Falsifying history as a debating tool

Sam Harris and Reza Aslan? Two fanatics in bad faith. The one deserves the other.

Ironic in that when either Robert, Hugh, Daniel, ete., present the truth about Muhammed, they get attacked, while those who do the same song and dance about Muhammed get honored.

Re: "Inform yourselves. Don't let the whitewashers of jihad get away with any falsehoods".

Does this guy deceive consciously, deliberately-or does he believe his lies? Probably both. However, the Kaffirs are learning fast and the future will become a nightmare for Muslims as they realize that. Deception is the most loathsome aspect of Islam and people are becoming cold to muslim half-truths that tell whole lies.

I noticed this guy on Bill Maher, and sadly he got way too much airtime.

I will have to find Sam's debate on youtube or something, as he is a superb thinker, and points out much of the insanity of Islam that Robert has been doing for some time.

Again, I wonder how many people know who it is important to listen to. Not these western eggheads with their apologist propoganda, but the Jihadi themselves along with their ideological texts that they have quoted from the very beginning.

In the final analysis, as Kaffirs see the Muslim half-truths that tell whole lies, see the pretense of Muslims when they say that Islam is a "religion" that promotes the universal Golden Rule (with equal respect for all beliefs, even in Saudi Arabia) and not Muslim domination, as all see the lies and the mandates of Islam to impose sharia law, and the Muslim division of the world into believer and non-believer, and all the truth about Dhimmitude, etc., the Muslims will conclude by sounding like Fredo in the movie the Godfather...

http://thegodfathertrilogy.com/gf2/wav/imsmart.wav

Thanks, Robert for giving Ilana a little plug. She is very perceptive.

Clearly, the single largest problem so many of our political leaders and the average citizen have is a lack of knowledge about the true teachings of Islam.

Lies do conquer but only for a short while. The one thing all totalitarians and tyrants, including islamics, don't understand is that truth lives of its own accord simply because it is true. One can almost feel it in the air, under your skin. It is that inner sense of denial that happens when you are told something that just doesn't feel right, when it seems contrary to everything around it. Unanswered questions are always left hanging and eventually they will have to be answered. When the lie can no longer continue to produce new explanations to explain the false sense of reality, than it begins to die and the truth resurfaces, never having died in the first place but just simply having been temporarily hidden from view.

"For I have seen in the midst of darkness, light persists. In the midst of lies, truth persists. In the midst of death, life persists...
- Mahatma Ghandi.

I nominate Frank the Watch's offical Executive Producer/Director of Saturday Morning Cartoons for Thinking Adults.

Robert,

Maybe you should stop beating the historical drum when it comes to these claims. Maybe it would help to ask about *now*. Perhaps ask him -

"Given that Muhammad was so enlightened and progressive, it must make him sick to his stomach to look at terrorists killing women and children in his name and women in these islamic states being relegated to fourth class citizenship."

"Reza, do you think today's Muslims have disappointed the Prophet by either taking up terrorism in his name, or failing to renounce it as against what he stood for, and against the word of God"

Agree with him, and use his own words to force him into telling a truth.

Thanks,

BigDaddy

Steamroller-

Well said. So very true. (Barry Goldwater once said that what unraveled Nixon and his presidency was Nixon's inability to simply tell the plain truth. It was the cover-up and lies that finally turned practically everyone against him-not Watergate. Barry was right. Gandhi was right that truth persists. 1 + 1 = 2.)

Frank,

Exactly! Remember also the character "Winston Smith" in "1984." At the very end of the story, even after everything his torturers did to break him, he still scribbles 2+2=4 in front of him. The truth still somehow persisted regardless of what the worst of humanity did to him. Truth will survive regardless of what the Mo's do simply because it is the truth.

What's Islam's favorite sports event?

Why,

A, double-"header", of course !

(even though I'm not a Libertarian)

Since I learned about "al-taqiyya" and "kitman" I don't believe a word any Muslim says. Unless, of course, the Muslim happens to be Wafa Sultan, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, Hirsi Ali etc., i.e. intelligent, educated Muslims, not undereducated Koranic sheep (most Muslims).

Also about the Winston Smith character in Orwell's "1984" he worked at the "Ministry of Truth" which, of course, erased the truth every day and substituted lies. All Muslim countries are Totalitarian Dystopias. They don't think we've read "1984?" LOL

Newsflash Muslim Sheep: We are SO on to you!

The Religion of Peace ™ is the world's fastest growing religion, didn't you know that? Well, a Muslim just told me so:

Is Barack Obama Ideologically Muslim?

And it won't be the last time either. Not by coincidence that comment was made on one of my threads dealing with the issue of our latest Presidential hopeful. Barack will make it official in less than 30 mins from now, as a matter of fact.

You want to see some history getting rewritten, just put Democrats into the White House for 8 years during this most dangerous of times and I guarantee we will see new text books and worse, all in part of an effort to appease the Muslims in America and open the floodgates to more voters for the Democratic Party -- and all at the expense of the future of the USA.

Seatbelt yourself in for this Presidential Race.

I don't think Obama has a chance of winning.

Winston Smith did not write in the dust 2+2=4.

He wrote 2+2=5.

He was finally 'cured.'

Even more dangerous in some ways than the deliberate falsifying of history by those who are clearly against the West, is the white-washing of history by someone like D'Souza or someone like Irshad Manji.

Did anyone catch Manji on Glenn Beck last night? If I was not familiar with the resources of this site, I would have been thoroughly convinced that her way was "the answer." She definitely white washes over the history of Islam, and the life of Muhammad in particular. In doing so, she can do a lot of damage to efforts to combat Jihad.

I must admit that she will be very persuasive to non-Muslims because they are literally looking for someone like her. Historical perspective is the remedy, but that is true for so many problems, and the track record of success is not heartening.

Maybe a little off topic, but...

Is there a video version of Truth About Muhammad in the works? You know a snappy, informative 45 minute thing would do incredible wonders in reaching mass audiences and educating them. All those people who aren't going to sit down and read the book.

It seems to me that it would provide an incredible educational tool to promote facts instead of fantasy. Violence, rape, bizarre delusions -- the whole mess, all backed up by factual reference while in a fast-paced contemporary doc style. It could be a striking thing to watch.

Surely there must be one in the works?

Not meaning offence to the religious people on here, but The God Who Wasn't There was a monster hit and a model for this type of thing.

Speaking of 'Falsifying history' I have a concern, as seen in the following video from a different thread -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJweJ02Ar0c Posted by: wrathofasma at February 9, 2007 01:28 AM

The Muslims appear to be going and making a round in local communities, for instance they organize local meetings in local libraries. As usual they will use the system to throw out any individual asking hard questions as seen in the video. They put fear into peoples minds. For instance in the video, one of the Muslims states that a woman gets raped every 43 secs in the USA! These kind of concoctions are left unanswered hence a listener takes them home believing to be true.

A simple calculation shows that figure is absurd, for instance that would imply about 3 rapes per two mins; 90 rapes per min; whooping 130, 000 rapes over the year.

When you look at the audience, they are mostly young mothers and old folks. Both are vulnerable. If they could convince about 10% of their audience, then we could have a tipping point problem.

I don't know how to tackle this kind of problem - one suggestions would be to arrange a similar anti-Jihad talks a week after the Muslim visitors been to the local library. I feel it is important that we do something about them before they dilute minds and hearts of our good folks.

Here they are falsifying our contemporary history and already started on a different form of Jihad with possible funding from the Saudi-Ummma.

Well "shiver me timbers"! Foehammer is makin' my dhimmicratphobia flair up!

Seriously, the hairs on my neck rarely rise up and spread down my arms, but your words and the thought of what the dementedcrats could do in 8 years, makes me very afraid.

~ "Red Morgan Rackem" a.k.a. Morgan Malinois

For the paradise of the middle east, these "arabs" as they are collectively called in history were always on the high strung side.

The Assyrian who were forced out by the Babylonian Persian rule and ended up in Germany were quite adept at skinning people alive. This is what they did when they conquerred the 10 lost tribes of Israel.
References to Sabeans who were of the region showed them murderers, pillagers and slave traders.
The Babylonians who were exiled by the Persians and ended up in southern Italy are recorded in spooning people's eyes out as punishment.

They all were rather barbaric, base, sexual deviates and the originators of the false god demonic worship. If you remember the classic novel, Lord of the Flies......that is the Philistine demonic god. The Philistines are still with us today and known as Palestinians of Gaza.

You can go on to the Crusades where these converts to Islam were poisoning water sources to murder Christians and their war horses. The recorded instance of Weapons of Mass Destruction in chemical weaponry.

Going into Europe the Ottomans used murder, rape, pillage and enslavement to fuel their empire. The "lost" British Brigade in WW I was massacred by Turks and buried.
Want to know why north Africans are not black? It is because the Moors kidnapped so many white Europeans and raped them as their slaves that an entire new race was born due to this savagery.
Thomas Jefferson literally declared war as President on the Barbery pirates and sent the Marines in to rescue American hostages in Egypt.

So for all the peace, you can see Muhammed didn't invent anything for Islam. He simply gave a "god's blessing" to carry out the rape, slavery, murder, conquest and all other debauchery which these collective "muslims" were brought up in their culture.

THAT IS the danger of Islam compared to all other religions in that it does not prevent barbaric practices...it puts a god's blessing on them and makes them "good".

That is the history of the literal people of Islam.

he calls Muhammad’s community in Medina “a communal, egalitarian society dedicated to pluralism and tolerance.”

Well, maybe not Medina, but from what I read the community in Mecca was egalitarian, pluralistic and tolerant ... BEFORE Mohammed and his hordes took the city by force, slaughtered the inhabitants and "cleansed" the area by forbidding all but muslims to enter.

Thus, Mecca has become the LEAST pluralistic, egalitarian or tolerant place on earth.

Not only that, whatever Medina was like in Mohammed's day it is not a place of egalitarianism, tolerance or pluralism today, because it is the supposed burial place of Mo, and so has become a traditional secondary destination in an extended "hajj experience" for Muslims. Accordingly, the city of Medina has ALSO been cleansed of unbelievers: today it is illegal to go to certain parts of the city unless you are a muslim. The Saudi government is a bit coy about the actual penalty for being there, but they recently made it pretty clear:

Has everyone caught the story of Jojo Joseph, a Kuffar from India working in Saudi Arabia as a computer technician? Seems his wife had a baby and so he took a taxi to go to the hospital. The taxi driver, not knowing that Jojo was an unbeliever, drove through the forbidden zone of Medina.

As fate would have it they got pulled over and when Jojo could not product the appropriate identification he was arrested. He was quickly sentenced to death by beheading. The Indian embassy intervened and the authorities, apparently, relented on the basis that Jojo had entered the city accidentally. (Though I'm not sure that made much difference until it threatened to become an international incident.) This was just 6 weeks ago, just before the annual hajj celebration.

The implication is clear: If you ever intentionally enter the pluralistic, tolerant, egalitarian society and you're not "one of us" ... (or if you do it accidentally and your home government doesn't intervene) ...

Read the rest of Jojo's story

It apparently doesn't matter whether one speaks of history or of current events; they tell the same story on tolerance in Medina and Mecca.

Anyone who gets C-SPAN2 and is interested can see the debate tomorrow (Sunday) morning at 9:45 a.m. (EST). It is being rerun.

What can you say about Paul Barrett? In "American Islam," he writes about immigrant and native-born Muslims as well as converts to Islam. He also details the struggle to be both faithful to their religion and patriotic citizens of the U.S. since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

His presentation is also on C-SPAN2 on Sunday at 12:30 p.m. EST.

Off topic:

What was the pick of the tee contest?
Who won?

Anyway, all entries were excellent!

Sam Harris rocks - His greatest book is "The end of faith" imho

I got that book from the birbrary - and for some readon I had barely begun, but couldn't finish it.

"Inform yourselves. Don't let the whitewashers of jihad get away with any falsehoods".

Where do an I go and what should I read to get a correct view of history Robert, Hugh?

Thanks

Sam Harris rocks - His greatest book is "The end of faith" imho

I got that book from the library - and for some reason I had barely begun, returned it a few days later. I couldn't finish it.

Lame Cherry:

You said:

The Assyrian who were forced out by the Babylonian Persian rule and ended up in Germany... "

Not challenging you. I just want to get more details and learn more. Can you give me more info and sources, I want to learn more on history. Thanks.

Actually, one doesn't need to know the history of moslem-ruled countries, altho it certainly helps. The next time you hear the islamists going on about how wonderful and tolerant their countries were, all you need to do is to say "Gee, that's wonderful, why did they all change?"

Spencer ends this piece with wise words:

"Inform yourselves. Don't let the whitewashers of jihad get away with any falsehoods.

Mr. Spencer, I'm working on it - daily. I've had some unanticipated success recently . . . using audio books.

Late last year, I purchased another copy of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to islam (and the Crusades)" in audio format.

I spend a bit of time in my car so I thought I'd use the time consuming favorite texts while idling in traffic.

I recently left one the CD's in my car while it was receiving service at the shop. I was pleasantly surprised by a request for information about your book from the service tech. Who knew?!

A West Point cadet riding in my car requested to borrow the audio book when I'm done. So I suppose you can consider Lt. General John R Vines Suggested Reading list breached by justamom ;D.

This technique may begin with a captive audience, but I've repeatedly witnessed it inspire further interest in Spencer's books as well as the recorded versions of Mark Steyn's "America Alone" and Kenneth Timmerman's "Preachers of Hate".

Let's just say these CD's are quite the conversation starter.

Big Daddy,

I like this strategy a lot. One of the most insidious things about Islam is how much its adherents lie. Sheesh, these guys lie from morning till night. They are as bad as Communists in the old days.

"Given that Muhammad was so enlightened and progressive, it must make him sick to his stomach to look at terrorists killing women and children in his name and women in these islamic states being relegated to fourth class citizenship."

"Reza, do you think today's Muslims have disappointed the Prophet by either taking up terrorism in his name, or failing to renounce it as against what he stood for, and against the word of God"

Agree with him, and use his own words to force him into telling a truth.

...Muslims will rewrite all history books... if you allow them to...

I think a little balance is in order here.

Fitzgerald quotes:

Without any problem at all? How about the Jerusalem pogrom in 1920 and the Jaffa pogrom in 1921? Or Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safad in 1929? Or the Tiberias pogrom in 1938? (There was a reason the Sephardic Jewish sage Maimonides wrote in 1172 regarding Arabs, ‘Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.’)

Now what's great about pointing this out is that white-washing the past never works. But I would also say decontextualizing history with the sin of omission is as bad, if not worse, especially in times like these.

So, let's have a look at the same time period and the Christian record of the time (which I'm not fond of as a person born, raised and still a Christian).

(1) The year 1920 was the real beginning of the Third Reich, as the Volkstag movement which celebration the 400th anniversary of the birth of Luther, arguably the most horrific anti-Semite of the last millennium. On the Muslim side the pogrom of Jerusalem is taking place.

(2) In 1921 we have the pogrom of Jaffa. In the Christian United States the completely specious Protocols of the Elders of Zion are being published for free by Henry Ford and the American Bundestag starts to gain power.

(3) In 1929 we have the Arab massacre of Jews in Hebron and Safad. In the 1929 in Poland and Germany 10,000,000 Jews were being rounded by kids in Nazi uniforms, 97% of whom were Catholic or Lutheran. Hitler's mother's grave was a Catholic shrine.

(4) In 1938 we have the massacre at Tiberius. In Germany the Nazis are exterminating 6,000,000 of the Jews that they rounded up, and from whom they stole everything that they owned, stuffing most of the world's Western European art into the caves around the Vatican, where some of it sat for 50 years, while its pigments turned black.

Or, as Leon Wieseltier, clearly a sane and erudite Jew, and the literary editor of the National Reivew had occasion to comment: The Holocaust didn't happen in Saudi Arabia.

Now, I'm not arguing for silence on the truth, but the plain and simple is that until Balfour Declaration and the birth of the State of Israel, Jews had MUCH more to fear from us Christians than the Muslims.

During the entire period of the Inquistion -- which lasted from 1205 until 1785 when the last poor South American "heretic" was burned alive for speaking his own native language (the last man to be put to death in the Inquitiion -- Jews were much safer with their Muslim counterparts than their Christian ones.

There are quotations one can make the Qur'an that vilify Jews and Christians -- and those need to brought to light and feared and taken seriously. But there are just as many that refer to Christians and Jews as People of the Book to be protected.

What appears to be true in this case is that Reza Aslan whitewashes by not mentioning that there are, in fact, two antithetical interpretations -- the real problem that exists in Islamic scripture and needs to be sorted out. But Aslan is not wrong to encourage Muslims to take the attitude that they should adopt the brother surahs and discard the other. Fitzgerald accurately points out there were pogroms of Jews by Arabs during the 20th century, but ignores the fact that Christian Europe did its dead fuckin' level best to EXTERMINATE THEM?

How completely asleep am I supposed to pretend that I am? How brain-dead and historically illiterate am I supposed pretend to be?

The problem for survival of the Western world in this kind of "selective memory" in which damns the other and exonerates one's own is that the future cannot be built from this.

When one argues that the worst interpretations and forms of Islam are the only valid ones, one aborts in the womb the memory of times past when Islam reached it zenith in both artistic and humanitarian terms.

In 1492, Christopher Columbus was forced to sail from Ponte de Frontera south of Cadiz because the Cadiz Harbor was chock-a-block with Ottoman ships come to take TWO MILLION JEW TO SAFETY because Catholic Ferdinand and Isabella had expelled them on pain of death. Had those ships not come, there would be no Sephardic Judaism today.

So as to our Christian record: We have on our hands 6,000,000 Jews dead.

On the Muslim side: Two million saved. Now that doesn't sound to me like all Islam is and always has been about killing Jews. It most certainly has not.

And the unbalanced view of history and responsibility shown here is manipulative at best, and dangerous at worst, because it seeks to destroy the very solution that exists before our eyes, put best by Dr. Daniel Pipes, who apparently is just never really heard on this:

Radical Islam is the problem. Moderate Islam is the solution.

And if you insist upon the bald-faced black lie that moderate Islam does not, has not, and cannot exist, you kill in the womb the only possible solution to this problem.

You need to think about what you do when you take this tack. It is unworthy of Fitzgerald to make such claims without balance of recent history that everybody over 50 knows like the back of their hand.

And if it's beneath, it sure as hell is beneath me.

cc: Reza Aslan, PhD

P.S. Sorry about all the typos I know must be here. I have a paper due and am flat out of time.

Even if the Islamic defenders distorted view of history was correct ( which it is not ) that still does not explain away a gaping hole in their logic.

So what if it was a utopia in Medina 2,000 years ago or Spain 800 years ago, what about NOW! Where is that great religious tolerance in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Taliban or present Afghanistan or any Islamic country for that matter? And the Jihadist would argue the problem with the overwhelming majority of Islamic countries is that they are not Islamic enough read repressive enough.

If the Osama Bin Ladens and his admirers had their way Saudi Arabia for instance would be even MORE repressive. Repression and barbarism does not lead to a new progression or modernity but just backwardness. Some how the left cannot bring themselves to see the flaw in the jihadist argument.

Viewing Western nations of repressive, religiously intolerant all the while rooting for Osama Bin Laden and Arab nationalism to prevail on the international geo-political scene and totally ignoring the even more repressive, religious intolerance and sheer backwardness and brutality of that current.

---Nossy

Winston Smith did not write in the dust 2+2=4.

He wrote 2+2=5.

He was finally 'cured.'

Posted by: Walter in Denvar at February 10, 2007 11:27 AM

Really? I though it was the other way around. It has been a while since I read the story. Hmmmm. That's kind of a downer.....

Nope, unfortunately Winston Smith lost to forces greater than himself as an individual. That's why Muslim demographics matter so much. "Size matters."

That's a main reason why I think we might have to nuke 'em at some point in the future - they have more people than us.

That's a main reason why I think we might have to nuke 'em at some point in the future - they have more people than us.

Posted by: darcy at February 10, 2007 03:22 PM

Very good point!

"That's a main reason why I think we might have to nuke 'em at some point in the future - they have more people than us."

Only problem is when "they" are nuked, you know with DU, the winds of the earth, slaps us back in the face with the radioactivity.

So!.....

>That's a main reason why I think we might have to nuke 'em at some point in the future - they have more people than us.>

And just what do you think would do the global Mandelbrot Set if you did that? Hmmmmm? Of course you understand this, right?

Really, I want an answer about that. You're going to nuke, let's see ... Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Armenia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia (which will go when you nuke Somalia), Kenya (which will go when you nuke Tanzania), Mali, Malawi, Morocco, The Western Sahara, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, southern Thailand, Brunei, and Sri Lanka.

Of course, there's no possible environmental problem in this completely irresponsible FINAL SOLUTION, now is there?

Careful that you don't become what you say you hate.

Sorry ... I forgot Bangladesh and Kashmir. And Afghanistan.

And what do you expect to happen when you run out of strategic oil reserves in two months and the lights go out?

Hmmmm?

You see, venting, as much as you like, may not be enough. You guys sound like the rednecks I use to watch a cock fight. They wouldn't have the guts for what they did with the birds, but they felt like REAL BIG MEN shooting off their mouths about it.

And you wonder why the Muslims in Cairo think you're plotting the Sixth Crusade.

How about more intelligent thinking and more responsible speech?

Only problem is when "they" are nuked, you know with DU, the winds of the earth, slaps us back in the face with the radioactivity.

So!.....

Posted by: allat at February 10, 2007 04:14 PM

There is much more to it than just that. You first have to consider the number of explosions, actual amount of radioactive dust thrown up, weather conditions at the time, prevailing winds, distance from the explosions, protective countermeasures taken, and so forth. Don't forget we are on the other side of the Atlantic. It is quite possible most of the radioactive dust would have dissipated by the time it reaches us. Rain and weather might wash away the rest. Also, we can always take steps to insulate our homes by taping up doors, windows, etc. Most important of all, our infrastructure is intact. We would have suffered no blast damage. All in all, I think we'll come through in very good shape. Contrary to "On the Beach," you can fight and win a nuclear war, especially if the other side can't really fight back.

Besides, guys, how are you, as Christians, going to justify killing a billion people? I don't think you can.

And, frankly, no culture can live with genociding another. No ideology covers what happens to the human spirit when you do this.

It's true that we now have an "identified patient" behind we can hide every bad thing in our history, but deep down we know how we feel about the Inquistion.

I don't think we should sign up for another one like that. Do you?

This is an extremely irresponsible line of speech and reasoning.

Besides, guys, how are you, as Christians, going to justify killing a billion people? I don't think you can.
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 10, 2007 04:23 PM

I can justify it because I know the Mo's want to do it to us every day and I prefer our democratic, freedom-based civilization survive as opposed to their totalitarian, inhuman one. This is war and there ultimately will probably be no choice. It will come down to us or them. Remember, we didn't choose the rules. They did and thereby created their own destiny.

Steamroller -- I understand your point about Christians killing that many people, but look at what God did when He sent the flood; only Noah and his family were spared.

God does allow Christians to kill in self-defense regardless of the number.

Oops...I meant to write to Morgaan...sorry Steamroller.

Whoa, didn't mean to create a firestorm! And believe me, I did not mean "nuke 'em" lightly. That would be the LAST option, such as with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The LAST. Their threat to us would have become immense. In addition, it would not be EVERY Muslim country! Just the country that was providing us with no other option. Iran, perhaps.

What happened with radioactivity towards us concerning the aforementioned H/N?

Champ,

No problem at all.

Darcy,

The current threat IS immense and will remain so as long as Islam exists at all. That is the whole point of Islam, remember? As to radioactivity, as I mentioned above, it is affected by many different factors including time, weather conditions, countermeasures, prevailing winds, and so forth. As long as our infrastructure remains intact, all our other related problems will be relatively minor. DOD-related studies have previously shown that even the worst fallout typically decays down to relatively safe levels after approximately two weeks. I am more concerned about avoiding any hits at all and thereby escaping the related blast damage and destruction of our infrastructure.

Darcy -- you stated, "Iran, perhaps."

Iran FOR SURE! We need to nuke each and every one of Irans nuclear facilities and now -- more like YESTERDAY. We've already waited too long, and yes, there will be human casualties -- as in woman and children, because the men will hiding in an underground cave somewhere.

Then Steamroller, I would sugget you wait for God to send another Flood -- rather than nuke the entire planet and then SAY it was God that did it.

After all, isn't that what Bin Laden is doing? Mr. Sexual Problems Galore, Mr. Megalomaniac? Mr. Effete Religious Superiority Complex. He kills and then he says it was God's will. What a crock.

I am not averse to self-defense, and there are very specific legal and economic wars I would go to tomorrow.

The point I'm making here is that you have to take to its natural conclusion the train of thought you're following. That, you'll find, makes you VERY creative at solution-making and problem-solving -- and there's much less of this facile, unintelligent screed that says "HEY, THEY'RE A BOTHER, NUKE 'EM."

That's what Ahmadinejad is saying. What do you think of that?? You think that's sane talk?

And for sure, if you pull the trigger and nuke a billion people, don't come to me saying God did it. Because it most assuredly will not have been him.

If He wants to create a flood, it's the snap of a finger. If he wants break the Marianna's Trench and have the aesthenosphere of the Earth pouring out in the Pacific, which would kill every living think on earth in two years, He can do it anytime he wants.

My big problem is these sons of bitches pulling the triggering and saying God did, and I don't give a damn what religion they're part of when they do it. They can just all go to Hell.

Darcy ... read both histories. Read the history of Islam and the history of Christianity -- and the history of the Western world.

Have a look at all the wars, all the pogroms, all the Crusades, all the Inquistions and the IMMENSE FLUCTUATIONS in the practice of Christianity and Islam century after century. It's shocking and enlightening.

In the centuries when the philosophy of Paul was put ahead of the love of Christ there's been trouble -- and lots and lots and lots of death. In the interpretations of Islam that have place hadith and Medinan verses ahead of the Meccan verses, there have been jihads.

Mr. Sinclair, If things ever reach such a terrible point, we wouldn't be saying anything about God. Rather, it would be us utilizing self-defense. Hopefully, the Islamic situation will never reach that point.

The British government is currently making teaching about the slave trade a compulsory element in the national curriculum for England and Wales. Also, with the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade, throughout the British Empire, in 1807, there is likely to be a lot of media attention, plus museum exhibitions etc, connected with the subject this year.Black slavery in Islamic history will be totally ignored, or if mentioned, will be described as much milder than the nasty European/Christian sort.
History can be falsified by lies of omission as much as by straightforward distortion. Muslims will stand by and watch British culture breast beat and apologise to its Afro-Caribbean community for the next year and at the same time shoot itself in the foot. By keeping quiet Muslims will see the notion that Christianity is the white man's religion confirmed by the historic record of past crimes committed against Africans by Bible-toting Europeans.

Christianity getting a black eye again?
Dont you folks ever get tired of the worn out mantra, 'yeah but', 'Christianity was violent also'.
In spite of all the 'yeah buts', there are no Christians or Jews strapping on bombs, blowing up pizza parlors, or flying planes into buildings.
I dont care much for those intellectual pronouncements in the light of Nick Bergs beheading, or the thousands of deadly terrorist acts since 911.
Islam has not escaped examination, no matter what some crazed Christians (in name only) did during the crusades, or at any other time, does not excuse Islam, or muslims, for its behavior one iota.
Islams record has been exposed and made clear. Its motivation and ambitions are also clear, as are its methods. Clearly then, exposing Christianity is a diversion, and a waste of effort. Our problem is not with Christianity, it is with Islamic hegemony, and the tools it chooses to use to propagate it...

Morgaan Sinclair, you can sure pack a lot of historical misinformation into one posting.
) "The year 1920 was the real beginning of the Third Reich, as the Volkstag movement which celebration the 400th anniversary of the birth of Luther"
Please provide a refernce to the "Volkstag movement"; I can find no mention of it in several standard texts. Martin Luther was born in 1483, dies in 1546, and nailed his 05 Theses to the church door in 1517, so what is 1920 the 400th anniversary of?
"In the Christian United States the completely specious Protocols of the Elders of Zion are being published for free by Henry Ford"
Henry Ford was a free individual American, hardly the spokesman of either the United States or Christianity. And he withdrew his publication of them after due criticism convinced him that he
was mistaken.
"In the 1929(sic) in Poland and Germany 10,000,000 Jews were being rounded by kids in Nazi uniforms"
In 1929 there were less than 10 million Jews in all Europe, and less than 4 million in Germany and Poland combined. And the nazis were not in power yet even in Germany, so there were no "kids in nazi uniforms" rounding up Jews.
"In 1938 we have the massacre at Tiberius. In Germany the Nazis are exterminating 6,000,000 of the Jews that they rounded up"
In 1938, the death-camps were still a few years in the future. The nazis had imposed legal disabilities on their Jewish population, but the extermination did not begin until spring of 1942. And in 1938 the nazis controlled only Germany and Austria, with perhaps a total Jewish population of one million.

"Or, as Leon Wieseltier, clearly a sane and erudite Jew, and the literary editor of the National Reivew had occasion to comment: The Holocaust didn't happen in Saudi Arabia"
No, it didn't, and for a very good reason: there weren't any Jews in Saudi Arabia. It's rather like saying, in their defense, that the Spanish conquistadors didn't kill any Eskimos in Peru or Mexico. And why weren't there any Jews in Saudi Arabia? Because all the Jews in Arabia had been killed or driven out long before Arabia was Saudi; to be specific, in the 600's by Mo himself and his immediate followers.
As for your figure of 2 milliion Spanish Jews fleeing to Turkey, that's off by an order of magnitude or two. Two million would have been 1/3 the total population of Spain.

After all, isn't that what Bin Laden is doing? Mr. Sexual Problems Galore, Mr. Megalomaniac? Mr. Effete Religious Superiority Complex. He kills and then he says it was God's will. What a crock.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 10, 2007 06:02 PM

Morgan Sinclair,

Excuse me, but never once above did I say anything was "God's Will." You are putting words in my mouth. Hurling childish insults and name calling at me also does not change the basis of my argument and, if you have only that left to resort to, it is proof that you have lost the argument. I have told you the reality objectively and fairly. The muslims will never, ever stop attacking us. That is the reality. They will continue their jihad until they win or die. Period. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD. Until we are willing to wage total war as we did in World War 2, we will never win a victory. We will never have peace. We will only have a prelude until the next muslim attack. at that rate, they will eventually win because we will be worn down through attrition and ground into the dust. They also will not of course share your childish rants against those on their side for wanting to fight us to hard, nor will they play by the one-sided rules you have established. As such, they will not have any handicaps to tie their hands.
Oh, and by the way, I might be a Christian but I am also a scientist and an evolutionist so next time you begin hurling charges of "fundamentalism," you should bother to get your facts straight first. I also have no idea why you are attributing statements about the supposed "great flood" to me? Champ brought that up. I did not. In my opinion, the biblical "great flood" is either a metaphor or one of many disasters in the history of an earth billions of years old. In the future, unless you are prepared to get your facts straight and make coherent arguments based on facts, take your childish emotional freak outs elsewhere.

Steamroller, you quoted me God's flood and then tried to conflate that with nuking a billion people with the clear implication that nuking a billion people would be OK because god supposedly sent a flood to punish a bunch of people.

If you read the Sumerian accounts which underlay the Jewish scriptures on this subject (and from which the Old Testament accounts are taken) you will come to a very different conclusion about whether or not this was punish. If you read Velikovsky, you'll think something else entirely, too.

Go back and read your own post.

Ebonystone ...

For a complete understanding of the Volkstag movement, its relation to the Third Reich, and some chilling pictures of the German Catholic bishops doing a Nazi salute to Hitler, see the Holocaust Museum onlin.

Having seen the debate between Reza Aslan and Sam Harris on C-Span last weekend (including in that debate his bald-faced lie that Islam forbids slavery), and having now, through the links provided in this post, seen more of the man's blatant falsehoods about Islam - I am beginning to realize that he stands up there with Esposito and Armstrong as a major liar about Islam. Having seen him in person now I can also appreciate how dangerous these apologists can be. He has not a trace of a foreign accent and is obviously quite intelligent and confident. I actually didn't know at first who he was and at first thought he might be an Arab Christian by origin as he appeared to speak favorably about Christianity. It was after he delivered several obvious howlers about Islam that I recognized where he was coming from and proceeded to actually google his name on the internet. If in the future this site comes up with an award in the name of a particularly effective apologist for Islam, I nominate his name in the running for the namesake for such an award. "The Reza Aslan kitman award of the year" goes to....

Ebonystone:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005206
http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/presentations/discussions/details/2003-12-18/details/

"The muslims will never, ever stop attacking us. That is the reality. They will continue their jihad until they win or die. Period."

I agree with Steamroller here, but I would go further: not only that, but even if the Muslims do not succeed with their jihadist goal, they will still likely exact a heavy toll of mass murders and lots of destruction of our property. I.e., we should not even want the Muslims to fail as they pursue their barbaric goal. For, even if they fail, they will, in trying to succeed, take down too many of our lives. We should be looking, as best we can, to nip this horrific problem in the bud (though we probably won't).

Steamroller (appropriate name for you). What you got from me was solid historical fact. The histrionics came from you.

Fitzgerald did much more of what he accuses Aslan of than Aslan has ever done himself.

Fight with the truth. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The key thing there is not to distort history by decontextualizing it.

Apparently Fitzgerald expects Aslan to balance every good thing he says about Islam with the problems that occured in the same period of time. That's fair.

I'm only asking that Fitzgerald do the same -- and that he himself have the integrity he expects of others.

Morgaan Sinclair writes:
"(2) In 1921 we have the pogrom of Jaffa. In the Christian United States the completely specious Protocols of the Elders of Zion are being published for free by Henry Ford and the American Bundestag starts to gain power."

OK, so Mel, errr, Henry Ford goes on an anti-semitic
rant and America is damned in your eyes? It's like
a pogrom, where, you know, people get killed?

Sorry, the entire history of the USA, and the
Christians within it, with respect to Jews, is
better than anything that ever happened in the
Islamic world.

Morgan Sinclair said:

Steamroller, you quoted me God's flood and then tried to conflate that with nuking a billion people with the clear implication that nuking a billion people would be OK because god supposedly sent a flood to punish a bunch of people.

If you read the Sumerian accounts which underlay the Jewish scriptures on this subject (and from which the Old Testament accounts are taken) you will come to a very different conclusion about whether or not this was punish. If you read Velikovsky, you'll think something else entirely, too.

Go back and read your own post.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 10, 2007 08:36 PM

This is the post to which he refers:

"Steamroller -- I understand your point about Christians killing that many people, but look at what God did when He sent the flood; only Noah and his family were spared.

God does allow Christians to kill in self-defense regardless of the number."

Posted by: champ at February 10, 2007 05:05 PM

This post was written by Champ, not me. You are either a fool, Morgan Sinclair, or a liar or both. You obviously did not fully read or understand that that was champ addressing me, not me speaking to him. I did not quote the "great flood." Champ did. No offense to champ, it is simply the truth. In fact, if you read closer, you will see it was in fact Champ meaning to address Morgan Sinclair.

As further proof, here is champ's immediate subsequent post:

"Oops...I meant to write to Morgaan...sorry Steamroller."

Posted by: champ at February 10, 2007 05:06 PM

Well, I think I have proved morgan sinclair wrong enough for one night.

JSobieski,
I watched Glenn Beck last night.
I don't know what to think of Manji. Either she is woefully ignorant of her own religion or she is lying to us and hoping the jihadis will agree with her someday....not a chance.

Morgaan: "Apparently Fitzgerald expects Aslan to balance every good thing he says about Islam with the problems that occured in the same period of time. That's fair.

I'm only asking that Fitzgerald do the same -- and that he himself have the integrity he expects of others."

Just out of curiosity, Morgaan, do you think there is any shortage of people in the West who have failed to point out the crimes of the west, whether Hugh himself personally chooses to do so or not?

By contrast, please provide me a list of Muslims (not apostates) who have openly acknowledged the crimes that Islam has committed towards infidels throughout history.

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

"Exactly! Remember also the character "Winston Smith" in "1984." At the very end of the story, even after everything his torturers did to break him, he still scribbles 2+2=4 in front of him".

Steamroller-

I forgot that. You are right. Truth persists, Steamroller. 2+2=4 or 1 + 1 = 2. Truth is not relative.

Hi again, Frank! Regrettably, I was in error earlier about the ending of "1984." Walter in Denvar corrected me on that one. Turns out they did break poor old Winston and he would up writing 2+2=5. Long time since I read the story. Oh well, I was right about the "Ghandi" point at least and Ghandi was right: Truth does persist. :)

In 1492, Christopher Columbus was forced to sail from Ponte de Frontera south of Cadiz because the Cadiz Harbor was chock-a-block with Ottoman ships come to take TWO MILLION JEW TO SAFETY.."
-- from a poster above

"And the unbalanced view of history and responsibility shown here is manipulative at best, and dangerous at worst, because it seeks to destroy the very solution that exists before our eyes, put best by Dr. Daniel Pipes, who apparently is just never really heard on this:

Radical Islam is the problem. Moderate Islam is the solution.

And if you insist upon the bald-faced black lie that moderate Islam does not, has not, and cannot exist, you kill in the womb the only possible solution to this problem."
-- from the same poster, same posting, above

There is a good deal of nonsense to disentangle from the true in this poster's stuff. But the remark that the Ottoman ships were just waiting, crowded at Cadiz, to take on board two million Jews from Spain is absurd, every which way. One of the scholars who specializes in this period and this subject, Henry Kamen, concluded that about 50,000 Jewish families left Spain in 1492, and that only a few thousand went to Turkey. Some went to North Africa, and were, on the whole, wretchedly treated -- often not admitted to the cities, to die in the desert. The single place where they were well received appears to have been Tlemcen. Many returned to Spain, and accepted the cruelty of forced conversion; apparently that was preferable to what they experienced in North Africa. Some went to ?Turkey, some spread out in various Italian cities (Naples was welcoming, for example), and others ended up, as we know, in other European cities, including famously tolerant -- at least later -- Amsterdam.

If that poster has other information and would care to adduce it, she can post it right here. If she doesn't, and if she continues to post this kind of thing, a whole lot of that kind of thing, so that others get distracted, or have to take the time to set the record straight, she will have to take her stuff and post it elsewhere. This is not public property, and those who get in the way of this site's pedagogic purpose, and do so after warning to cut it out, are simply escorted firmly off the premises. There seems to be some confusion about a website is. It is, among other things, private property. It may invite others to post; it may have no outside posters whatsoever. It may ban, or not ban. This site intelligently invites inteligent comment -- not mere emoting, not trolls (unless those trolls turn out to be useful exemplars or representatives of something it is useful to put on exhibit, as with a certain Naseem). But it is not a case of "you can't do that to me." Oh yes we can. And will.

Meanwhile, I will wait for the evidence that an Ottoman fleet of ships just waited off Cadiz to carry back to Turkey "2 million Jews."

As for the endorsement of this unfortunate mantra of Daniel Pipes, about "moderate Islam is the solution" -- this entire site, if the information and discussion presented on it is understood and thoroughly assimilated, stands for the idea that this is a forlorn and false hope, and that the very idea of some "solution" to a "problem" is false, for the problem is permanent, and the position of Infidels can be ameliorated, and the weaknesses of Islam exploited so as to cause divisions and dissension within the ranks of Islam, but not as Pipes, and the poster, think possible -- the "moderates" standing up to the "immoderates." The "moderates" are few, the "moderates" are difficult to define, the "moderates" can have children who are "immoderate" or themselves be transformed, for any number of reasons (including mental desarroi) into "immoderates" -- and the whole thing, as a plan, as a strategy, will only work to delay or prevent widesread understanding and full recognition, among Infidels, of the depth and scope and full menace of what is a "problem" without a "solution."

Accuracy is required for further posting. Civility toward others is required as well. So far, it's zero de conduite.

End of story.

Steamroller-

We are both fallible, Steam. Memory is not always reliable and is relative, even as we do our best to be truthful. But the the truth is the truth.

In getting it wrong (by torture-dogma) Winston Smith got it right because 2 + 2 = 4 even if he was forced to write 2 + 2 = 5. Truth does persist. :)

Thanks for making me think about the truth.

Concluding Fairly Unscientific Postscript:

And the very idea that I have scanted the record of antisemitism, and of its victims, in what used to be called Western Christendom,is nonsense. I have repeatedly discussed it, in all kinds of ways, and if the poster in question would go back and read a few hundred or a few thousand of my postings, it would be clear at once.

We are talking about Islam. We are discussing Islam. During World War II, it would not have made much sense for Franklin Roosevelt to discuss during one of his Fireside Chats to raise morale, say, slavery or its aftermath. Apparently the poster thinks that whenever the doctrine of Islam, and the practice of Muslims in executing that doctrine - the Jihad-conquest, the mistreatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule - is discussed, it is essential that at the same time everything that has been done in the Western world also be discussed at the same time. Otherwise, she appears to think, the discussion is illegitimate.

I constantly allude, when appropriate, to the mistreatment of what I call "the most persecuted tribe in human history," and have mentioned repeatedly not only the Nazis themselves, but all those who collaborated so enthusiastically with the Nazis, and have further discussed all sorts of things -- those who in Western Europe, and in Washington, to either deliberately overlook or, still worse, to help Nazis escape to South America (see what I have written at this site about Gehlen, about Klaus Barbie, about others involved in the "Rat Line"). I have noted the antisemitism of so many in the British administration in Mandatory Palestine, and so much else in the same vein that to be accused by someone who clearly has just shown up here recently, and has not been reading the last 3 1/4 years of postings, is unacceptable.

And I don't accept it.

Hugh-

Two million people on board vessles would look like the Normandy Invasion. It's absurd. The Ottomans would need the kind of transport the British and US required for the invasion of France on June 6, 1944.

Even on June 6, 1944, the number of troops transported to Normandy were less than 2 million, yet that required many thousands of vessels, enough that the Germans were stunned by their numbers. The idea that the Ottoman Empire (or any empire at that time) could transport that many persons is absurd. In fact, even now it would require thousands of vessels and whole battle fleets to transport 2 million people across the Mediterranean. The ships of that time were tiny vessels. It would require probably ten times the number of vessels (or more) of Normandy to do that (transport 2 million persons). Not impossible today-but very difficult.

Hugh, a little checking into the postings of this "Morgaan Sinclair," on this site as well as others yields some interesting results. If I recall correctly, this poster accused you just the other day of leaving insulting posts toward her, on another website, which you denied. I thought the name sounded familiar, so I looked into the archives and sure enough found this odd little tidbit from last year:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013064.php

In fact, reading some threads on other blogs on which this (I assume) same poster participated seemed to be of a similar nature, in that this poster seemed to steer them into strange and contentious debates, the only product of which seemed to be a distraction from the topic at hand. I'm not in a position to determine whether or not this result was intended by the poster in question, but I certainly must wonder about this individual's agenda.

HUGH WROTE:

I constantly allude, when appropriate, to the mistreatment of what I call "the most persecuted tribe in human history," and have mentioned repeatedly not only the Nazis themselves, but all those who collaborated so enthusiastically with the Nazis, and have further discussed all sorts of things -- those who in Western Europe, and in Washington, to either deliberately overlook or, still worse, to help Nazis escape to South America (see what I have written at this site about Gehlen, about Klaus Barbie, about others involved in the "Rat Line"). I have noted the antisemitism of so many in the British administration in Mandatory Palestine, and so much else in the same vein that to be accused by someone who clearly has just shown up here recently, and has not been reading the last 3 1/4 years of postings, is unacceptable.

Hugh, what you do not ever seem to point out is that 99% of Nazis were Christians, whereas you attach Islamic to everything the Arabs did to the Jews. You rush to point out the pograms they carried out, while ignoring the 850,0000,000 pound elephant in the center of Western culture -- a Holocaust carried out by Christians.

The bottom line here is that you guys are constantly dealing with history decontextualized to minimize Christian culpability for pogroms against the Jews. The Holocaust gets relegated to groups -- as in your last post -- that are:

Nazis
"those in Europe"
"thos in Washington"

How very antiseptic. They Third Reich ran on Lutheran anti-Semitic screed, and if the Pope at the time wasn't a direct collaborator, he certainly didn't stand up either against the Third Reich or Mussolini, prefering, as some put it, dictatorships to democracies.

Now, I'm not arguing that Islam is equal to Christianity as a religious entity, because I do not believe that it is. Christianity holds tenets of egalitarian spirituality that, when upheld (they are not always, particularly as regards women now and non-White cultures in the past) offer the greatest hope of a purely benign spirituality that there is. Islam is not equal to this, in my opinion, not even when you throw out the Hadith and the Medinan verses. It's just not as enlightened, IN MY OPINION. I've been wrong before, but I don't believe I'm wrong about this.

However, this constant demanding that Muslims make right with Christians and Jews everything in their past, while referring to the Third Reich collaborators as "Nazis" and "those in Europe" and "those in Washington" -- without ever admitting just who was operating the gas chambers is so disingenious that it's mind-blowing.

Andrew Bostom has written on the history of the Jews in "Palestine" after the Muslim conquest of that territory. Apparently it will all come as a surprise to Reza Aslan:

"Jihad conquests and early Muslim rule in Syro-Palestine

Moshe Gil, in his comprehensive A History of Palestine, 634-1099, emphasizes the singular centrality that Palestine occupied in the mind of its pre-Islamic Jewish inhabitants, who referred to the land as “al-Sham”. Indeed, as Gil observes, the sizable Jewish population in Palestine (who formed a majority of its inhabitants, when grouped with the Samaritans) at the dawn of the Arab Muslim conquest were “…the direct descendants of the generations of Jews who had lived there since the days of Joshua bin Nun, in other words for some 2000 years…”. 367 He also explodes the ahistorical thesis of scholars who, 368

…perceive an ethnic motivation behind the [jihad] conquests. They see Arabs everywhere: even the Canaanites and the Philistines were Arabs, according to their theories. This applies to an even greater degree to the population of Palestine and Syria in the seventh century, who were certainly Semites. Thus, according to their claims, the conquering Arab forces in the course of their battles, actually encountered their own people or at least members of their own race who spoke the same language…This is of course a very distorted view: Semitism is not a race and only relates to a sphere of language. The populations met along the route of battle, living in cities or the country side, were not Arabs and did not speak Arabic. We do know of Bedouin tribes at that time who inhabited the borderlands and the southern desert of Palestine, west of the Euphrates (Hira) in the Syrian desert, Palmyra, and elsewhere. But the cultivated inner regions and the cities were inhabited by Jews and Christians who spoke Aramaic. They did not sense any special ties to the Bedouin; if anything it was the contrary. Their proximity and the danger of an invasion from that quarter disturbed their peace of mind and this is amply reflected both in the writings of the Church Fathers and in Talmudic sources.

Gil concludes that views of the jihad conquest of Palestine expressed in the sources from the vanquished, indigenous non-Muslim populations, 369

…reflect the attitude of the towns and villages in Palestine quite accurately; the attitude of a sedentary population, of farmers and craftsmen, toward nomads whose source of income is the camel and who frequently attack the towns, pillage and slaughter the inhabitants, and endanger the lives of the wayfarer. These sources completely contradict the argument…to the effect that the villagers and townsmen in Palestine accepted the invasion of those tribes bearing the banner of Islam with open arms of their so-called racial affinity.

Bat Ye’or summarizes the Arab Muslim conquest of Palestine as follows: 370

…Abu Bakr organized the invasion of Syria [Syro-Palestine] which Muhammad had already envisaged. He gathered tribes from the Hijaz, Najd, and Yemen and advised Abu Ubayda, in charge of operations in the Golan, to plunder the countryside, but due to a lack of adequate weaponry, to refrain from attacking towns. Consequently, the whole Gaza region up to Cesarea was sacked and devastated in the campaign of 634. Four thousand Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan peasants who defended their land were massacred. The villages of the Negev were pillaged by Amr b. al-As, while the Arabs overran the countryside, cut communications, and made roads perilous. Towns such as Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Cesarea, Nablus, and Beth Shean were isolated and closed their gates. In his sermon on Christmas day 634, the patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, lamented over the impossibility of going on pilgrimage to Bethlehem, as was the custom because the Christians were being forcibly kept in Jerusalem: ‘not detained by tangible bonds, but chained and nailed by fear of the Saracens,’ whose ‘savage, barbarous and bloody sword’ kept them locked up in the town…Sophronius, in his sermon on the Day of the Epiphany 636, bewailed the destruction of the churches and monasteries, the sacked towns, the fields laid waste, the villages burned down by the nomads who were overrunning the country.

Why is there no end to the bloodshed? Why are churches being destroyed and the cross desecrated? The Saracens, “abomination of desolation” foretold by the Prophet (Daniel 12:11), are passing through lands forbidden to them, plundering cities and destroying fields, burning villages and razing holy monasteries…and priding themselves they will conquer the whole world. 371

In a letter the same year to Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, he mentions the ravages wrought by the Arabs. Thousands of people perished in 639, victims of the famine and plague that resulted from these destructions.

The countryside [in Syro-Palestine, Iraq, Persia, and Armenia] suffered constant razzias, while those who escaped the sword swelled the contingents of enslaved women and children, shared out among the soldiers after the deduction of the fifth [share of the “booty”] reserved for the caliph.

S.D. Goitein, in referring to Sophronius descriptions, as well as other contemporary sources, adds, 371a

…we learn incidentally that the villages and unwalled cities suffered more than the fortified cities from the sudden invasion by the sons of the desert. This is also evidenced by the ruins of the synagogues at Eshtamo’a in southern Judea.

Moreover, the Muslim chronicler Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E.) maintained that 30,000 Samaritans and 20,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone just prior to the Arab Muslim conquest; afterward, all evidence of them disappears. 372

The 10th century Jacobite chronicler Michael the Syrian wrote that the ongoing Arab razzias and expeditions in Syro-Palestine (as well as Iraq, Persia, and Armenia), were characterized by repeated, and systematic pillage: 373

The Taiyaye [Arabs] grew rich, increased and overran [the lands] which they took from the Romans [Byzantines] and which were given over to pillage.

And following the surrender of the city of Damascus, he notes: 374

Umar [b. al-Khattab] sent Khalid [b. Walid] with an army to the Aleppo and Antioch region. There, they murdered a large number of people. No one escaped them. Whatever may be said of the evils that Syria suffered, they cannot be recounted because of their great number; for the Yaiyaye [Arabs] were the great rod of God’s wrath.

Gil further elaborates on the initial wave of jihad conquests, and details the lasting destruction they wrought: 375

…at the time of the conquest, Palestine was inhabited by Jews and Christians….The Arab tribes were to be found in the border areas, in keeping with arrangements made with the Byzantine rulers….one can assume that the local population suffered immensely during the course of the war [i.e., jihad conquests] and it is very likely that many villages were destroyed and uprooted in the frontier regions, and that the lot of these local populations was very bitter indeed. It appears that the period of the conquest was also that of the destruction of the synagogues and churches of the Byzantine era, remnants of which have been unearthed in our own time and are still being discovered. The assumption is based both on what is said in a few Christian sources…and on Muslim sources describing ‘Umar’s [Umar b. al-Khattab] visits to al-Sham. There is no doubt that one of the main purposes of these visits was to establish order and put an end to the devastation and slaughter of the local population…Towns in the western strip and the central strip (the region of the red sand hills and the swamps) in the Sharon, decreased from fifty-eight to seventeen ! It is estimated that the erosion of the soil from the western slopes of the Judaean mountains reached – as a result of the agricultural uprooting during the Muslim period – the gigantic extent of 2,000 to 4,000 cubic meters….We find direct evidence of the destruction of agriculture and the desertion of the villages in the fact that the papyri of Nessana are completely discontinued after the year 700. One can assume that at the time the inhabitants abandoned the place, evidently because of the inter-tribal warfare among the Arabs which completely undermined the internal security of the area.

An archaeological analysis by Naphtali Lewis emphasizes that the distress of the inhabitants was exacerbated after the year 700. Conditions became unbearable, due to the general political situation and worsening attitudes toward the dhimmis, rendering the Negev a wasteland. 376

It was precisely at this period in the Caliphate of Abd-al-Malik and his sons (685-743 C.E.) that the Arab state embarked on a new, nationalistic policy. The official records of Islam began to be kept in Arabic…and non-Arabs began to be eliminated from government service. With this Arabization of rule came increasing fiscal burdens for the Christians-burdens which they could now no longer escape by conversion to Islam…[This] may well have rendered life impossible for the villagers of the Negev, who had already before…had occasion to complain of fiscal oppression. In the period of their prosperity…the production of the Negev villages was supplemented by financial assistance from the Byzantine Emperors, in the form of stipends and emoluments paid the military settlers; in the first half-century of Arab rule, which terminated this positive support but otherwise changed conditions little, life could apparently still be sustained- and where life is even barely bearable people are generally reluctant to leave their homes; but when the government changed its policy and began to make conditions as a result become increasingly difficult, life in the southern desert became impossible and the Negev villages disappeared…growing Arab strength…drove out the Negev inhabitants; the weakness of central authority in the area would result from the growing depopulation and relapse into nomadism.

Finally, Gil has translated these observations by the 10th century Karaite commentator Yefet b. ‘Ali expressing awareness of the fact that there was great destruction in Palestine and that there were places which remained uninhabited, while there were other places to which people returned and settled: 377

…the places which were completely destroyed so that no memory of them remains, like Samaria…and the second…are the places which have been destroyed and ruined, but despite this there are guards and people living there, such as Hebron and others…

Gil also captures the stark, unromantic reality of Muslim ruled Palestine during this era which included-the initial jihad conquest and establishment of Arab Muslim rule, from 634 to 661; Umayyad-Damascene rule, from 661 until 750; Abbasid-Baghdadian rule, from 750 through 878; Turco-Egyptian rule- Tulunids and Ikshidids- from 878 until 970- "interrupted" by Abbasid-Baghdadian rule again, between 905 and 930; nearly two generations of war including numerous participants, the dominant party being the Fatimids, from 970 through 1030; just over 40-years of Fatimid-Egyptian rule, between 1030 and 1071; and a generation of (Seljuq) Turkish (or “Turcoman”) rule encompassing most of Palestine, from 1071 until 1099. 378

The Abbasids moved the capital city from Damascus (seat of the Umayyad Empire) to Baghdad, absorbed much of the Syrian and Persian culture, as well as Persian methods of governance, and ushered in a putative "Golden Age." Gil and Bat Ye’or offer revealing assessments of this “Golden Age” dhimmitude and its adverse impact on the conquered, indigenous Jews and Christians of Palestine. Under early Abbasid rule (approximately 750-755 C.E., perhaps during the reign Abul Abbas Abdullah al-Saffah) Greek sources report orders demanding the removal of crosses over Churches, bans on Church services and teaching of the scriptures, the eviction of monks from their monasteries, and excessive taxation. 379 Gil notes that in 772 C.E., when Caliph al-Mansur visited Jerusalem, 380

..he ordered a special mark should be stamped on the hands of the Christians and the Jews. Many Christians fled to Byzantium.

Bat Ye’or elucidates the fiscal oppression inherent in eighth century Palestine which devastated the dhimmi Jewish and Christian peasantry: “Over-taxed and tortured by the tax collectors, the villagers fled into hiding or emigrated into towns.” 381 She quotes from a detailed chronicle of an eighth century monk, completed in 774: “The men scattered, they became wanderers everywhere; the fields were laid waste, the countryside pillaged; the people went from one land to another”. 382 The Greek chronicler Theophanes (as summarized by Gil) provides a contemporary description of the chaotic events which transpired after the death of the caliph Harun al-Rashid in 809 C.E., and the ensuing fratricidal war which erupted between the brothers al-Amin and al-Ma’mun, rendering Palestine “…the scene of violence, rape, and murder.” 383

Perhaps the clearest outward manifestations of the inferiority and humiliation of the dhimmis were the prohibitions regarding their dress “codes”, and the demands that distinguishing signs be placed on the entrances of dhimmi houses. During the Abbasid caliphates of Harun al-Rashid (786-809) and al-Mutawwakil (847-861), Jews and Christians were required to wear yellow (as patches attached to their garments, or hats). 384 Later, to differentiate further between Christians and Jews, the Christians were required to wear blue. In 850, consistent with Qur’anic verses associating them with Satan and Hell, 385 al-Mutawwakil decreed that Jews and Christians attach wooden images of devils to the doors of their homes to distinguish them from the homes of Muslims. Bat Ye’or summarizes the oppression of the dhimmis throughout the Abbasid empire under al- Mutawwakil as “…a wave of religious persecution, forced conversions, and the elimination of churches and synagogues…” 386

Amitai ben Shephatia, a poet who lived in southern Italy expressed the anguish felt by Jews over the continued control of their holy city, Jerusalem, by alien elements in a verse composed around the year 900: 387

I mention God and groan
As I see every city built on its mound
And the city of God utterly downtrodden

Salomon b. Jeroham (“The Wise”), a major Karaite exegete who flourished in Jerusalem between 940—960, 388 and experienced Muslim rule directly, wrote the following in his commentary on Lamentations 1:3, regarding the sufferings of the Jews under Islam: 389

As for Ishmael, there is no limit to their brutality and harshness. I is from them that [the Psalmist] asks to be rescued when he says [Ps. 120:5—7]: “This is worse than life in Meshech 390 or camping in Kedar. 391 Too long have I lived among people who hate peace, who, when I propose peace, are all for war.” What can you say about a people who curse you when you greet them, and when you do not greet them humiliate you and offend you? When you talk to them, they want you to differ with them so that you be considered a sinner. I have learned that the Jews of Samarqand and the region when they say “God is one” [people who hear it], testify that by [saying] so they have become Muslims. Therefore, if they want to remain Jews they can only resort to saying “There are a thousand gods, or ten, or less or more.” Then the Muslims say: “You are indeed infidels” and will let them hold their religion. The calamities inflicted upon the Jews (under Islam) are countless.

During the early 11th century period of al-Hakim’s reign, religious assaults and hostility intensified. As Gil notes, 392

…the destruction of the churches at the Holy Sepulchre [1009 C.E.] marked the beginning of a whole series of acts of oppression against the Christian population, which according to reliable sources, extended to coercion to convert to Islam.

Yahya b. Sa’id’s description of the events surrounding the destruction of the Churches of the Holy Sepulchre is summarized by Gil: 393

They dismantled the Church of the Resurrection to its very foundations, apart from what could not be destroyed or pulled up, and they also destroyed the Golgotha and the Church of St Constantine and all that they contained, as well as the sacred grave stones. They even tried to dig up the graves and wipe out all traces of their existence. Indeed they broke and uprooted most of them. They also laid waste to a convent in the neighborhood…The authorities took all the other property belonging to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and its pious foundations and all its furnishings and treasures.

Citing both Muslim (al-Quda’i, Ibn Khallikan, and Ibn Al-Athir) and non-Muslim (Bar Hebraeus) sources, Gil also describes the edicts al-Hakim imposed upon the Christians and Jews beginning in August 1011 C.E.: 394

They were ordered to wear black turbans. The Christians had to wear a cross the length of a cubit and weighing five ratls around their necks around their necks; the Jews were obliged to wear a block of wood of similar weight…they had to wear some distinguishing mark in the bath-houses, and finally al-Hakim decided that there were to be separate bath-houses for their use…Ibn Al-Athir conveys…that al-Hakim ordered (after the destruction of the Chucrh of the Resurrection in Jerusalem…) that all the churches in the realm be destroyed, and this was done, and that the Jews and Christians were then to accept Islam, or emigrate to Byzantine lands. They were also obliged to wear special distinguishing signs. Many converted…Bar Hebraeus speaks of thousands of churches which were destroyed in the Fatimid kingdom at that time; the decree regarding the wearing of the cross around the neck was also, he says, a means of pressuring the Christians to convert. The wooden block the Jews were obliged to wear, had to be in the shape of a calf, as a reminder of the golden calf…

In a separate, focused analysis of the conditions of the dhimmis of Jerusalem, Gil concludes that during the early through the mid 11th century, the Jews suffered both economically and physically: 395

Economic conditions in Jerusalem were rather harsh, and the yeshiva often issued urgent appeals for aid. Besides, there were frequent acts of oppression on the part of the Muslim authorities. Very often special heavy taxes were imposed, which aggravated the already precarious situation of both the yeshiva and the Jewish population of Jerusalem. It must be remembered that taxation in Jerusalem was probably different from that found in other parts of the Muslim world. It seems that Jews there had to pay a comprehensive lump sum for the whole Jewish population of the city, regardless of its numbers. When the population decreased as a result of wars and Bedouin upheavals, the burden on each individual became heavier. In such situations the yeshiva was forced to borrow money, against heavy interest, from wealthy Muslims. When the time of repayment arrived, Jewish notables were in danger of being imprisoned, as the yeshiva was not in a position to accumulate the funds it had to return. In some cases people were actually incarcerated and it took a great deal of effort to collect the funds necessary for their release. An example is the letter written by Abraham, the son and main assistant of Solomon b. Yehuda, head of the yeshiva, to the sons of Mevasser, a family of parnasim of Fustat, asking them to keep their promise to send the aid in time to pay the kharaj.

Muslim Turcoman rule of Palestine for the nearly three decades just prior to the Crusades (1071-1099 C.E.) was characterized by such unrelenting warfare and devastation, that an imminent “End of Days” atmosphere was engendered. 396 For example, Gil describes one of Atsiz b. Awaq’s jihad campaigns in Syro-Palestine at around 1077 C.E.: 397

Then Atsiz advanced on Jerusalem from Damascus, placed the city under siege, and promised its inhabitants the aman; on this basis, the inhabitants opened the gates of the city to him. Atsiz prevailed over Jerusalem, completely ignoring his promise of aman, and went on a rampage. He slaughtered 3,000 people there…He also conducted campaigns of annihilation against Ramla, until all its people had fled, and against Gaza, where he murdered the entire population. He likewise massacred people in al-'Arish and elsewhere and wrought endless havoc in Damascus, where only 3,000 of the original 500,000 inhabitants had remained, due to starvation and scarcity. Jaffa, too, was attacked, and its governor…fled from the town to Tyre, together with all the city's inhabitants, while the walls of Jaffa were destroyed on Atsiz' orders.

A contemporary Russian chronicle cited by Gil indicates that the Turcomans, “…destroyed and desolated the cities and the villages from Antioch to Jerusalem. They murdered, took captive, pillaged, set on fire; they destroyed churches and monasteries”.398

Gil notes that these observations are confirmed by Geniza documents, describing how, “…the Turcoman occupation denoted terrible calamities, such as the taking captive of the people of Ramla, the cutting off of roads, the obduracy of the commanders, the aura of anxiety and panic, and so on.” 399 He continues, “We do not know what Atsiz' attitude was to the Jewish population in 1078, during the cruel suppression of the uprisings and the destruction of towns, but the fact that from this date onwards, we barely find letters from Palestine (apart from Ascalon and Caesarea) in the Geniza documents, speaks for itself. 400

A contemporary poem by Solomon ha-Kohen b. Joseph, believed to be a descendant of the Geonim, an illustrious family of Palestinian Jewish religious leaders, speaks of destruction and ruin, the burning of harvests, the razing of plantations, the desecration of cemeteries, and acts of violence, slaughter, and plunder: 401

They were a strange and cruel people, girt with garments of many colors,/Armed and officered-chiefs among ‘the terrible ones’-/And capped with helmets, black and red,/With bow and spear and full quivers;/And they trumpet like elephants, and roar as the roaring ocean,/To terrify, to frighten those who oppose them,/

And they are wicked men and sinners, madmen, not sane,/ And they laid waste the cities, and they were made desolate/And they rejoiced in their hearts, hoping to inherit./

He [God] also remembered what they had done to the people of Jerusalem,/ That they had besieged them twice in two years,/ And burned the heaped corn and destroyed the places,/ And cut down the trees and trampled upon the vineyards,/And surrounded the city upon the high mountains,/And despoiled the graves and threw out the bones,/And built palaces, to protect themselves against the heat,/And erected an altar to slay upon it the abominations;/And the men and the women ride upon the walls, Crying unto the God of gods, to quiet the great anger,/ Standing the whole night, banishing sleep,/While the enemy destroy, evening and morning,/And break down the whole earth, and lay bare the ground,/ And stand on the highways, intending to slay like Cain,/ And cut off the ears, and also the nose,/And rob the garments, leaving them stand naked,/ And also roar like lions, and roar like young lions;/ They do not resemble men, they are like beasts,/ And also harlots and adulterers, and they inflame themselves with males,/ They are bad and wicked and spiteful as Sodomites./ And they impoverished the sons of nobles, and starved the delicately bred./ And all the people of the city went out and cried in the field,/ And covered their lips, silent in their pains,/ And they had no mercy on widows, and pitied not the orphans.

Gil concludes that as a result of the Turcoman jihad, 402

Palestine was drawn into a whirlpool of anarchy and insecurity, of internal wars among the Turks themselves and between them (generally in collaboration with the Arab tribes) and the Fatimids. Here and there, in one or another area, a delicate state of balance was arrived at for a few years. By and large, however, the Turcoman period, which lasted less than thirty years, was one of slaughter and vandalism, of economic hardship and the uprooting of populations. Terrible suffering, eviction and wandering, was the particular lot of the Jewish population, and chiefly its leadership, the Palestinian yeshiva.

Gil offers this sobering overall assessment from his extensive, copiously documented analysis of the initial period of Muslim rule of Palestine, from 634 to 1099 C.E.: 403

These facts do not call for much interpretation; together they simply form a picture of almost unceasing insecurity, of endless rebellions and wars, of upheavals and instability…

Palestinian Jewry Under The Mamluks and Ottomans

The brutal nature of the Crusader’s conquest of Palestine, particularly of the major cities, beginning in 1098/99 C.E., has been copiously documented.404 However, the devastation wrought by both Crusader conquest and rule (through the last decades of the 13th century) did not approach let alone exceed, what transpired during the first four and one-half centuries of Muslim jihad conquests, endless internecine struggles for Muslim dominance, and imposition of dhimmitude. As Emmanuel Sivan has observed, regarding Crusader dominion, 405

…practical considerations appear to have outweighed religious fanaticism and, when it came to the peasantry, the ‘infidel children of the devil’ in the villages were spared. It was clear to the Crusaders that they were themselves too few to dispense with the labor of local …farmers in cultivating the soil.

Moreover, the testimony of Isaac b. Samuel of Acre (1270-1350 C.E.), one of the most outstanding Kabbalists of his time, is illuminating. Conversant with Islamic theology and often using Arabic in his exegesis, Isaac nevertheless believed that it was preferable to live under the yoke of Christendom rather than that of Islamdom. Acre was taken from the Crusaders by the Mamluks in 1291 in a very brutal jihad conquest described by Runciman: 406

Soon the Moslem soldiers penetrated right through the city, slaying everyone, old men, women and children alike. A few lucky citizens who stayed in their houses were taken alive and sold as slaves, but not many were spared. No one could tell the number of those that perished…Some prisoners were freed and returned to Europe after nine or ten years of captivity…Many women and children disappeared for ever into the harems of Mameluk emirs. Owing to the plentiful supply the price of a girl dropped to a drachma a piece in the slave market at Damascus. But the number of Christians that were slain was greater still…As soon as Acre was in his power, the Sultan (al-Ashraf Khalil) set about its systematic destruction…The houses and bazaars were pillaged, then burned; the buildings (of the Orders) and the fortified towers and castles were dismantled; the city walls were left to disintegrate. When the German pilgrim, Ludolf of Suchem passed by some forty years later, only a few peasants lived amongst the ruins of the once splendid capital…

Isaac was at Acre when that town was conquered (by Al-Malik al-Ashraf), and was thrown into prison with many of his coreligionists; but he escaped the massacre. Accordingly, in 1305, 407 despite the precept to dwell in the Holy Land, Isaac b. Samuel fled to Italy and thence to Christian Spain, where he wrote: 408

The word ziz in Arabic is derogatory, for when they wish to say in that tongue, ‘Strike him upon the head,’ ‘Give him a blow upon the neck,’ they say zazzhu (‘hit him’)…Indeed, on account of our sins they strike upon the head the children of Israel who dwell in their lands and they thus extort money from them by force. For they say in their tongue, mal al-yahudi mubah, ‘it is lawful to take money of the Jews.’ For, in the eyes of the Muslims, the children of Israel are as open to abuse as an unprotected field. Even in their law and statutes they rule that the testimony of a Muslim is always to be believed against that of a Jew. For this reason our rabbis of blessed memory have said, ‘Rather beneath the yoke of Edom [Christendom] than that of Ishmael.’ They plead for mercy before the Holy One, Blessed be He, saying, ‘Master of the World, either let us live beneath Thy shadow or else beneath that of the children of Edom’ (a Talmudic verse)

Following the interlude of Crusader dominion over Palestine (1099 to 1291 C.E.), Muslim rule was restored under the Mamluks. C. E. Bosworth characterizes the repercussions for the dhimmi Christian and Jewish communities in Egypt and Syro-Palestine due to efforts by the Mamluk Sultans [1250-1516, C.E.] “…to keep alight the spirit of jihad and the feelings of Muslim xenophobia.”, as follows: 409

All through the Mamluk period, Muslim feeling was whipped up by popular preachers, by fatwas against the lawfulness of employing dhimmis in public offices, and by books and tracts from scholars of such eminence as Ibn Taymiyya. Persecutions and massacres mounted, with peaks of violence in such years as 700/1301, 721/1321 and 755/1354; discriminatory laws against dhimmis were revived; efforts were made to reduce the …proportion of Copts in official positions; and churches and monasteries were closed or destroyed. It was often only necessary for the state to give a lead and then let popular feeling do the rest. One might in this connection cite the destruction of the Zuhri church in old Cairo in 721/1321, which an-Nasir Nasir ad-Din Muhammad b. Qala’un did not pull down outright, but left high and dry by excavating around it, until a fanatical mob finished off the job by deliberately destroying the church. The tribunals of qadis, whose primary concern was with Muslim heterodoxy, not infrequently dealt in a draconian manner with the back-sliding Christian renegades and some Christians and Jews. From the later Sultanat of Muhammad b. Qala’un (709-41/1309-40, his third and longest reign), [H. Laoust] dates the real ruin of Coptic Christianity as a force in the mainstream of Egyptian life. Conversions to Islam, always a steady trickle, now became a flood, and even in regions like Upper Egypt, which adjoined the Christian region of Nubia and had long been a Coptic stronghold, became majority Muslim. The Jews were less obvious targets for Muslim wrath, being numerically weaker and unsupported by powerful external nations of the same faith; nevertheless, Muslim historical sources and the Geniza documents…have amply shown that the lot of the Jews of Egypt at this time was hard indeed.

Jewish access to the Machpelah (Makhpela) cave (near Hebron), believed to contain the tomb of the Patriarchs (over which the conquering Muslims built a mosque), 410 under the Mamluks, and later the Ottomans, reflects prevailing anti-dhimmi, and specifically anti-Jewish attitudes during these combined periods of more than seven centuries of continuous Muslim rule. Prior to 1266, the conditions of such visits were described 411 by the 12th century chronicler Benjamin of
Tudela. 412 In order to see the putative sepulchers of the Patriarchs contained within the cave, visitors were required to make a payment. Benjamin adds, 413

If a Jew gives an additional fee to the keeper of the cave, an iron door which dates from the time of our forefathers opens, and the visitor descends with a lighted candle. He crosses two empty caves, and in the third sees six tombs, on which the names of the three Patriarchs and their wives are inscribed in Hebrew characters. The cave is filled with barrels containing bones of people, which are taken there as to a sacred place. At the end of the field of the Machpelah stands Abraham's house with a spring in front of it

However, in 1266, the Mamluk Sultan Baybars, upon visting Hebron, prohibited Jews (and Christians) entrance to Machpelah. 414 This prohibition would remain in place for Jews through the end of the British Mandate period (1948); ordinary Christians, other than rare exceptions for dignitaries (such as the Prince of Wales in 1862), were also forbidden entry until 1922. Eliezer Bashan summarized the history of this discriminatory prohibition during a period of over 600 years, beginning with an anecdote from 1336: 415

European travelers who visited Hebron before the Ottoman period and during the Ottoman period (1517-1917) and who tried to visit the cave were not allowed in, and they wrote the same applied to the Jews. They were permitted to pray only outside the walls. John Mandeville, for example, who was born in England and pilgrimaged to the Holy Land in 1336, arrived at Hebron and wrote the following: “They suffer no Christian man to enter that place but if it be of special grace of the sultan, for they hold Christian men and Jews as dogs, and they say that they should not enter into so holy a place”

An English gentleman who visited there in 1753 and again ten years later reported Jews were not even allowed to walk in the street leading to the cave. The danger that faces a Christian who approaches the place is described in the following report (published in 1845): “The Moslems guard this tomb with the greatest jealousy, and woe to that Christian who sets foot within its portal”.

The vice-consul of France in Basra, who tried to visit there in 1834, requested the Muazzin 416 to let him in, but he was told that he would first be required to embrace Islam. A missionary (H. Bonar) who visited Hebron in 1856 and was prohibited from entering expressed his opinion in the following passage, stressing the different manner and behavior of Jews and Christians: “Muslim fanaticism has shut this cave against the world; nowhere is this fanaticism wilder…than in El-Khulil (Hebron). The Jewish Temple had its great court open to all; Christian cathedrals and churches invite all to enter; only Mahomedanism with peculiar exclusiveness closes every gate of its mosque against the stranger.”

S. Ehrlich, a Jewish trader from Russia, who wanted to visit this holy place, disguised himself as a Muslim imam, and succeeded in entering the cave in 1833.

The first Christian who was permitted to enter the cave was the Prince of Wales in 1862. He was privileged not only because of his Royal personality but because of the political situation after the Crimean War of 1856. Great Britain and the Ottomans enjoyed special relations owing to the resistance of the latter to the expansion of Russia…The Ottoman authorities tried to accustom the Muslim population to a more tolerant attitude to Europeans and Christians, but the fanatic local population and its leaders did not accept the tolerant attitude and continued to impose limitations on regular Christians. Just after the visit of the Prince, a plague began in Hebron, which the Muslims considered a punishment from God because of the desecration of the holy place, and the population was on the verge of a rebellion. Under the British Mandate (1922-1948) Christians were given free access to the building, but not Jews.

Although episodes of violent anarchy diminished during the four centuries of Ottoman suzerainty the degrading conditions of the indigenous Jews and Christians living under the shari’a’s jurisdiction remained unchanged. For example, Samuel b. Ishaq Uceda, a major Kabbalist from Safed at the end of the 16th century, refers in his commentary on The Lamentations of Jeremiah, to the situation of the Jews in the Land of Israel (Palestine): 417

“The princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!” …Perhaps this is an allusion to the situation that prevails in our times, for there is no town in the [Ottoman] empire in which the Jews are subjected to such heavy taxes and dues as in the Land of Israel, and particularly in Jerusalem. Were it not for the funds sent by the communities in Exile, no Jew could survive here on account of the numerous taxes, as the prophet said in connection with the ‘princess of the provinces’: ‘They hunt our steps, that we cannot go into our own streets’…The nations humiliate us to such an extent that we are not allowed to walk in the streets. The Jew is obliged to step aside in order to let the Gentile [Muslim] pass first. And if the Jew does not turn aside of his own will, he is forced to do so. This law is particularly enforced in Jerusalem, more so than in other localities. For this reason the text specifies ‘…in our own streets,’ that is, those of Jerusalem.

A century later Canon Antoine Morison, 418 from Bar-le-Duc in France, while traveling in the Levant in 1698, observed that the Jews in Jerusalem are “there in misery and under the most cruel and shameful slavery”, and although a large community, they were subjected to extortion. Similar contemporary observations regarding the plight of both Palestinian Jews and Christians were made by the Polish Jew, Gedaliah of Siemiatyce (d. 1716), who, braving numerous perils, came to Jerusalem in 1700. These appalling conditions, recorded in his book, Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, forced him to return to Europe in order to raise funds for the Jews of Jerusalem: 419

We [Jews] were obliged to give a large sum of money to the Muslim authorities in Jerusalem in order to be allowed to build a new synagogue. Although the old synagogue was small and we only wanted to enlarge it very slightly, it was forbidden under Islamic law to modify the least part. . . . In addition to the expenses in bribes destined to win the favor of the Muslims, each male was obliged to pay an annual poll tax of two pieces of gold to the sultan. The rich man was not obliged to give more, but the poor man could not give less. Every year, generally during the festival of the Passover, an official from Constantinople would arrive in Jerusalem. He who did not have the means to pay the tax was thrown into prison and the Jewish community was obliged to redeem him. The official remained in Jerusalem for about two months and consequently, during that period, the poor people would hide wherever they could, but if ever they were caught, they would be redeemed by community funds. The official sent his soldiers throughout the streets to control the papers of the passers-by, for a certificate was provided to those who had already paid the tax. If anyone was found without his certificate, he had to present himself before the official with the required sum, otherwise he was imprisoned until such time as he could be redeemed.

The Christians are also obliged to pay the poll-tax…during the week, the paupers dared not show themselves outside…in their wickedness, the [Muslim]soldiers would go to the synagogues, waiting by the doors, requesting the certificate of payment from the congregants who emerged...

No Jew or Christian is allowed to ride a horse, but a donkey is permitted, for [in the eyes of Muslims] Christians and Jews are inferior beings…The Muslims do not allow any member of another faith—unless he converts to their religion—entry to the Temple [Mount] area, for they claim that no other religion is sufficiently pure to enter this holy spot. They never weary of claiming that, although God had originally chosen the people of Israel, He had since abandoned them on account of their iniquity in order to choose the Muslims…

In the Land of Israel, no member of any other religion besides Islam may wear the color green, even if it is a thread [of cotton] like that with which we decorate our prayer shawls. If a Muslim perceives it, that could bring trouble. Similarly, it is not permitted to wear a green or white turban. On the Sabbath, however, we wear white turbans, on the crown of which we place a piece of cloth of another color as a distinguishing mark. The Christians are not allowed to wear a turban, but they wear a hat instead, as is customary in Poland. Moreover, the Muslim law requires that each religious denomination wear its specific garment so that each people may be distinguished from another. This distinction also applies to footwear. Indeed, the Jews wear shoes of a dark blue color, whereas Christians wear red shoes. No one can use green, for this color is worn solely by Muslims. The latter are very hostile toward Jews and inflict upon them vexations in the streets of the city…the common folk persecute the Jews, for we are forbidden to defend ourselves against the Turks or the Arabs. If an Arab strikes a Jew, he [the Jew] must appease him but dare not rebuke him, for fear that he may be struck even harder, which they [the Arabs] do without the slightest scruple. This is the way the Oriental Jews react, for they are accustomed to this treatment, whereas the European Jews, who are not yet accustomed to suffer being assaulted by the Arabs, insult them in return.

Even the Christians are subjected to these vexations. If a Jew offends a Muslim, the latter strikes him a brutal blow with his shoe in order to demean him, without anyone's being able to prevent him from doing it. The Christians fall victim to the same treatment and they suffer as much as the Jews, except that the former are very rich by reason of the subsidies that they receive from abroad, and they use this money to bribe the Arabs. As for the Jews, they do not possess much money with which to oil the palms of the Muslims, and consequently they are subject to much greater suffering.

Moshe Maoz maintains that this state of affairs persisted for Jews (and Christians) living under Ottoman rule within (Syro-) Palestine, through at least the 1830s: 420

…the position of the Jews was in many ways precarious. Like their Christian fellow subjects, the Jews were inferior citizens in the Muslim-Ottoman state which was based on the principle of Muslim superiority. They were regarded as state protégés (dhimmis) and had to pay a special poll tax (jizya) for that protection and as a sign of their inferior status. Their testimony was not accepted in the courts of justice, and in cases of the murder of a Jew or Christian by a Muslim, the latter was usually not condemned to death. In addition, Jews as well as Christians were normally not acceptable for appointments to the highest administrative posts; they were forbidden to carry arms (thus, to serve in the army), to ride horses in towns or to wear Muslim dress. They were also not usually allowed to build or repair places of worship and were often subjected to oppression, extortion and violence by both the local authorities and the Muslim population. The Jews in Ottoman Palestine and Syria lived under such ambivalent and precarious conditions for a number of centuries…

Maoz describes the fate of the Jew Hayim Farhi, who became treasury manager and administrative advisor to Ahmad Pasha al Jezzar, vali (governor) of the Pashalik (territory) of Sidon (1775-1804). Subsequently, during the reign of al-Jezzar’s successor, Sulyaman Pasha (1804-1818), Farhi was appointed supervisor of income and expenditure, coordinator of the province’s accounts with the central treasury, and overall director of administrative functions, accruing considerable power and influence. As Maoz, explains, however, 421

Farhi’s prominent position in Acre was, however, unique at that time, due to the mild character of Sulayman Pasha “the Just” (al-Adil) who, in addition, owed Hayim his ascendancy to the pashalik. For during the previous reign of Jezzar Pasha, Farhi was no more than an ordinary senior official, and upon falling into disfavor—he was even discharged and arrested, one of his eyes was gouged out and his nose and ears cut.

That the position of Hayim Farhi was very precarious was even more evident under Sulyaman’s successor, ‘Abdallah Pasha (1819-1831). At the beginning of his rule, Farhi’s influence was at its peak and the Pasha was allegedly “unable to do anything without Hayim’s consent.” But a short time later, in 1820, Farhi was executed and his property confiscated upon ‘Abdallah’s orders. It is evident that such a case was by no means uncommons regards Jews or Christians during the period of the Pashas’ rule. J.L. Burkhardt, the perceptive Swiss traveler, noted in 1811: “…there is scarcely an instance in the modern history of Syria of a Christian or Jew having long enjoyed the power or riches he may have acquired. These persons are always taken off in the last moment of their apparent glory”.

The case of the notable Hayim Farhi (and his family) illustrates the tenuous status of the Jewish community in Syro-Palestine. 422

The unstable position of the Farhis in Acre and Damascus (in Damascus) too the Farhis were occasionally subject to arbitrary treatment) may serve as an illustration of the shaky position of the Jewish communities in Ottoman Palestine and Syria for many years. In certain circumstance—under tolerant rulers such as Sulayman Pasha, and in certain places—such as Aleppo, Jews enjoyed a certain degree of personal safety and religious freedom, and a few of them also acquired economic prosperity as well as social status. These circumstances, however, were rare or limited. Sulayman al-Adil (“The Wise”) was unique; more typical rulers were Ahmad al-Jezzar (the Butcher) and ‘Abdallah Pasha. They conducted a tyrannical and oppressive regime which affected large sections of the local population, particularly the Jews and Christians.

Maoz makes these additional observations about Aleppo which was a thoroughfare for international commerce, and center of European activities (including consular and business communities), versus outlying areas, comparing the conditions for Jews under consular protection, relative to the local population under Ottoman rule: 423

A number of Jewish families, mostly foreign protégés who belonged to those communities, were indeed relatively secure and prosperous. But many other local Jews, ordinary Ottoman subjects, were occasionally subject to violence and oppression from various quarters. If that was the case in tolerant Aleppo, in other towns which were imbued with religious intolerance and were distant from Istanbul, the Jewish population was perhaps the most oppressed element.

One of the major sources of their oppression was the local governors, public officials, soldiers and policemen, who maltreated Jews and extorted money from them in various ways. It is true that Muslim townsmen were occasionally oppressed and squeezed by tyrannical rulers and greedy soldiers. But many Muslims were nevertheless able to protect themselves against their oppressors with the help of the influential religious notables, or by placing themselves under the protection of local powerful leaders and military groups. It was also not very infrequent that Muslim masses would revolt against oppressive rulers and expel them from the town, or even kill them. The Jewish population obviously did not dare and was unable to oppose its oppressors; and in places where they managed to acquire protection of influential local notables they had to pay high sums for that protection. Otherwise—and this was another source of their misery—Jews weer squeezed by local Muslim notables and molested by Muslim mobs. To quote a Jewish source: “When a Jew walked among them [the Muslims] in the market, one would throw a stone at him in order to kill him, another would pull his beard and a third his ear lock, yet another spit on his face and he became a symbol of abuse”

There were clear improvements in prevailing conditions for Christian dhimmis when Ibrahim Pasha occupied and ruled the Syro-Palestinian provinces from 1830-1841. The Jews, in contrast, experienced much less amelioration of their oppressed status according to Maoz. 424

Their position was, no doubt, improved in some respects, in comparison with the past. They were occasionally permitted to repair old synagogues or to erect new ones; Jews were also represented in the new local majlises (legislative assemblies) and were officially given equal status before the new civil courts. Muslim notables were strictly ordered not to levy illegal dues and taxes on Jews, while a number of Muslim civilians, as well as some Egyptian soldiers, were severely punished for having maltreated Jews.

It should, however, be noted here that the measures taken to protect the Jews were only partly a result of the government’s initiative and good will; they were mainly the consequence of the intervention and pressure from the European consuls. As Jews themselves stated: “Had it not been the consuls’ supervision, we would have been destroyed and lost, since the Gentiles wish but to eat the Jews and to accuse them falsely.”

Nevertheless neither the consuls nor the authorities were able to prevent all the acts of aggression which were directed against Jews, particularly in small towns…in fact, there occurred during the short period of Egyptian rule some of the gravest anti-Jewish outbreaks in the recent history of Palestine and Syria. In Hebron, for example, Jews were massacred [including the rape-murder of five young girls 425] in 1834 by Egyptian soldiers who came to put down a local Muslim rebellion. About the same time Jewish houses and shops in Jerusalem were broken into and looted by local Muslim insurgents, who dominated the town for a long time. Similarly, the Jews of Safed were brutally attacked by Muslim and Druze peasants from the vicinity in 1834 and again in 1837 (after the Safed earthquake).

As Mr. Young, the English Consul in Jerusalem, noted in 1839: “The spirit of toleration towards the Jews is not yet known here to the same extent it is in Europe…still a Jew in Jerusalem is not estimated much above a dog.”

The Safed pogrom, alluded to by Maoz, lasted 33 days in June/July 1834, and was particularly devastating—many Jews were killed, hundreds wounded, and the town nearly destroyed. Malachi has provided these details based upon eyewitness sources and accounts: 426

The Arabs slaughtered the Jews who could not flee Safed. Many who hid in caves and graveyards were found out by the vandals and killed in their hiding places… They did not show compassion towards the elderly or the young, children or pregnant women. They burned Torah scrolls and tore holy books, ripped prayer shawls and phylacteries (tefillin)… The rioters tortured women and children in the synagogues and “defiled gentle women on parchment scrolls of the Torah” in front of their husbands and their children. Those who tried to protect their wives and courageously defend their honor were murdered by the bandits.

The prevailing conditions for Jews did not improve in a consistent or substantive manner even after the mid 19th century treaties imposed by the European powers on the weakened Ottoman Empire included provisions for the Tanzimat reforms. These reforms were designed to end the discriminatory laws of dhimmitude for both Jews and Christians, living under the Ottoman Shari’a. European consuls endeavored to maintain compliance with at least two cardinal principles central to any meaningful implementation of these reforms: respect for the life and property of non-Muslims; and the right for Christians and Jews to provide evidence in Islamic courts when a Muslim was a party. Unfortunately, these efforts to replace the concept of Muslim superiority over “infidels”, with the principle of equal rights, failed. 426a

Although Maoz contends the the Tanzimat period was accompanied by “markedly better” conditions for Jews, at least “..in comparison with the past…”, he concedes, 427

It should not be denied that Jews as well as Christians in Palestine and Syria were in that period still far from being equal members in the local political community. Despite the Tanzimat edicts, which promised equality between non-Muslims and Muslims, the dhimmis continued to be actually inferior before the law of the state and its institutions. They had still to pay the poll-tax (jizya)—or from 1855 the bedel (compulsory exemption tax from military service). Their testimony against Muslims was completely discounted in the mahkama (Muslim court), and in the various new Ottoman secular courts such testimony was occasionally rejected. Jews and Christians would similarly be discriminated against in cases brought before the majlises; even their deputies in these councils were usually disregarded and occasionally maltreated by their Muslim colleagues.

Eyewitness accounts from the time of the first iteration of the reforms (in 1839), almost a decade later (1847), and again two years after (i.e., in 1858) the second series of reforms in 1856 (issued at the conclusion of the Crimean War), paint a rather gloomy picture of continued anti-Jewish discrimination in Syro-Palestine. For example, the Scottish clerics A. A. Bonar and R. M. McCheyne, who visited Palestine in 1839 to inquire into the condition of the Jews there, published these observations in their A Narrative of a Mission of Inquiry to the Jews from the Church of Scotland in 1839 (Edinburgh, 1842): 428

There is none of the sacred places over which the Moslem's keep so jealous a watch as the tomb of Abraham…travellers in general being forbidden to approach even the door of the Mosque [built by the conquering Muslims over the tomb of Abraham]…The Jews at present are permitted only to look through a hole near the entrance, and to pray with their face toward the grave of Abraham…the synagogues of Jerusalem…are six in number, all of them small and poorly furnished, and four of them under one roof…The reading desk is little else than an elevated part of the floor, enclosed with a wooden railing…We were much impressed with the melancholy aspect of the Jews in Jerusalem. The meanness of their dress, their pale faces, and timid expression, all seem to betoken great wretchedness…We found all the Jews here [in Safed] living in a state of great alarm…the Bedouins were every day threatening an attack to plunder the town…We observed how poorly clad most of the Jews seemed to be, and were told that they had buried under ground all their valuable clothes, their money, and other precious things. It was easy to read their deep anxiety in the very expression of their countenances…And all this in their own land!

The Jewish traevelogue writer J. J. Binyamin II recorded the following account after his 1847 sojourn in Palestine: 429

Deep misery and continual oppression are the right words to describe the condition of the Children of Israel in the land of their fathers… They are entirely destitute of every legal protection and every means of safety. Instead of security afforded by law, which is unknown in these countries, they are completely under the orders of the Sheiks and Pashas, men, whose character and feelings inspire but little confidence from the beginning. It is only the European Consuls who frequently take care of the oppressed, and afford them some protection.…With unheard of rapacity tax upon tax is levied on them, and with the exception of Jerusalem, the taxes demanded are arbitrary. Whole communities have been impoverished by the exorbitant claims of the Sheiks, who, under the most trifling pretences and without being subject to any control, oppress the Jews with fresh burdens… In the strict sense of the word the Jews are not even masters of their own property. They do not even venture to complain when they are robbed and plundered…Their lives are taken into as little consideration as their property; they are exposed to the caprice of any one; even the smallest pretext, even a harmless discussion, a word dropped in conversation, is enough to cause bloody reprisals. Violence of every kind is of daily occurrence. When, for instance in the contests of Mahomet Ali with the Sublime Porte, the City of Hebron was besieged by Egyptian troops and taken by storm, the Jews were murdered and plundered, and the survivors scarcely even allowed to retain a few rags to cover themselves. No pen can describe the despair of these unfortunates. The women were treated with brutal cruelty; and even to this day, many are found, who since that time are miserable cripples. With truth can the Lamentations of Jeremiah be employed here. Since that great misfortune up to the present day, the Jews of Hebron languish in the deepest misery, and the present Sheik is unwearied in his endeavors, not to allow their condition to be ameliorated, but on the contrary, he makes it worse…The chief evidence of their miserable condition is the universal poverty which we remarked in Palestine, and which is here truly astounding; for nowhere else in our long journeys, in Europe, Asia and Africa did we observe it among the Jews. It even causes leprosy among the Jews of Palestine, as in former times. Robbed of their means of subsistence from the cultivation of the soil and the pursuit of trade, they exist upon the charity of their brethren in the faith in foreign parts… In a word the state of the Jews in Palestine, physically and mentally, is an unbearable one.

British Jerusalem Consul James Finn, reported in (July and November) 1858 that both physical insecurity for Jews in Palestine, and their inequality before the law, persisted despite the second iteration of Ottoman reforms in 1856: 430

[July 8, 1858]…in consequence of a series of disgusting insults offered to Jews and Jewesses in Hebron, I obtained such orders as I could from the Pasha’s agent in this city…Finding these not answer entirely as might be desired, I reapierd to the neighborhood of Hebron myself—and found the whole government of that important and turbulent district being administered by a very old Bashi Bozuk officer as the ton governor; and a military Boluk Bashi with five starved and ragged Bashi Bozuk man as soldiers—The rural district is left entirely to peasant Sheikhs, with one responsible over the rest. The streets of the town were paraded by fanatic Dervishes—and during my stay there a Jewish house was forcibly entered by night, rion bars of the window broken, and heavy stones thrown by invisible hands at every person approaching the place to afford help. One of the Members of the Council affirmed that they were not obliged to obey orders from the Pasha’s deputy—and another declared his right derived from time immemeorial in his family, to enter Jewish houses, and take toll or contributions any time without giving account. When others present in the Council exclaimed against this he said—“Well then I will forbear from taking it myself, but things will happen which will compel the Jews to come and kiss my feet to induce me to take their money.” On hearing of my arrival in the vicinity he went away to the villages, refusing to obey the summons to Jerusalem, and I believe the Pasha cannot really compel him to come here—he being a privileged member of the Council, and recognized in Constantinople.

[November 11, 1858] And my Hebrew Dragoman [translator] having a case for judgment in the Makhameh [Muslim court] before the new Kadi [judge], although accompanied by my Kawass [constable], and announcing his office, was commanded to stand up humbly and take off his shoes before his case could be heard. He did not however comply—But during the process although the thief had previously confessed to the robbery in presence of Jews, the Kadi would not proceed without the testimony of two Moslems—when the Jewish witnesses were offered, he refused to accept their testimony—and the offensive term adopted towards Jews in former times (more offensive than Giaour for Christians) was used by the Kadi’s servants…such circumstances exhibit the working of the present Turkish government in Jerusalem.

Tudor Parfitt’s comprehensive 1987 study of the Jews of Palestine during the 19th century, concluded with these summary observations covering entire the period of his analysis, through 1882: 431

Inside the towns, Jews and other dhimmis were frequently attacked, wounded, and even killed by local Muslims and Turkish soldiers. Such attacks were frequently for trivial reasons: Wilson [in British Foreign Office correspondence] recalled having met a Jew who had been badly wounded by a Turkish soldier for not having instantly dismounted when ordered to give up his donkey to a soldier of the Sultan. Many Jews were killed for less. On occasion the authorities attempted to get some form of redress but this was by no means always the case: the Turkish authorities themselves were sometimes responsible for beating Jews to death for some unproven charge. After one such occasion [British Consul] Young remarked: “I must say I am sorry and surprised that the Governor could have acted so savage a part- for certainly what I have seen of him I should have thought him superior to such wanton inhumanity- but it was a Jew- without friends or protection- it serves to show well that it is not without reason that the poor Jew, even in the nineteenth century, lives from day to day in terror of his life”.

…In fact, it took some time [i.e., at least a decade after the 1839 reforms] before these courts did accept dhimmi testimony in Palestine. The fact that Jews were represented on the meclis [provincial legal council] did not contribute a great deal to the amelioration of the legal position of the Jews: the Jewish representatives were tolerated grudgingly and were humiliated and intimidated to the point that they were afraid to offer any opposition to the Muslim representatives. In addition the constitution of the meclis was in no sense fairly representative of the population. In Jerusalem in the 1870s the meclis consisted of four Muslims, three Christians and only one Jew- at a time when Jews constituted over half the population of the city…Perhaps even more to the point, the courts were biased against the Jews and even when a case was heard in a properly assembled court where dhimmi testimony was admissible the court would still almost invariably rule against the Jews. It should be noted that a non-dhimmi [eg., foreign] Jew was still not permitted to appear and witness in either the mahkama [specific Muslim council] or the meclis.

World War I

During World War I in Palestine, between 1915 and 1917, the New York Times published a series of reports 432 on Ottoman-inspired and local Arab Muslim assisted antisemitic persecution which affected Jerusalem, and the other major Jewish population centers. For example, by the end of January, 1915, 7000 Palestinian Jewish refugees—men, women, and children—had fled to British-controlled Alexandria, Egypt. Three New York Times accounts from January/February, 1915 provide these details of the earlier period: 433

On Jan. 8, Djemal Pasha 433a ordered the destruction of all Jewish colonization documents within a fortnight under penalty of death…In many cases land settled by Jews was handed over to Arabs, and wheat collected by the relief committee in Galilee was confiscated in order to feed the army. The Moslem peasantry are being armed with any weapons discovered in Jewish hands…The United States cruiser Tennessee has been fitted up on the lines of a troop ship for the accommodation of about 1,500 refugees, and is plying regularly between Alexandria and Jaffa…A proclamation issued by the commander of the Fourth [Turkish] Army Corps describes Zionism as a revolutionary anti-Tukish movement which must be stamped out. Accordingly the local governing committees have been dissolved and the sternest measures have been taken to insure that all Jews who remain on their holdings shall be Ottoman subjects…Nearly all the [7000] Jewish refugees in Alexandria come from Jerusalem and other large towns, among them being over 1,000 young men of the artisan class who refused to become Ottomans.

By April of 1917, conditions deteriorated further for Palestinian Jewry, which faced threats of annihilation from the Ottoman government. Many Jews were in fact deported, expropriated, and starved, in an ominous parallel to the genocidal deportations of the Armenian dhimmi communities throughout Anatolia. 434 Indeed, as related by Yair Auron, 435

Fear of the Turkish actions was bound up with alarm that the Turks might do to the Jewish community in Palestine, or at least to the Zionist elements within it, what they had done to the Armenians. This concern was expressed in additional evidence from the early days of the war, from which we can conclude that the Armenian tragedy was known in the Yishuv [Jewish community in Palestine]

A mass expulsion of the Jews of Jerusalem, although ordered twice by Djemal Pasha, was averted only through the efforts of [the Ottoman Turks World War I allies] the German government which sought to avoid international condemnation. 436 The 8000 Jews of Jaffa, however, were expelled quite brutally, a cruel fate the Arab Muslims and the Christians of the city did not share. Moreover, these deportations took place months before the small pro-British Nili spy ring of Zionist Jews was discovered by the Turks in October, 1917, and its leading figures killed. 437 A report by United States Consul Garrels (in Alexandria, Egypt) describing the Jaffa deportation of early April 1917 (published in the June 3, 1917 New York Times), included these details of the Jews plight: 438

The orders of evacuation

Even the big cruise ships of today only carry a few thousnad people. It would require a minimum of 500 Queen Mary ships (carrying 4,000 persons) to transport 2 million people. Big ships at that time might carry maybe 200(densly packed)people.

Yes, Hugh.

And between 1930 and 1945, Catholic and Lutheran Germans killed 6,000,000 Jews.

And if you posted 150,000 words to try to obliterate what I just said, you may fool some, but this whitewashing that it was:

Nazis
"some in Europe"
"some in America"

and possibly ...

a few cats, dogs, and squirrels

who killed all these people isn't going to cut it. There are pictures all over the internet of Nazi Youth meeting in Christian Churches and the "Reich's Church" replaced the Lutheran church for such connection only after Hitler had a political rift with the Lutheran Church elders.

Frank ...

I'm reading estimates from 2 million (Sarajevo Rose), to 150,000 ... to 650,000, but I'm with you as it sounds awfully high.

However, somebody actually wrote me an email and said, "No! Most of them didn't leave! Most of them were just forced to convert."

That's FORCED CONVERSION we're talking about, a human rights violation that strips somebod of their religion, one of the things we get so mad at the Muslims for (and we should).

So basically, the message we get from Catholic Spain is:

You got three choices buddy: (1) convert, (2) leave, (3) die.

Conversion seems very tasty in this scenario, because you get to keep your home, your business, your language, etc. You just have to PRETEND that you changed your religion. In fact, the "conversos" were regularly tortured and burned after that as they were "found out" to be Crypto-Jews and not "real" Christians.

What a bad time that was.

There is no "whitewashing" at all. I posted Andrew Bostom's excellent piece on the real history of the Jews under the Muslim rule in "Palestine" not in reply to you (those "150,000 words" you mock) but as part of the reply to Reza Aslan. That is, after all, the main topic of this thread -- not your hobbyhorses.

You miss the point. You miss my point, and you miss the point of the thread, and possibly even of this site. Certainly here, in missing the point, and flipping from one post to the next from the assertion about "2 million" from someone -- "Sarajevo Rose"? -- who remains unidentified, quickly collapsing under attack, and you then start listing quite different figures, such as "150,000." Well, which is it?

In your postings, full of inaccuracies and irrelevancies to the matter at hand, you distract too much from the matter at hand. This is your final warning.

Morgaan -- are you blind? I'm the one who brought up the "flood", not Steamroller. If you have something to say, then say it to me.

Hugh wrote: "Apparently the poster thinks that whenever the doctrine of Islam, and the practice of Muslims in executing that doctrine - the Jihad-conquest, the mistreatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule - is discussed, it is essential that at the same time everything that has been done in the Western world also be discussed at the same time."

Not only is Morgaan Sinclair's reflexively equivalencist corrective impertinent on principle, it also ignores, as another poster, Caroline, noted, the overwhelming preponderance of self-criticism which not only exists now in the West but which has also exerted itself in the West for decades, even generations -- a self-criticism abysmally unmatched by Islam, no matter where in its wonderously diverse tapestry one looks.

Morgaan Sinclair wrote above:

"this constant demanding that Muslims make right with Christians and Jews everything in their past, while referring to the Third Reich collaborators as "Nazis" and "those in Europe" and "those in Washington" -- without ever admitting just who was operating the gas chambers is so disingenious that it's mind-blowing."

What is actually mind-blowing on the part of Morgaan Sinclair is the huge blind spot she has for the other half of that event -- the Holocaust -- she keeps alluding to. She keeps insisting that the Holocaust was a horribly evil Western event, and a horribly evil Christian event (the latter a dubious and obfuscatory generalization, insofar as there was more heterodox mysticism and outright paganism inspiring the Nazis than anything one could call "Christianity", with plenty of harsh persecution of Christians by the Nazis), while she persists in failing to mention, let alone failing to conjoin to that insistence (for she keeps nagging us to conjoin all our condemnations of Islam with condemnations of our own West) two spectacularly relevant, gigantic facts:

1) The same West that, in part, succumbed to that horrible disease of Nazism, also mustered itself to marshall all its blood, sweat and tears to roundly fight and defeat that same disease: the West cleaned up its own mess. Where has Islam ever cleaned up its own horrible messes (and God knows it has had many), as magnificently as the West cleaned up its own in World War II?

2) The same West that, in part, succumbed to that horrible disease of Nazism, also went on to profoundly purge itself of that disease legally, philosophically and socially, with great, often troubling and disturbing, but ever progressive, self-examination for decades after right up to our own day. And the West went through this not only with respect to the disease of Nazism and Fascism, but with other great social issues, such as slavery, etc. Again, where has Islam ever put itself through that depth and breadth of self-examination and changes and tumults of mind and heart?

No, the spotlight that Messrs. Spencer and Fitzgerald direct at Islam is appropriately directed, and there is no need, on their site, to balance that out with tit-for-tat navel-scratching; for, all around us in the West are veritable mountain ranges of self-criticism readily available -- force-fed down our throats, as a matter of fact.

Hugh, Champ, Remote CONTROL, etc.

Balance. Fairness. Clarity. A LACK OF WHITEWASHING DUPLICITY.

Hugh, you say I missed the point of the site. Apparently I actually haven't. Though hopefully your behavior here tonight isn't the point of all of it.

But simple fairness is something this site lacks in its basic balance and certainly in the posts of its rabid NUKE 'EM, COWBOY! posters and their Galatians-quoting guys who are in a genocidal mood until it comes to women, and then we get that winking little pat on the head about what "geniuses" we women are one having children but how unfit we are for the priesthood because we haven't the correct biology for it! [Another Late Bronze Age gem.]

If you can find me the ethic in any of that, please do point it out to me.

Meanwhile, a little fairness on a personal level might be as well.

Hugh, I have more than validated the efficacy of the pointed out here, and unless your blind as well as deaf you will note how many of the articles I've sent you have been POSTED here.

And at least when I make a mistake I apologize for it, which is more than I've seen from any of you.

And Hugh it still doesn't explain the INCREDIBLE hypocrisy of an article on the "pogroms" of the Muslims that resulted in 1/50,000th of the damage ensuing from the great Christian pogrom of the Third Reich.

You guys just don't seem to be able to deal with that.

Morgaan -

balance, fairness, clarity

blind? deaf? fair?

JIHADwatch and DHIMMIwatch are clearly identified and intentionally focused on islamic doctrine.

F-O-C-U-S

If you can find me the ethic in any of that, please do point it out to me.

S-U-R-V-I-V-A-L

I totally lost interest once she began chastising the blog staff. We can scroll past the distractions, and I will if need be.

Perhaps, it will not be necessary. Morgaan is clearly capable of expressing her views quite passionately and should consider directing those passionate energies . . . on her own bandwidth.

Morgaan -- are you blind? I'm the one who brought up the "flood", not Steamroller. If you have something to say, then say it to me.

Posted by: champ at February 11, 2007 02:16 AM

Thanks, Champ. That's what I tried to tell that yutz.

Morgaan,

In general, your posts fall prey to the fallacy that Naziism was a part of Western history. Heidegger, probably as intellectual a Nazi as one could find, saw Naziism as a way for Germany to escape the decline of the West, as laid out in Spengler, for example. The West and Germany have always had a contentious relationship until the post-WWII era. Since JW, as I understand, means the post-Enlightenment West when it says "the West", there is no reason for the moderators to become apologetic about the Holocaust. One of the things I've come to realize lately is how thin the veneer of Enlightenment, in the Kantian sense, is among the populations of the West.

Secondly, you fail to consider the "capability vs. intentions" gap that has existed in Islam since at least the introduction of mechanized warefare. Islam couldn't kill as many Jews as the West (using your terminology here, but as I mentioned above, I don't think it was the West that perpetrated the Holocaust to begin with) because they lacked the material infrastructure to do so. They did not lack the intention. One way to understand this intellectually is by giving an honest answer to this question: Had the Muslims had the material infrastructure to round up Jews and slaughter them, would they have? I assume they would. Not only that, but I think the Muslims would have put the crematoria and gas chambers right in the center of town, to make sure everyone got a good look, unlike the Nazis who had to hide what they were doing by building their killing facilities out in the wilderness.

Along with Hugh, I think you are a distraction and although there is some pedagogical value in having your errors corrected, as I'm doing in this post, you really ought to consider whether you have the ability to analyze the problem of Islam in a way that contributes to the diminishment of the jihad threat over the long term.

Morgaan -- not only are you a distraction to this site, but you are dangerous to society as well.

Your lack of knowledge and insight concerning radical Islam puts me, my family, my country, and our world at great risk. You need to take the time to educate yourself about the threat of Islam and stop the denial you've chosen to be in.

Quit fighting those who care about the freedoms YOU enjoy and join the fight to stop this evil.

Morgaan --

Not only is your lack of knowledge concerning radical Islam a distraction, but it is dangerous as well.

Your attitudes put my family and our society at great risk, and it's time you educate yourself about this threat and stop the denial that you've chosen to be in.

Stop fighting those who are trying to protect the freedoms that YOU enjoy, and join this fight against this evil system of government known as Islam.

Well, very interesting.

JW puts up a post outlining the pogroms carried about by Muslim Arabs in the early 20th century. I point out that the worst pogrom of all -- THE HOLOCAUST -- was carried out by Christians. Actually, that was worst single genocidal act of all at the time -- of course outdone by Stalin later and Mao (worse) later.

The purpose of that was to decry the one-sideness of a commentary such as Kantor's cum JW's added commentary.

The bulk of you then go JWBJ (Jihad Watch Ballistic Jihad).

First a bunch of personal attacks, clipped pieces several hundred thousand words long as a smoke screen. Not one of you dealt with the issue I brought up at all, becuase you're all ballistic that I

SUPPOSEDLY ... SUPP0SEDLY ... SUPPOSEDLY

INSULTED YOUR RELIGION.

Did I? No. The Holocaust insulted your religion. Your religion and mine.

You constantly decry the unwilling to Muslims to face their denial of what's right in front of your face, but the Vatican's namby-pamby apology which was just a further insult to the Jews was pablum thrown at a gaping, bleeding wound of 2,000 years of Jew-hating, Jew-baiting attacks, burnings, deportations, and pogroms. The Lutherans haven't got around to it yet, and the Lutheran hierarchy writes that the denial is so fierce it's impossible to gauge the depth of it.

NOW YOU CALL FOR ME TO BE "INVITED" TO LEAVE THE SITE.

Well, if Robert wants to do that, he can.

But what you've just done is nothing different than what the Muslims do to those among them who cry foul at one-sided arguments, decontextualized history (aka BLAME), and screwed history.

Kantor claims that Reza Aslan screwed history. Kantor, in enumerating the pogroms from one side of the equation, but not the other, does the same, but much, much worse.

JW should not have passed it along in the fashion.

So ... as you guys rave on that ONLY SPEECH THAT AGREES WITH YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THIS SITE AND PLOT A FATWA DECLARING ME TAKFIR, be sure you don't make any close passes to a mirror. Because if you do, it's going to be a bad, bad moment for you.

Morgaan,

Are you willfully blind to the scope of the arguments against you? In addition to the argument that you "insulted" someone's religion as driving the animosity toward you, there are other, more concrete arguments against all of the positions you've articulated on this thread.

The way Hugh's essay ought to be read, as should the original arguments discussed in Hugh's essay, is not as a debate in comparative anti-Semitism, but as a clarification of Muslim history. If the subject was European history and someone gave a speech about the period 1933-1945 without mentioning the Nazis, historians would rightly complain. To call Hugh a hypocrite because he didn't address your "hobbyhorse" is like calling a Shakespeare critic a hypocrite because he didn't analyze Marlowe's plays as well.

Secondly, your failure to address the "capabilities vs. intentions" gap among Muslims vis-a-vis killing Jews shows you haven't seriously thought about the problem of Muslim anti-Semitism as something with its own logic and historical development, regardless of concurrent Christian history.

I will go out on a limb and say even if Christianity did not exist, Muslims would be anti-Semitic. Mohammed never quoted the early Church fathers when he talked about hating Jews. You must realize this fact makes your entire thread of argumentation even more moot.

If I got factually and logically smacked down as hard as you have on this thread, I'd really consider leaving the site voluntarily until I had some better arguments to make.

Morgaan --

Hitler was NOT a Christian. He may have called himself a Christian, but that doesn't mean he was; and that applies to anyone who participated in the Holocaust.

Jesus said that narrow is the way that leads to heaven, and that you will know "them" by their fruits. In other words, you will know Christians by their actions.

Christian means "Christ like", so you need to judge a Christian by how they live their life, not whether or not they SAY that they're a Christian.

Muhammad, on the other hand, instructed his followers to murder and mame those who were not of their faith -- Jesus did not. Jesus had a very different message.

You can't always believe someone is a Christian JUST because they call themselves one -- look at their fruit FIRST.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca.hitler.html

Oops, sorry, typo with link. http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

To that poster above:

1) This website's principals are keenly aware of the permanent existence of antisemitism, or rather of antisemitisms, in the world.

2) We are keen detectors of signs of such a pathology in those who post here, and we are quick to ban all those who exhibit the tell-tale signs -- usually beginning with semi-demented conspiracy theories, overuse of the term "neo-cons" and then all kinds of hints about some ovderarching plot to do this or that. Sometimes it takes the form of wild charges, such as the charge made recently by one poster that at this website there is "no" attention to Muslim attacks on Orthodox Christians. Apparently those who wish to ignore the repeated efforts here to make the case for Serbia -- better than the Serbians have made it, by the way -- was completely overlooked, and so was the attention, to every conceivable example of Jihad-conquest or persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands.

3) We don't need any lectures from you on matters that all educated people should by now have learned about. I'd recommend, for antisemitism in the West, the impassioned book of Malcolm Hay, a Roman Catholic Scot and historian, who wrote "Europe and the Jews." Recently reprinted, I think it can be ordered on-line. And another good book, a book of unforgettable photographs, is that of Roman Vishniac, "A Vanished World." There are also the intelligent studies of Frank Manuel, Gavin Langmuir, and Leon Poliakoff, on antisemitism in the Christian West.

4) This site is not about antisemitism in the Christian West, though we do not flinch from staiting unpalatable truths. It is a site about Islam: Jihad Watch. Dhimmi Watch.

Keep that in mind.

Apparently, judging by some of your references --i.e. to the book "Sarajevo Rose" -- you have possibly learned your potted history of Islam, and of all those good "moderate" Muslims who were waiting by the tens of thousands, apparently, at the port of Cadiz to rescue "2 million Jews," from someone who gave his name to the second half of the "Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome."

We, on the other hand, get our information about Islam from 1) the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sira 2) the works of jurisconsults and Qur'anic commentators 3) the work of other important figures in Islamic history, such as the traveller Ibn Battuta, or the historiographer Ibn Khaldun 4) the most influential writers, past and especially present, on what Islam teaches, what it means 5) the Western students of Islam, such as Ignaz Goldziher, C. Snouck Hurgronje, Sir William Muir, Zwemer, St. Clair Tisdall, K. C. Lal, Edmond Fagnan, Armand Abel, Charles-Emanuel Dufourcq, and a few dozen others.

You choose which method you think in the end has led to a clearer understanding of Islam.

And do not use the history of antisemitism in the Christian West, of which all decent people are aware, or should be (some may be misled by the past few decades of anti-Israel propaganda by the Muslim Arabs, which has had its effect on non-Muslims through the drop-drop-drop of malevolent nonsense and half-truths), in order to divert attention, or to minimize, the history of a different antisemitism, that of Islam, which itself is merely a variant on the more general hostility toward all non-Muslism that Islam so thoroughly and so successfully inculcates.

End of this particular story. No reply needed, no reply wanted.

Hitlers persecution of the Jews was more to do with socio-economic pressures and scapegoating in post depression Germany than it ever was Christianity.
The Jews had high office in law,buisness,commerce,industry,land etc..
Hitler was a bullyboy and a thief..he needed to get his hands on all that GDP to build his empire(reich).The Jews just happened to have to the wealth he needed.
The Nazi's were a hotch potch of pagan/aryan/gothic/nordic amongst others kind of mysticism.
Listen to Wagner's ring cycle to get an idea of the spiritual nature of Nazism..if you can stomach it.

Besides there is a school of thought that says the idea of the "final solution" came from two things.
Firstly the armenian genocide and secondly the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Hitler made no secret of his admiration for Islam's history of the treatment of the Jews.

Christianity has bugger all to do with it.

p.s. i'm not a christian so I have no agenda.

Also you'd have to get up pretty early to challenge Hugh.
In fact you'd have to stay up all night.

Hitler’s admiration for Islam

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers
-already, you see, the world had already fallen into
the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing
Christianity! -then we should in all probability have
been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which
glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh
Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic
races would have conquered the world. Christianity
alone prevented them from doing so."


p. 667 "Hitler's Table Talk; 1941-1944" translated by
N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)

Winston Churchill on Islam

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
— Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

How many new readers at this site had previously heard of the Holocaust? Raise your hands.

How many new readers at this site had previously heard about the numerous Muslim pogroms against the Jews? Raise your hands.

Morgaan - you have what I like to call a "moral hubris problem". It is abundantly clear that you understand the Islamic threat. But I suspect that you are something of an ex-liberal who has discovered this threat and now finding yourself agreeing to a great degree with what you probably previously dismissed as "neanderthals", you now need something special to distinguish yourself from those you actually find yourself agreeing with. Old habits, like a sense of liberal moral superiority, are hard habits to break.

The fact is that we westerners have been exposed 24/7 to our crimes against humanity, and often rightly so. But the obvious consequence has been that a huge chunk of westerners can now find nothing noble to defend in our culture and are willing to let 7th century barbarism just take over because they can see nothing worthwhile to defend. Meanwhile, Muslims are not in the least afflicted by that sort of self-honesty or self-criticism or self-scrutiny. That gives them a huge advantage - their willingness to completely erase not only their own historical crimes but after they have conquered a civilization, their ruthlessness in completely erasing any historical memory of that civilization.

The fact that you don't appear to understand that fundamental difference between our societies is not something that I have sympathy for. I am not the least bit moved by your little display of victimhood posted earlier. Stuff it basically. If Islam wins this, then ALL of history will be rewritten by the victor and your noble attempt to bring "balance" to historical facts will land you in prison or worse. Such "balance" simply won't exist. Our history will be erased altogether.

To the poster who is intent on giving us all lessons:

Whom are you intent on reminding of the crime of antisemitism in the Western world? Americans, who make up the bulk of the visitors here, do not need to be reminded of the Nazi murders or their willing collaborators. Americans have been the least offending. It is Europeans, and those who have so intolerably accepted the Arab propaganda about Israel, who need to be educated. It is the Europeans who should stop voting as they do at the U.N., should protest the disgusting anti-Israel coverage by some -- not all -- of their press and other media, should take it upon themseelves to learn, in detail, about the demographic and other history of the area known in the Western world as "Palestine" (but not to the Arabs until the 20th century, when they appropriated the toponym) so that they will see -- as any fair-minded person would see, the overwhelming legal, historic, and moral claims of Israel, and be better able to resist the powerful, and well-financed Arab and Muslim propaganda campaign, one abetted by both antisemites (who must make up 10% or so of the population in every Western country) and that army of Western hirelings on the Arab take. It is especially intolerable for the German government, any German government, ever to vote against Israel, ever to take any action harmful to the people and state of Israel. And it should be a solemn duty of that government to educate its populace about the real facts, not the Arab propaganda, about demography, land ownership, comparative claims of Arabs and others, non-Arab or non-Muslim, in the vast swath of territory from Morocco to Iran -- it should be a state policy to teach this in schools, to make sure that everyone in Germany never forgets, and is never allowed, to put certain things behind them, as if there is a sell-by date on mass-murder in which masses participated. There isn't.

You are complaining, wrongly, and about the wrong website. You are reading lectures to the wrong people. Concentrate, for god's sake, on Islam. Can anyone looking around the world think that the Infidels have concentrated enough on Islam? Of course they haven't. And already in Western Europe, over the past three or four decades, terrible damage has been done by the large-scale presence, heedlessly permitted, of Muslims.

There is a big, permanent, world-wide problem. It can not be "solved" but can be "contained." But it will require a change in the attitudes and baseless assumptions of many people. It's a task, to turn so many around, after such a long lapse of thought, as hard as turning around an aircraft carrier.

No one is suggesting that history be rewritten, that the crimes against the "most persecuted tribe in history" be ignored or elided. But think of what this site's indispensable and unwavering pedagogic purpose is, and must be, given how few other sites actually come close to setting things out, day after day after day, correctly.

Can't you do that?

Hitlers 1000 year vision incorporated Islam and communism as ALLIES not enemies.It was a very complex if convoluted vision of the future.One of the things that never got finished was the huge Dome planned in Berlin based on a mosque.It was said to have been so big it would have had it's own form of cloud formation come ecosystem inside it with rain clouds to boot.The foundations for the pillars to support the dome can still be seen in four sites in berlin.This was only as far as they got till other commitments took over.They are literally miles apart.

The moral of the story is as like moral equivalence and apologists throughout history they just get persecuted and killed last.
I've no doubt that if Hitler had succeded the christians would of been next.
The night of the long knives is a case in point of Nazism's comparison with Islam.
Hitler despised the decadence of the Artists of Germany who he accused of conspiricy and dissent many of whom were Homosexual..and lots Jewish who escaped to the U.S to work in Hollywood in particular.
See the link?
Western decadence as a target or used as an excuse for Jihadism.
Hitler wasn't really that smart just very good at plagiarising other cultures and forming some sort of bastard sonn of mohammedism to fit into his bitter and twisted worldview.
See the link?

Christian my arse.

Mohammeden most certainly.

Just my theory.

Its been covered many, many times before by posters and site, of the Muslim Military Battalions and sympathizers within the Nazi framework. One has only to use the search option on here, to investigate and learn how Hitler admired the Mohammedians with their ruthlessness and efficiancy, how he entertained the past Grand Muffti of Palestine, how the Mufti pressed the Chancellor too, for him and his people to take on the Hallowed duty of exterminating the jews and no doubt any other sort of undesirable which wasn't fitting for an Islamic/Nazi world.

Yes, be sure, wherever there is trouble in the world, past, present and undoubtedly the future, it'll involve Muslims .

"the poster who is intent on giving us all lessons"

That person's humility has either changed or reverted since that "famously-lauded" letter last year.

-XRDC

"What a bad time that was".-Morgaan Sinclair

Yes, it was bad.

Somebody once said, "the past is another country, people do things differently there". Certainly the Spain of 2007 is not that of 1400-1500. The distant past has some relevance to the present, but often we are really talking about two different worlds. The present is what is important. (For example: some will condemn slavery in the US as if it is a blight that is never to be washed away. Yet the fact that it was washed away in the Civil War, the fact that most Caucasian Americans can't trace their ancestry in America back before 1890 (I'm one of them) tells us that pre-1865 was "another country". It is the slavery that exists today that matters more than the slavery abolished.)

There may come a time when current Islam, current Jihad, current Jew-hating, current Muslim supremacism will be "another country". But right now Dar-al-Islam is monstrously intolerant, and not yet another land in another time. That present reality is an important issue.

Morgaan Sinclair-

Hugh reminds of Socrates in that both would be charged with being atheists in Athens. Socrates was the "atheist" who believed in one God, Hugh believes in no god, but they would share the same fate. (Their common defense at the trial would be really interesting.) Hugh does not want to apply the term "agnostic" to himself because he does not want to be a "weasel" on the matter. Morgaan, he's not likely to be a "weasel" on matters. He would share Socrates fate for different reasons.

I see that Morgaan Sinclair has generated a lot of comment on this site, so I thought I'd add my response to his (her?) response to my initial posting.
I've checked out your link to the Holocaust Museum website. There's the photo of the bishops giving the "nazi salute" alongside a couple of nazi officials. Well, it takes a stretch of the imagination to call that a nazi salute. The two bishops look a lot more like people raising their right hands in a swearing-in ceremony; like the President at his inauguration; or like a witness about to give testimony in court. A pretty half-hearted salute, at any rate.
As for Ludwig Mueller, he was the leader of a political faction, the Deutsche Christen (German Christians), which generally supported the nazis, and at its height had ca. 600,000 members, i.e. about 1 % of the German population. He was appointed by Hitler, not elected by anyone, as Reich Bishop (Natinal Bishop) of a "German Church" in an attempt to bring the various branches of German Christianity under greater state control. In other words, he was a state stooge, not any kind of representative of German Christianity. Imagine President Clinton (either Bill or Hil) appointing Al Sharpton as Natinal Bishop of an "American Church", and you get the general idea.
As for the Volkstag, all I can find is that this was the name for the legislature of the Free City of Danzig beteeen the wars. Danzig was an ethnically German district, taken from Germany along with the Polish Corridor by the Treay of Versailles in 1919. The rest of the Corridor was given to the re-created state of Poland, but Danzig was designated an independent entity, the Free City. It was annexed to Germany by the nazis at the same time they invaded Poland, beginning the war. Volkstag (means Popular Assembly) was also a general term for any popularly-elected legislative body, usually the lower house in a bicameral legislature. The U.S. House of Representatives could be referred to as an example of a Volkstag, while the Senate could be termed a "Staatstag".
And also thanks to all those, and especially Hugh with his hard figures, who agreed that the figure of 2 million Jewish refugees from Spain in 1500 was absurdly high.

Ah, Reza Aslan!

This is the guy who wrote(in absolute seriousness!) of Islam-- in a BOOK that got published in the US--- "this religion is a science."

He never did this guy explain just what the Hell Islam is a science OF....

You know---

I think Islam is indeed a science--- a science of of mind control and of turning human beings into killer-ZOmbies, and more! But clearly no Muslim has any intention of enlightening the American public about this side of Islam (Unless they are cutting out of this cult--which is advisable, to say the least).

With scriptures like "this religion is a science" one wonders just what COULD be expected of this Islamic bozo other than taqiyya, jihadism, and utter lunacy????

ovinesong: This is not possible to believe simply because Hitler had too many Arab Muslim associates who shared the same views. The Third Reich had too much in common with islam to dismiss Islamic influences.

More likely that Hitler happened upon Muslims in Berlin and islamic literature-- and his absorption likely led to his decision to masacre Jews.

Islam don't you know teaches first degree murder and mind control--two lethal ingredients in the Third reich's rise.