In Islamic thought, the pre-Islamic period of any Muslim nation's history is known as jahiliya: the pre-Islamic time of ignorance. Nothing that was any part of it has any value. This has resulted in incalculable losses to mankind's cultural heritage. From AFP, with thanks to Ali Dashti:
TEHRAN (AFP) -- One of Iran's main historical sites, the ancient Elamite capital of Susa, has been used for the secret nightly dumping of rubbish by the local municipality, a culture official in the area told AFP Tuesday."We have filed several complaints against the municipality, but it firmly denies its workers have ever done such a thing -- even though they have been frequently spotted by our guards," said the head of the Cultural Heritage Organization in Shush, the modern name for Susa.
But the official, Mahdi Qanbari, also complained that the municipality was also planning to build a bus depot near the string of historic sites -- a further blow following years of illegal excavations.
"The 16 hectare site has not been fully excavated. There are still thousands of precious objects to be unearthed." Qanbari complained, saying the planned bus depot would be situated near an ancient palace of the Persian king Darius the Great.
Susa was an important and flourishing city before the advent of Islam in Iran and the center of the Elamite Empire (around 2500-644 B.C.). It is situated in the far southwestern province of Khuzestan and adjacent to the border with Iraq.
The ancient city is also mentioned in Old Testament as the place where the prophet Daniel lived. He is also reputed to have been buried there.
Artifacts unearthed from the area include a plaque reputed to be the world's first constitution, currently preserved at the Louvre Museum in Paris.
Well, I can see why the mullahs would not want that to come to light.
Mohenjo-Daro is simiilarly ignored by the Pakistanis. If one wonders why the Roman ruins throughout North Africa and parts of Syria and Lebanon have been largely left to ruin, it is because of the indifference, or hostility, of the Muslim population. Grave-robbing, the wholesale destruction of archeological sites, have gone on for centuries. Without Western archeologists, Western scholars, there would have been no Assyriology, no Egyptology, nothing. The Muslims are indifferent to their pre-Islamic past, except for some in Egypt who realize that the Pyramids have great economic value (and, of course, there is still the residual influence of the Copts, and those who, obscurely realizing that this attitude is silly, work to promote an "Egyptian" pride in the Pyramids). There is no Arab Champollion, deciphering the Rosetta Stone. There is no Arab Leonard Woolley, unearthing the spectacular treasures of Ur. There is no Arab discovery of Elam, no Arab poems in praise of Roman Petra, the "rose-red city half as old as time." (That doesn't prevent Arab taxidrivers and assorted trinket salesmen, baksheesh-pleaders, and so on from not making money off those Western tourists who might still be foolish enough to risk a visit to a Muslim Arab country). The interest, that is, in these sites is entirely prompted by the desire for gain, not any real interest in the pre-Islamic past.
Similarly, one finds not the slightest interest, among Muslims living in the Bilad al-Kufr, in any Western artistic treasures or historical monuments. They live in, or within, the West, but are as their belief-system demands, not part of that West. A Muslim heart cannot swell with pride at the achievements of non-Muslims -- or identify with the Lexington Minute-Men, or visit the rude bridge, or go to Yorktown or Gettysburg. It makes no sense. It is not part of Islamic history, which is the only history that counts. One sees all sorts of people visiting historical sites, and museums in the Western world -- people born in Beijing, or Seoul, or Lome, the capital of Togo, or Mexico City, or ten thousand other places. What one does not see, not at the Metropolitan, nor the National Gallery, nor the Louvre (except, of course, students frogmarched in for mandatory school visits) identifiable Muslims taking in, enjoying, demonstrating a sympathetic interest in, Western culture or the history of the countries they now live in, and in which, they insist, they are "here to stay."
Citizenship is more than a perfunctory, and quite possibly perjured, loyalty oath. It is an entire state of mind. How can one subscribe to a belief-system that regards all outside of Islam as jahiliya, that time of Ignorance in which pre-Islamic Arabs were said to live, and still be a true participant in non-Islamic societies, with some modicum of sympathy and interest for the non-Muslim countries and fellow-citizens and history that surround one?
Is it possible at all? This is not an idle question. It goes to the heart of the matter.
Yours posts are so great, Hugh. They really do cut the Islamists to shreds. Where is our Pym Fortuyn? May be Red Ken of London will turn against Islam and Marxism after he gets threatened with death by Al-margarine. Remember, a conservative is just a liberal who was mugged.
Not sure that this is entirely fair - our Muslim (hijab-wearing, so presumably Muslim) guide round the Valley of the Kings really knew her stuff and was full of enthusiasm, and there were quite a few Egyptians wandering round the the museum in Cairo, not peddling trinkets but looking at the exhibits. (Perhaps that was a bit of taqiyya and they were really plotting terrorism!)
Our local guides in Syria and Lebanon, both Muslim, showed considerable enthusiasm for and interest in their work. Of course they are getting paid for this, but I don't think one can dismiss it altogether.
The Museum of Anatolian Civilisations in Ankara is really amazing. I've no idea when the museum was founded - it may be a post-Attaturk thing.
However, I'd agree that Islam itself doesn't encourage interest in the pre-Islamic past; some Muslims have this in spite of Islam not because of it.
Mentat Stated:
"a conservative is just a liberal who was mugged".
I have always been a conservative, I have never been a "liberal",nor was I ever "mugged".
Similarly, one finds not the slightest interest, among Muslims living in the Bilad al-Kufr, in any Western artistic treasures or historical monuments.
Posted by: Hugh at August 25, 2004 10:46 AM
Hugh! I am shocked! How can you say such things about our peace-loving muslim neighbors? Why, they take such a tremendous interest in our western architecture that they feel compelled to videotape in tremendous detail our tall buildings reaching for the heavens, our bridges spanning great rivers, our mighty financial centers, our incredibly efficient air, rail & highway transportation systems, our nuclear plants, our power grids........All great stuff that they can then share with their extended tribes.....oops! I mean families.....for hours & hours of scintillating family fun. Shame on you!
SOI - Conservatives are liberals who GREW UP. I know this first-hand, I used to be young, dumb and liberal.
Interesting article. There's a Sufi preservationist who's been raising hell about the Wahhabis destroying historic structures in Saudi Arabia, as well (the story ran last week in the Wall Street Journal). What was even more interesting was that he was allowed to publicly criticize the government about it.
While I'm on the subject of Saudi Arabia, there's an interesting article about the trial of three reformists in Riyadh (BBC World News, Middle East, "Chaos at Saudi Reformists' Trial"). The trial was interrupted by angry supporters of the reformists.
BTW, I can relate to Mentat's comment. Getting mugged by liberals will make a conservative out of just about anyone (don't get me started on moonbats like Paul Krugman and Molly Ivins - they're as brain-dead as Reza).
Death before Dhimmitude.
Son of Infidel, I am right behind you on that score. I have always been conservative. If the other side showed any wisdom, I would consider becoming a liberal; but, alas, I don't see any wisdom there.
In Canada, "conservative" has a slightly different meaning than it does in the USA. Even so in Canada there are different Conservatives, a small 'c' Conservative, or a "red tory" is more center, or even slightly left, while a blue tory is more right, like a "small "r" Republican. In the USA I take 'conservative' to mean a Democrat who is center, or even slightly right of center. Or a "liberal" Our "Liberals" in Canada have moved left of center, so they are now like American Democrats, and our Democrat party have moved extremely left where they are like the green party in the USA. Both are on the loony left side, one being more loony than the other. The red tory's here are practically extinct, except for Joe Clark who still thinks he's a conservative (red tory) but he's really a liberal. Like Blinda Stronich, who is also a liberal who thinks she's a Conservative.