DooDoot wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:41 am
Kim OHara wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:11 am
Is there any significant difference between this and the various Arabic empires which happened to have Islam as their local religion?
Judged on the basis of imperialism
, including cultural or religious imperialism, i would say there is no significant difference.
What I'm getting at is that all empires are fundamentally about land, resources and power, and that the religion of their founders is incidental.
Sure. I agree.
So let's be fair. Call them Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Persian Empire, Mongol Empire, Khmer Empire, etc - not Christian Empire, Islamic Empire, Buddhist Empire, etc - because there never has been and never can be an empire formed, governed and sustained by religion.
Mmmm... I tend to disagree here because I have heard, which is logical, that the early Muslims believed they were spreading morality (by the sword); similar to how the US masqueraded as invading Iraq to free the Iraqi people. Personally, I view Islam as a political religion; similar to how Christianity sought to civilise & save indigenous people in Australia. Political religion is described in the Old Testament, where the Hebrews say they invaded Canaan, genocide the local people so to not be polluted by their lifestyle, and then establish a moral society governed by the Torah.
The examples you give seem to support my contention that governments, up to and including emperors, use
religion far more than follow it. It's a convenient pretext
for invading, slaughtering, raping, enslaving ... all the usual stuff ... but it is rarely, if ever, the underlying reason
for that stuff. The reason, of course, is power and its byproducts, money and sex.
And the religions, rightly understood and followed, all say that we should be nice to each other.
I will say it again, differently: an "Islamic Empire", like a "Christian Empire", is a contradiction in terms.