 |
Rania, Arab conquests
There was a mistake in last week's episode. The Battle of Badr does not mean the battle of the crescent (as was suggted in the subsequent newsletter) but the battle of the 'full moon'. But actually it is the moon it is referring to, but an area outsdidew Yathrib called Badr.
Penelope /arab Conquests
Fascinating discussion of the seemingly impossible miracle of 'a few tribesmen' overcoming empires. William Dalrymple recently put forward the thought that the Byzantines and Persians had fought themselves to a standstill, thus leaving a vacuum for the arabs to fill. This made sense to me.Excellent speakers, as ever, but how strange that not one of them was a Muslim or an Arab? WHY not?l
AKFarrar, The Arab Conquests
This should be made compulsory listening in the parliaments of the world: Great, clear and a reasoned view on a period of history and group of people much misunderstood if known at all.Thank You.
Stuart Downie-arab conquests
On listening to this program I came to wonder where the idea that Islam is a religion of peace came from as it was obviously spread by force of arms.
georges
There was something weirdly antiseptic and evasive about this programme. For instance, Robert Hoyland is most famous for his book "Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam". That is the principal area of his scholarly expertize. Yet somehow he managed to get through the entire 45 minutes without referring to ANY of these non-Muslim descriptions of the Muslim conquests. Some of these documents pose problems for the version of events presented in the programme. Even if all three writers feel that, say, the Doctrina Jacobi of 634 should be set aside and ignored, they should, at the bare scholastic minimum, acknowledge the existence of a controversy.
Zak + Islam's spread
Don't you think the Muslim invasion of Spain gets ignored in these debates..and how places like bulgaria were under Muslim rule for 500 years and did not turn Muslim majority?
Jack Y, The Arab Conquest
As I listened to the story unfolding, it seemed to me that, by changing the names, we were hearing about the British in India ! Gradual take-over of adjacent areas - failure of one such military expedition (Afghanistan)- no attempt at first to "convert", but serious attempts later - some degree of intermarriage,(though with the resultant Anglo-Indians never really being accepted as British) - "garrison towns", with little contact between the troops and the civil population - imposition of a foreign language so that it eventually became the language of administration .....I'm sure too,that it will have come as a surprise to some listeners to hear that earlier there had been no Arabs in North Africa - I have similar difficulty in explaining to some people that there were no "English" in Britain in Roman times.Reference "John's" letter below - yes indeed Ishmael, father of the Arabs, was Abraham's son - had he been the son of Jacob, surnamed "Israel", the Arabs would also be the "Children of Israel" - which would REALLY complicate today's situation !
Eric Illing
It appears that Christians (the Assyrians) and Jews (descendants of the Deportation, lived reasonably harmoniously together in Iraq until George Bush's disastrous 'Crusade'. Now these ancient, pre-Islamic populations are fleeing in increasing numbers in the face of Islamic persecution. One actual 'harmony' destroyed by western interference?
Islam. Arab Conquests
Excellent Prog. Disagree with reason why Abu Bakr went to war. He was a man who used to cry during prayers. After Prophets death, Arab muslim tribes stopped paying Zakat. Zakat is a Piller of Islam. An obligatory article of faith. Abu Bakr said he will fight them because of this non adherence to a Piller of Islam even for the price of a rope. Umar disagreed with Abu Bakr about fighting against other Muslims, but Abu Bakr convinced the others. These became known as Ridda (Apostasy) Wars not because the Tribes left Islam intentionally but because they stopped paying Zakat to the central authority.
Jane - The Arab Conquests
Thank goodness for the metaphysical poets next week.'In Our Time' shows the incredible incongruity of our human experience. This morning's programme was pertinent to present day events in our world. Couldn't help thinking that many of today's fundamentalists are in the lineage of the coerced. Also, impressive (if that's the right word) expedience. Greek to Arabic in one generation? However, that said, aren't we growing weary of this oppressor - oppressed societal cul-de-sac? History is full of the same old story and I can think of no more boring or life diminishing company than that of an oppressor. The history of ideas in every sphere is evidence of what inspired enterprise humans are capable of. It seems to me that anybody who wants to be in a position of power definitely shouldn't be and those who should be don't want to be. So - is anybody doing serious scientific research into the various aspects which, even in an educated world, prevail to suppress and limit the human being both overtly (which makes it into the press) and covertly (which tends not to).We human beings are a most glorious and complex synthesis of so much with our true latency strategically untapped. Although our lexicons swell with our journey through time - their main content ends up only for the few. The word 'meritocracy' is a recent addition and is basically new nomenclature for the same old dog eat dog theme. The old adage "It's the nature of the beast" or the Christian story of original sin - valid as they possibly are - will surely not do any more. Don't we need to accept these natures and use intelligence to move on? It seems to me that the aforementioned meritocrats together with the media are, on the surface at least, ubiquitous oppressors of our current society - filling it insidiously with vapid, if enticing rubbish.'In our time' being definitely excluded here. I always comment as a pragmatist not as an academic. Ptolemy's seven virtues of reason (last week's newsletter) thrilled me and made today's all too universal subject even more difficult. We live with strange juxtapositions. I suppose that until all human beings are given some sustained respect to respond to we can't hope for real change.......but first, if James Lovelock is correct - there's another challenge for our ingenuity - global warming which. although it may not seem relevant here, is. 'In our time' extracts the most from me and I'm sure from many of its regular listeners. I've said it before but it does stand as a beacon in the face of so much.ps John Toohey's possible programme suggestion for the symbolism of snakes in religion sound full of excellent potential and the revelation of yet more facets of who we are. Very best wishes and thanks to both the team and the comments page contributors. Jane
Islam. Economics + Conversion. Answering Fennel.
Fennell is mistaken. Muslims had to pay more 'taxes' than non muslims.Zakat - 2.5%Ushr - 10% to 20% for Land Produce from Ushri Lands.Fitrana, Kaffarat, Wirasat and the optional charity.Only the non-muslim men paid Jizya (poll tax). Exempted were Blind; Women; Children; Crippled or disabled; Insane; Chronically Ill; Old; Slaves; Priests, Monks, Nuns.Avg. Jizya rate per year was: 48 dirhams for rich. 24 Dirhams for workers. You can check the value of the Dirham for yourselves.Get your facts right!
Adel Mansur (Arab conquest)
Excellent program. It is very interesting to see the different perception of this period between muslims and non-muslims. The review aimed to be as objective as possible, but largely missed the simple and sole driver of these conquests which is to pass on the message of GOD. The early leaders of Islam where not motivated by money (Khalifa Omar lived very humble life, the material world of this life did not interest him, what he was looking for was GOD acceptance of his deeds and reward in the day after). It is the beleive in GOD and that Islam is the final message from GOD for salvation to all mankind which motivated early muslims conquest, not to rule and not for bounty but for passing on the message. Quaran, states that conversion to Islam should never be foreced on others, which explains the reason behind respecting and tolerating other religions (which was unprecedented at the time). Slowely overtime (seeing during Ommyad dynasty and onwards) many "muslims" deviated from this path lured by money, wealth and power when Islam started to take very different shape from the "pure" Islam of the prophit and early Khalifs era"
C P Robinson
It is interesting that the Islamic empire was created from two elements as opposed to each other as Islam and violent tribalism. Of course it is the oldest trick in the book for power hungry individuals to unite people behind their banner by means of an ideology and a common enemy. (If you have no enemies then they are quite easily cultivated.) The parallels with today are striking. It suggests that for the powerful individuals sponsoring anti-Western terrorism the fight against the West is a subordinate priority, their real and over-riding priority is, through the cultivation of a common enemy, to expand and to maintain the cohesion of their power base in their own part of the world. What has happened recently in Iraq shows how readily societies in the Middle East can split into small belligerent armed factions. I think it unfortunate that in the popular consciousness the common factor or ‘problem’ in Middle Eastern conflict and terrorism is seen as Islam or a conflict of ideologies. This is unfair on Islam and also creates confusion and a sense of hopelessness. Things become clearer if the common factor is seen as the pragmatic political manoeuvres and manipulation that are expedient in cultures of ingrained violent tribalism.
Nick Rose - The Arab Conquests
The programme did not mention that in Khalid ibn al Walid the Arabs had a military genius as a general in the field. Initially in Persia and then in Syria.[Francesco Gabrielli - Muhammad and the Conquests of Islam - pub 1968]
Peter Fennell - Economics + Islamic conversion
It is economic nonsense to argue that the Moslem rulers 'did not want people to convert because it would undermine their tax take'. They could have chosen to recover the lost revenue by removing the tax breaks that would be nejoyed by the newly converted moslems. Such muddled argument misses the main significance of the scheme: a) that it was a form of apartheid and b) that it created a powerful financial and social incentive to convert. Which could not have been an accident.
John - the legacy of Mohammed
Excellent programme.One quibble: one of the contributors stated that Ishmael was the son of Jacob. He was, in fact, the half-brother of Jacob; the son of Abraham and hagar...
|
|
