Interaction of Christianity and Islam Prior to the 20th Century

I would like to propose that the historical interaction between Christianity and Islam prior to the 20th century be given its own thread. There seems to be a lot of off topic posts and historical misinformation appearing in Jar's thread So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West?To start, lets at least get the chronology right:Roman history
476 Fall of Western Roman Empire
1453 Fall of Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire to Ottoman EmpireIslamic history
622 Hijra - Mohammed flees to Medina
632 Death of Mohammed, Islam mainly limited to Arabian penninsula
750 Islamic states range from Spain to Pakistan
1096 First Crusade, crusades last 250 years
1299-1923 Ottoman Empire, siege of Vienna 1529"The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an Empire" - Voltaire. There is no continuous historical relationship, meaning one did not come from the other, between the Roman and Holy Roman Empires.
800 Crowning of Charlemagne, basic start of Holy Roman Empire
1806 Holy Roman Empire dissolved (Napoleon's fault)Suggest we put it in coffee house and see what happens. History prior to 20th century only, current situation off-topic.

quote:

---

Haven't yet found any political objections to the Greek or Roman empires at the time.

---

Throughout history there were plenty.Rigor mortis hadn't set in for Alexander before his generals divided up the spoils. One was Ptolemy who garnered Egypt, whose direct descendent was Cleopatra.As for the Romans, among the challenges was Vespasian, who along with Titus, supressed the Jewish revolt in 70ad and then marched on Rome to overthrow Vittelus. There was the transvestite emperor Elagabalus from Syria. Another was Zenobia who challenged the imperial goofball Gallienus who was finally conquered by Aurelian, who along with Claudius the Goth, took out the previous 18 claimants to the purple.What does this have to do with the relationship of Islam to Christianity?Thanks for replying but this is off-topic.

While the history of the early church is an interesting topic itself, as a stand-alone topic its somewhat off the original intent of the history of the relationship of Christianity to Islam. Yes there was an Egyptian Coptic church in Egypt that predated Islam, there was the Ethiopian Church which is the oldest and was never conquered by Islam, the Armenians have a long history of Christianity because they were an allied kngdom to Rome and being in proximity heard the gospel as rapidly as Greece and Anatolia.Christiantiy spread through the Roman world like wildfire, and while sometimes tolerated and other times supressed, became the state religion of Rome due to Constantine (324 ad) and remained that way with the exception of the short rule of Julian.However all of this happened before Islam (early 600s), so it should at least have some connection to the OP. Please provide more information concerning the connection.

quote:

---

It has to do with tracking a supposed historical excuse for revenge against the West by the Muslims, in the early Arab experience with the Greek empire (they were not subjugated by the Romans, even by Byzantium), as suggested by Modulous on the other thread.

---

OK, fair enough, will research more and post later.That being said, the ancient world was full of popular revolts against any dominating empire, in the case of Rome within one decade some famous (Jewish 66-70, Queen Boudicca 60ad) some less. You still got me on this one, what does that have to do with Islam?PS - how do you two reply quicker than I post?

quote:

---

The Eastern Roman Empire / Byzantium, had no jurisdiction over anything Arab at all, until the Islamic conquests themselves, and it was islam that was the aggressor.

---

The Byzantine empire ruled over Egypt, Palestine, and nearby areas, especially in its earlier history. Under Justinian they even tried to reconquer Italy and managed to nail most of it (565ad). So to say the Romans or Byzantines had no jurisdiction over Arabs would require a definition of Arab. Certianly some of the areas where arabs are predominant today were once ruled by Greece/Rome/Byzantium.As to the belief that one group ever attacked another without provocation in all of history, I'm sure if they didn't have one (unlikely if considering the length of time, proximity, and inventiveness) they could readily manufacture one. Also, the Byzantines were, if anything, even more treacherous than the Romans, in their diplomatic dealings.Remember, if nothing else the bedouin tribes in the Arabian Pennsula bordered both the Roman, and at least until the Turks interceded, the Byzantine Empires. I'm sure the proximity led to a long history of both marginal friendship and dispute depending upon circumstances.Edited by anglagard, : misplaced blame

quote:

---

I don't know for sure, I'm just responding to what I understood of Modulous' argument, that somehow Islam's actions have to do with prior mistreatment at the hands of the Greeks and Romans. The only way I can make sense of this is to equate Islam with the Arabs which I know is not completely accurate, but at least in the beginning Islam was Arab. The pre-Islamic Arabs were never under the dominion of Rome, however,and I've seen no evidence of their rebelling against Greece, or anything that might explain their later behavior in the form of Muslim invasions in terms of how Greece mistreated them.

---

I think its safe to say there were no nice, kind, pure, moral empires back then. Everyone mistreated everyone else, no one was special. It was dog eat dog (even worse than today).The Islamic Empire spread in the same way the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, Alexander's Empire, and the Mongol Empire spread, by way of conquest and fervor in a cause.

Jar's thread concerns the history of 20th century interaction between Islam and the West, virtually by definition it has to address colonialism.In regard to Modulous claim, I have not looked, will examine, but prefer Modulous speaks for himself in this thread before I comment.As to the definition of Arab, it is possible it may be modern, but I prefer research to speculation so I can't address the definition of Arab until I hit my resources. However, I believe it is important to remember that among modern populations, it is rare to find pure anything in a population that has a long history of interaction with the world. Therefore assertions that this or that area were of this or that identifiable group in the ancient world {may be, under some circumstances} both potentially dismissive of {possible} diversity and highly problematic as to sources.Personally, I would prefer that this thread deal with the relationship of Islam to Christianity between the creation of Islam in the early 600s and 1900. The idea that Islam, and indeed the Islamic Empire, is a reaction to percieved mistreatment from external sources, is IMHO both overly simplistic and off-topic. Edited by anglagard, : Accuracy

As the person who proposed this topic with the OP, I would like to say I think Quetzal is doing an excellent job in setting up this thread for the discussion concerning the interaction of Islam and Christianity, which has barely started. Such examples of thorough, high quality, postings are not all that common, which is why I am showing restraint by not interrupting him unnecessarily. Speaking for myself and those who agree, please withold the grammar lessons or start your own thread concerning proper English usage. I'm sure everyone here can contribute, if not in direct posts, then in providing counterexamples.Also, I'm sure most people following this thread would like for it to stay on topic, so if your comments do not relate to the relationship of Islam to Christianity, either by elaborating on the historic setup or direct events, please consider posting to a more appropriate thread or starting a new thread. Additionally, if your comments are within the proper bounds of the topic, I for one would appreciate sources.Thank you for your consideration.

As these questions are on topic, I feel addressing your post is appropriate even if it does break into the chronological scenario as set up by Quetzal. The armies, or as some have asserted more properly, collection of raiding parties, were defeated under the leadership of Charles Martel, Charlemagne's grandfather in 732. The Wikipedia articleBattle of Tours - Wikipediaappears at first glance to be substantially correct, although personally I feel the numbers involved may be exaggerated as is common among ancient and medieval sources. Also, according to what I have heard from history professors, the Muslim "armies" consisted largely of raiding parties temporarily consolidated for the battle, which were otherwise primarily seeking plunder, a common occurance at the time, long before, and somewhat after, throughout the world. According to the book I am reading now, Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong (p. 50), The Muslim invasion of Frankish lands was not a highly organized effort, nor was it considered a major goal of the Islamic Empire under the Umayyads, so the defeat at Tours was not considered a major setback. The Muslims apparently had little interest in {ABE - Western} Europe at the time outside of their Spanish holdings, considering it backward and unprofitable. Additionally, the importance of this battle among European sources is considered exaggerated, under the circumstances.The Islamic Empire at the time was also beginning to show some problems with rapid growth and was about to enjoy greater internal dissent in both the political and religious spheres, which would have rendered continued expansion in Europe problematic. I will defer a more detailed explination to Quetzal's chronology.Also, what if is anyones guess, personally I prefer actual to speculative history, but that's just my opinion. I will be glad to do further research into the topic if it appears important, but prefer the chronology to run its course through this thread so a better historic background may be set up before jumping in further.However, thanks for your interest, please feel free to post any further On Topic comments.Edited by anglagard, : OT = on topic for onceEdited by anglagard, : add Western to Europe