Sir/ma'am, easy to deduce from that writing, but not quite the same. I do see your point, but it would take a lot more writing to explain it.
I'll do my best to keep it simple.
The world's first toll system was based on religious conversion, and strangely, it was used muslim on muslim. The sunni and twelver shia expressions of this faith have always tried to come to grips with each other, and the results were often less than desired (as perceived by either side). This resulted in provincial borders inside of countries defined not just by geography and political practice, but by expressed faith. To travel, you paid fees to transit these border areas as well as declared loyalty to that particular faith expression (i.e., the religious expression of the person who demanded tribute). If you didn't, the fee was impossibly higher. The only way through was by fighting. It was extortion.
This later made its way into the banking system of those times. Financial survival in any area was impossible unless you converted to islam, or another muslim's form of islam. No freedom of religion was tolerated. Books written in addendum to the koran outline it clearly as acceptable.
It was the first time ever in history that all of it was linked together: provincial government policy promoting a single faith expression, the financial sector as an extortion means, paramilitary units sent to kill and die in the act if necessary to promote the gov't view, and religion revised by later holy books mandating that it happen this way as an acceptable means of warfare.
Is there a modern corrollary to this linking of islam, gov't, finance, and a paramilitary force using extortion, murder or threat of murder to terrorize and achieve these goals? Yes, Afghanistan. We're all familiar with the Soviet invasion, and their subsequent costly, bloody eviction by the mujahadeen. Now I'm going to run quickly here and simplify events for space constraints. What most laymen like us in the west are not familiar with is how the mujahadeen, taking control governmentally, extorted and murdered anybody within their own borders who did anything outside of the bounds of islamic faith (using the mujahadeen's own restricted and draconian interpretation of islam). For example (one of many), 60% of Afghanistan's teachers and advanced educators were women, and this did not fall within the bounds of islam at all...it had to stop, or death was the alternative. The Taliban came into existence, and eventually power, not agreeing w/ the mujahadeen. As it turned out, freedoms promised did not happen after this change of power...instead, more death or threat of death if their own islamic principles were not followed, and these were even more restrictive. In short, it didn't have anything to do with the Taliban expanding its control over the whole of Afghanistan so much as to what they did with it once they got it, and that was expressing intolerance of different views and practices of any sort by administering terror acts (murder) to get people to comply with their way of thinking. To the Taliban, it was an acceptable means of warfare as well. They didn't view the airliners flying into the WTC as any different, either.
This is an example of a gov't mandating a form of religion (pre-9/11 Afghanistan) versus a gov't accepting the principles of a religion in governmental practice (Jordan is a good example).
Post-crusades, contrary to popular belief, many centers of islamic faith still existed over the whole of Europe. The overriding change was the removal of islamic government, financial system, and their paramilitary and thus the terror by organizationally-sponsored extortion and murder they promoted. Religion still wasn't "free" in the true sense of the word (we would have to wait for people to protest entrenched dogma later on, i.e., the protestant movement), but IMHO this situation beat the intolerance=death alternative that was removed.
My head hurts. It's easier to use a white board and dry erase markers.
v/r, N-A
I'll do my best to keep it simple.
The world's first toll system was based on religious conversion, and strangely, it was used muslim on muslim. The sunni and twelver shia expressions of this faith have always tried to come to grips with each other, and the results were often less than desired (as perceived by either side). This resulted in provincial borders inside of countries defined not just by geography and political practice, but by expressed faith. To travel, you paid fees to transit these border areas as well as declared loyalty to that particular faith expression (i.e., the religious expression of the person who demanded tribute). If you didn't, the fee was impossibly higher. The only way through was by fighting. It was extortion.
This later made its way into the banking system of those times. Financial survival in any area was impossible unless you converted to islam, or another muslim's form of islam. No freedom of religion was tolerated. Books written in addendum to the koran outline it clearly as acceptable.
As taught in your high school European history class, this is correct. As acknowledged by historians way better than me (I'm an amateur), it was in an earlier timeframe that the Ismaelis began terrorizing not just Europe and Turks by way of assassination (i.e., killing, or trying to kill any leaders who did not fall in line with the muslim faith), but also any muslims that didn't fall in line with their views either. These attempts to change the known world's political landscape into accepting islamic practice by threat of organized murder (starting well before the time of Marco Polo) were the first ever recorded. Murder became a part of islamic doctrine at this time, along with its rewards of martyrdom if it happened during the act.Soulmanure said:
It was the first time ever in history that all of it was linked together: provincial government policy promoting a single faith expression, the financial sector as an extortion means, paramilitary units sent to kill and die in the act if necessary to promote the gov't view, and religion revised by later holy books mandating that it happen this way as an acceptable means of warfare.
You did miss the definition. The actual expansionist movement by the islamic push westward, north and south by moving and living in the land itself was not terrorism. It was a means to an end, the end which was to spread islam. It was difficult to use extortion, murder or threat of murder and government edict in integrated form to terrorize a group of peoples into accepting a faith in this manner unless one occupied the land. They did not have any truly modern lines of communication, and it had to be done this way. Had they lived in the land and governed and practiced islam while tolerating others, there would have been no crusades (as you said, reactionary). These people were absolutely intolerant (thank you, joe125g and Watcher74) of anything or anyone that practiced a way of life counter to or just different from the islamic way of thinking emplaced by the islamic gov'ts of that time.Soulmanurre said:
Is there a modern corrollary to this linking of islam, gov't, finance, and a paramilitary force using extortion, murder or threat of murder to terrorize and achieve these goals? Yes, Afghanistan. We're all familiar with the Soviet invasion, and their subsequent costly, bloody eviction by the mujahadeen. Now I'm going to run quickly here and simplify events for space constraints. What most laymen like us in the west are not familiar with is how the mujahadeen, taking control governmentally, extorted and murdered anybody within their own borders who did anything outside of the bounds of islamic faith (using the mujahadeen's own restricted and draconian interpretation of islam). For example (one of many), 60% of Afghanistan's teachers and advanced educators were women, and this did not fall within the bounds of islam at all...it had to stop, or death was the alternative. The Taliban came into existence, and eventually power, not agreeing w/ the mujahadeen. As it turned out, freedoms promised did not happen after this change of power...instead, more death or threat of death if their own islamic principles were not followed, and these were even more restrictive. In short, it didn't have anything to do with the Taliban expanding its control over the whole of Afghanistan so much as to what they did with it once they got it, and that was expressing intolerance of different views and practices of any sort by administering terror acts (murder) to get people to comply with their way of thinking. To the Taliban, it was an acceptable means of warfare as well. They didn't view the airliners flying into the WTC as any different, either.
This is an example of a gov't mandating a form of religion (pre-9/11 Afghanistan) versus a gov't accepting the principles of a religion in governmental practice (Jordan is a good example).
Post-crusades, contrary to popular belief, many centers of islamic faith still existed over the whole of Europe. The overriding change was the removal of islamic government, financial system, and their paramilitary and thus the terror by organizationally-sponsored extortion and murder they promoted. Religion still wasn't "free" in the true sense of the word (we would have to wait for people to protest entrenched dogma later on, i.e., the protestant movement), but IMHO this situation beat the intolerance=death alternative that was removed.
My head hurts. It's easier to use a white board and dry erase markers.
v/r, N-A
Last edited:
