islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery

Islamic Jihadon to say, it was only the threat from Safavid Persia to the Turkish Empire that saved the imminent Ottomanconquest of Europe. 351The second defeat of the Ottoman invaders in Vienna (1683) decisively proved the supremacy ofEuropean powers over their age-old tormentors; the fortune of the perennial Islam-Europe conflictdramatically changed in Europe’s favor. This not only marked the end of Islamic expansion, but also thebeginning of its decline. The Ottomans were progressively expelled, eventually from all parts of WesternEurope. They continued ruling some Balkan regions until the early twentieth century. Muslims were not onlyexpelled from Europe, starting in mid-eighteenth century, Britain, Holland, France, Italy and Spain eventuallycaptured most of the Islamic lands. Russia took large parts of Central Asian and Eastern European regions,while China, Burma and Thailand also recaptured lands, previously conquered by Muslims.The European counter-adventure into the Muslim world led to the transfer of political control ofmost Muslim-ruled territories into European hands by the early twentieth century. Only the regionsinaccessible or having little economic incentives—namely Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as well as Iran andthe Ottoman Turkey—remained outside the European control. This period of European imperialism becameknown as the colonial era. When European colonial powers eventually withdrew from their colonies,countries, dominated by Muslims in population, came under Islamic governance. Elsewhere, where Muslimswere in the minority, such as in India, Muslims lost political power to indigenous majorities—the rightfulinheritor of the land. In some countries, such as in Nigeria, Muslims, despite being the minority, retainedpolitical domination.The critical point to be considered here is that the Muslim invaders captured those foreign territoriesby means of brutal invasions and ruled them in an authoritarian fashion for many centuries, turning some ofthose lands Islamic forever. The European colonists also came from afar to occupy and establish their rule,but the method they employed was, in many instances, certainly less brutal than that of Muslims. Comparedto the Muslim invasion, the British occupation of India came at much less bloodshed, and injury anddisruption of civilian life.The question, therefore, arises: How can one of the two foreign rules in India be consideredabhorrent colonialism or imperialism, the other not? The popular counter to this enquiry is given by Dr TajHashmi, a Professor of Comparative Religion at York University (Canada): ‘…unlike the British invaders,Muslim rulers considered India home, as they did not have any metropolis like London to siphon off Indianwealth and resources.’ 352There are two fundamental assertions in this claim, which warrant an in-depth analysis. First, theIslamic rule in foreign countries was not motivated by exploitation. Second, the Muslim invaders consideredthe foreign lands as their own home; and that, they worked for its development and enrichment. The Europeanrule was, on the contrary, driven by the exactly opposite motivation: solely to exploit the alien people andtheir resources. It is, however, not true that the European colonists never called the conquered lands theirhome. In certain African countries—South and North America, and Australasia, they have settled in largenumbers. Had the British rule continued in India, say for nearly a millennium like the Muslim rule, manymore Britons would have eventually called India their home.ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION IN ISLAMIC EXPANSIONWho could argue that the European colonial rule was not primarily meant for the exploitation of the resources,cheap labor, and markets of foreign lands, aimed at enriching the treasuries of European capitals? After all,351. Lewis (2002), p. 10352. Hashmi T, News from Bangladesh website; 2 June 2005119