Al-Jazeera recently exposed some US military personnel distributing Bibles and spreading the Gospel to locals in Afghanistan. The US Army denied the report citing quotes taken out of context and an overall misunderstanding, stating that "it is not our position to push any specific kind of religion."
Al-Jazeera fired back with this article, including an unedited video clip of various chaplains discussing their 'strategy'.
While this mindset is a bit annoying, I just don't get all the uproar over this sort of military preaching. What's the big deal? Isn't that what conquering forces do? Muslim forces did the same thing for centuries. Why should we cry foul?
What pisses me off is the absurd stance taken by the US Army. Why deny the existence of missionary efforts? It's such a farce how they present themselves as some benign, humane army, respectful of local customs and religions.
Get off your high horse. You people are no better than any other conquering force.
You see, I'm really not worried about folks in the Muslim world changing religions. I'm more bothered by the cultural and economical proselytizing that's long been taking place in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US Forces are not Christian crusaders on a mission to convert or kill, as much as they're foot soldiers for free market capitalism and liberal values antithetical to local cultures.
If anything, THAT should be our greater concern.
WAW
3 days ago
21 comments:
Isn't that what conquering forces do? Muslim forces did the same thing for centuries. Why should we cry foul?Because we didn't do the same thing:
"As we have repeatedly seen, the Muslim conquerors put little or no pressure on the recently subjected populations to convert to Islam. Any attempt at compulsory conversion would probably have provoked widespread outrage and open hostility. As it was, the Muslim authorities established working relationships with the heads of the churches and other religious institutions that were now in their power. Conversion when it came was partly the result of fiscal pressures, the desire to escape the hated poll tax, but also because conversion provided an opportunity to escape from existing social constraints and to become a part of the new ruling class. Being a Muslim had always been essential for anyone who wanted a career in the military. By the tenth century, and before in some areas, it had become very difficult to have a successful career in the civil bureaucracy without becoming a Muslim. Attraction, not coercion, was the key to the appeal of the new faith."
The reason why you should worry:
"The conquest did not cause conversion but it was a major prerequisite: without it Islam would not have become the dominant faith in these areas."
See The Great Arab Conquests: Why People Reverted to Islam
AA- JD,
Are you saying that Muslim forces didn't go into a conquered land and perform simple dawah??!
According to what I've always understood, the interpretations of Hugh Kennedy notwithstanding, Muslims would conquer a land and Islam was able to spread due to the efforts of dawah/tabligh. Of course, Kennedy's points are valid, but still - at least *some* dawah must have taken place.
And if that is the case, are not what the chaplains doing similar to Muslim dawah?
Wa 'alaikum salaam.
In the paragraph prior to what I quoted, both in the comment and in my blog post, Kennedy wrote:
"The Arab conquest was also dispersed geographically. The Arabs rode along the main routes, and they stormed or accepted the surrender of the main towns. But away from the highways, in the mountains and more remote valleys, there must have been many communities that never saw an Arab, who heard only weeks, months or even years later that they were no longer ruled by the emperor or the shah. The mountains of Azerbaijan, the ranges at the south of the Caspian Sea, the hills of Kurdistan, the High Atlas of southern Morocco, the Sierra de Gredos in Spain were probably all places where Arab Muslims were seldom seen. It was only in the two or three centuries that followed the initial conquest that Muslim missionaries, merchants and adventurers entered these lands and began to spread the new religion and news about the new political authorities. There was no incentive for the people of these areas to resist the invaders, because the invaders simply bypassed them."
Kennedy stresses here and elsewhere that the conversion process of the Middle East and Northern Africa took centuries to complete. This jives with what I was taught in my Islamic Civilizations class (taken years ago). The Muslim government (through about the early Abbasid period) had little incentive to convert the masses they ruled because the jizya raised from the non-Muslims was sufficiently large enough to pay for the main expense of the government (i.e., the army; at this point the jizya was largely paid for in what we call "in kind" payments, such as food and clothing).
As the court grew, the need for greater tax revenues grew as well; the problem was that, by this point, the masses had begun to realize the benefits that reversion to Islam gained them, which meant that the jizya started to shrink at a time when more money was needed. (And this was an era when governments simply couldn't print money to cover any deficits.) Thus, the Muslim governments began to tax everyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, but by this time most everyone in what we think of the Muslim world (from Spain to Afghanistan) was Muslim.
Dawah, if it happened, most likely was on an extremely scale (i.e., personal) scale. There was no financial incentive for the various Caliphates to encourage dawah among the non-Muslim population; instead, there was the incentive to discourage dawah.
er... extremely small scale. :)
If God guides people to truth, Afghani leaders need not fear that their people will convert to Christianity in droves. Why fear this sort of thing as if GOD isn't able to keep His people as His own? I find it "funny" when people start threatening and killing as if THEY are the ones who preserve God's kingdom. It's like God is not powerful so the religious rulers must keep the faith pure for Him. Weird.
Susanne,
Think of it this way, in Africa, the missionaries, well when you have no food, no shelter, no nothing, no water and all it takes is accepting Christianity to get all that, what do you do?
What if not for yourself but for your child or family? Just taking that bible and accepting Christianity, if thats all that it takes to get food, water and shelter...Can you deny?
I think people are put in really hard positions by these missionaries.
Think of it that way..
BrNaeem- This is sad. I saw the first article and was like, "What are they gonna respond with now?". I disagree with you that these forces have the right to advocate any religion or ideology. Sure your point makes sense, but never the less. Its a matter of principals and any group should not impose any other ideology or belief FORCEFULLY on another group. Whether is it Muslims or any other group.
-The Muslim Kid-
Muslim Kid, I understand your thoughts, however, I see it differently. First of all no true Christ follower would say "either you accept Christianity or you and your kids will starve" when offering food. Those who do such things are not true Christians.
Secondly, giving up a belief system for a bowl of food even if it were for your kids -- I mean, does that "take"? In God's eyes, does that count that you switched beliefs for food and not because HE guided you to Himself? I think people fear only when they want control of people's minds. They fear they cannot control them, therefore, they protest.
And if Jesus told us to share the gospel with all the world, why do you blame us for obeying Him? I'm not saying that all methods are the right ones, but what do you have against us if we want to peacefully obey our Lord rather than your preferences?
Thanks for your reply to me. Again, I ask is God not able to keep His own? Even if the missionaries' food is tempting.
I thought they (the US) were there spreading secularism, which means they're not supposed to be proselytizing anyone towards any religion. So now they believe themselves to be modern day crusaders? As if that would win any "hearts and minds" in the Muslim world. I for one can't wait to share this newest piece of disinformation from the Kuffar with family and friends.
And their stupid propaganda of lies is nothing new (just look at how they first try to deny that their drones killed all those innocent Afghan civilians a week ago and now they're trying to pin the blame exclusively on the insurgents). At least I can rest assured that each of these actions will eventually come back and bite them in the *** when they have to withdraw defeated and humiliated from the Muslim world.
Salam alikum
When Islam spread it was not forcing the religion onto the masses. Muslims kept the leaders and the political systems in the lands that they conquered. Then they worked together. Islam spread very slowly in these countires, take centuries not decades to spread. Egypt took 500 and Syria 600 years for the Muslim population to reach 50%. When the crusades occured in the 11th century Muslims were not the majority in these areas.
For more information on the Spread of Islam read T. Arnold's "The Preaching of Islam" or "The Spread of Islam" - they are the same book. You will see it is a history of peaceful preaching not by force which is what we are seeing now.
You see, I'm really not worried about folks in the Muslim world changing religions. I'm more bothered by the cultural and economical proselytizing that's long been taking place in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US Forces are not Christian crusaders on a mission to convert or kill, as much as they're foot soldiers for free market capitalism and liberal values antithetical to local cultures.
If anything, THAT should be our greater concern.
I agree with you about being concerned about what they're really all about (the spread of Western domination via capitalism and liberalism). But in addition I am also concerned about their missionary activities as historically these missionaries were used to cause strife and divisions within Muslim communities, for example during the waning years of the Uthmani Khilafah when the West used missionaries to spread alien ideas into Muslim lands.
Actually the conversion to Islam was a mixed picture. The Umayyhads did not really encourage conversion while the Abbasids did. The dawah was much different than Western missionaries. At the time many Christians had problems with the dogmatic church and the trinity. Islam offered simplicity to replace competing dogmas from various churches. Even some Christians encouraged the Muslims to invade. Look at Andalusia, where local Christians encouraged the Muslims to invade and overthrow the despotic and feudal system. I agree with Naeem, I do not fear Muslims converting to Christianity for the holy trinity makes no sense any Muslim who understands tawheed will never convert. I do not even fear the free market system and cultural invasion for the Western powers will never be successful in controlling Afghanistan for it has always been a graveyard for the invaders.
AA- JD and others,
Let me be clear that I'm not *defending* the antics of the US army. If I had a choice, I'd rather they not preach and hand out bibles with guns by their side and tanks backing them up.
But the fact of the matter is that they are NOT forcing conversion. These are NOT the crusades of centuries past.
They are simply taking the opportunity, which was afforded them by military victory, to preach. Spoils of war, one may argue.
Now, let's talk about Muslims. We can discuss the various empires, sultanates, and caliphates and how their permutations of Islamic law were used to spread the word of Islam, but that's not what I'm arguing.
I'm simply saying that part of the message of Islam (specifically in the first few centuries) that was conveyed to neighboring non-Muslim lands was 'Hey, either you let us carry out peaceful dawah or prepare for battle'.
Can't cite the sources, but I recall reading/hearing this approach more than once.
Are you folks gonna force me to do some actual research?? :-)
AA- Arfan and JD,
One more point on relying on non-Muslim sources for Islamic history. While I'm a fan of Ira Lapidus and Hugh Kennedy and Hodgson (Venture of Islam), we must take their version with a grain of salt.
Sometimes its nice to read an historical account from an objective source, but Islamic history cannot be learned solely from such a perspective.
These authors don't believe in the power of the Quran. They don't believe in the power of the example of our beloved Prophet (saw). They don't believe in the power of Tauheed. They don't believe in the power of true mujahideen, whose sole purpose is to serve their Creator.
And thus, they are forced to justify historical events by their logic and rationale as historians, while failing to consider the other-worldly presence of angelic forces and divine blessings.
As a Muslim, I'm more inclined to believe that Islam spread due to the positive influence of righteous individuals, just practices of Muslim empires, and the overall magnetic power of the Quran than historical coincidences or anomalies.
As such, I find it somewhat repugnant when Lapidus states that Muslim rulers were "hostile to conversions because new Muslims diluted the economic and status advantages of the Arabs."
Sure, these rulers were no angels, but to suggest that converting to Islam was ever discouraged is really stretching it. After all, dawah is a CORE principle of Islam.
JDsg,
Your theory does not support how Islam reached far as Indonesia and West Africa.
One reason why Islam spread so fast was due to social mobility and intermarriage. Remember, Islam reached East Africa before Persia and rest of Arabian Peninsula or Indian Subcontinent. The message of Islam freed many people from that time social construct and gave opportunity to free themselves. It has alot to do with how the pre-Islamic society was constructed. Here you have a religion (with a clear message) gave the rights to slaves and women - you would not find similar belief in that era.
Of course, as Islam gained more and more influence;it was very hard not to be tempted as the last companions of the Beloved Prophet(PBUH) witnessed, and even the Prophet(PBUH) foretold them.
Many scholars (even those not Islamic friendly) acknowledge that the spread of Islam had to do with the mobility of social hierarchy.
Just imagine with the message that if you taught a slave or a woman how to read and write; then that is also an act of worship.
At the end; Allah(swt) guides whom He wills.
It is perfectly understandable to wonder how Islam spread so fast at the beginning when live today and the situation of our Ummah today. I too speculate that often; and particularly when I hear the Muslim clerics consider their biggest problem is whether nigab is mandatory or not.
It just creeps your feet..
ahhhh!!
@ Naeem:
Wa 'alaikum salaam.
I'm simply saying that part of the message of Islam (specifically in the first few centuries) that was conveyed to neighboring non-Muslim lands was 'Hey, either you let us carry out peaceful dawah or prepare for battle'.
Can't cite the sources, but I recall reading/hearing this approach more than once.
Are you folks gonna force me to do some actual research?? :-)
Yes, let's see your research. Kennedy's work doesn't give any indication whatsoever that it was your "dawah or battle" approach. There was no call to carry out peaceful dawah. It was "submit and pay the jizya or prepare for battle." Towns found that the jizya asked for was significantly lower if one didn't prepare for battle (see here and here). Moreover, as the Muslims moved into the occupied territories they started out by living in either newly developed cities (e.g., Misr al-Fustat (modern Fustat in what is now Old Cairo) and Kufa (which were actually two different cities, the Muslim city being located several miles away from the original Kufa)) or by taking over a quarter (i.e., neighborhood) of the city. Either way, they were segregating themselves from the non-Muslim natives; not the most conducive of means for propagating dawah.
One more point on relying on non-Muslim sources for Islamic history. While I'm a fan of Ira Lapidus and Hugh Kennedy and Hodgson (Venture of Islam), we must take their version with a grain of salt.No offense, and please don't think I'm angry, but I don't need lectures on being skeptical about non-Muslim sources. I'm more than skeptical enough. :) At least with Kennedy's work (I'm not familiar with Lapidus), he compares Muslim and non-Muslim works against each other. My Islamophobe/bull$#|+ detector works well regardless of who the author is. Some of us, at least, are able to do a little research to back up our arguments. ;)
@ Gess:
Your theory does not support how Islam reached far as Indonesia and West Africa.I never said that it did. However, what Naeem and I are discussing is of a much earlier time than, say, when Islam reached Indonesia. (I'm not familiar about Islam in West Africa.) Islam only reached Indonesia around 400-odd years after the Prophet's (pbuh) death. Whereas Islam had reached the Sindh River (in modern Pakistan) by 711 CE and the Transoxiana region around the same time.
Remember, Islam reached East Africa before Persia and rest of Arabian Peninsula or Indian Subcontinent.Only due to the first hijrah, those Muslims who went to Ethiopia to escape the persecution. The first mosque in India was built in 629, three years before the death of the Prophet (pbuh).
Very interesting. I do think its scary that they are preaching because many many many Muslims (esp in those areas, where converting must come with tons of benefits) are so very ignorant. Not all of them have strong Tawheed or much knowledge of the deen period.
As for 'if we do it so can they', that is not the attitude of a Muslim. The difference between us and they is that they are misguided and we have guidance, inshallah. Therefore, it should bother us that our weak ignorant brothers and sisters are being taken advantage of and accepting a path which leads not to God, but to hell. Muslims should be like one body, if someone tried to convert your sister to another religion would you just shrug and say, 'that's fine, because i'm trying to convert someone to Islam.'
AA- JD,
Nice comment bro.
"Either way, they were segregating themselves from the non-Muslim natives; not the most conducive of means for propagating dawah."
Odd, cause its the total opposite of what I found in this book, written by Michael Donner (Jihad in Islamic History). In fact, he even cites your same two examples (Basra and Fustat) when explaining how the Muslims chose to live amongst the locals. But he does goes on to say that the Treasury would remain replenished by the native populations paying taxes.
More importantly, I wanted to address the various sources of Islamic history.
"No offense, and please don't think I'm angry, but I don't need lectures on being skeptical about non-Muslim sources."
Now, now - I would never think to lecture to my elders. Uncle JD, I respect you too much. :-)
I did not mean to imply that Kennedy, Hodgson, and Co. are Islamophobic. They can't be compared to the anti-Islam historians whose sole purpose was to paint Muslims as barbarians and the teachings of Islam as violent.
However, these orientalists present an interpretation that misses the Islamic perspective.
Again, I found it best explained in the book I cited above (p.60). He says it better, but basically the gist is that Muslims see the expansion of Muslim empire, especially by the Rightly-guided Caliphs, as primarily a dawah mission - an extension of the Prophetic mission.
It wasn't for the sake of levying taxes or gaining war booty or securing water sources or whatever other material factors have been attributed to the expansion.
Not saying those factors didn't play a role, but I choose to believe that the Sahaba and the following generation were focused on propagating the message of Islam.
Again, I simply cannot fathom that the companions of the Prophet (whose primary mission was to spread Islam) would go into neighboring lands and choose NOT to perform dawah.
"Some of us, at least, are able to do a little research to back up our arguments. ;)"
Uhhmmm, don't you have some Trekkie convention to attend? ;-)
Did I ever tell you Im really really jealous of the amount of comments slash the discussions your able to bring up.
=]
-The Muslim Kid-
AA- UmmSara,
"Not all of them have strong Tawheed or much knowledge of the deen period. "
It takes quite a leap for someone not well-versed in Islam to leave his/her deen, especially in Muslim countries where the social pressure is like nothing seen in the west.
So, I'm more worried for our Muslim youth living in the West than Afghan locals listening to Christian missionaries.
"Muslims should be like one body, if someone tried to convert your sister to another religion would you just shrug and say, 'that's fine, because i'm trying to convert someone to Islam.'"
I get your point. But the reality is that America won the war in Afghan (and Iraq) and thus has won the right to do as they please. I may not agree with it, but that's the price we pay for losing.
Its not fair that they're stealing and looting the Muslim world, but hey, until we clean up our act and get things in order, we deserve such a fate.
Cold, I know, but that's the bed we've made for ourselves.
Let's stop whining and let's start doing something to change the situation.
Most Afghans would never convert to Christianity, that's just a fact.
Post a Comment