But this is the same argument you made several posts ago - narrating an emperors description of his exploits is no different from narrating those of a terrorist say - in either case it would be incorrect to then suggest that just because they say so, Islam is now representative of those beliefs.
Emperors were definitely representative of Islamic beliefs. Because it is they who cause the maximum effect either way.
If the emperor is a zealot, it augers very badly for the population.
Obviously, other muslims would take inspiration from the emperor and emulate him.
A terrorist on the other hand, is an outcast, and provided mainstream muslims reject him, he can't be said to represent islam.
But we are not arguing over perceptions are we? Because then I have as much patience for this discussion that I would for some kid who comes in and starts ranting about a "busharraf, RAW, CIA and Mossad attempts to destroy Pakistan". The issue of perceptions has to be handled by the Muslim world, no doubt about that, but from a historians perspective, trying to make the argument that so and so happened simply because the "common perception" indicated so, is being dishonest and misleading.
I'm not talking about conspiracy theories like Mossad etc.
I'm talking about a very real effect that the muslim extremists are having on the world.
I think we are mixing up the topics here.
I am talking about the common perception among the modern world, today, not from a historical standpoint.
Your argument is that because these Warrior Kings claimed to be acting in the name of Islam, it justifies the argument that Islam sanctioned it. But you have given no argument or evidence that proves that the popular Islam of the time condoned the barbarities allegedly committed by these Kings - and therefore regardless of what the perception is, barring some factual basis in favor of your argument, you have to conclude that there is no way to claim that Islam, versus the personal beliefs of the Kings, was to blame for the mayhem.
The Islamic aristocracy and elite, always had a high regard towards "idol breakers" and "defenders of the faith".
Obviously, the mullahs would have been condoning it....I don't see how it could have worked otherwise.
If a raider justifies his raids as "defending the faith", and if his people and army, as well as peers respect him for that, then its quite fair to assume that Islam did sanction religious violence.
I'll provide the evidence obviously, just give me some time to dig up the material.
I really do not see how you arrive at that conclusion. If a bunch of raving lunatics get together and decree that their interpretation of Islam commands so and so, completely devoid of any basis in the Quran, would you simply agree and decide that is representative of Islam? Why are you so willing to believe those clerics, and not the countless more who interpret the opposite? Why can those clerics not simply be misinterpreting the religion, but advocating something completely antithetical to what the Quran commands?
Because those who are sanctioning this interpretation aren't "raving lunatics".
They are muslims from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Saudi textbooks teach students to persecute people of other faiths.
If countless more are interpreting the Quran otherwise, why isn't there any strong anti-extremist movement within Islam?
I repeat, that if clerics can successfully argue a case for radical islam, then there is probably some substance behind it.
Once again the distinction between what a warrior King (already in disobedience of Islamic teachings by virtue of his title) believes, and what the scholastic interpretation of the time was.
Oh comeon. All muslim heroes are "warrior kings".
Are we to brand them un-islamic now?
I'm assuming that these kings didn't lead their people without a significant amount of clout and fan following.
It doesn't matter if the scholastic interpretation of the quran preaches universal brotherhood, if the people who implement islam are fanatics.
It does indeed seem fascinating, and perhaps in its consummate form it was a concept that may have worked were Humans not blessed with free will and a capacity for evil.
It was a way of accomodating the thousands of different tribes peacefully, without causing perpetual war.
However, with the advent of modern concepts like "universal brotherhood" and "humanity", it has outlived its usefullness.
Or it was simply a result of Islam coming into the hands of Nomadic warriors, and therefore culture (and the thinking of the time - conquest, expanding empires, the lust for power) is what you should blame for the atrocities, not the religion.
Well, sorry to say, but Islam in the hands of Nomadic warriors was the Islam that India got to deal with.
for Indians, that is the real islam, irrespective of what some distant cleric preaches.
I don't see why you are in denial about it. Most history textbooks credit the rise of Arabia as a military force, to the coming of Islam. Islam had always been a military ideology.
Pakistanis are proud of the conquests of the Islamic rulers. Isn't that what they have been teaching in Pakistani schools till now?
Would you call the writers of those books fanatics? No. They are mainstream muslims. So there you go.
His reaction should be what his religion commands I imagine, if the individual is a devout follower, as with any faith, monotheistic or polytheistic.
[/QUOTE]
Well, considering the idol-breaking record of Islam, one can judge what the reaction would be.
Please, please look at the history of Islamic expansion in Asia. It won't take convincing that the Islam practiced by the invaders was a fanatic interpretation.
