After Rome: Holy War and Conquest (BBC)
What a pity that this intelligent documentary that started on Saturday night is so condensed! Boris was caught up in the Mayoral campaign after the two-part documentary had been commissioned but, ‘written and presented by’, it – so far – takes in a huge range of art, thought and world-class invited experts. The Crusades, in their swashbuckling stories-for-boys image, are given a revisionary kick. Mono-theistic religions are all given a history lesson. The academic experts are articulate and balanced. The economic arguments are merely hinted at rather than fleshed out. The art that is accessed is fantastic – but underplayed.
This could be an Attenborough-style BBC project with Boris instead of David. As it is, it shows Boris as a multi-lingual history scholar with great sensitivity to intercultural relations. Not bad for a subsequently elected Mayor of a world-rated capital.
100 Comments
The programme is interesting and well made however, I take issue with the totally one-sided, inappropriate clips showing Israel as a ‘colonising state’ with images showing helicopter gunships and tanks. Images of this nature only fuel hatred. Israel has given back every inch of territory where it has peaceful neighbours. It has no intention of ‘colonising’ Arab lands.
Rate This:
0 
1
In trying to understand the conflict between Islam and Christendom two facts need to be considered:
1. The Crusades were not an action in history; they were in fact a reaction to Muslim aggression when the Seljuk Turks massacred and mistreated Christians in Palestine and Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem. The First Crusade was meant to address just that.
2. The conflict between Christendom and Islam did not start in the 11th century when the First Crusade was launched; its origin, in fact, can be traced to a much earlier stage– to the 630s AD when the Arabians started their war of aggression against Byzantium. It is important to remember that Arabia was never occupied by Byzantium so any attack against it was completely unjustified. The Arabs invaded and occupied Christian lands in Palestine, Syria and Egypt without provocation. Any attempts by Byzantium first and then the Franks to reconquer these lands were an exercise in reconquestia similar to that which the Spaniards later achieved.
Rate This:
0 
1
[...] http://www.boris-johnson.com/2008/12/01/after-rome-holy-war-and-conquest-bbc/#comment-22028 [...]
Rate This:
0 
0
I didn’t get to see the whole programmes and I also would have liked to purchase a DVD for a friend for Christmas as think it would be right up their street.
Rate This:
0 
0
I thoroughly enjoyed Boris Johnson’s programme. It was better driven than his track run in Top Gear. I would agree that the programme was firstly too short, and secondly shown on the wrong day. The BBC schedulers should be pulled up for this because both programmes were enlightening, and explained briefly the cause of current tensions between the main faiths across partial history.
Whilst we can state that all faiths brought great things into being in terms of the arts, sciences, maths, etc etc, I am saddened that not only have we not learnt from history but that civilisation has not shifted forward or progressed itself from what many learned professors term a lower level of existence. This is not to sound pompous or undermine some of the achievements human kind has made such as treating viruses, but that we still haven’t brought into fruition a way of feeding and sustaining a rapidly expanding populace. All civilisations fell and will fall as the environment around them fails to support them. The short term answer is expansionism but eventually this concept fails because it requires further resources to be deployed in order to sustain it. Its a catch 22 situation.
Indeed, many a glaswegian is asking the question; will we need a modern day crusade to control the population in order to prevent the planets resources being consumed at a incredible rate. Was this mentioned in Boris’s programmes – I think not.
Rate This:
0 
0
Having just seen the 2nd part on i-player I just had to add a comment on the excellence of this programme – in composition and execution and with some of the most beautiful photography I have seen on TV for a long time. Thank you Boris and BBC.
P.S. I hope someone sends a copy to the so-called leaders of the “free world” – they could learn a lot by considering the historical and cultural context of the current conflicts between the West and Asia.
Rate This:
0 
0
Congratulations to Boris Johnson on this fascinating programme. It was interesting and informative and so refreshing to listen to the reasonable explanations and opinions offered by the people interviewed, not just the professors and historians, but the “ordinary” citizens too.
There was so much wisdom in the programme and much of what I have instinctively believed for many years was put into actual words for me – that these 2 great civilisations actually have much in common and that it is the manipulation of the differences by clerics and politicians that is the cause of violence. As Boris says, if we can’t escape from history, we should strive to relive the good bits.
I admire Boris for his optimism and I hope and pray that he is right when he says that there will come a time when the doctrinal differences will seem irrelevant and we will live in a single, tolerant, global civilisation. What a wonderful thought to end a wonderful programme. Thank you.
Rate This:
0 
0
I congratulate Boris Johnson on this brilliant production which, in my view, presented an unbiased interpretation of the history of the troubled relationship between Christians and Muslims, and to some extent, Judaism. There is much we can learn from history from both sides of the divide (or should I say “diaspora”)and I would like to believe that the conclusion which Boris reached at the end of the second programme will come to pass, if not in my lifetime then in this century. As others have commented, the photography in these two programmes was outstanding and I do hope that the BBC will enable a wider audience to be reached by producing a DVD of this very enjoyable and well researched short series.
Rate This:
0 
0
On the so-called esteemed “continental research” of which Prof Milbank speaks, see this
pretty funny piece by my Alain de Libera:
http://www.telerama.fr/idees/landerneau-terre-d-islam-par-alain-de-libera,28252.php
Rate This:
0 
0
You guys, Muslims and liberals (and the others who are mesmerised by the quality of photography and the blonde in the show), you will need to know it is not only Prof Milbank who stand on a different platform on this issue. There are many scholars who share him in his views, and no one can fault him on his research and publications.
Boris may think he is achieving something good; he may love practicing self-flagellation which is an addiction by Western liberals; he may aspire to win the Muslim vote in the next London Mayoral election; or he may be just the showy Oxford graduate who is anti-Catholic and anti-Christian – but the truth is that his understanding of the origin of the conflict between Islam and Christendom is defective.
That conflict is not to be found in the Crusades, but in a much earlier stage, in 620s AD, when Mohammad saw the world divided into two: Dar Al Islam (the House of Islam) which is inhabited by Muslims, and Dar Al Harb (the House of War), which is inhabited by non-Muslims, and against which violence, war and conquest is the norm that stands for ever. He wanted all lands to be converted by his “sword and spear” into Muslim land. What right do non-Muslims have in his view? None whatsoever. If they are left to exist in a Muslim run country, it is a licence only which is offered only on condition of paying jizia and living humiliated under Sharia law. Allah, in fact, hates the non-Muslims as one famous Muslim scholar says (Ibn Gayyim Al Jawzia), and he would want all of them killed for their koffr (non-belief in Islam), had it not been for his kindness (to Muslims that is; not to non-Muslims), as Jizia from the kaffirs is more beneficial for the Muslims that killing the kaffirs, as it provides them with a fortune.
The Arab conquest of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Africa, and Spain, in the first few centuries of Islam, and then the conquest of Byzantium and parts of Europe by the Turks starting from the 1400s +, are events that follow a programme in fulfilling Mohammad’s seventh century dream.
What we are seeing now, in the attempts of the Islamists to subdue and rule the West, is not but a continuation of the same original dream of Mohammad. The terrorists that follow Osama Bin Laden in their caves in Pakistan, contrary to what we all wish for, are in fact real and true Muslims who are carrying out their prophet’s instructions, encoded in his Koran and Sunna.
And Europe does not seem to recognise or understand that – all to her peril.
Don’t misunderstand me, there hav been in history a few Muslim rulers who did not follow Mohammad’s instructions, and they treated their non-Muslim inhabitants with some degree of respect and freedom, such as many of the rulers of the Fatimid Dynasty in Egypt (969-1171 AD), or forged good trade relations with the West, such as some of the Ayyubid rulers, particularly Al-Adil (1200-1218 AD) and Al-Kamil (1218-1238 AD). [Interestingly, Salah Al-Din, contrary to the common belief, was a very cruel and persecuting ruler, and like Richard Lion-Heart, committed many massacres and treated his non-Christian subject very badly).
But that should not blind us to the dangerous, oppressive and expansionist ideology, which is Islam.
Does such a belief make one hate Muslims? No, for we are always able to differentiate between the hateful ideology and the many followers of the religion who are decent and just normal people like all of us. It, however, makes people aware of the ever presenting danger and threat of Islam and the Islamists.
Rate This:
0 
0
There are a few spelling and grammar mistakes in the above passage. Hope the reader will forgive them. There is no way to edit what has already been posted.
Rate This:
0 
0
No Boris. Your documentary was a missed opportunity to redress the balance in response to the recent airbrushing of history in an attempt to get the Islamic world on-side.
Spain clarifies what really happened. The Muslims were the aggressors (as in the Holy Land) – they invaded, massacred and ruled by force. This justified any defensive response by Christendom to react for the survival of European civilisation. No matter how unpleasant the Crusades appear to us with our 21st century revision of history, I suspect most of us are glad the British Isles, Northern Europe and Scandinavia were never subjected to being Kalifates for centuries!
Don’t get me wrong – Boris – we do have a lot to appreciate from the Arabic culture, but you and they should understand that we would have preferred never to have had to defend Europe or the Holy Land in the first place.
Rate This:
0 
0
No doubt experts on the relationship between Islam and Christianity will find plenty to quibble about in Boris Johnson’s programme, but surely this was pitched (perfectly) at the beginner who has a sketchy overview of history and can be tempted into wanting to know more by just this sort of effort. Boris is a superb (and to my eyes, scrupulously balanced) guide with a charming light touch, and I would happily sit through a more detailed series on the subject with him at the tiller. Intelligent TV which for once fulfils the BBC’s remit to educate and entertain.
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi.
Just a short comment. “Jaq” seems to know alot about “the irish” when he asserts that “at least they targeted politicians”. Herein lies a problem we have – making a hierarchy of victims. Also, differentiating between what is, pure and simple, terrorism.
Omagh bombing? Shankill bombing? Numbers of security forces killed? La Mon Hotel bombing? Drumkeen hotel bombing? Warrington bombing? Canary
Two name just a few…… How many of these
Rate This:
0 
0
Edited!!!!
Hi.
Just a short comment. “Jaq” seems to know alot about “the irish” when he asserts that “at least they targeted politicians”. Herein lies a problem we have – making a hierarchy of victims. Also, differentiating between what is, pure and simple, terrorism.
Omagh bombing? Shankill bombing? Numbers of security forces killed? La Mon Hotel bombing? Drumkeen hotel bombing? Warrington bombing? Canary Wharf bombing?
To name just a few……
Silly statement.
Rate This:
0 
0
I found the documentary fascinating in condensing 2,000 years into two hours or so. It kept you watching, which is a main aim of any TV show. However, I felt Mayor Johnson missed a couple of key points…The decline of Arabic learning and progress was due to the Crusades on one hand, but then the ensuing brutal Turkish rule on the other, a rule that didn’t end until after WW 1. This then lead to the abandonment of the enlightened and more liberal Sufi Islam for the the far more extreme Wahabbi religion fron Saudi Arabia. It is this, by western standards, an often brutal and absolutist faith, that is probably at thr root of the ongoing conflict with Israel, a conflict that is more about religious primacy and tribalism than land rights.
Also, the Mayor claimed the Romans allowed polytheism throughout the empire. Yet, it was Rome’s attempt to impress its pagan faith on the Jews that lead to a 70 year-long insurrection that eventually resulted in the destruction and renaming of Jerusalem to Aeoli Capitalina and Judea to Palestine, which literally means Land of the Philistines, who by the way were of European origin.
Rate This:
0 
0
Yes as expected Boris can turn on his unique charm and give us plebs an insight as to what a good education might hold. Loved every minute of it and feel sure that Boris could easily make the transition to full television style celebrity whenever he chooses. Hope he’s doing more.
Rate This:
0 
0
Oh yes, almost forgot…..
Loved this show. Spelled it out in a concise and interesting way. Boris did a great job here. Everyone should realise that not everybody who watched this documentary has an acute historical knowledge of this particular subject.
From my point of view it was fair and balanced and achieved surely what he set out to – to make people informed, to destroy the myths and to give us hope for the future.
Everyone should see this documentary.
Rate This:
0 
0
Dioscorus Boulos- i think your research on islam is done by by prof John Milbank. I think you should do your own research, to at least feel you done somthing instead of using another man’s words. I’ve been reading it now…the prof research. By the way, i think you might like to know this…IAM CONVERTING TO ISLAM TODAY AND YOU MADE MY MIND UP. Ingeneral, People seem to be scare of something they think might be the truth. Guess what? u lost me mate. Am not one of you no more.
Rate This:
0 
0
How brilliant that this wonderful programme has stimulated such discussion amongst so many erudite people ! All this arguing round and round is exactly the reason why cultures will always be divided ! Anyway – i would love the BBC to produce this as a DVD and a book because my GCSE RE students will lap it up – please Boris
[Ed: We have asked the BBC whether a DVD will be issued and are awaiting a response.]
Rate This:
0 
0
A very one sided presentation.
Boris did a very good sectionon mosques in Spain being turned into cathedrals and churches, the example of Seville Cathedral being the most outstanding. However he neglected to cover the same process from the other side in Turkey. Not one of the cathedrals and churches of Constantinople(captured by muslims in 1453) remains in present-day Istanbul. They have all been turned into mosques, and the Byzantine Imperial tombs dismantled, to my knowledge the latest the tomb of an empress discovered in the 1960s. The present day Orthodox Christian Patriarch operates from a jerry-built modern church outside the old walls at Istanbul. Johnson(not his real ancestral Turkish name) neglected to interview any Christians in Turkey, although he very sympathetically interviewed Muslims in Spain.
Rate This:
0 
0
Dan Williams seems to have based a belief in a deity and commiment to both a religion and lifestyle on the comments of a blogger on this blog. Deep!
Rate This:
0 
0
Ian @9:12am – interesting comment, Sir. I’m hoping Mr Kemal will get the chance to broadcast further progs on this issue and cover the points you raise.
Rate This:
0 
0
I am recommending this series to everyone I know. There may be certian omissions and errors, but what I like is his seemingly genuine openness to all and his aspiration to bring greater respect between Christians and Muslims in the cause of peace. History is only important in so far as knowledge of it might help us have a better understanding of our situation in the here and now – and thus respect others more and even come to love them. And Boris’aspiration seems to be in that direction.
Rate This:
0 
0
Jaq says, “Dan Williams seems to have based a belief in a deity and commiment to both a religion and lifestyle on the comments of a blogger on this blog. Deep!”
Dear Jaq,
Dan William, who says he would like to convert to Islam because of my previous posts, may be a Christian idiot to have to decide on so important matter like his choice of religion on the basis of not agreeing with what I had written.
He is, however, a definite idiot if he would like us to believe that he is actually Christian or his real name is Dan or William. The writing, the style, etc., all betray him.
Rate This:
0 
0
I have to correct my own post, which was from memory. Some time on Wikipedia revealed that there is in fact one single Greek Orthodox church remaining from before 1453 in Istanbul, although not within the old walls. It is the obscure little church of St. Mary of the Mongols. In the 1200s a Byzantine princess married the Khan of the Mongols, and after returning to Constantinople as an older widow, she founded that church in 1281. For some reason, the Turkish Sultans allowed only that one church not to be demolished or converted into a mosque. According to Wikipedia it is not generally open to the public, and was damaged by a mob of Turkish rioters in 1955.
The stories of mosques being turned into churches in Spain, can be mirrored almost exactly by churches being converted into mosques in Turkey.
Rate This:
0 
0
I agree with Professor Millbank’s comments. I thought the Crusaders were given a hard time but perhaps it reflects Boris Johnson’s Turkish roots. An ancestor died at the siege of Acre and the manner of his death was recorded,but to quote from the Chronicle “The Turks’ rage could not be satisfied and even when they were sick of killing their anger drove them on. Wherever their fear drove them, the Christians met with death; no one could escape the disaster. Everywhere the enemy, everywhere slaughter! The wounded were beyond number the dead were reckoned at 5500″ Very nice! Grace Scott
Rate This:
0 
0
Christopher Davies (December 12, 2008 @ 3:09 pm) raises an important point: what is the function of history?
History has to tell the facts as they were, and then to try to answer the why, the where, the who, etc. The ideal is that the views of the historian and his personal beliefs do not bias the selection of historical facts or the interpretation of them; however, this is not always possible.
If the function of history is to tell us the truth about what actually happened, it becomes unacceptable to try to suppress some facts or to invent others, in other way to adulterate history, even if the purpose is a noble one such as promoting an understanding or spreading peace between religions or nations, particularly when such efforts are one-sided and not reciprocated.
The function of history is different. And anyway, peace is not made possible by blinding our eyes to threats. The one sure result of such voluntary blindness, which liberals and unwise politicians often call for, is to eventually become subjugated to aggressors and tyrants who welcome our idiocy and the weaknesses that come with it.
Can we afford to forget the lessons of Nazism and WWII? We may look for stories that dehumanise the Germans for us and promote them, which is welcome, but it would be wrong to present the Nazis or Nazism as humane.
Although Boris tried to serve a good purpose by showing that the Muslims were not all monsters and they have a stake in the final civilisation of the world (which I agree with), he has failed in the following:
1. He failed to identify the origin of the conflict between Christendom and Islam. This is to be found not in the Crusades but in Islam itself, which since its inception has followed an anti-non-Muslim policy of aggression. It is an integral part of the religion, and is still as strong as ever.
2. In trying to white-wash Muslim behaviour, he sought to demonise the West and Christendom, and put unfair blame on the latter for the Crusades.
3. He has failed to see the overall picture of the conflict and the full dimension of it, and, in this, he has been insensitive to the sufferings of the billions of people who had or have suffered, and still suffering, in the world from the aggressive and expansionist ideology of Islam, starting from the Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Byzantium, East Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.
Rate This:
0 
0
Correction. The following sentence should read:
“Can we afford to forget the lessons of Nazism and WWII? We may look for stories that rehumanise the Germans for us and promote normal relationship with them, which is welcome, but it would be wrong to present the Nazis (which is not synonymous with the Germans)or Nazism as humane.”
Rate This:
0 
0
It is work like this, and I wish there were more, that shows Boris’ great capacity for insight, analysis, and putting together strands of history and politics into a meaningful narrative, and one made easy to follow and understand.
As such I think he gave a richer more balanced insight into today’s world cultural crises than I have seen from any other journalist, broadcaster, or policician. More should hear him.
Rate This:
0 
0
Well done Boris. Excellent programme, beautifully produced, with witty & enthusiastic presentation.
Plenty of opinion & bias, and I’m grateful for that. After 12 years of “New Labour” it’s good to have a politician in a position of power, who has his own opinions & a first class education to back them up.
More please.
Rate This:
0 
0
[...] What a pity that this intelligent documentary that started on Saturday night is so condensed! Boris was caught up in the Mayoral campaign after the two-part documentary had been commissioned but, ‘written and presented by’, it – so far – takes in a huge range of art, thought and world-class invited experts. The Crusades, in [...] Read After Rome: Holy War and Conquest (BBC) at Boris Johnson [...]
Rate This:
0 
0
[...] What a pity that this intelligent documentary that started on Saturday night is so condensed! Boris was caught up in the Mayoral campaign after the two-part documentary had been commissioned but, ‘written and presented by’, it – so far – takes in a huge range of art, thought and world-class invited experts. The Crusades, in [...] Read After Rome: Holy War and Conquest (BBC) at Boris Johnson [...]
Rate This:
0 
0
Can we all just please STOP talking about Spaniards and Spanish reconquista?
It was an Iberian Peninsula reconquista, conducted by several small Iberic Christian kingdoms and shire (Castile and León, Aragon, Portugal and Navarra).
The rulers of these kingdoms were united family blood links in Iberia, France, and other neighboring kingdoms and were constantly suffering from internal conflict.
Except for Portugal – Afonso Henriques officially declared Portugal’s independence when he proclaimed himself king of Portugal on 25 July 1139 – the Christian kingdoms where united and become the Kingdom of Spain.
The Portuguese reconquista ended in 1249, with the capture of the Algarve on the southern coast, giving Portugal its present day borders.
In the following decades, Portugal spearheaded the exploration of the world and undertook the Age of Discovery. In this show, they only talked about Cristopher Columbus, once again forgetting to point out that the Age of Discovery was iniciated in Portugal and that the technology used was, in large scale, from Arab origins.
Sorry for my nationalism but it just makes me crazy when you talk about Spain and forget about Portugal.
By the way, in Portugal we do praise the Moorish technology and the legacy from this civilization but, to us, the reconquista is, very much, a symbol of the “glorious” portuguese history.
Rate This:
0 
0
I have just received the following from the BBC:
“I’m currently unaware of any plans to release this programme. However, if you’d like to make a suggestion for its release as a DVD, I’d suggest you put it in writing to the Programme & Acquisitions Department who are responsible for the commercial DVD release of BBC programmes. Please write to:
Programming & Acquisitions Dept
2 entertain
33 Foley Street
London
W1W 7TL
Please note that there must be adequate public interest before a release can be arranged.”
So: now we know. Get writing!
Rate This:
0 
0
One of the few TV programs which I have tried to buy on DVD. Hope it’s out soon!
Rate This:
0 
0
Well- ‘fraid I am turning into a Boris fan! I read his brillant book “Dreams of Rome” some time ago. Then there was the the “After Rome” film. I have now emailed the B.B.C as this is not available on D.V.D.Why? I wish this little film could be shown again but at a better time! It would do a lot to bring some sort of intelligence to Islamic and Western understanding! Boris should be taken more seriously not only at multicutural levels but as a good historian! Could we all e mail the B.B.C to let this out on DVD!
Rate This:
0 
0
As a a Christian Arab who lived in England over half my life (I am now over 60) the programme Boris presented was excellent. He made very valid and fair assessment of the gap between East and West. Many Europeans are surprised that there are Christians in the Middle East as if Christianity originated in Europe. More importantly to bridge the gap between Islam and Christianity, more Muslims and Christians should read what in the Koran and not what is in the Hadith or Sharia. The two later ones are just interpretations. Throughout my life in the middle east I have never felt intimidated because of my religion. Well done Mayor Boris for an open minded analysis which hopefully will help to bring better understanding of history too. I am not even going to address the present fanaticism as it exist amongst Muslims and Christians. Look for the cause and treat the Palestenians fairly and there will be no cause for fanaticism and desperation. I shall certainly request the release of this DVD commercially.
Rate This:
0 
0
i have not seen the programme, but i just happened to stumble across this discussion. Mr Dioscorus Boulos thinks he has all the knowledge to criticise islam, he seems to be copying from some text book of some sort, he keeps making errors in his comments.
as far as his depiction of the prophet mohammed, is absolutley incorrect.
“islam” means peace and the word “muslim” means submission to one god, we muslims call him by the name ALLAH.the aforementioned gentleman needs to get his facts corrrect with referenceat least.
and for his comment about the koran he has’nt got a clue. it is easy to blame religion for what a individual or individual do.
it says in the koran that if “anyone” takes the life of an innocent human being it is if he killed the whole of mankind. so dont try to portray islam in light of actions commited by individuals.
hitler was a christian what did he do, slaughtering the jews. does that mean christianity promotes violence NO!…. so back off Mr Dioscorus Boulos.
it seems that you are a jew, i have no problem with that but it seems that you have resorted to stirring up hatred with inn mankind. it aslo seems that you have’nt even read your own holy book properly.
like some one said above that your a lost cause, l will pray ALLAH guide you.
Rate This:
0 
0
Jamshed (February 1, 2009) writes: {it says in the koran that if “anyone” takes the life of an innocent human being it is if he killed the whole of mankind. so dont try to portray islam in light of actions commited by individuals.
hitler was a christian what did he do, slaughtering the jews. does that mean christianity promotes violence NO!…. so back off Mr Dioscorus Boulos.}
My response:
1. To “it says in the koran that if “anyone” takes the life of an innocent human being it is if he killed the whole of mankind.” Mohammad killed thousands of people, children, women, old people. One Jewish tribe was completely eliminated by him (some 700 of them). He slaughtered them with his friends’ help. He killed civilians and militants together. He killed poets who said poems denouncing him. He plotted to kill those who dared to criticise him. This is all facts and is written in early Muslim tracts and books. Mohammad had streams of innocent blood running off the palms of his hands. Jamshed of course would say that these people were all “guilty” and non was innocent, and therefore their murder by Mohammad and his companions were justified. Presently Muslim terrorists from the Sunni sect kill everyone around them, Christians, Jews or Shia, whether military or civilian. To them, like to Mohammad, no one of their victims is innocent. Their definition of innocence and guilt is not as morality and the civilised world defines them. My contention is that statements such as the one I have quoted above, and often used by Muslim apologetics, are hollow.
2. Another hollow statement is the following: “hitler was a christian what did he do, slaughtering the jews. does that mean christianity promotes violence.” The difference is that Hitler was not a Christian, and even if he were, he was not the originator of Christianity, and so his crimes could not be used to discredit Christianity to the same degree the crimes of Mohammad, the originator of Islam, discredit Islam. Jamshed would have been successful in defending Mohammad vis-a-vis Christianity had he found similar criminality (to that of Mohammad’s) in Jesus Christ.
Rate This:
0 
0
Dear Mr. Dioscorus Boles,
There is an important factual error in your discussion of Islam that should be pointed to. The use of the terms dar al-harb and dar al-Islam as technical descriptors of the world originate not with the sayings of Muhammad, but with the development of the Islamic jurisprudential tradition (fiqh). These labels are not, as you describe them, norms “that stand forever.” The terms dar al-harb and dar al-Islam were developed by medieval Muslim jurists and gained acceptance in the Islamic legal tradition during this period. As they arose within a particular historical context, such concepts can and do shift within Islamic jurisprudence (and among Muslims in general) as changes take place in political relations between Muslims and others, and the structure of international relations takes on new forms. As Professor Sherman Jackson (University of Michigan) has noted in his insightful article “Jihad and the Modern World,” (Journal of Islamic Law and Culture Spring/Summer 2002), the prevailing ‘state of war’ between and among various religions/ethnicities in the pre-modern era, has, at least officially, been replaced by a ‘state of peace,’ mandated by international law, and the respect for national sovereignty it engenders. This has led many contemporary Muslim thinkers to re-consider the medieval terms and the assumptions they rest upon. Sherman rightly, I think, remarks that dar al-harb and dar al-Islam were more descriptions of political realities at the time, rather than prescriptions for all time.
Let it also be said that some of the most important Muslim jurists have defined dar al-Islam as any place where Muslims can practice their faith in security, meaning that most of the world today would fall under such a category within the classical Islamic legal tradition.
Also, I would caution using the thought of Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 1350 CE) as broadly representative of Islam. As a disciple of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE), al-Jawziyya stands in what many scholars consider to be the more radical wing of the Hanbali madhab (jurisprudential [and to some degree theological] school). Although there are certainly Muslims today who would ascribe Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya a central place in Islamic thought, historically this is not the case. The works of both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim were highly controversial during their time, and landed Ibn Taymiyyah in jail on numerous occasions throughout his life (primarily due to his theological literalism and vocal attacks on prominent Sufis). Furthermore, both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim’s thought fell into something close to irrelevance for a number of centuries following their deaths. It is only since the revival of Ibn Taymiyyah’s (and his students’) thought in the past two centuries that their works have been returned to the forefront of debates among Muslims on the nature of Islam, and on Sufism in particular.
In this regard, I would recommend considering Sufism’s formative role in the classical Islamic tradition, and its continuing influence and prevalence in many parts of the Muslim world (Morocco, Senegal, and parts of Pakistan, India, among others). Those who understand Islam as best represented by extremists, frequently fail to adequately account for Sufism’s broad acceptance among medieval Muslims and its continuing influence today. Al-Ghazzali, Rumi, Yunus Emre, Moinuddin Chisti, Ibn ‘Arabi, among others, all had a profound effect on the ethos, culture, literature, philosophy, architecture, and art and practice of Muslims. Their traditions of spirituality, beauty, love, and tolerance were deeply imprinted upon the thought and practice of Islam. Although there are certainly Muslims who seek to downplay the centrality of Sufis in the pre-modern and contemporary Islamic tradition, historically, I think the case is quite clear. This is not to say that Sufism as a historical phenomenon is wholly positive (what historical phenomenon is?). Nevertheless, Sufism cannot be ignored in considering the ways in which Islam has manifested over time. Sufis have just as much claim to the heart of Islam as do their more politically radical co-religionists.
Rate This:
0 
0
Dear William Dickson,
You are obviously a fan of Muslim Sufism. It is good and I find some of the Sufis deserving of admiration. Truth is, however, that Sufism appeared a. almost more than four centuries after Mohammad (so it is really a Medieval phenomenon); b. it does not represent Islam, particularly in the Middle East (I note that you have not included one Arab country in your list where Sufism constitutes a force); c. it has never acquired political power within Islam and has never ruled a Muslim society (and in some areas where it finds some support it became synonymous with superstition and corruption to the extent that its followers are given by the general Muslim population the contemptible description “daraweesh”. My contention is that it is good to lean towards Sufism and to attempt to see some hope in it for Muslim societies; however, it is self-deception to see in it a strong representation of Muslim thought.
The phrases Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War)were coined in later centuries, but they find their meaning and sources in Mohammad (610-632 AD)and the period of the so-called Rightly Guided Caliphs (632-661 AD). The basic elements of this vision of the world for the Muslim were made complete during that period, and to the Muslim this ancient vision is a “sacred vision” that is rooted in Koran, Sunna and the traditions of the first Companions of Mohammad and the four Caliphs after him (Abu-Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali). This world vision is so poweful that it has influenced political Islam for the last fourteen centuries and continues to do so to this day. Ibn Taymia (d. 1328 AD) and Ibn Gayyim Al Gawzzia (d. 1350 AD), although they are not the first who talked about this vision, they are the ones who put it in writing in its clearest and most powerful version. Prior to them, one can find the same vision scholarly described, but less powerfully described, by the founders of the four main Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence “fiqh”, Abu Hanifa (699 – 767), Malik ibn Anas (714 – 796), ibn Shāfi‘ī (767- 820)), Ahmad bin Hanbal(780 – 855). The Shia schools of fiqh have all, also, described the same vision, and theirs does not deviate significantly from the Sunni’s.
The sooner to understand this the better so that we may not self-deceive.
Rate This:
0 
0
Dear Mr. Dioscorus Boles,
Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my previous post. I must respectfully disagree however, with all three of your points on Sufism, though I agree with your last remark that in many places Sufism descended into corruption and superstition, garnering some well-earned contempt. In fact, many Sufis themselves supported Ataturk’s closing of the tekkes (Sufi lodges) in Turkey, as they had become a way for loafers to live off of the state in the name of spirituality’s highest ideals. This concern over the false coin has been a perennial one among Sufis. As early as the tenth century, Sufis were decrying imitators (mustaswif). Abu’l Hasan Fushanji famously said ‘today Sufism is a name without a reality, whereas formerly it was a reality without a name.’
This leads to my response to your three points on Sufism, a) although Sufism was systematized, and took shape in the numerous orders that proliferated throughout the Muslim world during the medieval era, Sufis themselves trace their teachings to Muhammad and his companions (mostly to Ali, but the Naqshbandi’s trace their lineage, uniquely, to Abu Bakr). Early signs of Sufism are found amongst the saying of some of the companions, indicating a teaching transmitted by Muhammad to them not taught to the community as a whole (for example, Abu Hurayra’s saying on the two ‘vessels’ he’d received, one of which he disseminated, and the other he kept secret – in Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 3, No. 121).
Of course we then have the early ascetics – Hasan al-Basri (d. 728 CE), and the progenitor of love mysticism, Rabia al-Adawiyya (d. 801 CE), and Jafar as-Sadiq’s (d. 765 CE) mystical tafsir, all representative of some of Sufism’s early trends. In the ninth and tenth centuries, well, the list goes on (Junayd, Bistami, etc.).
b) Although Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s (d. 1798 CE) movement in the Arabian peninsula has marginalized Sufism in many places in the Arab world, Sufism remains vital there, especially in Syria (Damascus remains an important center) and Egypt (where Ahmad al-Badawi’s mawlid, or birthday, is widely celebrated).
c) Sufism has weaned incredible political influence throughout much of Islamic history. Many a sultan was a student of a Sufi shaykh, and many of the ‘ulama (legal scholars) were students of Sufis, or Sufis themselves (a trend that continues in many respects today). The Seljuks, for example, widely built both universities of law and theology, and Sufi lodges (khanaqahs). Interestingly, the Naqshbandi shaykh Ubayd Allah Ahrar (d. 1490 CE) was acknowledged to be the de facto ruler of much of Tansoxania during the mid fifteenth century, as Richard C. Foltz observes in his article “The Central Asian Naqshbandi Connections of the Mughal Emperors,” (Journal of Islamic Studies, 7, 1996).
Further, I would not draw such a hard and fast contrast between Islam and Sufism, as Sufis are most often practicing Muslims, and as mentioned previously; scratch the surface of many an Islamic phenomenon and you’ll find evidence of Sufism. Many rightly, I think, define Sufism as Islamic spirituality – Islam’s inward aspect, or spiritual path, and as such, many Muslims have believed it to be integral to Islam.
In any case, any account of Islam, to be doctrinally, practically, and historically accurate, must adequately deal with Sufism’s often pre-eminent role in the faith. To write it off as an aberration, ignores, to my mind, far too much of Muslim history and practice.
Rate This:
0 
0
I really do not want to get into argument with you about Sufism, for the thread is not about Sufism, which is, despite all, is marginal and not original in Islam. My contention in this thread has been that the conflict between Islam and Christendom does not find its origin in the Crusades of the Middle Ages but in the wars of expansion of early Islam which were launched by Mohammad and his immediate successors, particularly Omar (634-644 AD) against Byzantium. Those wars were not defensive and were not provoked by any aggression by the Romans – they were aggressive wars which were meant to advance the House of Islam at the expense of the House of War, and the justification for them was in the first place theological (Allah wanted that – Allah wanted the humiliation, exploitation and subjugation of the Kaffirs, i.e. infidels/Non-Muslims, for the benefit of Al-Mumineen, i.e. the believers/Muslims; and the justification of all that is the Kuffr, i.e. non-belief, of the non-Muslims that deserves death or subjugation, exploitation and humiliation as a second option).
In this way Islam invaded in the seventh century, and in a few years after the death of Mohammad in 632 AD all lands in the Middle East outside Arabia and suppressed, oppressed and persecuted the non-Muslim natives, mostly Christian, of these areas.
That was the first encounter between Islam and Christendom and not the Crusades, and if some could see defenders in the Muslims who fought against the Crusaders, no one should fail to see the unprovoked, expansionist aggressiveness of the first Muslims, who set a lasting example to all Muslims by their violence, aggression and hate.
That aggression is an integral part of Islam, sanctioned by Allah and made sacred and duty of every Muslim if he or she could.
Rate This:
0 
0
Does anyone know what the excellent drumming music was that played in the background of (I think) the early part of episode 2? I’d like to find a copy of that full performance.
Andy Tait (a drummer)
Leeds
Rate This:
0 
0
Andy: it’s no longer on iPlayer so I can’t check to see if I can help. Have you tried writing to the producer at the BBC? I’ll ask around and see if anyone else knows but that’s the best I can do from here. Sorry!
Rate This:
0 
0
Is a DVD available of this excellent mini series?
Rate This:
0 
0
Dear Boris Johnson;
I celebrate your majoryty. hundred time emtyly I tried searh spectater but I could not find the old magasines!
If you are one best friend please rencontre the books of Valor Alexander at London environ Royal Academy find and explore them as one spectater and give your own desicion. their names are ‘Karambol Kritikc; Cientecnific; Sportif Espriler’ Could you read thenm deptly? There might be discussion problems of mediatic temarios like at the cover of Cientecnific. Can you do my registration like to İnt. Science Reserche Center? Can I cut the prizes of nobel after 2000. What can we do; can you ınvite or steal me by one air-plane? My healt is bad bed. I have nı ıdentity, banc or credytibilyty. I can die. So, sorry; passage is at you. Be in gard, egard , regard.
Valor Alexander (Değer İskender)
Adres: 1.cadde.No:52-5Bahçelievler.Ankara.Turkey.
Rate This:
0 
0
People, what do you make of this Quranic verse: “Fight all unbelievers who do not know the Day of Judgment, do not believe in what Allah and his messenger have ordained, and do not accept Islam as their religion among ‘Ahl el Ketab’ (Christians)until they have paid tithe out of hand in disgrace.” Sura al Maida: 29.
How about this one: “O prophet, fight against unbelievers and pretenders and make their lives as difficult as it can be, for their final abode is ‘Gahannam’ (Hell).” Surah al Tawba: 73.
And this: “All those who fight against Allah and his prophet and lay waste to the land are either to be killed or crucified or have their hands and legs amputated or expelled from the land, that is a proper humiliation for them, and in the after world they will greatly suffer.” Surah al Maida: 33.
For those of you who do not read Arabic, you will probably find the translation of the above mentioned verses somewhat different than mine in newer versions of the Quran, and that is due to many factors, the most obvious one is the war on terrorism.
Rate This:
0 
0
I would really like buy this on DVD. Any ideas where I can get it?
Rate This:
0 
0