Kevin Graham posted April 25, 2007:
To blame the crusades for the mistreatment of Christians in Muslim territories is just shameless. The enforcement of dhimmitude is enshrined in the Quran itself. But this is the kind of biased Islamic scholarship I have noticed from FARMS. At least he didn't make the absolutely ludicrous claim, as did Brian Hauglid, that jihad, when militant, always applied defensively! Hamblin never makes any note of the fact that the crusades were essentially a belated defensive effort to stop Islam's military advancements to the west; religious military campaigns which utterly threatened Christianity's very existence.
Bill Hamblin responded:
Now that's more like it; I'm used to hostile misrepresentation and name-calling.
1- Kevin: "To blame the crusades for the mistreatment of Christians in Muslim territories is just shameless."
Bill: Then it's a good thing I didn't do that. What I said was the crusades "helped bring about the decline of Eastern Christianity." This is manifestly the case, as the sack of Orthodox Christian Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204 clearly demonstrates. But just a simple question should clear up this issue: were Syriac and Armenian Christians better off before or after the crusades? Rightly or wrongly, Muslims believed that Syriac and Armenian Christians could not be trusted because of their alliances with the crusaders and Mongols. Whether relations between dhimmi Christians and Muslims were good or bad before the crusades (an issue I didn't discuss in my interview), they were worse after the crusades because of the crusades.
2- Kevin: "The enforcement of dhimmitude is enshrined in the Quran itself."
Bill: Evidence, please. Does the term dhimmi appear in the Qur'an? (As a side note, would you rather have been a Jew in Muslim Spain or in Christian Spain?)
3- Kevin: "But this is the kind of biased Islamic scholarship I have noticed from FARMS."
My radio interview has nothing to do with FARMS, and neither do I. I do not work for FARMS, I have no administrative role in FARMS. I do not edit for FARMS.
4- Kevin: "Hamblin never makes any note of the fact that the crusades were essentially a belated defensive effort to stop Islam's military advancements to the west; religious military campaigns which utterly threatened Christianity's very existence."
Bill: I didn't note this "fact" because it's not true. Sicily had been reconquered from the Muslims by 1091 before the Crusades. Islam was on the defensive in Iberia before the beginning of the crusades; Toledo was captured in 1085. How was the "very existence" of "Christianity" threatened by Islam in the eleventh century? What was threatened was Byzantine control over Anatolia and Armenia, which the Turks had conquered in the late eleventh century. Constantinople itself was not threatened, however (since the Turks lacked a navy); certainly the "very existence" of Christianity itself was not threatened. (By the way, when the crusades began Jerusalem had been ruled by Muslims for over 450 years.)
Kerry Shirts,
So, I figured that was your methodology. Based on your complete lack of comprehension of my own podcast on the Archaeology of God that you are so rudely, inanely and meanly spouting about on other message boards, it doesn't surprise me that you make so many silly errors of judgement about everyone else's ideas. That's not exactly a safe methodology to go by Kevin. It works best if you know what your talking about before you talk, and you will avoid many foolish errors you let fly all over the internet.
Just one note, you can spout, spit, and pout all your vituperous and mean attitude on other areas, as is your chosen method of communication, but keep it civil here, or I will be editing out your snideness. It's simply not welcome on my blog, though discussions are always welcome.
Bill Hamblin,
Kevin
"BYU Islam apologists."
Bill: I am not an apologist for Islam. Good grief! Why would I possibly want to be?
Kevin
And now Hamblin makes the absurd claim that the Crusades "caused" the conflict with Islam
Bill
Evidence, please. I never made that claim; I do not believe that claim.
Kevin
(completely ignoring the fact that Islam had wiped out roughly two-thirds of Christendom; some might consider this a "cause" of conflict)
Bill
What an amazing feat! I have ignored the Arab conquests after having actually taught an entire course on the subject!
http://history.BYU.edu/fac/hamblin/395% ... nqHome.htm
Kevin
and that the dhimmis could "do whatever they wanted."
Bill
Could you provide the source where I said that dhimmis could “do whatever they wanted”? I don’t believe I mentioned dhimmis in my presentation at all.
Kevin, you have amply demonstrated that you are unable to follow my argument or accurately represent my position. You insist on attributing to me positions I have never articulated and indeed do not hold. Unless you care to accurately engage what I have actually said and believe, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ignore you.
Kevin Graham
Bill: You insist on attributing to me positions I have never articulated and indeed do not hold.
Kevin: Bill, I insisted nothing of the sort, for if you wish to elabrate, clarify or even deny anything I attributed to you, I will gladly accept it without hesitation. And please consider that I'm dealing with a poorly recorded interview with even crappier monitor speakers. I'm literally placing my ears to the screen. If I attribute citations to you erroneously, just point them out. But I can assure you I am not inventing commentary from whole cloth. For example, I wrote down from your interview, "by causing conflict with Islam." You did said this. I simply pointed out that the conflict started when Islam took over these Christian areas. I realize you know this, and that you teach a course on this, but your interview neglects to elaborate on its consequences, regarding the "relationship" between Islam and Christianity. Your presentation is clearly focused on the Crusades as the cause of Christian decline in Muslim countries. As if there was ever a chance in hell for a "Christian upsurge" in Muslim ruled countries, where public expression of one's non-Muslim faith was generally denied.
Bill Hamblin,
Kevin:
Bill, I insisted nothing of the sort, for if you wish to elabrate, clarify or even deny anything I attributed to you, I will gladly accept it without hesitation … If I attribute citations to you erroneously, just point them out. But I can assure you I am not inventing commentary from whole cloth.
Bill:
As far as I can tell, you have misrepresented ALL of my major points. Can you point to any issue where you actually correctly restated my position? I can’t see one here.
Kevin:
For example, I wrote down from your interview, "by causing conflict with Islam." You did said this. I simply pointed out that the conflict started when Islam took over these Chritian areas. I realize you know this, and that you teach a course on this, but your interview neglects to elaborate on its consequences, regarding the "relationship" between Islam and Christianity.
Bill:
The interviewer did not ask about the Arab conquests, so I did not talk about them. He asked me about the crusades, so I talked about them. I talked about the crusades for less than five minutes in that interview. In my course on the crusades I am hard pressed to cover the entire topic in 40 hours. There I talk about the Arab conquests as background to the crusades. In my class on the Arab conquests I spend 40 hours talking about the Arab conquests.
Barring a few possible raids in the Mediterranean, the Shi’i Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt had never attacked Christian Europe. Their goal was the destruction of Sunni Islam. When the crusaders attacked Jerusalem and Ascalon (which the Fatimids held) they were causing conflict with Islam. There had been no war between Egypt and France for centuries. The crusades caused new conflict with Islam. That is all I meant. It is a simple and indisputably true statement.
Kevin:
Your presentation is clearly focused on the Crusades as the cause of Christian decline in Muslim countries.
Bill:
In a 29 minute interview I talked about the crusades for 2:45 (15:00-17) and Muslim views of the crusades for 2 minutes (17:45-19:40), for a total of less than five minutes. I did not “clearly focus on the crusades.” I did not say the crusades were “the cause if [Eastern] Christian decline.” I said the crusades were A cause. As I noted before, I specifically said the crusades "helped bring about the decline of Eastern Christianity." Notice the word “helped.” That means crusades were A factor, not THE ONLY factor. Do you wish to dispute that the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 helped bring about the decline of Eastern Christianity?
Kevin:
As if there was ever a chance in hell for a "Christian upsurge" in Muslim ruled countries, where public expression of one's non-Muslim faith was generally denied.
Bill:
I never talked about this topic either, did I? Indeed never talked about 99.99% of the possible topics on Islam. So? Does that mean you are free to speculate about what I supposedly think about the 99.99% of the topics I didn’t discuss? Rather than speculating about things you think I might believe or should have said but did not say, why don’t you try to accurately understand what I actually said? If a radio station ever wants to interview you about Islam, feel free to say whatever you want; I won’t object or write you letters misrepresenting your views or telling you what you should have talked about instead. I promise I won’t go on internet discussion boards with anti-Mormons and attack you.
But, to your question: have you heard of Spain? Or Sardinia, or Sicily? These countries were dominated by Muslims where Christians retook power beginning in the eleventh century. What about the establishment of Armenian Christian principalities in Cilicia and northern Syria? The Byzantines retook parts of Anatolia from the Turks. Fatimid Egypt was ruled (nominally in the name of the Fatimid caliph) by the warlord/wazir al-Afdal, an Armenian the son of an Armenian mamluk, who brought in thousands of Christian Armenian warriors to support his regime, building them new churches in Cairo. What about the rise of Christians to relative positions of power under the Mongols? What about the semi-independent Christians of the mountains of Lebanon?
Don’t bother to post any more about my radio presentation. I won’t be responding. You obviously have no desire to understand my position or accurately restate that position. Conversing with you is a complete waste of time.
Kevin Graham
Bill, the host asked you about examples of war for purely religious motives and you didn’t mention anything about the Islamic commission to make the world Islam, by conquest if necessary. Clearly, he had Islam in mind because he followed up with his question on jihad, after you failed to mention it. When he raised the point, you then appeared to agree that Muslim jihadists do fall into that category since they are sincere in their belief that “God wants them to destroy the Satanic West.” This you said just seconds after saying religion is “never” the only factor and “probably never the dominant factor.”
The host then asked you about the term “jihad” and how it has been used. Unfortunately, you gave the standard explanation that has become popular in academia, despite that it is misleading and essentially apologetic nonsense. You said:
“It is used in Arabic to refer to any effort to accomplish something. Specifically in its religious context it can be used for preaching Islam. Caring for the poor could be a jihad, building a hospital might be a jihad. A striving or effort to better things in the path of God. What it has come to mean in the context of the current conflict of course, jihad is a militant struggle against evil in the path of God, and so, it becomes holy war in that sense, but that is just one aspect of it in the broader context.”
What got me was your comment “what it has come to mean,” as if it is a new meaning and the terrorists were recreating Islamic principles as if didn’t really follow traditional Islam. This sounds very similar to the view of Brian Hauglid who once wrote:
“For Muslims, jihad is more or less the equivalent of Latter-day Saints being “anxiously engaged in a good cause” (D&C 58:27). Thus, it is unfortunate that extremists have created the images that many non-Muslims have of jihad, eclipsing the true and correct picture of Islam. Armed struggle in the Quran and in the traditional teachings of Muhammad is not to be lightly entered into-certainly not in an offensive posture and only in self-defense when in imminent physical danger”
For a corrective, check out David Cook of Rice University: Understanding Jihad. Cook dismisses as "pathetic and laughable" the popular contention that jihad refers to "the effort to lead a good life." Cook definitively establishes that the term primarily means "warfare with spiritual significance." Bernard Lewis - generally considered the world's authority on Islamic matters - offers a similar corrective:
"The overwhelming majority of early authorities, citing the relevant passages in the Quran, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad in military terms. According to Islamic law, it is lawful to wage war against four types of enemies: infidels, apostates, rebels, and bandits. Although all four types of wars are legitimate, only the first two count as jihad. Jihad is thus a religious obligation...In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islam, in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War, the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslims faith or submits to Muslim rule. Those who fight in the jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds - booty in this one, paradise in the next."
“For most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetimes of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.”
“Jihad is sometimes presented as the Muslim equivalent of the Crusade, and the two are seen as more or less equivalent...But there is a difference. The Crusade is a late development in Christian history and, in a sense, marks a radical departure from basic Christian values as expressed in the Gospels. Christendom had been under attack since the seventh century, and had lost vast territories to Muslim rule; the concept of a holy war, more commonly, a just war, was familiar since antiquity. Yet in the long struggle between Islam and Christendom, the Crusade was late, limited, and of relatively brief duration. Jihad is present from the beginning of Islamic history - in scripture, in the life of the Prophet, and in the actions of his companions and immediate successors. It has continued throughout Islamic history and retains its appeal to the present day.”
This is from Lewis, who is recommended by Dan Peterson, above all other authorities.
I also recommend Daniel Pipes’(Ph.D Harvard) treatment on this apologetic phenomenon that has taken academia by the jugular: “Jihad and the Professors.” http://www.danielpipes.org/article/498
Bill: The interviewer did not ask about the Arab conquests, so I did not talk about them. He asked me about the crusades, so I talked about them.
Correct. He did ask “what is the legacy of the crusades”? But I’m not sure how this helps you here. Are you suggesting that if someone asks about the legacy of Gulf War, you would likewise forgo any mention of Iraq’s aggression into Kuwait? Both are liberation attempts. Liberation from what? The closest thing you said was a passing reference to the “Muslim domination,” which, to an ignorant majority, might mean they were simply the majority; maybe through peaceful conversion processes – you never say. To say the Crusaders were sent in to free Jerusalem from Muslim domination suggests they were just a bunch of Christian bigots who didn’t like the idea of Muslim dominant areas. The fact is they were on a mission to liberate their Christian brothers and sisters from what they believed to be unjust oppression. But you didn’t dare open that politically incorrect can of worms.
Bill: … crusades caused new conflict with Islam. That is all I meant. It is a simple and indisputably true statement.
“New” conflict is quit different from what you actually said. Your audience had no reason to believe it was a conflict within a larger conflict unless you said so. You never mentioned the preexisting conflict which proved Islam was the aggressor, but we both know you’d be hated and probably threatened if you ever said such a thing. In the early stages of Nazi Germany there were Jewish groups that made life worse for the other Jews by trying to rebel against the Nazi soldiers. But somehow it just sounds wrong to say the Jews created conflict with the Nazis. Yes, the Crusades didn’t do Christendom or Christianity any favors, we know this.
Bill: Do you wish to dispute that the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 helped bring about the decline of Eastern Christianity?
Not at all. But I believe Islam’s conquest of Constantinople had a more definitive role regarding the future of Christianity in the region. Your ideas follow the usual train of thought in academia; blame the West for everthing including the bad weather.
Bill: I never talked about this topic either, did I?
Yes, you did. You specifically said this was why there was no “upsurge” in Christianity. To say the crusades hindered an upsurge implies that an upsurge was ever possible to begin with under Islamic rule. It was never possible, which makes your comment factually baseless and misleading.
Bill: But, to your question: have you heard of Spain? Or Sardinia, or Sicily? These countries were dominated by Muslims where Christians retook power beginning in the eleventh century. What about the establishment of Armenian Christian principalities in Cilicia and northern Syria? The Byzantines retook parts of Anatolia from the Turks.
I am not sure how any of this addresses the question. Sure, there were sporadic victories in reclaiming Christian areas, but we are talking about an upsurge in “Christianity” in the context of your interview, whereby you reiterated that Muslim-Christian relations were damaged because of the crusades since the subjugated Christians were viewed as possible traitors. I would ask you just how “trusting” the Muslims were of the Christians before the Crusades. Islamic law mandated their humiliation as dhimmis and deprivation of basic rights, including the right to bear arms. It seems they never really trusted the dhimmi. In fact, they were considered “unclean” because they were not Muslim. Conversion to and public expression of Christianity was forbidden. And why would they view them as possible traitors when the Crusades sacked Constantinople? It seems the relations would have improved if they would have changed at all.
The fact that Jews and Christians held offices and government positions was a consequence of necessity, not a unique expression of tolerance as so many apologists assume:
“From the very first years of Islam, kafirs staffed key political and military positions. Few in number and poorly skilled, tribesmen from Arabia could not on their own rule the immense empire created by the initial Islamic expansion. Until converts to Islam enlarged the community of Muslims, the caliphs depended on dhimmis to administer such advanced areas as Egypt and Iran.”(Pipes, In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power, 52)
Bill: Could you provide the source where I said that dhimmis could “do whatever they wanted”? I don’t believe I mentioned dhimmis in my presentation at all.
Sure. You said, and I quote:
“Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in Islamic lands in harmony. Christians and Jews were second class citizens but nevertheless they were allowed to practice their religion, they could do whatever they want.”(between 27:13 and 27:30 of your interview)
This is your statement word for word, so please stop with the accusations that I am misrepresenting what you say. To say you didn’t mention dhimmis is also misleading. Yes, I know you didn’t mention the word, but the dhimmis were Jews and Christians living in Islamic lands, which is what you were referring to. Your assertion that they “could do whatever they wanted” is ahistorical bunk.
Bill: Evidence, please. Does the term dhimmi appear in the Qur'an?
Kevin: Dhimmi is a word used in Islamic law to describe those mentioned in Quran 9:39, so the existence of the exact word in the Quran is immaterial. As you already know, the dhimmi is a subjugated non-Muslim under the yoke of Islamic rule. Quran 9:39 establishes the requisite prejudice factor when it orders Muslims to fight against all non-Muslims, even Christians and Jews, until they bow down and pay a humiliating tax. The taxes provided a lifeline for the Islamic economy. Jews and Christians were always considered cows to be milked whereas those of polytheistic faiths were given the choices of conversion or death; at least initially.
The whole point, as the verse explains, was to make the dhimmi feel “subdued,” and humiliated.
MES scholars like to propagate the trendy notion that the mistreatment of the subjugated peoples wasn’t that bad and that the tax burden was only slight. But these opinions are not influenced by the testimonies of the dhimmis, which have for the most part been ignored by scholars who have already put all their intellectual stock into myth. These opinions are products of a misguided, modern academic paradigm which tends to blame the West for the woes throughout the world. The result is a concerted effort to extract any and all redeeming values in Islam, while focusing on all negatives in Christian history. Your interview illustrates how this has resonated in MES at BYU. Following the party line seems to be more important than providing a balanced treatment of history.
Bill: As a side note, would you rather have been a Jew in Muslim Spain or in Christian Spain?
Kevin: Ah, here we go with the usual apologetic line (and you wonder why I think you’re an apologist?) whereby the mythical glory of Muslim Spain is called to bear testimony to its so-called tolerance. Well Bill, it isn’t as if I didn’t see this coming, but let’s ask Moses Maimonides, the renowned Jewish philosopher and physician, who experienced the Almohad persecutions, and had to flee Cordova with his entire family in 1148. Contrary to the myth of a tolerant society in Muslim Spain, he testified that, “…the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.” Of course, I had to read Bat Yeór (rejected in “expert” circles like MESA because her findings turn their established myths on their heads) to find out this information because the leading authorities won’t share it.
The Andalusian Maliki jurist Ibn Abdun (d. 1134) offered these telling legal opinions regarding Jews and Christians in Seville around 1100 A.D.: “[Jews and Christians] must be detested and avoided. It is forbidden to greet them with the expression, “Peace be upon you’. In effect, ‘Satan has gained possession of them, and caused them to forget God’s warning. They are the confederates of Satan’s party; Satan’s confederates will surely be the losers!” A distinctive sign must be imposed upon them in order that they may be recognized and this will be for them a form of disgrace.”
Bill: I didn't note this "fact" because it's not true.
Kevin: Of course it is true. But apparently your using the scholarship of Thomas F. Madden - whose book is required reading for your class – as target practice, and not as an informed perspective. According to Madden, “…much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.”
He is a Catholic and so I guess that must mean he is too unreliable to speak on his own religious history. That privilege is given unconditionally to Muslims and Mormons, but not to those blasted apostates? Unless of course they are ex-Catholics who don’t know a lick of Arabic, like Karen Armstrong? Apparently, you prefer the Muslim perspective on the Crusades, in spite of the fact that, according to Bernard Lewis, it aroused very little interest in the region (“judging by the Arabic historiography of the period”) and only invoked a Muslim response a century later when one rebellious Crusader took his men and went plundering. His motive was undoubtedly economic, but you tried to color the entire Crusades as economically driven. This is like calling Islam a terrorist religion because of the actions of a relative few. Madden says the overwhelming motive for the crusades was love: a Christian call to lay down one’s life for his friend.
Bill: Sicily had been reconquered from the Muslims by 1091 before the Crusades?
Kevin: So? How does this change the fact that within an unprecedented amount of time, Islam had wiped out two-thirds of Christendom? It is strange that you would bring up the far and few between “victories” by Byzantine militants, who were constantly up against the ropes as they watched Muslim armies advance. Islam had conquered the entire Christian domain of North Africa, and you want to compare this to the relatively insignificant recapture of a tiny island?
Bill: Islam was on the defensive in Iberia before the beginning of the crusades; Toledo was captured in 1085.
Kevin: Yes, Christendom tried to reclaim what the Muslims took from it by force (subtle points like these you neglected to tell in you interview) when they invaded Spain in the 8th century. This is what I am talking about. Your presentation doesn’t explain all the relevant facts and tries to make the Crusaders appear to be the ones who initiated aggression. This is apologetic nonsense.
The world’s authority on dhimmitude, Bat Yeór, responded to the usual apologetic line, and I mention this only because it seems eerily similar to what you’re offering: “...historical negationism, consisting of suppressing or sketching in a page or a paragraph, one thousand years of jihad which is presented as a peaceful conquest, generally welcomed by the vanquished populations; the omission of Christian and, in particular, Muslim sources describing the actual methods of these conquests: pillage, enslavement, deportation, massacres, and so on; the mythical historical conversion of "centuries" of "peaceful coexistence", masking the processes which transformed majorities into minorities, constantly at risk of extinction; an obligatory self—incrimination for the Crusades...'”
Bill: How was the "very existence" of "Christianity" threatened by Islam in the eleventh century?
Kevin: This is such an absurd question. All one needs to do is point out the fact that by the time the Crusades were called, Islam had already wiped out some of the most important Christian strongholds like Alexandria, and the entire Byzantine Empire had been reduced by two-thirds. Most reasonable people would view this as an eminent threat, and the Popes needed little convincing by the Byzantine emperors who pleaded with them for help. Don’t tell me you actually believe that Islamic armies had any intentions of halting their ambitions. Christianity is verging on the lines of non-existence in Muslim countries today for good reason. The mistreatment of non-Muslims is expected from pious Muslims, following the examples laid out in Islam’s traditions.
According to Madden, the Crusades were, “a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.” Remember, Madden is the guy you claim to use in your course. But this pertinent fact is either glossed over or completely ignored by scholars today, present company included. Knowledge of this makes all the difference in the world in the minds of neophytes who are trying to make heads or tails of the Crusades.
Bill: What was threatened was Byzantine control over Anatolia and Armenia, which the Turks had conquered in the late eleventh century. Constantinople itself was not threatened, however (since the Turks lacked a navy); certainly the "very existence" of Christianity itself was not threatened.
Kevin: This is such naïve shortsightedness. Would you also assert that Nazi Germany didn’t threaten the entire world when it advanced into France? Russia? Poland? Or maybe Hitler didn’t threaten the existence of all Jews; he only threatened those within his grasp? When two thirds of an empire is overrun, especially with relative speed and ease, at what point is it reasonable to sense annihilation around the corner?
Bill: By the way, when the crusades began Jerusalem had been ruled by Muslims for over 450 years.
Kevin: I’m aware of that. Was there a point intended with this statement?
MES has been an embarrassment to scholarship in general, as Daniel Pipes (Ph.D Harvard), David Cook (Ph.D University of Chicago) and Martin Kramer (Ph.D Princeton) have demonstrated time and time again. Experts have not been able predict any of the current events in the Middle-East with any sense of accuracy, and this is due to the fact that Middle East experts – those who develop the paradigm and decide what is acceptable to talk about – have a tendency to become political activists rather than true scholars. One of the worst in this camp (Cole) hails from your alma mater (U of Michigan) and spends most of his time with anti-Israel conspiracy theories on his blog. Also, John Esposito is an absolute joke, as well as his predecessor, Edward Said. While Pipes was warning the world of an Islamic revolution (since the early 90’s) that would threaten the world, your crowd of scholars were calling such warnings “bigotry” all the while ensuring their audiences that the “Islamic threat” was just a myth. Even worse, just months before 9-11 Esposito published his book and said Osama bin Ladin wasn’t anyone we should be worrying about. They all said that since the cold war ended, Americans needed to create a new enemy, and since Americans are naturally a bunch of ignorant and racist bigots, any fear of Islam is just a fear conjured out of necessity. Or so went the theory.
Gerald wrote:
Kevin, I think you didn't thoroughly address Bill's point:
"But, to your question: have you heard of Spain? Or Sardinia, or Sicily? These countries were dominated by Muslims where Christians retook power beginning in the eleventh century."
You said a Christian upsurge was impossible. Bill lists several examples of Christian upsurges. How do you explain this?
Kevin Graham:
Gerald,
Let’s review shall we?
Bill said in his interview that the Crusades helped cause the “decline” of eastern Christianity, instead of an “upsurge.”
I understood “upsurge” to mean a sudden forceful rise in Christianity. Now there are only a few ways Christianity could accomplish this:
1) Through the peaceful diffusion of Christianity
2) Through rebellion and overthrowing their Muslim overlords
3) Through outside invasion from Christian armies, like the crusaders.
Given the context of Bill’s comments, he implied that the first method was what he had in mind. Why do I say this? Because of his assertion that the Crusades had an impact on the attitudes of the Muslim rulers; he said the Muslim rulers, as a result of the Crusaders, no longer trusted the Christians in the East. He says this as if this was what caused Christianity to cease from “upsurge.” The logical implication is that without the Crusades, perhaps an upsurge would have taken place and Muslim countries like Jordan would be majority Christian today. He even went on to talk about how Christians represent a major portion of Palestinians today.
I doubted Bill had the second option in mind because the thinking from BYU experts generally involves the assumption that the conquered peoples always welcomed the Islamic invaders with open arms.
So his comments only make sense if referring to one of the first two options. However the examples he provides for Christian upsurges, involves the third option. Sicily, for example, was reclaimed in the 11th century just as Bill indicated, but this was done by outside forces (the Normans). This “upsurge” was independent of the attitudes the Muslim overlords expressed towards the dhimmi Christians. This is why I think Bill’s argument is completely incoherent. The Crusades might have had an effect on the way the dominant Muslims treated the conquered Christians, but it has not been demonstrated that this in any way precluded Christianity from surging. What prevented Christianity from thriving in Muslim lands is the same thing that prevents it today: sharia. Where Islamic law is enforced, Christians and Jews are treated as second class citizens.
1) They are stripped of their rights to publicly practice their faith.
2) Public humiliation is an institutionalized precept that is enshrined in the Quran.
3) Conversion from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death now just as it was in Muhammad’s day
4) Christians and Jews are generally forbidden to build new Churches or synagogues
The list goes on and on, and a decent grasp of it can be gained by reading the Pact of Umar: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html
But the point is that these minority faiths were never “tolerated” in the sense we understand the word “tolerance” today. The idea behind their mistreatment was to let the existing Christian and Jewish faiths rot away under the banner of Islam. Renovations to existing places of worship were almost always denied for that precise reason. Islam was to replace existing religions; contrary to academic myth it was never Islam’s intention to live happily ever after alongside any other faith.
Many eventually converted to Islam because the social and economic burdens were too much to bear. For example, if you could not pay the special dhimmi tax, and you didn’t want to sell your children, then the only way to avoid death was conversion to Islam. This happened on more occasions than the professors are willing to teach.
Don’t expect the PC academy to teach any of this in the classroom.
Of course, Bill abandoned any further attempt to defend his comments and the exchange quickly ended. I point this out because it is instructive for critics who are constantly accused of "misrepresenting" an apologist's arguments. It seems that this is their default accusation no matter how ludicrous. In this case, Bill wasn't even aware of his own comments and just assumed he could get away with accusing me of misrepresentation. And while he was trying to flaunt his authority in my face by drawing my attention to his course outline, I demonstrated his failure to agree with one of his own authorities (Madden).