Why Islam spreads or doesn’t spread, part 2

In an earlier entry, I suggested that the key variable that determines whether and where Islam is halted in its relentless expansion is the size, strength, and will of each invaded people. My Indian correspondent living in the West supplements this idea with his own, as always fascinating and informative, view of the question. How is Islam stopped? Well, he says, as a historical fact it was stopped by the European Christians who (though he may demur from my way of putting it) knew and believed in the Truth, which enabled them instantly to recognize the falsity and danger of Islam, which enabled them to oppose it effectively. In other words, they were, in the VFR sense of the word, traditionalists. A traditionalist, I’ve said, is a person who recognizes a mortal threat to his society the moment it appears; a conservative is a person who recognizes a mortal threat to his society only after the society has been half destroyed, and a liberal doesn’t recognize the threat until his society has been completely destroyed—or he never recognizes it at all. What makes the traditionalist different from the conservative and the liberal? In Plato’s terms, it is that he sees and loves the Good, and so instantly apprehends and fears that which threatens to destroy the Good, and therefore is swift and brave in its defense.

But now I’ll let my correspondent speak in his own words.

Why does Islam spread? Because it is relentless. It is like a ramming rod that keeps banging away until the target crumbles.

In India for example, the invaders suffered several defeats in the field of battle. The first major raid by Mohammed Ghori (a Turk) was a disaster. They ran into an army of Rajputs (North Indian Hindu warrior clans) lead by the famous warrior Prithviraj Chauhan. The battle was going badly and Ghori decided to flee. Chauhan’s army could have killed him but didn’t because Rajput warrior spirit believed in a chivalrous code of battle and killing a fleeing enemy was considered “cowardice”. But Ghori returned the following year with another army and this time he won. Prithviraj Chauhan was captured and his eyeballs were removed. He was tortured brutally for several days and slaughtered—the sort of thing a Hindu conqueror would never do to a captured victim.

The same story could be heard a thousand times over. The Muslims keep pegging away because their potential victims do not understand the nature of the threat. They do not understand the fundamentally expansionist nature of Islam. One of the reasons Hindus never understood the threat is because they always thought of Islam as just another religion with just another God (and what is so unique about that? Hindus have thousands of Gods). This was a serious mistake and it resulted in the defeats of a thousand years.

Europe was saved by Christianity. To Christians, Islam was apostasy and there was no doubt in their minds as to the way in which Islam ought to have been dealt with. So, we see 1000 years of glorious European militarism against Islam with great success. Islam made little headway into Europe because the moment a threat emerged, European dukes and Kings ganged up together and smashed the enemy.

One of the greatest Europeans of all time, in my opinion, is Charles Martel. He saved Europe from utter destruction at the hands of Arab barbarians. If he had failed like Chauhan, Europe’s fate could have been similar to India’s. Perhaps Europeans ought to focus a bit more on that aspect of European history rather than their endless obsession with the supposed wrongs of colonialism.

Martel’s success should be required reading for every European (and indeed non-European non-Muslim) getting a school education.

LA to correspondent:

Earlier you had said that the Hindus unlike other invaded peoples maintained most of their country and culture intact because of their willingness to use force against the Muslims. But here you’re saying that the Hindus failed to understand the nature of the threat.

Correspondent to LA:

They didn’t understand the nature of the threat in the initial years when the first invasions began. By the time they realized what they were up against, North India had been practically overrun by the Muslim conquerors.

Also, Hindus did use force in the field of battle when the first invasions took place. They didn’t run from battle. But the mistake they made was in not uniting every kingdom and dukedom in North India under one banner to fight the barbarians pouring from the North West. The result of disunity was military defeat.

The use of force in the modern democratic context is different because Muslims have no real political power in India any more—the marauding hordes have disappeared into history. Muslim existence depends on the goodwill of the majority. And the Muslim propensity to violence is kept in check by Hindu numbers and a willingness to use force in retaliation. But this is a defensive tactic. Not an offensive tactic. Islam is fundamentally offensive and expansionist.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 12, 2005 07:24 PM | Send