Years ago I saw a martial arts debate which self-defense instructor Marc MacYoung (who has a degree in history) participated. Basically the debate was asking about working manual laborers beating martial artists and used a clip from a fictional TV show of a butcher who was overwhelming a trained soldier who was well-versed in martial arts (in fact he took out a bunch of bandits who held an entire train by hostage in prior episodes). to the point the soldier who was making movements to defend against the blow panicked at some point and the butcher was able to put some nasty cuts on hi arms because he fell down and was unable to continue proper defensive movements because he got overtaken by fear. Though in the end the soldier survived.

The person who asked the question said his relatives come from Algeria as a bonus point and were far more effective their cutting techniques when preparing for food (including cutting chickens heads off and preparing animal meat from the slaughterhouse) and also pointed out about the Algerian Revolution and rebels ambushing police and even a few military police with knives.

MacYoung made a point that being a soldier is different from fighting skills and a sa the debate continued it went off tangentially into military and history. From what I remembered MacYoung was telling the poster that the reality is that insurgencies never win wars and its the conventional army that wins wars and points out many examples like the Viet Cong getting demolished when they confronted a military force and made a mocking statement about multiple guerrillas like the French Resistance, Filipino bushwackers against Imperial Japan in WWII, and the FLN in Algeria not being able to beat the enemy until they get help from a conventional army like the American military battling the Japanese in Manila or the Allied forces commencing D-Day and other operations to force the Germans to retreat from France or alternetely the government decides its not worth spending money to occupy the territory (which he used for the FLN example)?

He adds with a comment asking the other person who sent the question that I remember going something along this lines.

What if the French decided to take Algeria for themselves and settle the country? They decided to start killing Algerians in every territory they send their own people from France into and rebuilt the new place for themselves with French infrastructure? You see for all the talk about all's fair in love and war, there are actual rules of engagements. You don't fight a people you seek to conquer and enslave the same way from stabilizing a country where most people don't really care about foreign occupation and just want to live their lives. In the same way an army's policies are completely different if the government's intention is to take new land for their citizens' benefits. Think the FLN will still be able to win if the French decides to goo hands offhandle Algeria as a new settler colony? While we are at it, people remember the 6 million Jew s who were killed in WWII. WHat people don't remember is the over 10 million Poles, Ukrainians, and other Slavs along with other unwanted peoples in the Eastern Front of World War 2. If the French decided to copy what the Nazis did in Eastern Europe, do you honestly believe Algeria would win? They only could operate the way they did because of French hesitancy to do genocides in the aftermath of WWII and fear of being associated with Nazi Germany's shadow.

THen he writes the other details I posted earlier about French Resistance being saved by the Allies, etc which I didn't write in this quote because I don't exactly remember how he said it. Even the quote above is just my recollection and not the exact thing he wrote but because I remembered it much better I did the best to my memory to rewrite it.

So I'm curious. What if the French became less restraint and decided to go more brutal in Algeria. If they take it to "wipe whole towns and cities level" or possibly even genocide? Would the FLN be unable to win the war? If avoiding outright genocide and preferring to avoid slaughtering whole towns and cities just not being white French and being "desert savages" as a racist French politician from the 19th century called them during the final years of complete conquest of Algeria , say they left it to Soviet style reprisals in the 70s and 80s in Afghanistan.

How would it all turn out in any of these 3 approaches? Would it lead to the complete destruction of the FLN and absolute victory for the French as Marc MacYoung claims? Or would none of this work and Algeria was bound to independence no matter what even if FLN and followers were systematically exterminated without any hesitation akin to Nazis and gassing entire populations they saw at subhumans? Is MacYoung wrong despite being so sure about his takes when he posted these resposnes in the martial arts discussion?

I recently became aware of the story of Abd al-Rahman I. To me, the story seems fantastical and bears a striking resemblance to a trend we see repeated throughout history. That is, whenever a new dynasty is established and eliminates the previous one, pretenders arise in distant provinces that feel themselves to be isolated from centres of power. For example the Tudor pretenders; Simnel and Warbeck.

The key difference in this case is that the Abd al-Rahman won and was therefore able to write the narrative. Is there any evidence that this is not another example of this?

Here are a few book suggestions to help those interested in getting a general understanding of the history of Islam in China. I've personally found these books to be very illuminating and interesting to read so I hope others may feel the same if they decide to check these books out. I also tried my best to make sure that these books are accessible. Here's the list:

​

1. Islam in China by James D. Franke. The most recent comprehensive book on the topic and should be read if you were to read only one of the books on the list.
2. China's Muslim Hui Community: Migration, Settlement and Sects by Michael Dillon. Gives a detailed historical and cultural overview of the Chinese-speaking (Hui) Muslim people of China.
3. Familiar Strangers: A History of Muslims in Northwest China by Jonathan N. Lipman. Offers a general history of Islam in China at the start and narrows down to covering the Hui Muslims that live in the northwestern region of China proper (like Gansu, Ningxia, Qinghai provinces, etc.)
4. China's Muslims by Michael Dillon. A small book that still manages to cover the history and culture of the Muslims in China, which also includes most Muslim minority groups.
5. Muslim Chinese: Ethnic Nationalism in the People's Republic by Dry Gladney. An anthropological look into the modern history and culture of the Muslims in China.
6. China's Early Mosques by Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt. A beautifully illustrated book that gives a great historical overview of the Islamic architecture of China.
7. The History of Women's Mosques in Chinese Islam by Maria Jaschok & Shui Jingjun. A insightful look into the history of Chinese Muslim women and their religious spaces and practices.

​

Since a post I read pretty much sums up the details of my question and is why I'm asking this, I'm quoting it.

I am curious of the Calvinist and Reformed Christianity on mortification of the flesh through painful physical torture such as fasting, self-flagellation, tatooing, cutting one's wrist, waterboarding oneself in blessed water, and carrying very heavy objects such as cross replication for miles with no rest or water? And other methods of self-harm so common among Catholic fundamentalists done to test their faith and give devotion to Jesus?

As someone baptised Roman Catholic, I know people who flagellate themselves and go through months have fasting with no food along with a day or two without drinking water. So I am wondering what is the Islam's position on corporal mortification acts especially like cutting yourself with a knife and fasting?

There are a lot of controversies surrounding him and all the other sultans i mentioned, recommendations would be appreciated you can also recommend on the Safavid Ottoman Wars.

Rashid al-Din Hamadani was a statesman, a historian and a physician in the court of the Mongol ruler of Persia. He was also a convert to Sunni Islam.

He is the author of Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh (A Compendium of Chronicles) an illustrated book of world history, at the start of the 14th century, which is considered the first work of world history. The manuscript is owned the Khalil Collection and by the Edinburgh University Library.The folios from the manuscript collection was published in book form by the Nour Foundation in 1995.

The book is available in online here. The painting of Muhammad in the company of Gabriel is on page 221 of this book. It is one among numerous paintings that depict events in world history. This is the picture that caused controversy recently when a professor happened to show it to her students to illustrate the diversity of perspectives in Islamic history on the depiction of Muhammad.