RayC, I have quite close observation channels within Christian missionaries in the east and north-east. I do keep a track of their ecclestiacal disputes and confrontations. Hardly any of that ever reaches their Indian flock. The common Christian convert hardly has access to the body of literature on Christian disputes, and the necessary background knowledge of ME history and academic sources on the Abrahamic schools. Competition at the ground level does not take theological forms, it takes the form of involvement in local politics and extracting benefits and concessions from the rashtra. Attempts have been made to use these fractures to push back the EJ. Every time it is this or that component of the rashtra or some "national" level political grouping and might, that intervenes to protect the existing EJ power. So it now also becomes a question of defeating the political forces that uses the rashtryia setup to protect the EJ's. You are probably not aware of the degree of frustration that exists among a wide section of the lower order "native" clergy who can now neither come out (yes there are severe consequences - militants "might" kill them, or their family houses could catch fire, or their loved and dependent ones meeting with accidents - and things could even go wrong at the dead of night within the convents and cloisters) and on the other hand are deeply disappointed with the actual shenanigans of what they were initially told to be the true "mission".
I am aware of the activities that are taking place in the NE and North Bengal and how the Church is playing a role beyond their ecclesiastical role. It is not just fear that shuts the native clergy’s mouth, it is the relative comfort and fine dining that comes with the job. Even the celibacy aspect of some Christian denominations has come into question (Kerala in particular). Therefore, one wonders if there is the commitment to God and not merely as a self preservation mission.
Harvesting of souls is a very complicated issue. It is not merely to get political hold over the indigenous population to impose the ‘western imperialist’ might as it appears that you suggest so. More than that, it is Money! It is not that the politicians and bureaucrats who are supposed to be corrupt. The clergy takes it share too! The movement against the last Bishop of Calcutta by the Protestant Christian community is a case in point. More the conversions, more the funds that will flow in and who knows how it is used?
Sorry! what history have you been reading? the "horrendous" image was there right from the beginning! Their own narratives speak of it almost within the first century of Islam's advent. So much so that, some of the "respected" early Muslim theologians actually felt the need to dispute the records of extreme sadism and cruelty - as they felt it projected a "wrong image". Signficantly most of these sanitizers were from "conquered" cultures with much earlier and more sophisticated civilizational value-system than the desert Arabs. But even they felt that some of the narratives were so "true" and well-known that the history "could not be retold" with modifications and they retained those. You only have to compare the earlier unedited versions and the later translated and edited versions - obviously meant for the "other".
What history I have been reading? The usual as you must have read and I am not a recipient of Afghanistan’s best for my smoke!
Now, while you maybe right that Islamic history is full of ‘sadism and cruelty’, I would not be surprised if the Moslems equally cry ‘foul’ as is done here on Indian history being written by westerners and being influenced by their writings! History is what is that of the beholder who writes it. And the moving finger having writ moves on! Editing or otherwise, it only adds to the confusion and disbelief! And then one decides which version one should follow, based one’s personal agenda. Ask a Pakistani of the history of the subcontinent. It starts with the advent of Islamic conquers! Even though it has been debunked by the report:
Rewriting the History of Pakistan
by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar
As far as the conflicts amongst what they call ‘scholars’ is concerned I am aware of them.
Problem is that it is the sanitized propaganda that reaches out to the "other", and the core texts with their sadism intertwined are simultaneopusly maintained for training and preparing those seen fit to carry on the true purpose and aim of the "ummah" leadership. The fear of "Islam being wiped" off is equated in Islamic theologian minds with "having to stop jihad and conquering all world". This theme is not fresh from the Soviet presence in AFG. Look back. This slogan was raised whenever the theologians felt that their expansion was being resisted. They did this when they were thwarted in Spain. They did this when they were stopped or challenged by the crusaders in their consolidation of the eastern Mediterranean. They did this again when the Ottoman expansion into Europe was challenged. In India this slogan of "Islam khatrein me hain" was repeatedly raised from the time of Sultanate and even in Mughal times whenever the unadulterated sadism of the theologians and their state sponsors was resisted or obstructed. Any culture that has resisted and survived to a certain extent the Islamic expansion onslaught, have memories of the "horrendous" nature of Islamic expansion.
‘Allah ho Akhbar Islam in danger’ is no cry which is new. Accepted. However, action against Islamic fundamentalism before Afghanistan has been local and not international. With the internet facilities around the world, the scourge is more easily identified and garnered to an international outcry. That is the difference. The idea of Islamic fundamentalism being ‘horrendous’ is being felt in every home that has a computer. That is the difference! It is no longer "Islam khatrein me hain". It is ‘ham khatrein me hain’! Slight difference in words, but a huge difference in action and psychology!
Islam as a strategic tool was first used and continued to be used by Islamic theologians and leaders themselves. The west only used the more primitive and aggressive core belief system
All religions attempt to guide the Believer in a benign path to God. There are of course exhortations that suggest violent (for the want of a better word) means to fight evil and sin. It is those who interpret the religious issues to the adherents, who are the ones who can give the wording a tweak to cause discord and disharmony.
It is the use of religion as a strategic tool which is what one must focus on.
Religion as a Strategic tool is a subject by itself!
Disagree. Violent means have not only been urged to fight evil and sin, it has been urged as a core process of expansion of the "faith". I can specifically quote from core texts to show that there are specific precedence and conditions under which the option of "converting to the faith" was not to be given to the post-puberty men of communities subjected to jihad - they simply have to be executed. There is also quote from the prophet himself, that says that after his time there was no more simple migrations or "hijras" but any movement by Muslims was a "jihad".
Yes, all religions including the benign Hinduism has exhorted violent means to fight evil and sin. Since you are well conversant with history, do let educate as to how Hinduism spread in SE Asia and Indonesia?
Give the quote of the Prophet of Islam which states the post puberty none can convert. Or that there will be no hijras thereafter. That will be an education for me.
