Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Historical Islam

  1. #1
    Civis
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    155

    Default Historical Islam

    I was recently pondering how to best recreate the historical situation with Islam in the game, and in order to do that reviewed for myself the general goals and teachings of Islam.

    Islam is the most testosterone driven religion in the world. No one has made a religion which is more male than Islam. Everything about it's teachings from the description of paradise, it's fondness for logic, it's overt appeal to war, and it's praise of the especially masculine trades contributes to this overall approach to defining reality (which is the point of every single religion).

    It is of course, absurd, given this psycology, to expect a democracy to work in Islam. While Christian territories have seen the rise and fall of quite a number of republics, starting in the middle ages to today. Islam has never had a democratic or republican form of governance since the thing runs contrary to the Islamic view of power and it's purposes. Allah is a benevolent master and if you want to achieve paradise (outside of martyrdom in a Jihad) you need to cultivate the attitude of a pious and submissive slave. Hence power is always seen in a master/slave relationship. Tolerance simply is only for when you are in the position of slave

    Suffice to say, historically, Islam as a movement has always followed the same pattern over and over again in it's history since human nature remains, so far, unchanged.

    This pattern is as follows.

    Agressive Expansion - War of conquest is initiated under the proclimation of the Caliph which seeks to secure first all moslem territories followed by any and all non-moslem territorys which can be reached and taken.

    Consolodation and Intigration - After a period of non-stop warfare, which can run for dozens of years, the new Moslem Empire sits down and takes stock of the situation and takes into it's self any and all new ideas discovered in the conquest as well as turn it's attention to converting the newly conquored peoples to Islam. Once that is accomplished, it may of course return to Agressive Expansion, and usually both this and Expansion are going on at the same time. However this only lasts until the Caliph suffers some set back or appears weak when the next phase of Islam starts.

    Break Up - Given Islam's focus on power it's only a matter of time before another strong man makes his move for the whole kielbasa. Usually he's not as strong as he anticipated and the net result is that the entire thing breaks up, some times very rapidly. The Koran, like all books, does not interpret itself and so any man who can come up with a different slant on the religion can create a sect and indeed an entire movement which can be turned against other sects of Islam quite quickly and easily.

    Re-integration - But sooner or later a strong man does come along and takes it all back. This has happened twice in Islamic History. First with the initial Arab Empire in the 700 - 800's (right after the death of Mohammed, the whole thing flew apart and had to be retaken) and then with the Ottoman's in the 1400-1600's. Between them, you had several other powers which came close.

    After this, you're back to Aggressive Expansion.

    Historically, the Arab Empire broke up rapidly with various sects which were in the process of re-integration when the Crusades came along and threw the whole thing out of whack. It wasn't until the Ottomans achieve re-integration that the second Aggressive Expansion began under them starting in the 1400's. This period lasted until the 1600's when the Ottomans exhausted themselves and were forced to fall into the Integration phase which of course, started the strains that led to their break up starting in the 1700's leading to full collapse of the Empire in the 1800's.

    Today, we are in the Re-integration phase once again. Moslem strong men both politically and religiously are seeking to once again unite all of Islam with the expressed goals of gaining back formerly lost territories (Spain and Israel being the chief targets) as well as throwing out the Infidel who are presently in Afganistan and Iraq.

    For this reason, I was thinking how best to recreat this in the game. I would propose the following as ideas for consideration.

    The Moslem faction's AI"s would be seeking first to unite all of Islam under one banner while perhaps seeking to gain along the Christian borders when convenient. Once the Moslems were under one banner, then they would be constantly seeking to take out this or that Christian power. But likewise, there would be a higher rate of rebellion in the single Islamic state at any point in which that faction is at peace.

    Finally, the Moslem goal for victory should hang on three specific cities. Rome, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. This for Islam represents their full triumph over their chief opponent, the Infidel Christians.

    It's no coincidence that Palastinians want Jerusalem and the Moslem states in particular want Israel out of the picture. For them this represents a loss to Islam and they mean to take it back.

    If this is workable, I don't know. But since modders are always looking for historical information and as the interplay of religions, particularly in the Middle Ages is my present specialty, I thought I would pass this along since Tornnight always appears to appreciate any comments made along these lines.

    I can of course get more specific but for a game like this, general patterns are more important, in my opinion, than specific events since the specific events are how the general patterns played themselves out in the real world.
    Last edited by Philippon; June 06, 2007 at 05:52 PM.

  2. #2
    tornnight's Avatar Forum Bot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,755

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    Hmm, while I don't agree with your political assessment of Islam, it is possible to create different AI personalities, I haven't really gotten around to differentiating the different religions.

    I'll likely get to that at some point. I'll likely even be able to randomize personalities on campaign start.

    But thats another project for another day.
    Last edited by tornnight; June 07, 2007 at 07:57 PM. Reason: Spelling.
    "The first casualty when war comes, is truth." - Hiram Johnson
    Developer of The Long Road Modification

  3. #3

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    You do generalise and use a lot of assumptions in your summing up of Islam there. It also seems as though you are trying to tie in modern events to history as Islam has not always been as aggressive as it is perceived now. (and no im not justifying any religion as i think the whole religious thing is riddiculous)

    What could possibly help however is to have the drive for Islamic factions to unite through alliance or domination. Even perhaps having different muslim factions like you do with christianity with the Catholics and the Orthodox church.
    It would make the eastern factions more usefull and woudl make them last longer as ive yet to have a campaign where Islam hasnt been wiped out before 1300!

  4. #4
    Civis
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    155

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    Tornnight: Hmm, while I don't agree with your political assessment of Islam, it is possible to create different AI personalities, I haven't really gotten around to differentiating the different religions.

    Valantine: You do generalise and use a lot of assumptions in your summing up of Islam there.

    Me: Well, when you are trying to sum up something in a single post as complicated and elaborate as a world wide religious expression, you are stuck with the generalizations. There are numerous sects in Islam which range from the Hashadim and Taliban to more contemplative mystical expressions such as the Dervish. And having either example as your next door neighbor would make a difference as to your perception of Islam as a belief system.

    For this reason, Islam has had it's periods of relative quiet in specific locals. One of the reasons why Byzantium lasted until 1452 was due to the fact that Mehammet II's father embraced the more contemplitive form of Islam and was more interested in his own spiritual jihad within himself as opposed to the one outside against the Infidel. But likewise, the agressive qualities of Islam is one of the reasons why the Ottoman Sultan invariably, as his first royal act upon ascention, ordered the execution of all of his brothers. Why? Again, it's that master/slave understanding of God which is bound up in Islamic expression. When you have that psycology, you can't sit easy on a throne when you have numerous brothers who are all equally qualified and competant to rule in your stead.

    The agression has always been there in some form. And I'm not the first person to assess it in this fashion. Hillare Belloc, an English historian and parlementarian of the early 20th century, predicted the agressive resurgance of Islam back in the 30's when European powers had direct political power over nearly all of the Islamic world. Everyone thought he was insane for saying so. Yet, like so many of his historical predictions, it turns out he was right on the money.

    Our first war with Islam was with the Barbary States who had emerged during the break up of the Ottoman Empire. The reasons for the war were simple. We were a new infidel power and therefore a target for war unless we paid the pasha's of Algeria and Tunis tribute. We landed, quite literally, on the shores of Tripoli (if you ever wondered where that line came from in the Marine's marching song) and persuaded them that it was not cost effective to plunder our ships.

    So 9/11 was not the first overt terrorist attack we experiened from Islamic powers. We started having to deal with them in the 1800's. And of course, from the 700's on, all of southern Europe knew the fear of Islamic raiding upon a coastline which had, for the prior 600 years had known no fear of pirate raids since the rise of the Roman Navy in the BC's.

    It's not a case of me taking the present political situation and translating it into the distant past, it's my taking the history of the past and bringing it to the fore as a means of illustration.

    In other words, my point wasn't to just say, this is Islam, my point was to show how my comments were not just some out of the air opinion which I had grabbed because I had read too many newspapers.

    Religion you see, is my field of study, and how it impacts history is my speciality. I can't mod to save my life, but as I am familar with the interplay of Islam and Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the Middle Ages, I thought I might be able to add some insights to Tornnight's quite outstanding efforts.

    Which reminds me. I should have mentioned this in my prior post. Most of the Islamic infighting is directly related to the various sects which are within Islam, the Suni Shite struggles between today's Iraq and Iran go all the way back to the 700's and were a direct influence on the initial break up of the Arab Empire in the 800's. What I would suggest then is that by defining each of the Islamic powers as having their own brand of Islam (which often was the reason for a shift in dynastic power) and relate each of the three sects as it were in the same manner as Catholic / Orthodox, that too would be a more accurate recreation of the time period.

    But to give you an idea of how the sects related to each other, I have a little bit of history to tell from the 1200's.

    A certain professor at the Great Mosque in Bagdad was in very vocal disagreement with the teachings of the Old Man in the Mountain, the leader of the Hashidim. After one class, a young student came up to him to discuss the matter further. The young student informed the professor that he disagreed with the professor's assessment of the doctrinal purity of the Hashidim. The professor was eager to express his arguments further and they continued the discussion until the student came to the conclusion that the professor could not be persuaded by arguments from texts that the Hashidim were wrong.

    The student then announced that he was a member of the Hashidim and had been sent by the Old Man in the Mountain to persuade the Professor to stop his denouncements. The professor saw the student pull out a bag of gold and say this was if the professor would stop denying the doctrinal purity of the Hashidim. Then the student put a dagger to the professor's neck and said this was if he would not.

    Several weeks later, the students at the Mosque noted that the professor was no longer criticising the Hashidim. One student asked him why, and the professor summed up his explaination by saying that the Hashidim had given him reasons both weighty and pointed.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    That is one of the most foolish things I have heard, quite honestly. I wonder if the books you read on Islam have not come from Milosevic's Serbia or Southern Nigeria.

    The entire system of Islam, as it was practiced after the Prophet (pbuh) died is based on the election of the most noble and pious man to lead the Muslim community, it is not based on hereditary links, but only merit. This in itself is very democratic and certainly goes against the trend of the Khalifate to be passed down from father to son. We can blame that on Muawiyya for betraying his pact with Hassan.

    Tolerance existed in Islam long before tolerance existed in what would be known as Western Christianity. During the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Rashidun Christianity and Judaism, as well as Zoroastrianism and several other major faiths were practiced alongside Islam as it spread and it was illegal to harm them or persecute them. Indeed, though some (like the Shi'a Al-Hakim The Mad of al-Khahirah) would violate the Qur'anic statement: "There is no compulsion in religion", the vast majority of Muslim history relates to minority religions living peacefully alongside Islam. Even during the Ottoman rule which you use as an example for the contrary, Khalifah Mehmed II pronounced freedom of religion in the Ottoman domains and denounced those who would have persecuted the Balkan Christian orders. Jews also enjoyed much religious freedom and prosperity in not only the Ottoman Empire, but also experianced the "Jewish Golden Age in Iberia" during the Khalifates in Al-Andalus. This was during the same time period that Jews were forcibly exiled from most Western Christian Kingdoms.

    When the Catholics entered Jerusalem and Antioch, they slaughtered men, women and children, Jews, Muslims and Christians (non-Catholic Christians), where was the tolerance? What about the inquisition? The Manifest Destiny expansion of the US?

    I could use some historical examples and say exactly what you have, except about Christianity.

    Indeed, today you imply that the Arab people are wrong for wishing to reclaim Palestine, but you group them only as Muslims, why is this? Are Christians not also persecuted alongside their Muslim brothers in the occupied lands of Palestine? I have heard many a tale from Christian brothers and sisters who live there that have brought tears to my eyes. What about Iraq and Afghanistan? I would say that invading and occupying countries is wrong, but that is my personal opinion and apparently the opinion of the majority in Iraq and Afghanistan who want to be free of occupation.

    The reason for terrorism is the feeling that it is the only option, this feeling is encouraged by things like Invasions, Occupations, Puppet Governments and Dictators and discouraged by things like Tolerance, Democracy and Freedom. The United States, which preaches Democracy, did not let those words stop them when they destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953, Chile in 1973 and have never ceased to back Middle Eastern, African and Latino dictators who would make deals with the Americans. Even now, they refused to accept the elections in Palestine, only sending funds again now that war has broken between Hamas and their ally Fatah.

    Where is Democracy in Arabia? In Egypt? In Pakistan? It does not exist, nor does the US truly want it to, because, like Palestine, it would mean the election of the Muslim Brotherhood (in Egypt) as well as Islamic Parties in Pakistan and Islamic groups in Arabia who are less than satisfied with allowing a Starbucks in Makkah (not joking, it exists).

    Before you speak of Democracy and Tolerance, read a real history book and know that Islam was in many ways the vanguard of tolerance and learning for the Middle Ages when Western Christianity (not Orthodoxy) was content with Crusades and the Inquisition. Islam had Timbuktu, Corduba, Baghdad, al-Khahirah, Orthodoxy had Constantinople, the West had a Rome which had long passed its prime and scholars who debated how many angels could fit on the point of a needle and came to the near-unanimous conclusion that the world was flat.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    Suffice to say, historically, Islam as a movement has always followed the same pattern over and over again in it's history since human nature remains, so far, unchanged.
    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Firstly, Human nature = a fiction.

    Secondly, History is not cyclical. Nor is it linear. History has no pattern.

    Thirdly, Islam has throughout history been both a metaphysical and political movement. It has changed staggeringly over the last 1300 years.

    to expect a democracy to work in Islam
    It's been tried. And its worked. By several openly Islamic countries. Including the one hosting the last Caliph.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Fengxian1 View Post
    That is one of the most foolish things I have heard, quite honestly. I wonder if the books you read on Islam have not come from Milosevic's Serbia or Southern Nigeria.

    The entire system of Islam, as it was practiced after the Prophet (pbuh) died is based on the election of the most noble and pious man to lead the Muslim community, it is not based on hereditary links, but only merit. This in itself is very democratic and certainly goes against the trend of the Khalifate to be passed down from father to son. We can blame that on Muawiyya for betraying his pact with Hassan.

    Tolerance existed in Islam long before tolerance existed in what would be known as Western Christianity. During the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Rashidun Christianity and Judaism, as well as Zoroastrianism and several other major faiths were practiced alongside Islam as it spread and it was illegal to harm them or persecute them. Indeed, though some (like the Shi'a Al-Hakim The Mad of al-Khahirah) would violate the Qur'anic statement: "There is no compulsion in religion", the vast majority of Muslim history relates to minority religions living peacefully alongside Islam. Even during the Ottoman rule which you use as an example for the contrary, Khalifah Mehmed II pronounced freedom of religion in the Ottoman domains and denounced those who would have persecuted the Balkan Christian orders. Jews also enjoyed much religious freedom and prosperity in not only the Ottoman Empire, but also experianced the "Jewish Golden Age in Iberia" during the Khalifates in Al-Andalus. This was during the same time period that Jews were forcibly exiled from most Western Christian Kingdoms.

    When the Catholics entered Jerusalem and Antioch, they slaughtered men, women and children, Jews, Muslims and Christians (non-Catholic Christians), where was the tolerance? What about the inquisition? The Manifest Destiny expansion of the US?

    I could use some historical examples and say exactly what you have, except about Christianity.

    Indeed, today you imply that the Arab people are wrong for wishing to reclaim Palestine, but you group them only as Muslims, why is this? Are Christians not also persecuted alongside their Muslim brothers in the occupied lands of Palestine? I have heard many a tale from Christian brothers and sisters who live there that have brought tears to my eyes. What about Iraq and Afghanistan? I would say that invading and occupying countries is wrong, but that is my personal opinion and apparently the opinion of the majority in Iraq and Afghanistan who want to be free of occupation.

    The reason for terrorism is the feeling that it is the only option, this feeling is encouraged by things like Invasions, Occupations, Puppet Governments and Dictators and discouraged by things like Tolerance, Democracy and Freedom. The United States, which preaches Democracy, did not let those words stop them when they destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953, Chile in 1973 and have never ceased to back Middle Eastern, African and Latino dictators who would make deals with the Americans. Even now, they refused to accept the elections in Palestine, only sending funds again now that war has broken between Hamas and their ally Fatah.

    Where is Democracy in Arabia? In Egypt? In Pakistan? It does not exist, nor does the US truly want it to, because, like Palestine, it would mean the election of the Muslim Brotherhood (in Egypt) as well as Islamic Parties in Pakistan and Islamic groups in Arabia who are less than satisfied with allowing a Starbucks in Makkah (not joking, it exists).

    Before you speak of Democracy and Tolerance, read a real history book and know that Islam was in many ways the vanguard of tolerance and learning for the Middle Ages when Western Christianity (not Orthodoxy) was content with Crusades and the Inquisition. Islam had Timbuktu, Corduba, Baghdad, al-Khahirah, Orthodoxy had Constantinople, the West had a Rome which had long passed its prime and scholars who debated how many angels could fit on the point of a needle and came to the near-unanimous conclusion that the world was flat.

    +1

    Thank you for bringing reason and veracity to light as opposed to misinformation and stereotypical bigotry.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    +2 from me

    That's a biggest load of .... i've heard (one in OP). And living in USA, i believed that i've heard it all.Terorism doesn't have religion.






  9. #9

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by mb. View Post
    It's been tried. And its worked. By several openly Islamic countries. Including the one hosting the last Caliph.
    i gues you are talking about turkey. i am a great admierer of ottoman empire and Turkish country, but i don't think there's a true democracy in Turkey today. The simple fact that the army can overthrone government anytime is purely anti-democratic.

    p.s. if you are not talking about Turkey, my mistake. But as i remember the Ottoman sultans were the last Caliphs.

    p.s.2 - there will be no true democracy in an islamic country, because democracy doesn't work well with religion. anyway, democracy is a mith. maybe it works in small countries like island, Finland, Swiss or Netherlands...but anywere else...

  10. #10

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    anyway, democracy is a mith. maybe it works in small countries like island, Finland, Swiss or Netherlands...but anywere else
    Are saying the largest democracies in the world aren't actually democracies?

  11. #11

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by mb. View Post
    Are saying the largest democracies in the world aren't actually democracies?
    something like that :-)

  12. #12

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    Nothing ever works like its intended too, and any nation can be overthrown by its army, its only the matter if they can hold it or want too...

    Democracy can work in Islam, its just going to take a lot of extra work and besides should it be us to choose or them??

    Anyways this is becoming more political the a debate about incorporating ideas into a mod.
    Knowledge is Power - English Proverb

  13. #13

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Xeno_cws View Post
    Anyways this is becoming more political the a debate about incorporating ideas into a mod.
    Agreed!!! This conversation doesn't belong in "the Long Road" mod thread.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    I would say the OP has it exactly right. As an amateur historian on the Crusades I will bow to his knowledge on post 14th century stuff. Though I think in terms of the game - the period in which it is set and the reason why the First Crusade/princes crusade was successful was precisely because the armies of Islam did not unite.

    Fengxian1:

    As for Palestine I would say the Arab world got off lucky with losing the west bank etc after the 6 day war. Israel was perfectly within its rights to fight a war of self defence and protect its interests against the enemy - a problem they still face today not because they were too hardline but because imo they weren't hardline enough.

    Slaughter in Antioch in 1098? What about the slaughter of unarmed women during the People's crusade. The crusades were not expansionist nor aggressive - they were in direct response to expansionist Seljuk Turks. If you want aggressive expansionism look at how early Muslim armies 'expanded' their religious base.

    You're right about anti-semitism though - Christians were slaughtering jews much earlier than the 11th century.

  15. #15
    tornnight's Avatar Forum Bot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,755

    Default Re: Historical Islam

    Closing this thread because it's gotten too far off topic.
    "The first casualty when war comes, is truth." - Hiram Johnson
    Developer of The Long Road Modification

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •