Muslim Military Tradition....What happened?

[ares]

Well,throughout the history when Muslims were dominant global force (until mid 16th/17th century),Islam played much greater role in societies as compared to now.I guess Muslims approach to Islam was different back then.Today,we are 'suffering' from Islam's obsession rather than actually following it..

I am sure it was the same or similar..just the difference is rest of the world around has progressed much further.. beyond the scope of religion.

Religion was invented by man to be a unifying force..to bring people together..but post Industrial revolution ..nation state has replaced this concept(atleast in the western countries) and they were able break shackles imposed on them by their church..and embrace a new "universal truth "
ie Science

 

[AUz]

well the answer is simple, I guess.
Lack of Faith.
When Muhammad Bin Qasim invaded India, he once said:
Muslims do not fight for Kings or Commanders. They only for fight for Allah.

And after that you know that how a 17 yr old boy defeated Raja Dahir.

I guess your post shows that why we Muslims are lagging behind...
First,Muhammad Bin Qasim was a warrior of 7th/8th century.Today,its 21st CENTURY..Stop fantasizing about people like Muhammad bin Qasim,Salahdin,Nur-ul-din Zangi etc etc..They were great warriors in their time..Learned about them.Learn why they succeeded..What good qualities they had etc etc but please MOVE ON !!

How would you exactly "Fight for Allah" if you have nothing to fight with? Faith in Allah should be at last.First,we should give our best.Adapt new ways,strengthen economy,erode corruption from the society,built schools,built hospitals,give modern and advance education to the masses,build new weapons,prepare ourselves for any war,invent new technologies,improve social structure,improve justice system,do scientific research etc etc and if ,God forbid, you are to fight any war then have faith in Allah that HE won't let you down as you have given your best to built a modern,progressive and moderate Islamic society...

Only having Faith in Allah will never help Muslims as Allah says in Qur'an that Allah only help those,who help themselves.

 

[angeldust]

I guess your post shows that why we Muslims are lagging behind...
First,Muhammad Bin Qasim was a warrior of 7th/8th century.Today,its 21st CENTURY..Stop fantasizing about people like Muhammad bin Qasim,Salahdin,Nur-ul-din Zangi etc etc..They were great warriors in their time..Learned about them.Learn why they succeeded..What good qualities they had etc etc but please MOVE ON !!

How would you exactly "Fight for Allah" if you have nothing to fight with? Faith in Allah should be at last.First,we should give our best.Adapt new ways,strengthen economy,erode corruption from the society,built schools,built hospitals,give modern and advance education to the masses,build new weapons,prepare ourselves for any war,invent new technologies,improve social structure,improve justice system,do scientific research etc etc and if ,God forbid, you are to fight any war then have faith in Allah that HE won't let you down as you have given your best to built a modern,progressive and moderate Islamic society...

Only having Faith in Allah will never help Muslims as Allah says in Qur'an that Allah only help those,who help themselves.

Good post sir. I was thinking along much similar lines. About how muslim civilizations down the ages have been good warriors, but not good rulers. Hence their many conquests, but the lack of consolidation, assimilation, and lasting peace in the lands conquered. Here too one realizes that the muslim world as such, more than sectarian and ethnic rifts, has down the ages, because of their conquests rather than in spite of them been polarized into the Arab and the non-Arab muslim world. A racial bi-polar unequal relationship much against the concept of the unifying thread of a single faith of equals. Christianity too has its sanctum sanctorum, but down the ages its singular importance has been watered down by more modern economic, cultural, social, and overall political dynamics.

Not so in the muslim world, where it seems the arab side by the divine chance of being the faction where the religion was born, have now made their contribution for all time and now would go about lording it over the rest of the lesser recipients of the faith as the superior guardians of the faith ruling the world of perceived religious hand-me-downs. I may be wrong as an outsider, but much of the non-muslim world sees this and fails to understand why it is so. Especially in the modern world, where all that is good and liberal and progressive and aspirational and hard working and peaceful and inclusive about Islam and the muslim world, comes from the non-Arab part.

 

[MilSpec]

This is my take... There hasn't been sudden or unexplainable decline in Muslim Military. The concept of modern nation vis a vis the islamic empire; diluted and later curtailed muslim military power and had the exact opposite effect on western powers. All the mulsim military might was derrived from the unifying factor of different clans and tribesmen with micro and macro alliances and was excellently managed via the fabric of social culture prevalent in olden times. With british brand of empire with strict organisational and regimental discipline which was contrary to the power structure in muslim geopolitics, inherent divisions were thrust upon this social fabric of trust /co-ops/and pacts among sections on which this mighty muslim military was based upon. With the advent of technology and discovery of oil in middle east, some clans became richer..and boundaries were drawn with the help of thirdparty players...

Immense oil money generated assured no impetus to technological growth as everything needed to subdue your neighbor could be bought off the shelf in post colonial regime. That killed the need for science and started to bleed off brilliance to western world as brain drain.

Petty geographical/politcal/religious differences among the neighboring countries have kept the glorious empires of the past to completely loose the bigger picture and be played like puppets by the hands of western powers.

Muslim world biggest strength was not its military.. it was its unity.... Once your unity was undermined .. military power came to its determined fate.

 

[Kompromat]

Let the Indians ruin this thread !

 

[desioptimist]

Good post sir. I was thinking along much similar lines. About how muslim civilizations down the ages have been good warriors, but not good rulers. Hence their many conquests, but the lack of consolidation, assimilation, and lasting peace in the lands conquered. Here too one realizes that the muslim world as such, more than sectarian and ethnic rifts, has down the ages, because of their conquests rather than in spite of them been polarized into the Arab and the non-Arab muslim world. A racial bi-polar unequal relationship much against the concept of the unifying thread of a single faith. Christianity too has its sanctum sanctorum, but down the ages its singular importance has been watered down by more modern economic, cultural, and social dynamics. Not so in the muslim world, where it seems the arab side by divine chance of being the faction where the religion was born, have made their contribution for all time and now would go about lording it over the rest of the lesser recipients of the faith as the superior guardians of the faith ruling the world of hand-me-downs. I may be wrong as an outsider, but much of the non-muslim world sees this and fails to understand why it is so. Especially in the modern world, where all that is good and liberal and progressive and aspirational and hard working and peaceful and inclusive about Islam and the muslim world, comes from the non-Arab part.

Even then, muslim power was great because of better training, tactic and better access to weapon. But industrial revolution brought new weapons and tactics and muslim powers did not do enough investment in these technology.

 

[Gold1010]

i think you should say muslim forces were among the strongest in the world not the strongest and the cruasaders had many victorys against muslim forces.

but i prefer to look at militarys by country and not religion save for the crusades

otherwise christians would be going oh yes we have many strong powers !

 

[indianpatriot]

BEST MUSLIM RULER EVER=AKBAR because he was SECULAR.
BEST HINDU LEADER EVER= GANDHI because he was SECULAR.

Like Javed Akhtar says..opposite of religious is not secular but atheist..opposite of communal is secular.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

O.K lets analyze...What happened to the Muslim military tradition? Muslim militaries were once the strongest in the world....even Crusaders (Western Militaries) were no match to the Muslim Forces...Even at Antioch (1st Crusade),Yaghi-Siyan almost annihilated the large Crusader Army until one of his own soldier turn out to be a traitor and opened the gate which allowed the crusaders to take the city.Till,mid 16th/17th century,Ottoman Empire was the strongest military power in the world...But then after 1800s etc,it all vanished.

What happened? Muslim World has shown almost NO talents in modern (complex) warfare.Arab wars with Israel were more than disastrous.Lack of modern training and inability to deploy modern weapons were clear from Arab side...Arab artillery once even bombed its own advancing infantry (as they lack basic mathematical skills) ..Pakistan,as compared to Arabs,performed exceptionally well (against India).

Today,we can not see any modern military in Muslim World..The advantage of the WEST is overwhelming.No Muslim military can face any good Western military in pure conventional mode..

So what happened? Where did we went wrong? Is there any hope of comeback (Not necessarily a fight but atleast a credible deterrence against Western Militaries)? Paradox is that we cannot fight/Deter Western Militaries without using Western Military technology ...So what is the practical way forward?

In one line my dear AUz... the institution of Sultaniyah was destroyed by us...

I ll put it in the words of our master Muhammad saw who said... (translation)

The Imam (Caliph/Sultan) is a Shield... from behind whom the Ummah fights...

These Armies that we have today are worthless without the guardianship of someone who actually cares for the nation of Muhammad saw... We cannot expect any good from an Army that is led by Zardari/Musharaf/Nawaz or for that matter the cunning basturds who rule the Muslim world in each and everyone of our countries...

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Technological backwardness and decadence.
Most of these so called holy conquerors mostly invaded for booty notably gold and women......they were devout because islam was the bonding spiritual force that held these previously nomadic peoples of central asian steppes and arabia together and first time created a nation rather than isolated tribes.It gave them something to believe in..their own destiny.
On to the leaders..But u see the first of the caliphs they were true leaders like umar selfless and morally upright...later u have conquerors like taimur,mehmet...nadir but they just used islam as an excuse to go on killing sprees..rape pillage.That ended with minarets of skulls.They were basically savages who hid behind their devout image..while in the background their decadence was all too apparent.
Mehmet after conquering constantinople ordered the king's adopted son[14-15 yr old] to be brought for 'his pleasure',when the boy refused he was killed.The later ottoman sultans were decadence personified and it was said the empire was ruled from the harem.
Qasim's so called holy man image doesn't justify his lust in raping the 2 17yr old daughters of dahir.
Now u don't see this type of behaviour in the earlier muslim leaders like saladin who was a chivalrious man..treated all men and women with respect and was tolerant to 'difference'.
Dwight eisenhower once said that a people that puts its previlages over its principles ultimately ends up losing both.This is the case of the later muslim leaders.The conquerors like nadir and taimur may have been morally barbarians but at least they knew how to keep the interests of their people on the battle field..but the later ones lost their spines through years of decadence.
Another was the lack of evolution with time .....the ottoman system died because it stagnated.
One great leader u have is suleiman the lawgiver known as magnificient....he was the one that truly tried a universal legal sytem over the empire...but again after him u have near barbarians like selim'the sot'.Religion became foreign policy and national policy.....that's where europe gradually improved...it finally rid itself from decisive influence of the church over the affairs of the state.

Another great problem was that the political hierarchy remained essentialy feudal and tribal in many islamic nations,u see that even today with gaddafi and his clan ..in bahrain.A few leaders held the destiny of their nations in hand and the people never rose up.....they never fought to establish their own rights to end feudalism and tribalism.
Hence u have no french revolution in the east ...just more fanatical religious revolutions led by mullahs claiming to be mahdis starting with massacres.The great majority of the muslim people were kept out of the bigger picture while power was concentrated in the hands of the few.

Another great problem was sceintific stagnation...during the era of harun al rashid the arabic scholars were world leaders...but this legacy was allowed to die out .education among the masses were restricted to religious teachings and sceince was neglected....even when europe was steaming ahead new technologies were not adopted as they were from 'kafirs',so while u see a little country like japan almost medieval[samurai society] in its isolation in 1857 when admiral perry's ships reignited its contact with the west just through adoption and effort transform itself into a world power capable of defeating russia just about 40 yrs later...while the millions here remained in the same lifestyle.

Onto the strictly military scenario the great bane of muslim military tradition was the demise of the cavalry......all the great conquerors of islam were essentially cavalry commanders from khalid to tamerlane .Only the ottoman jannisaries were islamic infantry of any repute.Though the cavalry of sipahis were the other key feature of the ottoman armies.
First with the coming of gunpowder then artillery and their ability to cut down cavalry hordes en masse rendered steppe tactics completely irrelevant.Another crucial development was the infantry square as found out by the mamelukes vs the french in 1798.
Finally the development of semi automatic rifles and machines guns rendering cavalry a relic of the past.
U ask why modern arab armies are so incompetent what happened to their military tradition?
The answer is they never had one....their tradition was in cavalry...that arm is no longer used.Tanks. missiles,aircraft the staple of this age are all western innovations they invented them,laid down the basic tactics and set the benchmark.All the arab armies have done is try to copy them without introducing originality of their own.Only turkey and pakistan can be said to possess modern armed forces among muslim nations i would say.....saudi arabia may have rich toys but i doubt how good their staff of personnel is.

 

[Leader]

BEST MUSLIM RULER EVER=AKBAR because he was SECULAR.
BEST HINDU LEADER EVER= GANDHI because he was SECULAR.

Like Javed Akhtar says..opposite of religious is not secular but atheist..opposite of communal is secular.

did Gandhi became secular in his last age?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

did Gandhi became secular in his last age?

why gandhi not secular ? because of ram rajya concept ?

 

[Leader]

why gandhi not secular ? because of ram rajya concept ?

was he secular all the way or claimed to be so later?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

was he secular all the way or claimed to be so later?

i think he was a pretty much secular..though i have some reservations against his thoughts..but what are you pointing out..say it straight.

 

[Leader]

i think he was a pretty much secular..though i have some reservations against his thoughts..but what are you pointing out..say it straight.

emm...it means there is no such claim on Gandhi's account....

actually never heard before that he was labelled secular by some segment of the society. Was it ever debated in India ?