Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the identity and plight of Arab Christians:
The notion that Arab Christians have a difficult time in Israel is belied by any number of telling facts. Christian sites are scrupulously taken care of, and available to all. It has not been the Israelis who took over the Church of the Nativity, used it as a place from which to fire, and vandalized it and defecated within it -- but the usual "Palestinians" (it hardly matters to discuss which group "claimed credit" for whatever it was doing). It has not been the Israelis who have been terrorizing Christians in Bethlehem, leading to a steady drop in their numbers. So terrorized are the local Christian Arabs that it had to be the new Franciscan Guardian of the Christian Sites to tell the truth about the matter -- for only he could, given his position and authority, escape Muslim Arab punishment. The current mayor of Bethlehem is a classic islamochristian, swearing up and down the land (and to a clearly skeptical BBC interviewer) that there is "no problem" for Christians in Bethlehem, and pooh-poohing that little business about a declining Christian population, and grandly asserting that "of course" (or was it the Arab "for sure") his own children, now studying in -- guess where? -- the United States, would be returning to good old, safe-for-Christians, Bethlehem. Right.The whole business of Arab Christians, outside of those whose numbers have heretofore been sufficient to guarantee a certain security, and hence a certain confidence, and hence a certain ability to tell the truth about Islam, is discussed in two of Bat Ye'or's books, "Islam and Dhimmitude" and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam." These books should be read and thoroughly and assimilated by all those who wonder where they all went. Where did the Christians of North Africa go, the land where many of the early Fathers of the Church came from? What happened to that Christian civilization that produced Tertullian and then St. Augustine of Hippo? And what happened, over time, to the once-entirely Christian Coptic land of Egypt after the Muslim Arabs invaded? And what happened to the Nestorians of present-day Iraq, and the Christians of Syria, and even those of the Arabian Peninsula? What happened to them?
For anyone who wants a concise statement of what Islam means for Christians, do google the name "Habib Malik." Habib Malik, the son of the most eminent Lebanese statesman, the late Charles Malik (who understood the menace of Islam completely, and who lived in a different period, when Lebanon, the redoubt and refuge of the region's Christians, was slowly but inexorably islamizing, as so many places will if nothing is done to prevent it). Habib Malik’s essay on Arab Christians should also be printed out and shared.The best example of "islamochristianity" is not Naim Ateek, busily pushing his anti-Israel resolutions through this or that bureaucracy of sinister or silly Christians completely oblivious to, often willfully oblivious to, the nature of Islam, its tenets, its history. Nor is it Hanan Ashrawi, such a good friend of the late Peter Jennings. Nor is it Archbishop Cappucci, the icon-stealer and seller, and gun-runner for the PLO. No, the best example of an "islamochristian" just trying to find some way for Christian Arabs to find a place for themselves in a dangerous Muslim neighborhood, is Michel Aflaq of Damascus. It was he, along with a "secular" (for what that word is worth in this context) Sunni Muslim, who came up with Ba'athism, which took much of its rhetoric and organizational ideas from the Fascists and Nazis of Europe. In its essence it offered a way of downplaying Islam, and substituting not quite as an alternative, but as a variant upon the dream of a world-wide united caliphate, the dream of a united Arab world. This pan-Arabism, in which Islam would be de-emphasized, was naturally popular in two places, and only two: Syria and Iraq. And this was for obvious reasons. In both, an already ensconced minority, constantly on the alert against a majority that was different in its brand of Islam, had to find a way to disguise its rule within an ideology that might appeal to others outside the small ruling elite.
In Syria, the Alawites, turned by the opportunities that the French offered them into an officer caste, through their military control came to rule the country. They are a small minority, barely 12% of the population. But they have the planes and the tanks, and when there are threats from the "real" Muslims (who deplore the Alawite worship of Miriam, and other syncretistic features of this most unorthodox version of Islam), those "real" Muslims can be mowed down by the forces controlled by the Alawites. Think of Hama. Yet, Ba'athism allows some "real" (i.e. Sunni) Muslims, and of course Christians too, in small numbers, and also a few Kurds, to join the government, and to seem to be part of a "national" movement which merely disguises Alawite rule.
In Iraq, too, the Sunnis, who now make up less than 20% of the population, found that once the monarchy and the ancien regime was gone, Ba'athism could be used to draw off some Christians and some Shi'a, into what was really a Sunni despotism. This became particularly useful after the 1958 coup which ended the Hashemite monarchy, and saw "strongman" Nuri al-Said hacked to bits, and his mutilated corpse further mutilated as it was dragged around the streets of Baghdad, so that excitable crowds could do just what they have done to American contractors in Fallujah, or American soldiers wherever they can: watch them roasted alive, and come out to jump up and down and enjoy the fun, screaming with hysterical pleasure. Tariq Aziz (a Christian who dutifully islamized his name) proved to be the right spokesman to the world. Shi'a (even Allawi) who were secular found that the Ba'athist Party, whatever else it might be, stood for the proposition, now being so obviously undone, that a Shi'a theocracy would not prevail, as it necessarily would if the Shi'a themselves prevailed.
So that was Ba'athism. Another desperate effort to escape from the anguish of being a Christian Arab (save for the Maronites and the Copts, who have been, many of them, at least until recently, more self-assured). It didn't work. Not even for Michel Aflaq. On his deathbed, he converted to Islam. In the end, "arabness" and "Islam" are for so many so inextricably bound up that even those Christian Arabs cannot recognize their real enemy, and keep pretending, ululating along with the Muslims who scare them, against the putative Israeli enemy.
But times have changed. The figures on Christians in Bethlehem and elsewhere are clear. The desperation of Arab Christians to be allowed to settle in Israeli-held Jerusalem, or in Arab villages elsewhere, or to leave for Canada, Australia, America where possible (and it should not be possible if those "Christians" bear with them essentially the views of Islam, for then they become, objectively, bearers of the Muslim menace even if they seem, outwardly, and no doubt think of themselves inwardly, as "Christians"), is also clear.
Meanwhile, in this country, a clever campaign is afoot to convince Lebanese-Americans that they are to regard themselves as "Arab-Americans." This is a transparent attempt to enroll in a Muslim campaign, through an appeal to a putative shared -- entirely meretricious – identity. It is an attempt to convince the descendants of those who fled the Middle East precisely because they were Christians, especially the Maronites, that they should make common cause with Muslims. Yet the Maronites were not merely not Muslim, but in fact mere Arabic-users and not Arabs at all. They had lived in the area as Maronites before the Arab Muslim conquerors came in, and if they remained Maronites yet learned Arabic (many must have succumbed to Islam because the status of dhimmi was for so many unendurable), this did not -- except in the definition of an "Arab" that the Arabs themselves insist must count -- ever became Arabs. And why should they?
Many Christians from Lebanon, once they get out, quickly throw off in the secure West their dhimmitude, their fear, and speak their minds about Islam. Others don't quite manage to, or do about Islam but continue to take a dim view of Israel. It is hard, of course, if you have been imbibing anti-Israel nonsense all of your life, to quite so quickly throw it off, but it can be, and often is, done. But one should not expect all those who continue to call themselves "Palestinian," as if this "nationality" invented after 1967 was in fact a permanent state, with easily recognizable unique characteristics ("Palestinian" language, "Palestinian" religion, "Palestinian" folktales, stories, and dances -- oh, sorry, there's been a real bull market in creating that instant past, an instant past so transparent in the motives for its instant creation, that mocking it would be too easy).
Certainly those Christians who arrived in this country from Lebanon and Syria from 1890 to 1950 (in the early days, their Ottoman-Empire passports might read "Turco" or "Turk" or "Syrian"), had none of that anti-Israel or indeed the slightest anti-Western feeling. They knew what Islam was all about. For one example of this, read "Syrian Yankee" by Salomon Rizk, which appeared about 1954.
One could go on. One could quote Bishop Moubarac of Beirut in 1947 on why the Christians of Lebanon, and the Jews of the nascent state of Israel, were in this together. But why bother -- you can find his words in Bat Ye'or's "Islam and Dhimmitude." For now, simply start by googling in order to discover what Habib Malik has written on Christianity and Islam, then visit the websites of Brigitte Gabriel and Walid Shoebat and Nonie Darwish, and take it -- va, va, va, voom -- from there.
The islamic lies about arab Christians goes even deeper than that. I've heard scores of muslims claim that arab Christians in palestine actually support hamas and other such palestinian islamist groups. Now, knowing what we do about Christianity, and Christian history, one would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to even remotely think that anyone who calls themselves a Christian would support such a group or groups. And seeing how Christians in other islamic nations, such as egypt, saudi arabia, iran, iraq, syria, etc., are treated, one would have to question even further the acceptance of Christianity in islamic society. The fact is, muslims hate Christians just as much as they hate Jews, they're just not so vocal about it. Christians outnumber muslims 2:1 to nearly 3:1, and since they think that the war on terror is really a war by Christians and Jews against islam, they know they are outnumbered greatly. But there is another reason; they are trying to turn Christians against Jews and gain their support for themselves against the Jews. They know that Eastern Orthodox Christianity are not only non-zionist, but actually think zionism is wrong. They also know that some orthodox religious Jews are not zionists as well. Yet Christians and Jews, at least in modern times, have been able to live side by side peacefully, and this disturbs the muslim populations in the middle east. So they try to turn Christians against Jews and vice versa, hoping to gain support from the Christian population. But since Christians are treated like animals in islamic nations, this would never happen. And so the islamic propaganda machine moves again. The only time Christians have not lived in peace in Israel was under muslim occupation. Today, Christians and Jews live peacefully in Israel, albeit with a few discrepancies, but Christians are not targetted in some way by Jews for oppression and persecution. The bottom line is that Christians and Jews are peaceful, and especially toward each other, while muslims are vile and oppressive, not only towards Jews and Christians, but against all non mulims.
pastor_matt:
It's not just the Muslim Palestinians who are the problem. Most Christian Palestinians are very hostile to Israel as well. The Brigette Gabriels of the Middle East are the exceptions to the Edward Said/Hannan Ashrawi/Suha Arafat/Naim Ateek rule. But most sadly, they are also aided and abetted by very confused/deluded Israelis and Jews who have bought into the propaganda churned out against Israel.
Where did the Christians of North Africa go, the land where many of the early Fathers of the Church came from? What happened to that Christian civilization that produced Tertullian and then St. Augustine of Hippo? And what happened, over time, to the once-entirely Christian Coptic land of Egypt after the Muslim Arabs invaded? And what happened to the Nestorians of present-day Iraq, and the Christians of Syria, and even those of the Arabian Peninsula? What happened to them?
The Muslim version:
They were given a choice to embrace Islam by peace-spreading Missionairies for Allah, and converted to something better.
The historical version:
They were all killed, their wives were raped and killed, their teenage children raped and killed, and their very young children "converted."
The Jerusalem Institute for Public Affairs has just released Justus Reid Weiner's "Human Rights of Christians in Palestinian Society." The 1.4 mb PDF document is available for download here.
The JCPA's announcment says, "Living amidst a xenophobic Muslim population plagued by endemic violence bordering on anarchy, the Christians have shrunk to less than 1.7 percent of the population in the Palestinian areas. 'Tens of thousands have abandoned their holy sites and ancestral properties to live abroad, while those who remain do so as a beleaguered and dwindling minority,' Weiner writes."
'"Their plight is, in part, attributable to the adoption of Muslim religious law (Sharia) in the Constitution of the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the Christians have been abandoned by their religious leaders who, instead of protecting them, have chosen to curry favor with the Palestinian leadership.' Professor Weiner's book reveals and analyzes why this persecution - largely ignored by the international community, the media, and even prominent human rights organizations - has metastasized to the extent that it threatens the very existence of this 2000-year-old community."
The percentage of Christians among Israeli Arabs is about 20 percent.
PITTSBURGH Nov 30, 2005 — Designers of a Flight 93 memorial have made a bowl-shaped piece of land its centerpiece, replacing a crescent-shape design that some critics had said was a symbol honoring terrorists, officials announced Wednesday.
The new design for the memorial, to be built on the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, crash near Shanksville, features most of the details of the original, which was unveiled in September after a worldwide design competition.
But a round, bowl-shaped area would replace a "Crescent of Embrace," a crescent-shaped cluster of maple trees.
In September, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., criticized the design in a letter to the National Park Service Director, saying many questioned the shape "because of the crescent's prominent use as a symbol in Islam and the fact that the hijackers were radical Islamists."
Paul Murdoch, president of Paul Murdoch Architects, which designed the memorial, had called the criticism of the crescent an "unfortunate diversion," but said they were sensitive to the concerns.
In both old and new versions of the design, a tower with 40 wind chimes welcomes visitors to the site, where they can then walk to a large circular field ringed by 40 groves of red and sugar maple trees, symbolizing the 40 passengers and crew who died. There will also be pedestrian trails, a plaza from which to view the crash site, and a white marble wall with the victims' names inscribed.
In the Flight 93 National Memorial's newsletter, Murdoch described the new design as an "evolution" of what was announced two months ago, reflecting input from the public, the competition's jury and others.
The circle enhances the earlier design by putting more emphasis on the crash site, officials said in the newsletter. A break in the trees will symbolize the path the plane took as it crashed.
Flight 93 was flying to San Francisco from Newark, N.J., when it became the last of four planes hijacked that day and the only one not to kill anyone on the ground. The official 9/11 Commission report said the hijackers crashed it as passengers, aware of the previous hijackings, tried to take control of the cockpit. The crash site is about 65 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1358444
Hugh:
Do you have any information on the mozarab's of al Andalusa. The Arabizing Christians who lived under the Caliphate.
I can see, at work, the pragmatism of the Greek and Catholic Church at work..accomodating their tormentors, just to hang on to what little they have left, and it get's littler and littler with each passing year. I think Bat Ye'or mentioned that in passing.
I also see at work the Stockholm Syndrome, which most certainly also applied to the mozarbs of Andalusa.
What really needs to be done is to blow apart the myth of Arabness and the farciality of an Arab Identity.. Which is based solely on one thing, that one's native tongue is Arab.
By those lights all whose native tongue is English is an Englishman, Brazilians are Portugese and all Spanish Speakers everywhere are Spanish, and those French Speaking Algerians would be French.
In fact it was the fact that the educated portion of the Algerian population spoke and read French as their mother tongue, which let loose a campaign by the FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) to Arabize everyone, along with other attendant horrors of what is known as Algeria's Bloody Years (not over yet either), the massacres and slaughter perpetrated on Algerians by the FIS and GIA (Islamic Army Group).
I'm sure that there is documentation archived in Spain, as regards the mozarabs, their re education and re integration into the Spanish culture, but I've seen no discussion anywhere other than mention of the mozarabs.
As much as we critisize Dhimmitude on this site we can forget how miserable the lives of non-Muslim residents in Muslim countries are. For them dhimmitude is probably similar to (as Nariz said) Stockholm syndrome, a mental defense mechanism.
"What causes Stockholm Syndrome? Captives begin to identify with their captors initially as a defensive mechanism, out of fear of violence. Small acts of kindness by the captor are magnified, since finding perspective in a hostage situation is by definition impossible. Rescue attempts are also seen as a threat, since it's likely the captive would be injured during such attempts. " -
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030324.html
The situation also seems similar to Battered Wife Syndrome. In order to protect themselves from their oppressors the dhimmis begin to adopt their mannerisms, causes and sympathies. They seek a common ground "Hey we're all Arabs" or "Israel is the devil!", but in the end it will be futile We of the free countries should not heap excessive scorn on them. It's really a form of mental disorder caused by traumitization.
Western dhimmis, however, I have no explanation for.
One of the things that disappointed me with Bat Yeor's contributions to 'The Myth of Islamic Tolerance' was that she wrote mainly in generalities, discussing Dhimmitude on a conceptual level...which is necessary of course, but since I'm already familiar with most of the themes, I waited in vain for her to break into greater detail.
She does unearth a quite grizzly historical account of the conquest of Christian Egypt. But most of her other historical sources seem to be Western...e.g., British diplomats observing the treatment of Jews and Christians in the Ottoman domains.
At one point, Mrs Yeor suggests without elaboration that the depredations of dhimmitude were periodically "forgotten," only to resurface during periods of religious revival. Was this simply theoretical speculation or were there in fact periods under Arab/Muslim dominion when dhimmitude disappeared? If so, when? Was there ever an Arab (or Ottoman) counterpart to India's Akbar?
Speaking of India, the brutalities that characterized the subjugation of that country have been poignantly preserved in Muslim triumphalist literature. To what extent did similar literature of the Ummayids and Abbasids survive the Mongol sacking of Bagdhad?
We know there was a bevy of Church construction in the Middle East during the British colonial period in the 19th and 20th centuries. But what about during the preceeding 1400 years? How many Churches were built during this long polar night of Christian decline? Hundreds? Dozens? Any at all? These are the questions I'm curious to know.
Has anyone read Bat Yeor's 'Decline of Christianity in the Middle East'? Does she delve into such detail?
Western dhimmis are arrogant, ignorant fools, living in a hubble bubble of romantic pipe dreams, confused by belief systems they don't try to understand, petrified by their fears.
"The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" is, as scholarship, and not as current affairs or grim prognostication (as is "Eurabia"), Bat Ye'or's most thorough book. It has been recommended here many dozens of times.
Cornelius,
I am glad you talk about the dhimmis in India. They are an example of what will happen to us whn Islam conquers the last outposts in the somnolent West.
The Muslim invaders enslaved Indian males and made them work hard building disproportionate and absurd monuments:
1.-The Taj mahal is a good example of a megalomaniacal tomb, when a tombstone would have sufficed.
2.-Fatehpur Sikri was a capital complete with huge palaces and mosques, which was subsequently abandoned by the following ruler. Now monstrous Mughal buildings stand abandoned in the sun of an eerie landscape.
3.-Like these there are many examples in India, where Muslims didn't think twice of putting their abundant dhimmi slaves to work on futile monuments in their delirium of grandeur, after defiling and destroying their temples.
4.-The fate of the dhimmi Indian women?
They were locked up in the harems of the Muslim invaders. The lustful life of luxury and ease in the harems in India is one of the favourite subjects of Mughal miniatures.
Sadly, both the Taj Mahal and the Mughal miniatures, symbols of the Muslim invaders and the humiliations endured by the enslaved Indian population, are now regarded as the zenith of what India has to offer in art.