Grateful,

Once again you are blatantly lying. You deliberately misquote me and then attack me based on that misquote. I seriously doubt your sanity.

The Oxford press is linked to Oxford university, the articles and books it publishes very often are not. The The Oxford History of Islam, has bugger all to do with Oxford university, and if you look up the book it is a compilation by John L. Esposito of articles from 16 authors.

If you post blatant falsehoods, stick to twitter where people are unlikely to check up.

For anyone non-scholar who wants to examine Donner's "sweeping hypothesis" (as one critic put it), the comments on Amazon make an interesting starting point, http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143

There is clearly a lot of argument out against Donner and, if it is grateful's goal to create conjecture over the early spread of Islam that is his right. However, he should not demand others enter into a duel of eminent historians at ten paces.

If he wants an argument with his chosen historical interpreter from me, I say barley's, and refer him to a forum that cares. If he and his "sources" say Islam as never having laid a coercive hand on a soul, it is because he chooses his rosy view of who is a true Muslim and who is not, and he opines that extremists are not.

I return to the question of fatwa. If it is OK to issue a fatwa for the murder of Salmon Rushdie, why not so for extremists in the Islamic community, now that a fatwa is out against IS and its members?

Luciferance, in relation to your question concerning fatwas, Melbourne University’s National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies has a website “Fatwas, rulings and authoritative statements against terrorism in Islam” which lists a number of major fatwas against terrorism including the followign which dates back to before 9/11:

In July 1999 the Organisation of the Islamic Conference adopted its Convention on Combating International Terrorism, at its 26th session in Burkina Faso. The convention reiterated that terrorism cannot be justified in any way and constitutes a gross violation of human rights, and further that Islamic law rejects all forms of violence and terrorism, in particular that which is based on religious extremism. The convention sets the measures to be taken to prevent terrorism and terms for cooperation between member states in combating it. The full text of the convention is found here.

http://nceis.unimelb.edu.au/about/projects/national_imams_consultative_forum/fatwa_and_rulings_against_terrorism_in_islam

Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaquobi’s talk (in a previous post), and presumably his book, talks about the obligation on Muslims in the area to fight ISIS. He is authorized to give fatwa.

As for a fatwa against “extremists in the Islamic community” what did you have in mind? Already their words and deeds can be judged against these fatwas and they are subject to Australian law.

In response to Shadow Minister who states “Once again you are blatantly lying” and accuses me of posting “blatant falsehoods,”

The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies which “is a recognised Independent Centre of the University of Oxford, England” has republished exerts from each chapter of the book which Shadow Minister tells us “has bugger all to do with Oxford university, and if you look up the book it is a compilation by John L. Esposito of articles from 16 authors.”

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/book/islam-9780195107999/islam-9780195107999-miscMatter-6

No problems, apologies accepted.

In the next 2 posts, I’ll offer you evidence from what many would consider a more eminent historian; one whose position with regard to Islam you would find more palatable.

Back to the issue raised by Shadow Minister:

"Islam was spread by the sword in exactly the same way that Christianity was, the problem is that the intolerance of the conquistadors in Western society has given way to liberal tolerance, whilst for Islam, they are stuck in the middle ages"

Shadow Minister,
According to you the Oxford history of Islam is bias and lacks credibility, while fail to say what the benchmark is or come up with an historian that they would regard as credible.

So let’s try another historian, Bernard Lewis. I use his testimony because he cannot be accused of being an apologist for Islam. He belonged to the inner circle of the neocons advising Bush in the lead up to the 2nd Iraq war: http://forward.com/news/163089/neocons-gather-to-fete-iraq-war-godfather-bernard/
and
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/bernard-lewis-revises-bernard-lewis-says-he-opposed-invasion-of-iraq/.

He was the first to coin the phrase “clash of civilisations” which appears in his book THE JEWS OF ISLAM.

Chapter 1 of THE JEWS OF ISLAM is titled “Islam and other Religions” and includes the following paragraphs relating directly to the veracity of first part of Shadow Minister’s statement, namely, "Islam was spread by the sword in exactly the same way that Christianity was”:

“If by tolerance we mean the absence of discrimination, there is one answer; if the absence of persecution, quite another. Discrimination was always there, permanent and indeed necessary, inherent in the system and institutionalized in law and practice. Persecution, that is to say, violent and active repression, was rare and atypical. Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were not normally called upon to suffer martyrdom for their faith. They were not often obliged to make the choice, which confronted Muslims and Jews in reconquered Spain, between exile, apostasy, and death. They were not subject to any major territorial or occupational restrictions, such as were the common lot of Jews in premodern Europe. There are some exceptions to these statements, but they do not affect the broad pattern until comparatively modern times and even then only in special areas, periods, and cases.”

Continued…

…continued

As for the second part of Shadow Minister’s statement: “..the problem is that the intolerance of the conquistadors in Western society has given way to liberal tolerance, whilst for Islam, they are stuck in the middle ages", this is what Lewis has to say:

“Islam has often been described as an egalitarian religion, and in many senses it is indeed such. If we look at the changes made by Islam at the time of its advent in seventh century Arabia; still more, if we compare the Muslim world in medieval times with caste in India to the east or with the entrenched aristocratic privilege of Christian Europe to the west, then Islam does indeed appear as an egalitarian religion in an egalitarian society. In principle and in law, it recognizes neither caste nor aristocracy. Human nature being what it is, both tend to obtrude themselves on occasion; but when this happens, it is in spite of Islam and not as part of it, and such departures from equality have repeatedly been condemned by both traditionalists and radicals as non-Islamic or anti-Islamic innovations”

So what are your sources Shadow Minister?

Or can we agree that your statements have as much truth in them as Santa Clause?

Grateful,

Firstly it is Santa Claus not Clause.

Secondly I quite agree with Bernard Lewis "Discrimination was always there, permanent and indeed necessary, inherent in the system and institutionalized in law and practice."

In fact it was oppression. Non Muslims had to practise their faith in private, their churches were targeted, they paid special taxes and were excluded from much of public life, and the penalty for any perceived criticism of Islam was death. Conversion to Islam for most was a way out of penury and servitude.