[the_lego]

> Against a backdrop of Islamophobia, Europeans are increasingly airbrushing from history their cultural debt to the Muslim world.

It is all so tiresome. A discussion of Arabic influences in European culture would certainly be interesting. Too bad she tries to frame the history of Muslim colonization of Europe [0-4] and kidnapping of its people into slavery [5,6] as something where Europeans are the villains, and that what little benefit they managed to extract (or steal, as she put it) from these hostile interactions indebted them to their colonial masters.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna_(1529)

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme

[the-printer]

You know, I don’t share your antipathy toward the Islamic conquests of Europe in the least, but your response indicates to me that the angle taken by the author (which reeks of the kind of cultural self-flagellation that is en vogue these days) could do less to “challenge Islamophobia” as the press release says, than it can to embolden it or at least disturb people who would have otherwise benefited from the history without being force-fed a narrative that could be expressed differently (I’m not accusing you of Islamophobia, by the way).

My knee-jerk impression is that this book is using Islamic history as a pawn in today’s “culture wars”. It will enlighten few, and serve as material for the in-group who is most likely to purchase it to pontificate over at cocktail parties.

[the_lego]

> your antipathy toward the Islamic conquests of Europe

While I'm certainly not a fan of them, I'm not particularly outraged about them either. Wars of naked conquest were simply the way back then, and the Islamic world was not exceptionally brutal compared to others, including Europe.

My antipathy is towards those that seek to erase or twist this history. I realize the main point is architectural influences, but that only makes the lie more insidious - a casual statement most won't pay much attention to, and simply assume it accurate, like the presence of kilts in Braveheart.

[the-printer]

We can count beans over whether it's appropriate to address how Islam entered the region in a PR piece, but I think we'd just be waxing historian in traditional HN fashion.

After some thought, it's obvious that it's beyond the scope of this book to address the history of the Islamic conquest to the extent that you desire (I failed in my part to recognize this earlier). I can understand how it can be interpreted that the book is advertised in a way that compels some of its Western readership to assume an implicit guilt or adversarial role as "Islamophobes" who denigrate the influence that the Islamic world had on its land. I myself was skeptic of this tone at first, but as a whole it simply isn't the responsibility of this particular book to cater to readers who want the history of the Islamic conquests from the perspective of the West (as the colonized) to be brought forth aside from the architectural influences that the conquests had. War and colonization involve more than just the bloodshed of the belligerents. For us to even focus on the just the event of conquest at the expense of what occurred afterward does a historical and cultural injustice. The Islamic conquests are in fact unique in this regard, as opposed to say, the Belgian Congo.

The irony here is that I can make the same accusation of "self-flagellation" to those who are desperate to be recognized as "the colonized" (in this instance by a cultural "other", in a sense) as I can make against people who woefully lament their history as "the colonizers". The former accusation feels even more apt because if so much lengths have to be taken to recall this history, maybe that's indicative of the significant steps that the region (as a collective) has made in progressing past that stage of their legacy. Of course I feel that there are some exemptions.

But on the whole, as I've said elsewhere, the Western world (as a hegemonic region that claims the most prosperous nations materially) in a way has lost the "narrative privilege" of the periods where they didn't have the upper hand being popularly discussed.Of course there are exceptions to this, but the Islamic conquests primarily have the distinction of being carried out by nations who if not foreigners themselves were driven by motives—the Islamic faith—entirely foreign to the invaded lands. It's not that there's anything to erase or twist, my hunch is that aside from specific historical discussions like this one, it's not worth mentioning.

[mistrial9]

> the Islamic conquests primarily have the distinction of being carried out by nations who if not foreigners themselves were driven by motives—the Islamic faith—entirely foreign to the invaded lands.

from a scripture point of view, they are both Abrahamic religions, use a book as the center of wisdom, buildings to house worship.. but let's set that huge likeness aside.

India, the Middle-East and Europe, all expanded at a certain time via tribal groups maturing into land-owning, army building principalities. The City-state and the male-heirarchy of arms, taxes and authority. The book contains the "King of Kings" .. this seems trivial to observe but it is not. Original tribal groups had vastly different social structures, religious beliefs, literacy rates but ultimately did not scale.

I propose that the Muslim expansion into Christian lands was polarized but similar military methods on both sides, all with the knowledge of Rome in the background. Contrary to what each saw when looking in the mirror each morning, they had a lot of similarities. Compare to trading, agricultural or other practices, who saw these Empire builders as the blood-thirsty ego cases that they were. Compare to the military conquest of South America by Christians much later.

Invoke "otherness" all you like, but there are layers to that, and more layers under that. Evolution ends quickly by the sword, and those empire builders, of all stripes, ended a lot of human social evolution exactly that way.

[the-printer]

> from a scripture point of view, they are both Abrahamic religions, use a book as the center of wisdom, buildings to house worship.. but let's set that huge likeness aside.

If we were to refer to scripture we would find that the concept of an "Abrahamic religion" is non-existent, and the presence of scripture itself as a primary fundamental source and houses of worship do little by way of comparing any religion.

The rest of the similarities that you list are useful, but it's unlikely that the valuable context that can be gleaned from any sociopolitical similitudes in retrospect were prioritized when the events in question were taking place. The glaring theological differences between Islam and Christianity were the defining factor as to why the Muslim conquests began at all. We can view sociopolitical similarities as non-trivial, but in respect to the initial impetus (the spread of the Islam), they become trivial. This isn't to discount any likenesses that can be found across certain structures within these regions or how these structures were affected as regions spread and interacted with each other, but the significance varies and how each region interpreted these similarities at that time likely varied as well. In the context of the Islamic conquests as a whole, the belief itself is paramount in beginning any discussions about them.

The point that I'm trying to make is that on the whole, i.e. beginning from as early as 629, how the Islamic conquests can be perceived is exceptional compared to other conflicts that took place involving Western European nations, in particular the conflicts that took place between Western European nations themselves. This exception could be compared to that of how the Islamic conquests of European territories could be perceived from the perspective of the Islamic states as opposed to the early conflicts that took place in Syria/Yemen, for example.

"Likeness" is equally nuanced, is often forsaken for opposing motives and is worthless unless it is predicated by shared principles, especially at the scale that we are discussing.

[mistrial9]

it feels like where you are going in this exchange is "pro-polarization" due to some inherent greatness of Islam or something like that. You can talk to others not me if that is the rhetoric now.

[the_lego]

> it's beyond the scope of this book to address the history of the Islamic conquest to the extent that you desire

You misunderstand me. If the author simply did not address it at all, and left it as "Saracen influence/legacy", or "influence of Saracen wars/conquest/invasion/conflict/presence..", I would have been content (even with something as neutral as 'presence'). It is perfectly reasonable to focus on architecture, and mostly or even entirely ignore wars.

It is in ascribing guilt to the victims ("stealing", "debt", "Islamophobia"), that changed it from mere focus on a narrow topic, to lying by omission.

[the-printer]

Guilt isn't being ascribed to the victims or casualities. It's being ascribed to the Europeans who hold prejudices against Islam and are alive today. If you aren't one of those people, there isn't much left to critique until you read the book.

[pipes]

Can someone explain why the parent post has been flagged?

[pvg]

Yes, it's mentioned in the site guidelines:

Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.

The comment picks a word out, then claims the book is 'framed as' that (it's not) and then pirouettes to exactly the sort of culture flamewar rehearsed talking point it wrongly accuses the book of engaging in, complete with the URL barrage such comments often include. Absolutely none of it has anything to do with Islamic architecture's influence in Europe - the topic of the book. As a first comment, it successfully kills any chance we'd get an interesting thread.

The people who flagged it were right and the people who vouched for it were mistaken.

[pipes]

Given that the title of the book is provocative, I really don't see this the issue here.

[pvg]

The title of the book is not provocative and even if it was, the guideline is there precisely because it is an issue for a messageboard with HN's aspirations. If you think escalation of yelliness is good thing for a forum, that's fine but HN is not such a forum and explicitly doesn't work like that.

[pipes]

But no one was yelling.

[paganel]

> and kidnapping of its people into slavery

Genoa and Venice are still highly praised in the Western world even though they did the same thing, I haven't heard any tourist complaining that the Basilica San Marco is basically built on pillage and rape [1204].

> On September 19, 1363, a ten-year-old Tatar boy named Jaqmaq was sold as a slave in the Black Sea port of Tana. His first owner had probably been a Christian, as he had already been baptized with the name Antonio. His second owner was a local Muslim named Aqbughā, the son of Shams al-Dīn. Aqbughā sold Jaqmaq/Antonio to his third owner, Niccolò Baxeio of the parish of St. Patermanus in Venice, for 400 aspers. Niccolò also bought a fifteen-year-old Tatar girl from Aqbughā and a twelve-year-old Tatar boy from another local man.

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv16t6ckk

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople

[GloomyBoots]

You’re talking about a drop of water in an ocean. The Islamic slave trade is the most massive and brutal such enterprise that has ever existed. And the Crusades were a direct response to Islamic invasions of Europe.

Islamic culture is definitely highly influential on Europe and in turn was highly influenced by European culture, and that kinship is worth acknowledging unlike this whiny confrontational Islamophobia narrative which holds no water when you actually look into the historical context. But this whole self-flagellation thing never been about actual mutual appreciation of different cultures.

[paganel]

> And the Crusades were a direct response to Islamic invasions of Europe.

In 1204 there was no Islamic invasion in these parts of Eastern Europe which the Westerners sacked and pilfered at will.

> But this whole self-flagellation thing never been about actual mutual appreciation of different cultures.

All I see it's an inferiority complex (on the Westerners' part) that is oftentimes transformed into some sort of cultural colonialism, there's no self-flagelation in saying that, yes, for hundreds of years the West was culturally inferior to the Islamic civilisation (and to civilisations located further East more generally speaking). Fernand Braudel's works are a good introduction into that subject.

[pipes]

Agree. What's actually been airbrushed from history is the extent of the islamic slave trade. It was a serious threat to coastal populations of western Europe. Western governments were paying protection money to islamic governments to prevent raids. It wasnt just piracy, it was state sanctioned. So much so there was a permanent slavers base established on an island off England's coast:

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barba...

There was also a religious element that is conviently ignored, Islam did not allow enslaving of Muslims, but enslaving anyone else was fine. Hence Christian countries were targeted.

[the-printer]

I suppose that the reason that it's spoken about less is because there isn't as much as an incentive to do so outside of discussions such as this, especially when compared to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade for example.

The Western world, in particular the United States, bears the burden of their relationship with slavery being more well-documented and its effects are paid more attention to than other parts of the world. This is likely a consequence of their predominance. There may just not be much for most people to talk about with regards to the effects that the slave trade in historically Islamic countries had on England because they traded slaves too. Even if the Trans-Atlantic method didn't involve piracy (it appears that "Adam Smith's invisible hand" was more effective), the modern view of slavery for most is that all forms of it are terrible. Not only that, but at a glance, the Western world has virtually shorn itself of its history as an enslaved people, save a few beautiful buildings left in their formally subjugated territories according to Stealing from the Saracens .

Anyhow, slavery as a human institution is something that just about every society has both experienced and facilitated. The institution itself is more broadly associated with the West as slavers rather than the enslaved and most people are likely unaware or are indifferent to their history as the latter due to how well-know their involvement is as the former.

On second thought, maybe the book from the article is worth a read after all. Authors usually have no control over press releases on their book. She deserves a fair shake.

[nerdponx]

I think maybe the difference is that there is direct social and cultural continuity between today's people and the people who both perpetrated and were victims of the slave trade, and those same people live in a society with very different values from those of the past wherein slavery was common. The victim lineage also still is suffering from its negative effects. Which victims of the Islamic slave trade are still negatively affected by it? Who can even tell whose ancestors were enslaved?

I think in general we should be horrified by any mass scale slave trade. We just have a personal/social connection to one in particular.

[the-printer]

> I think maybe the difference is that there is direct social and cultural continuity between today's people and the people who both perpetrated and were victims of the slave trade, and those same people live in a society with very different values from those of the past wherein slavery was common. The victim lineage also still is suffering from its negative effects.

Yeah, thank you! That's what I was trying to get across.

[pipes]

You do make a valid point and it's not something I'd thought about before. However I think if you consider when slavery was ended by year/country around the world: https://vividmaps.com/abolition-of-slavery/

You can see that given how late so many countries were to end slavery that many peoples through out the world must still be directly impacted. Not just descendents of slaves in America. In fact in some places slavery still unofficially persists for these direct descendants.

My guess is that America gets more of the negative attention due to being the leader of the free world.

[mistrial9]

> in particular the United States, bears the burden of their relationship

sure except there were groups in the new Thirteen Colonies that were adamantly, ardently, and had always been, against the slave trade. The distinction between those that engaged in slave trade and those that did not and were against it, could not have been more vivid. Yet somehow now the powerful, financially succesful and English speaking USA gets collective responsibility for all Atlantic slavery. Where does that leave the culture, practices, efforts and lineage of the people in the USA that were against it at every stage? You cannot collectively pronounce guilt like that. It was certain actors, who wielded authority and weapons quite well also, to make it plain.

[the-printer]

You made a really good point. I don't mean to delve into whether this burden is entirely fair for all, but rather I'm pointing out the fact that this burden can be imposed due to 1) The US being a global hegemon and 2) The extent to which slavery is woven into the cultural narrative of the country, to the point where on one end it's assumed become almost a poignant/macabre element of pop culture that spans well beyond its abolishment. This imposed burden is evident even in the form "antiracism" with regards to a collective pronouncement of guilt [1].

Maybe I could have done better in making my point if I had said:

    The Western world, in particular the United States, bears [a greater] burden [in respect to] their relationship with slavery [because it is] more well-documented and its effects are paid more attention to than other parts of the world. 

I'm not sure if "more well-documented" is a good phrase grammatically either but that's besides the point right now. My intention was to point out that a burden can be established against the US more so than other nations when the legacy of slavery is discussed. But my perspective is biased as an American myself, so maybe this isn't the case elsewhere. Either way, the fact of the matter is that to this day slavery remains a blight on American history. The conundrum is that, as I made note of, who doesn't have a history with slavery? The two points that I brought up were an attempt to address why this blight is so much discussed in the US at the expense of other regions.

[1]: A concept that I find regressive, for the same concern that I feel you show when you say, "Where does that leave the culture, practices, efforts and lineage of the people in the USA that were against [slavery] at every stage?" In that it engenders a sort of "self-flagellatory" performance that call upon entire nations and peoples to take a part in it. My initial concern over Stealing from the Saracens was that it possessed qualities such at this. But as I engage in different threads here and think more about it, that likely isn't the case with this book, hopefully.

[mauvia]

> I'm not sure if "more well-documented" is a good phrase grammatically

maybe "better-documented"?

[mustafa_pasi]

The point she is making is nonetheless correct. Nobody wants to associate themselves with Arabic/Muslim identities in today's Europe (except for those who have no choice), because of the many negative connotations.

I don't know exactly where it all went wrong, but in the post-WWII period Europe decided they were going to import millions of Muslims, some Turkish, some Arabic, a few even Iranian, and then somehow turned them into the new enemy.

[nerdponx]

Is it like how in the US, we "import" people from Central and South America to do all the hardest jobs for the least pay? Basically serving the same economic function as slavery.