What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[Flying Pig]

That's quite a big margin for error! That's the difference between wiping out Newcastle and wiping out Wales.

EDIT: Or Anchorage versus Armenia, if you prefer.

 

[abradley]

Let's face it - the Abrahamic cults all have a violent history and all the main branches have been historically willing to kill massive numbers of people in the name of holy rolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms
The Three Kingdoms period is one of the bloodiest in Chinese history.[9] In fact, it has been considered the second deadliest period of warfare behind World War II.[9][10][11][12] A nationwide census taken in AD 280, following the reunification of the Three Kingdoms under the Jin shows a total of 2,459,840 households and 16,163,863 individuals which was only a fraction of the 10,677,960 households, and 56,486,856 individuals reported during the Han era.[13] While the census may not have been particularly accurate due to a multitude of factors of the times, the Jin in AD 280 did make an attempt to account for all individuals where they could.[14]

Remember there's a big nasty world out there.

 

[Formaldehyde]

During the jihad, the Muslims had both vastly more time and conquered vastly more territory.

Given how frequently you misuse that word, you should at least take the time to look up the actual meaning, and how it continues to change with time.

Early Muslim conquests

In the early era that inspired classical Islam (Rashidun Caliphate) and lasted less than a century, jihad spread the realm of Islam to include millions of subjects, and an area extending "from the borders of India and China to the Pyrenees and the Atlantic".[43] The two empires impeding the advance of Islam were the Persian Sassanian empire and the Byzantine empire. By 657 the Persian empire was conquered and by 661 the Byzantine empire was reduced to a fraction of its former size.

The role of religion in these early conquests is debated. Medieval Arabic authors believed the conquests were commanded by God, and presented them as orderly and disciplined, under the command of the caliph.[44] Many modern historians question whether hunger and desertification, rather than jihad, was a motivating force in the conquests. Some recent explanations cite both material and religious causes in the conquests.[45]

Post-Classical usage

According to a number of authors, the more spiritual definitions of jihad developed sometime after the 150 years of Muslim jihad wars and territorial expansion, and particularly after the Mongol invaders sacked Baghdad and overthrew the Abassid Caliphate.[46] According to diplomat/scholar Dore Gold, at beginning of the ninth century, "Muslim theologians broadened the meaning of jihad, de-emphasizing armed struggle and, under the influence of Sufism, adopting more spiritual definitions. ... the Islamic mainstream had shifted away from this focus on the religious requirement of a universal campaign of jihad. Consequently, the meaning of shahid changed as well. Whereas the term had originally applied to one who gave his life in battle, a scholar or someone who led Muslim prayers could now be compared to a shahid when his day of judgement arrived." [47]

Historian Hamilton Gibb noted that "in the historic [Muslim] Community the concept of jihad had gradually weakened and at length been largely reinterpreted in terms of Sufi ethics."[48]

Islamic scholar Rudolph Peters also wrote that with the stagnation of Islamic expansionism, the concept of jihad became internalized as a moral or spiritual struggle.[49] Earlier classical works on fiqh emphasized jihad as war for God's religion, Peters found. Later Muslims (in this case modernists such as Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida) emphasized the defensive aspect of jihad—which was similar to the Western concept of a "just war".[37] Today, some Muslim authors only recognize wars with the aim of territorial defense as well as the defense of religious freedom as legitimate.[50]

Bernard Lewis states that while most Islamic theologians in the classical period (750–1258 C.E.) understood jihad to be a military endeavor,[51] after Islamic conquest stagnated and the caliphate broke up into smaller states the "irresistible and permanent jihad came to an end". As jihad became unfeasible it was "postponed from historic to messianic time."[52] Even when the Ottoman Empire carried on a new holy war of expansion in the seventeenth century, "the war was not universally pursued". They made no attempt to recover Spain or Sicily. The major imperial Muslim dynasties of Ottoman Turkey (1299–1923) (Sunni) and Persian Safavid (1501–1736) (Shia) dynasty often used the term ghaza (a sister obligation to jihad[citation needed]) to refer to military campaigns against Byzantium or each other, the enemy being giaurs or heretics.[53]

When the Ottoman Caliph called for a "Great Jihad" by all Muslims against Allied powers during World War I, there were hopes and fears that non-Turkish Muslims would side with Ottoman Turkey, but but the appeal did not "united the Muslim world",[23][52] and Muslims did not turn on their non-Muslim commanders in the Allied forces.[54] (The war led to the end of the caliphate as the Ottoman empire entered on the side of the war's losers and surrendered by agreeing to "viciously punitive" conditions. These were overturned by the popular war hero Mustafa Kemal, who was also a secularist and later abolished the caliphate. [55])

"Jihad" has myriad definitions which have frequently changed over the course of time. But to Islamophobic hate sites it has remained constant.

 

[abradley]

That's quite a big margin for error! That's the difference between wiping out Newcastle and wiping out Wales.

EDIT: Or Anchorage versus Armenia, if you prefer.

Yes, this is better https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM

 

[Flying Pig]

That gives the same figures, only buried in a large table.

 

[abradley]

That gives the same figures, only buried in a large table.

In the last link there's this:

In the table I next list a variety of democide estimates (lines 23 to 158). Some of these have to be read carefully. There were two major democides in East Pakistan, one of the Hindu and Moslem Bengalis by Pakistan; the other of the non-Bengalis (largely Urdu speaking Biharis) by the Bengalis. Estimates often do not indicate whether they cover both democides, although the source and context of an estimate may suggest that it is only for that by the Pakistan army. Moreover, some overall estimates may also include combat deaths. With this in mind, I have used various subclassifications for the estimates, including putting those that may include combat deaths under a war and democide heading (lines 170 to 178).

The sources give a number of estimates covering only part of the democide period (lines 47 to 55). I have proportionally projected these to the whole period of nine months [(9 x estimate)/(months covered by estimate)], except for two estimates that are for two months (lines 53 and 53a). Their result would have been 4,500,000 killed, obviously much too high. In any case, these I simply and conservatively tripled to cover the whole period. Regardless, the resulting low and high values (line 56) do not depend on them. The mid-value, however, is the average of all the projected estimates.

 

[chijohnaok]

Hmmm, so the Muslims deemphasized the Muslim jihad wars starting in the 9th Century and that "most Islamic theologians in the classical period (750–1258 C.E.) understood jihad to be a military endeavor". ""Muslim theologians broadened the meaning of jihad, de-emphasizing armed struggle and, under the influence of Sufism, adopting more spiritual definitions".

So wouldn't that mean there were not many military endeavors after 1258 C.E.?

Constantinople fell in 1453.

Albanian-Turkish Wars (mid to late 1400's)

Ottoman conquest of Bosnia (late 1400s)

Croatian–Ottoman wars (late 1400s to late 1500's)

Ottoman–Hungarian Wars (late 1300s to early 1500s)

1463–1503: Wars with Venice

1462–1483: Wallachian and Moldavian campaigns

1526–1566: Conquest of the Hungarian Kingdom

1522–1573: Rhodes, Malta and the Holy League

1570–1571: Conquest of Cyprus

1593–1669: Austria, Venice and Wallachia

1657–1683 Conclusion of Wars with Habsburgs

Somewhere in that list were not one but 2 sieges of Vienna (1529 & 1683).

I'm so glad that the Muslims had "internalized" their military jihad efforts after 1258. Imagine how many more additional wars and conquests might have been undertaken by the Ottomans (Muslims)?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You see, "jihad", "war" and "conquest" are three entirely different matters, especially to many Muslims. How much "jihad" did the Romans do? How much did the British do? How much do the Americans continue to do?

Or perhaps a better question would be which Islamophobic hate site did you get your definition of "jihad" from?

 

[Ajidica]

I'm so glad that the Muslims had "internalized" their military jihad efforts after 1258. Imagine how many more additional wars and conquests might have been undertaken by the Ottomans (Muslims)?

If we are sorting conflicts by religion of the perpetrators and assigning responsibility to religion; my god Hinduism and Christianity come out looking bad.

 

[gay_Aleks]

We should just double down in this thread and say: everything.

And by "we", I mean me and my hair, but whatever.

 

[abradley]

If we are sorting conflicts by religion of the perpetrators and assigning responsibility to religion; my god Hinduism and Christianity come out looking bad.

Islam is at war with non Islam, we can pretend it's not the case, but that does't alter the fact:

Islam's doctrines of deception

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst
October 2008
http://www.meforum.org/2095/islams-doctrines-of-deception
{Snip}

War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimises deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; strategist Sun Tzu (c. 722-221 BC), Italian political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) all justified deceit in war.

However, according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict."

The concept of obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomised worldview that pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter. Muslim historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun (1332- 1406), articulated this division by saying: "In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defence. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."

This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya , ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca (628), ten years is theoretically the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels (as indicated earlier by the Encyclopaedia of Islam). Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years, by citing a Quraish infraction, the sole function of the "peace-treaty" (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive. Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: "If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath (see Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427)."

This might be what former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat meant when, after negotiating a peace treaty criticised by his opponents as conceding too much to Israel, he said in a mosque: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca."

On several occasions Hamas has made it clear that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel destroyed. Under what context would it want to initiate a "temporary" peace with the Jewish state? When Osama bin Laden offered the US a truce, stressing that "we [Muslims] are a people that Allah has forbidden from double-crossing and lying," what was his ultimate intention?

Based on the above, these are instances of Muslim extremists feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to bide time.

If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world – which need not be physical, as radicals among the ulema have classified several non-literal forms of jihad, such as "jihad-of-the-pen" (propaganda), and "money-jihad" (economic) – and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty to the infidel to further their war efforts, offers of peace, tolerance or dialogue from extremist Muslim corners are called into question.

Besides that, why are we arguing Islam on a Galileo thread?

 

[Ajidica]

Besides that, why are we arguing Islam on a Galileo thread?

I tried to bring up the Congo Crisis or Cold War Africa as a misunderstood historical event, but nobody wanted to talk about that.
Shame.
Would be far more interesting than the "Are Muslims liars?" muck.

 

[abradley]

I tried to bring up the Congo Crisis or Cold War Africa as a misunderstood historical event, but nobody wanted to talk about that.
Shame.
Would be far more interesting than the "Are Muslims liars?" muck.

The point of my post wasn't 'All Muslims are lairs', rather 'Eternal War'.

Sorry, I didn't make that clear.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Islam is at war with non Islam, we can pretend it's not the case, but that does't alter the fact:

My, aren't there so many Islamophobic websites out there from which you can choose to post their utter nonsense. It is like a hate buffet.

 

[Ajidica]

The point of my post wasn't 'All Muslims are lairs', rather 'Eternal War'.

Sorry, I didn't make that clear.

Because that point is completely rational to make and isn't in any way racist, xenophobic, or downright rude.

What point exactly are you trying to make?

 

[abradley]

Because that point is completely rational to make and isn't in any way racist, xenophobic, or downright rude.

What point exactly are you trying to make?

That Islam will use any and all tactic's to win the eternal war, including lying.

 

[Ajidica]

That Islam will use any and all tactic's to win the eternal war, including lying.

Well, I'm glad we got that sorted.
Because Islam is now a person apparently, capable of deceit.
So either Muslims around the world are like the Orks from Warhammer 40k, capable of creating things through belief; or Islam is the monstrosity known as Gaea reigning at the Pandemonium Moving Film Festival..

 

[abradley]

Well, I'm glad we got that sorted.
Because Islam is now a person apparently, capable of deceit.
So either Muslims around the world are like the Orks from Warhammer 40k, capable of creating things through belief; or Islam is not the monstrosity known as Gaea reigning at the Pandemonium Moving Film Festival..

 

[Ajidica]

I'm not the one saying that a concept is capable of deceit.

 

[abradley]

I'm not the one saying that a concept is capable of deceit.

No but Islam is:

This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya , ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca (628), ten years is theoretically the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels (as indicated earlier by the Encyclopaedia of Islam). Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years, by citing a Quraish infraction, the sole function of the "peace-treaty" (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive. Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: "If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath (see Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427)."