Jerusalem on this momentous day. Stanley and Stella Rosengarten of Garden City, Long Island are in Jerusalem after completing a tour of the Hashemite Kingdom of the Hejaz, including Jedda, Mecca, Medina, and Petra. "The Kaaba was such an amazing sight," said Stella Rosengarten. "I got a framed piece of cloth from that slip-cover thingy they put over it - what do they call it, Stan?"

"Kiswa, liebchen."

"Oh, that's right, the kiss-wha. That's right, I picked one up for my little Eli - he's gonna plotz, let me tell you. Oh, and that nice man at Petra - such a gentleman, he was - he led us on a camel tour of the site and then made us stay for tea!"

The ceremony will begin tonight with a benediction from the King of Turkey, HIH Prince Selim Hamid Khan V, to be followed by an ecumenical service in the Dome of the Rock.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Here's my map. I've created three majority Christian states.

Your three states would require horrific massacres to become majority Christian. The parts of Armenia from the Ottoman Empire are only 1/6 Armenian, the highest proportion being in Van, where they were 1/3. In the Russian part, they were 40% before WWI, only becoming a majority after massacres of Muslims and a huge influx of Armenian refugees from the Ottomans Empire.

Assyria, besides being in the wrong place, would have under 100,000 Assyrian inhabitants, there never having been more of them than that.

The Lebanese Christians did not live in a geographical block, they were mixed in with the other groups; the autonomous area was Mt Lebanon itself, where there was a Christian majority.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Your three states would require horrific massacres to become majority Christian. The parts of Armenia from the Ottoman Empire are only 1/6 Armenian, the highest proportion being in Van, where they were 1/3. In the Russian part, they were 40% before WWI, only becoming a majority after massacres of Muslims and a huge influx of Armenian refugees from the Ottomans Empire.

Maybe Islam simply never catches on in those areas for whatever reason.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Feb. 28, 2004 | JERUSALEM (AP) - Dignitaries from the region and around the world gathered in the capital of the province of Palestine today to celebrate the 50th aniversary of the Cemaat-ı Şarki or "Eastern League."

Very entertaining. Good attempt at Ottoman, too; but I think "League" would be Cemiyet; Cemaat means more like "congregation" or "assembly", generally in the context of a religious community.

The Sultan should also be HIM, not HIH. The word "Sultan" was actually not used by the Ottomans to refer to the sovereign; it's meaning is quite close to "prince" - "Sultanate" thus means "Principiate"; so when you see "Sultan
X Khan", it is still referring to the monarch, who was referred to as the "Padishah" (Master of Kings, from Persian).

To indicate a prince or princess, the title Sultan comes after the name, like Nilufer Sultan (Sultan's daughter or mother - mother would be HIM, though, while his daughter would be HIH)

 

[Leo Caesius]

Your three states would require horrific massacres to become majority Christian.

I'd never advocate such things, but it's not impossible - there were horrific massacres in these places in OTL, only Xians were the big losers.

Assyria, besides being in the wrong place, would have under 100,000 Assyrian inhabitants, there never having been more of them than that.

How do you figure, "wrong place?" Nearly all of the Assyrians I've met come from Urmia or Hakkari. Some trace their ancestry back further West - e.g. Tur Abdin. I know one guy from New Jersey who says his family came from Harput.

If by "wrong place" you're suggesting that it's not in the vicinity of ancient Assyria, there is good reason for this. There aren't very many Assyrians in that area. They simply appropriated the name for themselves, in much the same way Lebanese Christians used to claim to be descended from Phoenicians (which is only slightly more believable). The bulk of the NENA speaking Assyrians live around Lake Urmi, south of Van, and here and there in Iraqi Kurdistan. The bulk of the Central Aramaic (Turoyo) speaking ones live near Mardin and Midyat.

The Lebanese Christians did not live in a geographical block, they were mixed in with the other groups; the autonomous area was Mt Lebanon itself, where there was a Christian majority.

I know; my Lebanese relatives used to live in Zahle before they came to America via Beirut. The Nmeir family is still quite prominent there. I have friends from the far north and south, - in fact, when I toured the south after it the Israelis retreated, I traveled with some Senegalese Lebanese who had originally come from Saida. So I'm aware of the distribution of Lebanese Xians, but I chose to cut things back to the mutessarifate borders for the reason you gave above.

As for my ATL, well, as you can see, my Ottoman is not all that it's cracked up to be. What little Ottoman I know I learned when I was teaching English at the world's One and Only Ottoman Summer School, which, ironically enough, is located on one of the last parts of Turkey to be predominantly Greek-speaking (the islanders are Hellenophone Turks - cast out from Crete during the mübadele - and have managed to maintain their dialect, which they call Giritçe, even after all these years).

 

[Keenir]

Create a POD where the relation between the majority of Christians and Muslims is the same as the relation between the majority of Catholics and Protestants (agree to disagree).

Restrictions:


-Stay on topic and be civil.

civil discourse is good.