Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Quote:

It was the pagan Mongols who devastated Muslim lands in a manner that is still talked about today in Muslim cafes.

You might enjoy this... Mongolian film dubbed into Russian, basically the story of a bunch of muslims who tried to treat Mongols the way they normally treat Christians. The guy you see getting molten silver poured in his eyes and ears is Inalchik, a brother in law or some such of the Padishah of the Eastern Turkish empire who intercepted a Mongolian trade caravan, took everything, killed everybody, and when Genghis Khan sent four ambassadors to figure out what had happened, burned their beards off and sent them back to show Genghis Khan how bad he was...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY_YM4JESyk

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

Yes I had read about that. The Mongols considered an ambassador to have immunity, so the Muslims had behaved in a particularly barbaric manner.

I will watch the movie, thanks for the heads up.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Yes they expanded, but expanding brings new enemies with each expansion.

*cough* 400 years of violent expansion up to the crusades *cough*...where was the fighting for survival during those 400 years?

Quote:

By comparison, they were relatively polite in conquering Christian and Pagan lands, taxing people till they converted.

*cough*
-taxing is an extremely polite and misleading term for all that dhimmitude encompasses.
- butchering people to take over a land / peoples is hardly 'polite'
- that politeness (said ironically) only extended to 'people of the book'. Others did not find it 'polite'
- the armenian genocide was hardly 'polite'

Quote:

Whilst others were trying to exterminate them, they welcomed academics to their universities, something that was to help kickstart the renaissance.

Err...which ignores that:
- Islams invasion of Europe and Europes depopulation (while Europe fought for survival) from those Islamic invasions- contributed in large degree to the Dark Ages
- while Islam, who were in your mind, invading Europe in a fight for Islams survival... weren't depopulated, with many/most Islamic lands left untouched, (and so Islam could retain higher cultural endeavours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must be reading different histories.
- yours reverses who was fighting for survival...saying the invader is fighting for survival rather than the invaded.
- your's removes the crusades and inquisition from the historic context that lead to them (hundreds of years of Islamic raids & conquests on Europe)
- yours removes the loss of Europes higher cultural endeavours (art, education etc) from the hundreds of years of Islamic raids/ conquests of Europe
- yours blames the victims for fighting back (that they did so in an evil manner is unacceptable, but outright blame for fighting back against invaders is just a tad much)
- yours seems to say Dhimmitude is acceptable
- yours focuses on a few crusades and an inquisition as comparison...against over a thousand years of Islamic conquests - as you are doing comparisons, perhaps you could add up the total number of years of the crusades and inquisition?

But each to their own in how they read history, or what perspectives they find acceptable.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

I found those dancers mesmerising....that silver though....that could permanently damage your eyesight. Good battle scenes, but they always leave out the allies. Genghis could not have conquered all he did without the allies he accrued along the way. His 2IC was a long blond haired, blue eyed Rus, as was many of his army. Being ex-Vikings from Sweden, the Rus gave a sacred oath of loyalty and would never break it.

A good viewing....thanks!

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Mongols had not had any contact with white Russians at that time and being 2IC in a Mongol campaign would have required a bare minimum of learning the Mongol language which would have been a gigantic undertaking. If there was such a thing as a 2IC for the horde at that time it would most likely have been Subudai.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

It was Genghis Khan Hulegu and the fall of Baghdad. I have read that as early as 10 years after Genghis Khan Temujin (the First to receive the tile of Genghis Khan, though posthumously) had started campaigning, there was a need for mercenaries. Later Mongol adventures took along Chinese siege experts.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Their immediate neighbour was Byzantium and they conflicted for the same lands.

Byzantium was minding their own business and Muslims invaded them for no reason.

If we count Greek Fire and Napalm as the same substance, then the world's primary purpose of Napalm throughout most of history has been for spraying on Muslims to prevent them from killing you.

Ionus wrote:

There were the Crusades, the Reconquistadora of Spain

Just wars of self defense against Islamic aggression.

Ionus wrote:

All of these were very unpleasant for any Muslim to try to live through.

Those poor Muslims. Imagine having victims with the audacity to try to defend themselves.

Ionus wrote:

By comparison, they were relatively polite in conquering Christian and Pagan lands, taxing people till they converted.

I'll pass on being subjected to such "politeness", thank you.

Ionus wrote:

It was Vlad Dracula who impaled 10,000 Muslim soldiers to shock them into turning around.

Good man there. He did what it took to put a stop to Islamic aggression. We need people like him in leadership today.

Ionus wrote:

It was the Crusaders who massacred Jews and Muslims after they laid their weapons aside.

Their treatment of Jews was shameful, but the Crusades were still a just war of self defense against Islamic aggression.

Ionus wrote:

Whilst others were trying to exterminate them, they welcomed academics to their universities, something that was to help kickstart the renaissance.

No one was trying to exterminate Muslims. We only want Muslims to stop trying to exterminate us.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You are showing a lot of bias there. If the Christians massacre Muslims it is justified self defense. The Crusades were self defense ? Really ???

As I said it was hard for the Muslims to turn off expansion because of their fight for survival from their beginning in Medina. Byzantium was their neighbour and the two went at it for 750 years. Hardly minding their own business wouldnt you say ? The city of Byzantium was fatally wounded by Christian Crusaders. Perhaps the Crusaders were minding their own business in self defense, but they were a little far from home dont you think?

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

You are showing a lot of bias there.

All I'm doing is pointing out facts.

Ionus wrote:

The Crusades were self defense ? Really ???

Yes. The Roman Empire had done nothing to Islam, and the Muslims simply invaded and conquered them for no reason.

Ionus wrote:

As I said it was hard for the Muslims to turn off expansion because of their fight for survival from their beginning in Medina.

It's time they turn it off, or we're going to turn it off for them.

Ionus wrote:

Byzantium was their neighbour and the two went at it for 750 years. Hardly minding their own business wouldnt you say ?

750 years of Muslims invading Xian land without provocation or justification, with the Xians merely defending themselves.

Yes, the Xians were minding their own business.

Ionus wrote:

The city of Byzantium was fatally wounded by Christian Crusaders.

What the Fourth Crusade did was shameful.

Still, it's hard to tell whether Byzantium would have survived had that not happened. It is possible that Byzantium was already dead and the Fourth Crusade merely looted the corpse before the Muslims could do it.

Their feudal Theme system had been able to defend the Empire even in times of incompetent leadership, but once that system was replaced with a professional army, the Empire was only secure from Islamic aggression when they had a competent leader in charge. Their last competent leader died in 1180.

But then again, who knows. If the Fourth Crusade hadn't devastated Byzantium, perhaps a competent leader might have emerged to take the reins.

Ionus wrote:

Perhaps the Crusaders were minding their own business in self defense, but they were a little far from home dont you think?

No. The Crusades took place on Roman territory. The only people who had no business being there were the Muslims. The Xians were merely defending themselves.

I would also add that the Romans had no business conquering Israel, so that particular slice of land belongs to Jews. Neither Xians or Muslims have a claim to Israel.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

As I said it was hard for the Muslims to turn off expansion because of their fight for survival from their beginning in Medina.

One of the most obvious traits of a people who are fighting for their very survival...is contraction. They contract because they need to solidify their strength in order to survive. This trend is exhibited over and over again in history where peoples fought for their survival (unless they abandon their lands). This was not the pattern in the first few centuries of Islam.

Your persistent claim that Islam's jihadic / violent expansion into Africa, Europe, The subcontinent, and China = Islams fighting for survival, is simply nonsense.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

If your argument consist of Christians and Jews good, Muslims bad then you are a prejudiced racist fool. 750 years of neighbours fighting goes way past simple conquest .
If two Christian nations go at it for a hundred years, say France and England, do you have the high moral ground to work out who is evil and who is Godly ? Or does your great moral wave of the hand only involve Muslims ? Are you aware the Jews conquered it too ?
You say the land belonged to the Byzantines but also to the Romans but also to the Jews . Anyone but the Muslims . In fact, every conqueror except Muslims . Why are you so full of hatred and fear of Islam ? Understanding causes goes much further to solving a problem then the racist screaming you indulge yourself in .

Quote:

The Roman Empire had done nothing to Islam

Only because Islam arrived late. The Romans destroyed every large city then in existence during their wars of conquest, including Jerusalem . How many large cities were destroyed by Islam ?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

is simply nonsense.

I agree. That is nonsense. I also did not say it . I said their expansion was started based on their early fight for survival . I did not say their fight for survival was the sole cause of their expansion. Look at Russia after WW2, the Japanese before WW2, modern China, the USA just after Independence, and many more.... these are countries who are worried about their survival and expand out of insecurity .

2 Replies

@Ionus,

I'm glad you agree the notion that "Islam expanded 'all over the world' because it was fighting for survival" is nonsense. Please don't go stating things that directly imply such then, as per below.

Quote:

Islam was fighting for survival from the time they went to Medina till the Hunnic invasion

and you later correct yourself to say ‘the Mongols’, which occurred in the 1200’s…here you are by literal implication, saying that Islam was fighting for it's survival for 500 years after the founding of Islam (a period during which it violently & rapidly expanded / invaded other lands & peoples)

You reinforce that logical implication you made, with numerous other statements.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Look at Russia after WW2, the Japanese before WW2, modern China, the USA just after Independence, and many more.... these are countries who are worried about their survival and expand out of insecurity .

While minimising previous claims (to now include 'insecurity') is a time tested tactic from trying to uphold a shaky position:

- You included Japan? How, odd. What do you know of Japanese culture, and how it contributed to their decision to invade other countries? Which country was a threat to it's survival? (not the US which was neutral)
- Russia has never been successfully invaded...but you make it's expansion one of survival, rather than status, or gaining economic benefits, or both
- China has survived thousands of years, and only started expanding after it gained economic superiority...following the suite of other countries that have risen in such circumstances. That is not about survival, but expansion and the benefits that go with it (unless you are trying to say Nepal etc posed a threat to China)
- The US also is hardly worried about survival - but rather, about their status in the world (wanting to be a/the superpower), and about how much money they can make out of the rest of the world / maintaining it's wealth etc.

That these days being a superpower brings with it the prospect of destruction by nuclear war, does not make the forays / expansion into other countries a matter for their survival, rather than economics / status / home politics etc.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

When you are finished telling me what I did not say, and have beaten your strawman, READ carefully what is written: Islam was greatly influenced by having to fight for survival from its beginnings. This influenced it in its future wars. I gave examples of other nations that expanded due to insecurity. If Islam had of started within an Empire already built like the Christians did, we may not have seen the violent tendencies we see today.

Quote:

You reinforce that logical implication you made, with numerous other statements.

By this you mean the illogical assumptions you made.

Quote:

Islam was fighting for survival from the time they went to Medina till the Mongol invasion

In their minds they were, just like the Thirteen colonies ended up with half a continent. They started from survival and that insecurity kept them expanding. Dont you get it ?

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Islam was fighting for survival from the time they went to Medina till the Hunnic invasion

You your correction to the Mongol invasion puts the time frame at 500 years. You may complain all you wish about others not reading what you wrote, and yet this IS what you wrote.

Where in this statement is there a break from 'fighting for survival'?

If you wish to say that you did not mean to use those words, that is fine.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

While minimising previous claims

I am minimising nothing. I am explaining it AGAIN to someone who cant understand basic concepts of history.

Quote:

Which country was a threat to it's survival? (not the US which was neutral)

Yes, the USA directly threatened the survival of Japan. They waited until there was no more negotiation possible then they went to war to secure the resources a modern economy needed and to build an Empire like their heroes the British.

Quote:

Russia has never been successfully invaded...but you make it's expansion one of survival, rather than status, or gaining economic benefits, or both

Seriously your lack of knowledge is appalling. Russia specifically wanted Eastern Bloc countries as a buffer for invasion. They cost the Soviets a great deal of money but they thought it was worth it to have that buffer.

Quote:

and only started expanding after it gained economic superiority

At some stage you should feel quite embarrased at your enthusiasm not being matched by knowledge. China took over Tibet, which had no strategic value to China and wants Taiwan simply because it is insecure and used to own those areas. It has no other need for them.

Quote:

- The US also is hardly worried about survival - but rather, about their status in the world (wanting to be a/the superpower), and about how much money they can make out of the rest of the world / maintaining it's wealth etc.

Did you know that when you write a reply you can read what you are replying to just below ? The USA expanded out of insecurity. Many of its citizens didn't want independence, it was being led by revolutionaries who for various reasons thought they knew better then the average person. They were afraid. They were surrounded by Superpowers, Spain, France, Britain...they had to expand to survive and Indian territory was the only way to go. Incidentally, one of the major reasons for the War of Independence was the British would not allow the colonies to take Indian lands. They were concerned with more wars with the other Superpowers.
You are showing a great deal of ignorance by displaying the most basic of knowledge and some misconceptions. All this because you hate Muslims, right ?

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

If you wish to say that you did not mean to use those words, that is fine.

I could have said it better for your benefit, but most who know history would have seen the quick point I was making....ie Islam is violent and expansionist because of its beginnings in a war for survival. THAT is just like Russia and the USA. Starting off insecure, they didn't know when to stop. Christianity on the other hand, had an Empire already for it and peaceful means were successful in a civilisation that wanted peace and respected peaceful citizens. Though the first Christians were insecure to, burning down Rome to usher in the Apocalypse.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

They started from survival and that insecurity kept them expanding.

In here, you completely ignore:
- their primary example for godly behaviour - what Mohammed did. They followed his example as they conquered each land. If you don't know how that applies to Islamic conquest, you will need to read up on it.
- the god mandated command to wage holy war until the world is Islamic, or subject to Dhimmitude
- their god mandated command to convert by any means possible
- their religious entitlement to booty from raids / conquests

If you are going to talk about reasons, and supposed excuses for expansion - certainly don't leave out the concepts most relevant to such violent religious expansion (above)

Throughout your posts, you suggest that because Islam started through conquest, that they could not stop ...which is utter nonsense because (aside from such a sentiment ignoring all of the above):
- there is a plethora of historical examples of other invaders expanding, then stopping...giving the lie to 'they couldn't help themselves'
- there are a plethora of historical examples of dealing with insecurity though various means other than conquest: forming alliances, building castles, building armies, using natural barriers (rivers, mountains etc)s
- insecurity itself is a human condition, with most countries / peoples NOT dealing with it through conquest

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

I gave examples of other nations that expanded due to insecurity.

Sorry Ionus, your supposed examples of expansion due to insecurity (by superpowers) had much more pressing reasons for expansion...greed / status / politics primarily among them. If you are going to use examples to support a weak position - use ones that can stand up to scrutiny. But if you want to believe that's the reason for their invasion of other lands...that is up to you.

0 Replies

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know