Depressing quote of the day . . .
The Mohammadan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

-- Will Durant, in The Story of Civilization

I have barely scratched the surface of this history, but it's some of the most contentious, most hotly disputed stuff I've seen.

To say that Muslims and Hindus "disagree" on this history is to engage in understatement which would be laughable if these things weren't so serious. There are claims and counterclaims, and even allegations that the history was sanitized by Indian activists from both religions seeking to unite each other in order to better wage their fight against British imperialism. (Interestingly enough, Muslim Mughal rule in India was formally liquidated by the British.)

There's enormous animosity between Muslims and Hindus, and a lot stems from the fact that Hindus were forced to live under Sharia Law:

Aurangzeb's influence continues through the centuries, affecting not only India, but Asia, and the world. He was the first ruler to attempt to impose Sharia law on a non-Muslim country. His critics, principally Hindu, decry this as intolerance, while his mostly Muslim supporters applaud him, some calling him a Pir or Caliph. He engaged in nearly perpetual war, justifying the ensuing death and destruction on moral and religious grounds. He eventually succeeded in the imposition of Islamic Sharia in his realm, but alienated many constituencies, not only non-Muslims, but also native Shi'ites. This led to increased militancy by the Marathas, the Sikhs, and Rajputs, who along with other territories broke from the empire after his death, and to disputes among Indian Muslims. The wanton and ruthless destruction of countless Hindu temples remains a dark stain on Muslim/Hindu relations to this day. His one-pointed devotion to conquest and control based on his personal worldview has continuing resonance in our current world.
Sigh.

But I neglect Hezbollah, Israel, and Lebanon.

I'd say there more fronts than most of us want to imagine or admit in what I won't admit to imagining is a war.

posted by Eric on 07.13.06 at 03:09 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3838






Comments

I wonder precisely where that passage turns up, in Durant, Eric. (I wish everyone online was as good at their citations as *I* am.) I could go look it up, because I'm currently a bit more than halfway through Vol. VII -- this thing has been nearly all of my reading since last October. (I'm going through it all from one end to the other: I found the whole set at my local book dealers' -- kind of the way some people refer to their lawyer or accountant.)

This is an enormous subject, and I must say that I've learned more about the history of Islam in reading Durant than anywhere else in my life. Not that I'm an accomplished student of it.

However, this is where I stand these days: essentially, I see almost no serious point in referring to anything that's happening today by way of anything that happened before The Age of Reason, simply because religion-driven barbarity was the whole natural course of things before Islam and throughout history after Mohammad. Christians were every bit as savage until about the eighteenth century (and, or course, there are all kinds of spot-savageries beyond that point), but it should be pointed out that there were comparatively enlightened rulers on boths sides, along the way.

I have a general point here, which goes rather like this:

None of this is so much about religion as it is about power. I recently left a libertarian discussion group -- which I had attended for seven or eight years -- because of its late suffusion with completely unreconstructed hicks who could not be bothered to analyze Islam in order to reconcile the innumerable Muslims who are not at all interested in going the ball-bearing vest route.

And I maintain that what we're seeing in militant Islam today cannot be understood outside a context of twentieth century revolutionary politics as set forth by the Bolsheviks. There is a lot more than religion in this (this is why the left and the Islamofascists are natural allies), and also a lot less religion than most people ever consider.

The very weird thing is that I'm an atheist, pointing this out. I have no serious intersest in this except that I see lots of people doing their best to not think about any of it in serious terms, and that always drives me nuts.

In times like these, that's the very worst prospect of all.

Billy Beck   ·  July 14, 2006 01:12 PM

Great comment, and I have not seen the original quote. (Just because that bit of text is widely quoted on the Internet means nothing.)

You're certainly right that this is not so much a war of religions. I think it's a war by primitivism against civilization using religion as an excuse, and there's plenty of collusion. People who want to see it as a war of religions are fueling the process, as are those who think they can make convenient alliances based on a common agenda.

A lot of food for thought.

Eric Scheie   ·  July 14, 2006 05:09 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits