How important, really, is history to current affairs? Do events from the 7th century—or, more importantly, how we understand them—have any influence on U.S. foreign policy today?
By way of answer, consider some parallels between academia’s portrayal of historic Islamic jihads and the U.S. government’s and media’s portrayal of contemporary Islamic jihads.
While any objective appraisal of the 7th century Muslim conquests proves that they were just that—conquests, with all the bloodshed and rapine that that entails—the historical revisionism of modern academia, especially within Arab and Islamic studies departments, has led to some portrayals of the original Muslim conquerors as “freedom-fighters” trying to “liberate” the Mideast from tyrants and autocrats. (Beginning to sound familiar?)
Today’s approach to teaching the history of the Muslim conquests of the 7th century is something as follows: Yes, the Mideast was Christian, but local Christians helped Arab Muslims invade and subjugate their countries in preference to Christian Byzantine rule, which was oppressive due to doctrinal disagreements over the nature of Christ. Hence, the Muslim conquerors were actually “liberators.”
This perspective, as with many modern Western perspectives concerning Islam, is less a product of objective scholarship and more of modern day epistemic distortions, chief among them: 1) repackaged narratives of the “noble savage” myth—yes, 7th century Muslim invaders were coarse, but had elevated ideals, including a fierce love for freedom and religious tolerance in comparison to Christians of the time (not to mention now); and 2) entrenched political correction that seeks to whitewash the true history of Islam followed by the uncritical acceptance of Islamic apologetics, some of which border on the absurd.
Of course, before the Islamic “liberator” thesis had become mainstream, historians such as Alfred Butler, author of The Arab Conquest of Egypt, had this to say about it:
Even in the most recent historians it will be found that the outline of the story [of the 7th century conquest of Egypt] is something as follows: …. that the Copts generally hailed them [Muslims] as deliverers and rendered them every assistance; and that Alexandria after a long siege, full of romantic episodes, was captured by storm. Such is the received account. It may seem presumptuous to say that it is untrue from beginning to end, but to me no other conclusion is possible. [emphasis added; pgs. iv-v]
In fact, one of the major themes throughout Butler’s Arab Conquest of Egypt—which, published in 1902, is heavily based on primary sources, Arabic and Coptic, unlike more modern secondary works that promote the Islamic “liberator” thesis—is that “there is not a word to show that any section of the Egyptian nation viewed the advent of the Muslims with any other feeling than terror” (p. 236).
Butler and other politically incorrect historians were and are aware of the savage and atrocity-laden nature of the Islamic conquests. The Coptic chronicler, John of Nikiu, a contemporary of the Arab conquest of Egypt and possibly an eyewitness, wrote:
Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiu [along the Nile]… seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches—men, women, and children, sparing nobody. Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found…. But let us say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed…”
Nonetheless, today’s accepted narratives do not come from antiquated historians or primary historical texts; they come from the Saudi-funded ivy league—Berkeley, Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Harvard, Princeton, etc.—all of which peddle pro-Islamic propaganda (I personally had direct experience at Georgetown), including the “freedom loving jihadis” vs. “oppressive tyrants” thesis.
Percolating out of liberal academia to liberal mass media, the effects of this well-entrenched but false narrative have taken their toll, ultimately helping to create a disastrous U.S. foreign policy.
Put differently, the Islamic terrorists waging jihad against autocratic (but secular, religiously tolerant) governments—most notably in Syria today—are easily portrayed in the West as “freedom fighters” against oppressive tyrants and thus deserving of U.S. support in great part because this motif has permeated the social consciousness of America, molded as it is by Hollywood and the news rooms, and based on academic distortions of events that took place nearly fourteen centuries ago.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Islamic “freedom fighters” are slaughtering, raping, beheading, persecuting and plundering—just as they have been for nearly fourteen centuries.
That is the only unwavering constant in this sad story.
It must be wonderful to be a blind idiot and believe that Islam is the “Religion of Peace.” But id the fools who believe that took five minutes to go to Quran.com and read
Surat Al-Mā’idah (The Table Spread) – سورة المائدة they would find out rather quickly that its all a lie.
I hope that you are aware that Allah plagiarized Q5:32 from Talmud Sanhedrin
“He who saves one life… it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life… it is as if he destroys an entire universe” TALMUD – Sanhedrin 4:5
Allah never claimed to be the author of the Talmud therefore I must conclude that Allah is a plagiarist
Yes I am well aware the Qur’an plagiarized a wide variety of other religions texts.Frankly, I am glad you pointed this out; people need to know the stolen roots of the Qur’an and understand why Mohammad cut and pasted his religion together from Judaism and Christianity.
There is a school of thought among religious historians that Mohammad originally wanted the Jews to accept him as their Messiah. When they rejected him because he did not meet the explicit Biblical requirements of a Prophet, he turned on them, and as a result, Jews are Islam’s greatest enemy.
The hostility and Jew hate found in Islam is deep rooted and eternal.
You are being kind to Muhammad and his Allah. In regard to the Jews the Qur’an is really a confused book so you will find the “Jews are pigs and monkeys” but also in Q 2:47 it says that the Jews are Allah’s favorite people. No I’m not kidding you then in Q 5:21 Allah declares that he gave the “sacred land” to the Jews and if you read al-Tabari you will discover that this sacred land is the area between the Euphrates and the Nile! Which means that the land of Israel given by Allah to the Jews extends from the Euphrates to the Nile!No I’m not kidding you
My only explanation is: either Allah and Muhammad were Zionists or they were poor theologians
The differences are easy to explain. Early sura praising the Jews were written while Mohammad was still aiming to be the messiah and the hateful “pigs and monkeys” stuff was written after he was rejected by the Jews. The Qur’an is a revenge document to punish the Jews for wanting to remain Jews. 1400 years of everlasting hatred.
I wish it is that simple. If you are interested in literary criticism of the Qur’an then the one to read is John Wansbrough
The Qur’an is really a melange of heterogeneous texts by unknown authors and it was transmitted as a text or texts and these texts must have pre-dated Muhammad (because most of the time no one seem to have a clue about what the Qur’an really says) and these texts were stitched together (this explains very well the strange phenomenon known as al-Iltfiat (or the strange change in subject and object in many Quranic verses) and that the final text was not edited. . And no it was not transmitted as an oral text otherwise al-Tabari would have been able to tell us if the word MLK is surat al-Fatiha Or Q 1:3 is Maaliki or Maliki. Another strange literary phenomenon in the Qur’an is what Wansbrough called “variant traditions” and what the ulama called al-kalam al-mukarrar or Allah is in the habit of repeating himself ad nauseum and in many literary forms and this means that the Qur’an really has multiple authors and this could also explain the fact that the author of the Qur’an was a poor theologian
And why would the Qur’an that claims to be a book written in pure Arabic has so much Syriac in it?
One more: If you check the Qur’an you will find that Allah says that the adulterer and the adulteress should be whipped but if you check the Islamic Sharia it is clear that stoning is the prescribed punishment the only explanation here is that there were indeed what came to be known as Muslim Rabbis that brought with them to Islam what they had in their old religion
So how can one explain the dichotomy between the Mecca and Medina verses as in the Jews are Allah’s favorite people and the Jews are pigs and monkeys? The tradition’s explanation is that there was indeed a Meccan period and there was also a Medina period.
Now you judge
What do I really think. I dont think the qur’an even existed in Mohammad’s time. i think it was made up 300 years later.
If by “made up” you mean canonized then you are right as the masoritic exegesis of the Qur’an can be dated to between the late 2nd and 3rd century (al-Tabari is an example) and you cannot canonize a “holy book” until the book is a stable text and this is what the activity called the Muslim Masora was all about
Also if you read Gerd Puin’s examination of the ahl al-ayka verses he provides a case that the text here is indeed very old and should have predated Muhammad by at least 600-700 years
Does the term “abrogation” sound familiar?
Good question. Read with care what I’m saying:
If you read Wansbrough you will realize that the Qur’an is indeed an opaque revelation and that the authors of the Qur’an were poor theologians. Notice that I’m using the plural authors
The doctrine of al-Naskh wa al-Mansukh or abrogation has all the finger prints of what Wansbrough believed to be a Judeo-Christian “sectarian milieu” where the Muslim Rabbis or those Rabbis that converted to Islam in Mesopotamia brought with them to Islam and that is their “old religion”
But again abrogation to the Rabbis really meant ‘Atq which in Arabic would be naql or change because God does not cancel his own words
So the more you poke into the Qur’an the more whole damn thing falls apart
just a comment…Quran Pak is Allah book and he is taking care of it….proof is this that you pich Quran from any part of world is is same..but if you pick any other book it is not.Moreover Why is is religion of peace because you must not have listened any muslim saying negative about Hazrat Issa AS and Hazrat Musa As but jews and christians do so….As muslim no one can dare to say any thing negative regarding any prophet as they are true messengers of God but the last is Muhammad PBUH
Plagiarized and twisted/perverted. “Allah” is none other than Satan. Jesus said: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Truer words were never spoken.
I agree the authors of the Qur’an were poor theologians
I will give you an example: google al-Tabari’s exegesis of Qur’an 112 which is really the plagiarized Shima yisrael and here is the clue: Allah and his prophet were no match to Aristotelian logic and it is all in black and white in their books by no other than al-Tabari
Islam is the biggest fraud in the history of man and woman kind
Jihad is not Terrorism:
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/is-jihad-terrorism/
So what is jihad O glorious madrassa gradute? Hint: dictionaries
But I have a question for you how many Hindus your ancestors were killed by your Muslim masters that invaded India?
Surely much less than Muslims who were killed by the Crusades Or during the inquisition by Christians or by Hindus during the last century. Judge by what is written not by some actions. If you want to know what Jihad is read the link I gave. That’s it.
Mr Arab wannabe the entire population of the Middle East at the time was about 20 millions! So your claim is bogus
Your Muslim masters murdered between 60-90 million Hindus over a period of 500 years you are ignorant
And how about the Arab crusades aka al-Futuh al-Islamiyya of the Middle East what right did the imperialism Arabs have to invade the Middle East? Oh Muhammad? he was an Arabian war lord and caravan raider and no more
And no I do not read web sites by stupid Muslim missionaries like you I need Arabic language dictionaries or you are ignorant so are you ignorant Mr Arab wannabe?
As you don’t want to read, why did you reply? If you are not interested to read, then keep your comments for yourself but I shall not waste my time with a meaningless conversation.
I read this as you are ignorant and do not want to embarrass yourself right? But I have one question for you you are an Ahmadi right? This means that you are a kafir as per your Arab masters right?
One more question: Your Allah says in Q14:4 that he guides whom ever he wants and lead astray whom ever he wants so do you again disagree with your Allah because you are out there doing your little bogus tabligh and dawa
What a disaster you disagree with Allah but I will follow you and expose you as you are ignorant Muslim missionary
And speaking of terrorism how about Q 8:60 where Allah tells Muslims to TERRORIZE his enemies? Can you enlighten us Mr ignorant?
For the readers: Q 8:60 has been called by the Muslim ulama the terrorism verse!
Raymond I’m sure that you are aware that Muslim historiography is late and very unreliable (as an example if you read the invasion of Bahnasa it is no more than a story and it is for sure not real history) , The narrative we get from Arab historians is that the Copts hated the Greeks and welcomed the Arab invaders that came to help them to get rid of the Greeks and help the Copts
But there are two serious flaws with this narrative: How can 4000 invading Arabs defeat the mighty Byzantine empire and why did the invading Arab not leave Egypt after defeating the Byzantine army? you will never get any answers
Western historians of late antique Egypt during the past 30-40 years and in the words of J. Berkey: “several historians have persuasively argued that the cultural overtones and political implications of the theological divisions should be minimized that the end of late antiquity there was in fact a close symbiosis of (and not the atavistic struggle between ) Greek and Coptic cultures in Egypt and that Monophysite anger at the Chalcedonian creed did not imply that Egyptian Christians were hostile to the empire itself”
It is as clear as it can get that the version we have from Arab historians is no more than a blatant lie
And here are a few references: 1. Fowden Empire to commonwealth” page 100-137 and check page 127
2. Bowersock “Hellenism in late antiquity”
“What really happened during the Arab invasion of Egypt” should be re-written