• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

History of Jihad

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
“The same opponents of Western Civilization”

All I need to know that this book is coming from the perspective of an idiot.

Having listened to Spencer and read some of his shorter pieces, I'm pretty sure this book will be filled with very direct factual claims. The great thing about factual claims is that they can be proven to be true or false. So it takes a lot of courage for an author to make factual claims, they are putting their arse's on the line when they do so.

I find it quite telling that your perspective appears to be to ignore the claims.
 

Nicholas

Bodhicitta
The wars of Islam have been rarely been studied in depth. Before Spencer's book, which is supposed to cover those conquests beyond Europe, Paul Fregosi wrote one about the Islamic wars against Western powers.

Here is how Fregosi begins his Introduction to Jihad in the West:

"The jihad, the islamic so-called Holy War, has been a fact of life in Europe, Asia,
Africa, and the Near and Middle East for more than 1,300 years, but this is the first history of the Muslim
wars in Europe ever to be published. Hundreds of books, however, have appeared on its Christian
counterpart, the Crusades, to which the Jihad is often compared, although they lasted less than two hundred
years and unlike the Jihad, which is universal, were largely but not completely confined to the Holy Land.
Moreover, the Crusades have been over for more than 700 years, while a Jihad is still going on in the world.

The Jihad has been the most unrecorded and disregarded major event of history. It has, in fact, been largely
ignored. For instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the Crusades eighty times more space than the
Jihad. In the New South Wales State Library, where I did part of my research while in Australia, there were
108 entries listed in their catalogue cards for the Crusades, but only two for the Jihad! The Jihad has been
largely bypassed by Western historians, and this book is an attempt to right the situation, for the Jihad has
affected the lives-and continues to do so-of far, far more people and regions in the world than the long-extinct
Crusades ever did."
 

Nicholas

Bodhicitta
Here is a video of a Spencer and his friend discussing his new book. Very droll beginning, as between friends.

 
Last edited:
Having listened to Spencer and read some of his shorter pieces, I'm pretty sure this book will be filled with very direct factual claims. The great thing about factual claims is that they can be proven to be true or false. So it takes a lot of courage for an author to make factual claims, they are putting their arse's on the line when they do so.

While he will do his research, what he will do is scour historical sources and aim to find the ones which portray his subjects in the most negative possible manner.

There is a big difference between something having a citation and something being factual though. Most historical sources were not written to be factually accurate in the modern academic sense, this subject is resplendent with hagiography, pietistic pseudo-history and propaganda (from both sides).

It doesn't take a great deal of 'courage' to write polemics in support of an ideological agenda with little concern for historical accuracy.

If you want to learn about the Arab conquests, it's better to read In God's Path by Robert Hoyland
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
It doesn't take a great deal of 'courage' to write polemics in support of an ideological agenda with little concern for historical accuracy.

If you want to learn about the Arab conquests, it's better to read In God's Path by Robert Hoyland

EVERYBODY has an agenda. The oligarchs, political leaders, the media (in the pockets of oligarchs), all have agendas.

In my mind, it's extremely valuable to have loud contrarians in the public space, go Spencer go!

Now, about Robert Hoyland, are you saying he does not have an agenda?
 
EVERYBODY has an agenda. The oligarchs, political leaders, the media (in the pockets of oligarchs), all have agendas.

In my mind, it's extremely valuable to have loud contrarians in the public space, go Spencer go!

Do you believe all factually inaccurate polemics are important for society?

Personally, I can't view any form of deliberate misinformation as being 'extremely valuable'. Do you think more people being misinformed is actually useful, or do you think he isn't misinforming people?

Now, about Robert Hoyland, are you saying he does not have an agenda?

Read it and judge for yourself.

While no one is entirely objective, there is a very big difference between someone attempting to present an accurate view of history, and someone cherry picking inaccurate sources to support a preconceived ideological position.

You also might not appreciate quite how inaccurate some of the information in the historical sources is, they really weren't written to reflect actual events but to serve a purpose.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Do you believe all factually inaccurate polemics are important for society?

I didn't say that. I suspect that your characterization of Spencer's new book is also inaccurate. History is complex. Even recent history is complex. Consider the Israel / Palestinian situation. There are lots of facts, and depending on your agenda you will set context, and provide emphasis to support your agenda. The OIC has it's agenda - that's 57 nations!

I don't think that having an agenda equals "factually inaccurate polemics".

As for Hoyland: I would guess that you could summarize his perspective in a few sentences.
 
I didn't say that. I suspect that your characterization of Spencer's new book is also inaccurate.

Well I haven't read the book, but unless he has had a radical change of heart from his previous books then I'm pretty confident I'll be correct.

If you think I'm being unfair, how would you characterise his scholarship?

History is complex. Even recent history is complex. Consider the Israel / Palestinian situation. There are lots of facts, and depending on your agenda you will set context, and provide emphasis to support your agenda. The OIC has it's agenda - that's 57 nations!

And because history is complex, particularly religious history that overlaps with theology and hagiography, and that historical sources were not written to be accurate but to serve a purpose cherry picking sources can lead to staggeringly inaccurate narratives.

You seem to think that the sources simply reflect a difference in opinion regarding factual events, rather than many being fantastical or outright fictitious.

Spencer will use the most salacious ones, and these are the most inaccurate as they contain significant amounts of theology, hagiography and propaganda.

I don't think that having an agenda equals "factually inaccurate polemics".

Using factually incorrect information to support an agenda does equal factually incorrect polemics though.

As for Hoyland: I would guess that you could summarize his perspective in a few sentences.

Not really.

But in contrast to the 'convert or die' type narratives I imagine Spencer will present:

As John of Fenek observed: “Of each person they required only tribute, allowing him to remain in whatever faith he wished.”... In Egypt, where the Muslim presence was light for the first two centuries of Arab rule, conversion was very slow, and Islam only became the majority religion around the fourteenth century...

On the historical sources and their theological functions:

Besides elaborating a system of Islamic law, Muslim scholars also embarked upon the Islamicization of history. For the pre-Islamic period this meant linking biblical monotheist tradition with Arabia, which was accomplished by having Ishmael travel to Mecca with his father Abraham, build the Muslim sanctuary (ka‘ba) there, and become the progenitor of the Arab people by marrying into the Arabian tribe of Jurhum. In addition, certain key human figures, like Aristotle, Alexander the Great, and Jesus, were repackaged as visionary Muslim monotheists. For the Islamic period it meant portraying the birth of Muhammad’s community as the dawn of a new age, marked concretely by the inauguration of a new calendar (AH 1 = AD 622) and morally by the transition from ignorance and barbarism (jahl) to knowledge (‘ ilm) and truth (haqq). This new dispensation was anchored in the Qur’an, which Muhammad had received from God, and it was spread far and wide by the Arab conquests, which were presented as having been orchestrated by God, leading to the establishment of God’s rule (hukm Allah).

One blot on this otherwise idyllic picture was the unseemly behavior of Muhammad’s companions, who squabbled and fought one another, most obviously in the first civil war (656– 61). This was a problem for Islamic law, for it was the companions of Muhammad who had passed on his teachings and legal decisions to the next generation and the wider world, and one therefore needed to know that they could be relied
upon to have transmitted this material correctly and carefully. They were therefore given a makeover, sanctified by recourse to Late Antique hagiographical techniques, and all came out as models of piety and beyond reproach, headed by the four rightly guided caliphs (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali).
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Using factually incorrect information to support an agenda does equal factually incorrect polemics though.

Anyone who presents hundreds of historical factual claims will make some errors. What I think I hear you saying though, is not that Spencer will cherry-pick (as does every historian ever), but that he will also knowingly falsify. That's quite an accusation.

But in contrast to the 'convert or die' type narratives I imagine Spencer will present:

As John of Fenek observed: “Of each person they required only tribute, allowing him to remain in whatever faith he wished.”... In Egypt, where the Muslim presence was light for the first two centuries of Arab rule, conversion was very slow, and Islam only became the majority religion around the fourteenth century...

I don't think that Spencer or anyone who's put any time into understanding history sees it as black and white. No doubt every major religion has had its shining moments and its regrettable ones.
 
Anyone who presents hundreds of historical factual claims will make some errors. What I think I hear you saying though, is not that Spencer will cherry-pick (as does every historian ever), but that he will also knowingly falsify. That's quite an accusation.

I didn't say falsify, I said he will cherry pick sources that support his agenda which on this subject can get you miles and miles from the truth. Once again, many of the sources he will quote as fact are theology, hagiography and propaganda. Do you consider theology, hagiography and propaganda as being historically reliable?

If I cited the Bible as historical fact, I wouldn't be 'falsifying', but I wouldn't be historically accurate either. The sources he uses are often no more historically reliable.

A question: You said you had read some of his books before, do you think he was taking care to be accurate? Have you read any more scholarly sources to try to determine this?


I don't think that Spencer or anyone who's put any time into understanding history sees it as black and white. No doubt every major religion has had its shining moments and its regrettable ones.

When Muslims quote hagiography and propaganda to further their agenda you are highly sceptical, when Spencer does it you try your hardest to find reasons to legitimate it. Why is this?

Do you accept a huge amount of the sources on this issue are fictitious or grossly misleading, or do you think they are pretty accurate?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Do you accept a huge amount of the sources on this issue are fictitious or grossly misleading, or do you think they are pretty accurate?

What I suspect is that on any given controversial, historical topic, if you read from a wide variety of sources you will find a spectrum of coverage, from wildly apologetic to wildly critical. And that if you do some statistical averaging you'll arrive at something close to the truth. A wisdom of the crowds sort of idea.

I know for example that another vocal critic of Islam, a guy who goes by Bill Warner, has assembled of list of over 500 battles in which conquering Muslims participated over the course of the first several centuries of Islamic history. The vast majority of these battles took place far from Mecca or Medina. Do you think that this number of 500 is grossly misleading? I would guess that he's in the ballpark. I would guess that some of these 500 battles were truly defensive, but that most of them were examples of Islam being spread by the sword. I'm not sure we can get much more accuracy than that, can we?

What I can say is this: I think both the Bible and the Quran are detestable books. When horrible things are done in their name, I'm not surprised.
 

Nicholas

Bodhicitta
Did either of you two fuzzy generalists read the quote from Fregosi in my post #5 or his book for that matter - Jihad in the West?
 
What I suspect is that on any given controversial, historical topic, if you read from a wide variety of sources you will find a spectrum of coverage, from wildly apologetic to wildly critical. And that if you do some statistical averaging you'll arrive at something close to the truth. A wisdom of the crowds sort of idea.

I'm not one who agrees that 2 wrongs make a right. The first thing you do is identify what you can rule out as being incorrect, then deal with the plausible information.

If you get half of your information from Infowars and the other half from whatever the left wing equivalent of Infowars is, you can't 'average' that out to get close to the truth. You are better off avoiding both.

While 2 interpretations of the facts can balance out, 2 fictitious narratives never can. They are just wrong.

Spencer, almost certainly, will promote the 'Hindu genocide' view of the conquests of India with numbers like 80 million deaths bandied about. If someone else said 0 people were killed that still 'balances out' at 40 million which is ludicrously high.

I know for example that another vocal critic of Islam, a guy who goes by Bill Warner, has assembled of list of over 500 battles in which conquering Muslims participated over the course of the first several centuries of Islamic history. The vast majority of these battles took place far from Mecca or Medina. Do you think that this number of 500 is grossly misleading? I would guess that he's in the ballpark. I would guess that some of these 500 battles were truly defensive, but that most of them were examples of Islam being spread by the sword. I'm not sure we can get much more accuracy than that, can we?

Obviously the conquests weren't peaceful or defensive, although the narrative of 'Islam being spread by the sword' is often misleading given that they frequently didn't try to spread it, especially over the first century or two.

The pietistic conquest myths developed much later and not out of a desire to report historical facts but to support certain theological worldview.

That conquests happened and were violent is beyond doubt, the narratives that surround them often bear little to no relation to the probable events though.

Jihad was certainly a thing though, but also needs to be put into the context of the historical period where conquest and warfare were commonplace regardless of religious identity.
 
Top