That shallow flim-flam man, Tony Blair, is now doing what so many failed political leaders, especially Americans, have done before him: attempting to Make Peace, a Permanent Peace, between what used to be called Arabs and Jews, or Arabs and Israelis, but since the late 1960s, with malice aforethought, are carefully called Israelis and "Palestinians."
It has been six years since 9/11/2001. Like Bush, Blair spent the months just after 9/11/2001 telling his own public, and the world, how wonderful and peaceful and truly impressive Islam was and is. He told everyone that he carried around a copy of the Qur'an for reading and ready reference. Yet apparently all of Sura 9, and another 100 verses outside of Sura 9 (see the Calcutta Koran Petititon), escaped his notice. And what also escaped his notice was the "Sunnah" -- that is, the Hadith, the stories that contain, supposedly, the record of what Muhammad said and did, stories that more than a thousand years ago were collected. Within a few centuries there were many tens of thousands of them, because what else could people do but weave further stories out of the stories they knew? They were carefully collected and their chains of transmission, or isnad-chains, solemnly studied, to determine their likely authenticity. Then they were ranked accordingly, and those assigned the highest of the ranks by the handful of most authoritative muhaddithin -- Bukhari and Muslim above all the rest -- are the Hadith that count the most.
But does Blair know this? Does he know about the Hadith, and has he read, say, a few hundred of the best-known? Has he read, and thoroughly assimilated, the Muslim biographies of Muhammad? Does he understand the central role of Muhammad in the Muslim worldview, a role more important than that of Allah? Does he know that Muhammad is the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man, al-inan al-kamil? And if he does know that, what does he make of a billion Believers taking as their Model of Conduct, as their idea of a Perfect Man, someone who watched the mass killings of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, who greeted with pleasure news of the deaths of Asma bint Marwan (a woman who had merely composed a few mocking verses against him) and Abu Afak? Someone who raided and killed and seized the women of the inoffensive Jewish farmers quietly tilling the soil at the Khaybar Oasis, a raid that was conducted purely for the sake of that loot and those women, and that became a model for subsequent Muslim raids on those who had done nothing to oppose Muhammad at all, but rather were guilty of the crime only of being non-Muslims?
And finally, and most importantly, does Tony Blair think, given that he has taken on the task of deciding the fate of Israel, essentially, by Making Peace, that all that is irrelevant? Does he think that the time-honored practice (the U.N., William Rogers, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton, tutti quanti) of compelling the Israelis to make further concessions will somehow cause the Arab Muslims, the local ones called the "Palestinians," to change their beliefs? Does he think that he can do anything to compel other Arabs and Muslims to accept, in perpetuity, the existence of an Infidel state, the state of Israel, in the midst of what the Arab Muslims see as forever Arab and Muslim land?
Would it be too much to ask the well-paid Mr. Blair, since he is determined to do what No Man Has Done Before, to read just one book, if that's all his busy busy schedule permits? (Does he really have time to Make Peace In the Middle East, by the way, what with having to fly here, and make a speech there, pocketing the fat check in the envelope, and of course having to get cracking on that memoir for which he has just received a $9 million dollar advance?) That one book should be Majid Khadduri's War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Let him study carefully the parts devoted to how Muslims regard treaties, agreements, hudnas, with all Infidels. What do they think? Are they just like us, in the West? Do they adhere to the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda -- treaties are to be obeyed? See Grotius, Vitoria and Suarez, see Lauterpacht, see Stone, see see see.
I'm sure he does. I'm sure he, Tony Blair, simply assumes that treaty-making is the same everywhere in the world. It has never occurred to him -- why should it, given his temperament, given his mental makeup -- that possibly in the world of Islam, treaty-making with Infidels is not a matter of Pacta Sunt Servanda, but of doing exactly as Muhammad did, in 628 A.D., when he made the Treaty, or Agreement, with the Meccans, a treaty that was essentially a "truce treaty" or "hudna" that was to last ten years, and that he broke at the first opportunity, just as soon as he felt strong enough to attack the Meccans. It is regarded in Muslim commentaries as the final word on how Muslims should regard any treaties, agreements, hudnas, that they might sign, at a time when such signing is made necessary by events.
Does Tony Blair know that? Does he care to examine all the other treaties and agreements that Israel entered into with the Arab Muslim states, starting with the Armistice Agreements of 1949? Does he?
Or is he too busy interviewing those researchers, and that ghost-writer, whom he will thank so generously for their unspecified "assistance," just as they all do, our Great Men of the age, with their fat unreadable memoirs, and their inner essential stupidity that never catches up with them, but that leaves all kinds of victims, sometimes millions of them, in their colossal wake?
I really have to stop finding myself amazed about how ignorant our leaders are.
I guess i need to give up all hope that any of the idiots in Washington or London actually know what is going on in the world.
oh if only our eyes could see the spiritual forces that must be swarming over our capital which allows so much deception to take root.. it must be a frightening landscape there.
Afghanistan: US Commander Converts to Islam
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2007/11/afghanistan-us-.html
After the ceremony, Abdul Wahed said he had informed his wife in the US about his acceptance of Islam. "My spouse did not show any negative reaction, but recommended not to marry another woman."
'But does Blair know this?'
Blair knows nothing. Of his earnestness there is no doubt, but his particular strain of religiosity, like Carter's, is a fatal impediment.
Why do these failures get the bug to solve the world's one unsolvable problem, *after* they leave a position of real power? What stopped them before?
Dane,
Its hard to solve a problem when you dont know what th real problem is.
Oh please please please, Eric, tell me you are joking. Please.
That article, Eric, is truly friggin' mind boggling, all the way from the ceremony being over three hours long to his wife wishing he doesn't stop collecting stamps and - now that he's Mr Wahed - take up collecting wives.
Please tell me it's a joke.
ewha1
I wish it was
Hugh, thank you for the book recommendation. I ordered it today.
Elric66, from the comments at your link:
http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/dnc/cormier/10.html
link to images of peaceful islam provided by this convert.
justamomof4,
I dont know how any sane westerner can convert
Dane wrote:
"Blair knows nothing. Of his earnestness there is no doubt, but his particular strain of religiosity, like Carter's, is a fatal impediment."
----------------------------------------------
I agree, you can compare Tony Blair with Jimmy Carter.
--CT yank
Blair's wife Cherie recently declared that there were no passages in the Koran justifying wife-beating or stating that a woman's testimony was worth half that of a man. I wouldn't be surprised if she hadn't been informed by her husband, who has read the Koran, that this was the case.
Blair claimed a credit that he does not really deserve for the (rather messy and unsatisfactory) ending of the Northern Ireland 'troubles'.In fact the settlement there was almost entirely the work of others. Probably the only thing on which I might concur with Irish terrorists is concerning his intelligence (as opposed to volubility): during the talks it seems that, among themselves, the IRA referred to him as the 'eejit'.
It seems that his ambitions to be a middle-Eastern peacemaker are founded on his self-exaggerated contribution in Ulster.
In her blog , on 24th Oct, Melanie Philips refers to a recent article by the former Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble, explaining why drawing false analogies between the situation in Northern Ireland at the time of the peace process and the current Israel/Palestinian situation could make the latter situation even worse. In fact Trimble argues that Blair's obtuseness has made the Norther Ireland settlement more unsatisfactory than it should have been.
"Broadly, there are two key differences. The first is that, whether or not people disagreed with the aim of a united Ireland and abhorred the terrorism used to achieve it, the goal itself was perfectly respectable, unlike the goal of Hamas to eradicate Israel and Islamise the region (I would add that Fatah shares the former aim). Much more important, however, is that that far from the Brits suddenly reaching out to the IRA, it was the IRA that suddenly told the British government ‘the war is over’ and asked to be brought into the political process. And that was because, as Trimble says, it had been beaten into a permanent stalemate. That is entirely different from talking to Hamas which is still attacking Israel through rocket attacks and suicide bomb attempts. In fact, as Trimble says, the British government did talk to the IRA in 1972 when it was still very much at war. The result was disastrous and merely intensified the IRA’s belief that everything was up for grabs.
As Trimble says, it is supreme folly to imagine that peace follows from talking to ‘biddable extremists’, and not just across the Irish sea or in the Middle East:
'In Northern Ireland, this has helped to create an account of the past as Irish republicans would have it. The British Government, notwithstanding its achievements in Northern Ireland, has been remarkably acquiescent in this process; indeed, at times it has even encouraged it. In this regard, it is striking that the temptation to ‘buy off’ the loudest and most bombastic is also in evidence in the Government’s approach to the Muslim community in the United Kingdom.' "
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/291736/a-lethally-flawed-analogy.thtml
Blair,Bush and every politically leader should be forced to see this Film
http://farewellisrael.com/reviews.html
Bloggernews.net Andrew Ian Dodge
This is a rather depressing and extensive documentary (145 minutes) on how badly the West and even the Jews do not get Islam at all. They routinely don’t even attempt to see the world as Islam sees and thus make loads of mistakes in dealing with Islam. We assume the best and get burnt every single damn time due to ignorance about the religion and its ultimate goals.
This DVD, with a soundtrack from Bob Dylan’s backing band, tells the tale of the rise, fall and possible rise again of Islam. It tells the tale of Islam from its roots to its present behaviour. Think Robert Spencer’s books done for those who can’t be asded to read at times meaty and esoteric tomes.
What is very interesting is the method in which they explain the gist of this documentary. Its done as if one is in a Mosque looking at various pieces of art on the wall; which each major point being a different picture. Chapters are set in different areas with the final prediction of all out war set in its own room.
Extras include Islamic art and the complete soundtrack in it entirety including the haunting track ‘By the Rivers of Babylon.” And no not the Boney M song.
This is a very pessimistic piece which I fear is spot on about Islam’s intentions for all of us. However, that said, this is not a subject to be taken lightly. This DVD should probably be required viewing for everyone both young and old in the West. Its blunt but equally damning of the idiotic actions of the West and Israel when confronted by Islam.
I highly recommend this DVD to you. That is if you give a damn about what we are all up against.
Don't ever forget that Tony Blair was, along with Clinton, the architect of NATO's policy to destroy the Serbs and deliver Kosovo and Bosnia to the Muslims.
Or is he too busy interviewing those researchers, and that ghost-writer, whom he will thank so generously for their unspecified "assistance," just as they all do, our Great Men of the age, with their fat unreadable memoirs, and their inner essential stupidity that never catches up with them, but that leaves all kinds of victims, sometimes millions of them, in their colossal wake?
Amazing comment.
The West has become a ribbon-wearing society, the "I feel your pain" culture, where curiosity and integrity are discouraged. We elect ourselves, the unread glib. Meanwhile ....
From WallyUK:"Much more important, however, is that that far from the Brits suddenly reaching out to the IRA, it was the IRA that suddenly told the British government ‘the war is over’ and asked to be brought into the political process. And that was because, as Trimble says, it had been beaten into a permanent stalemate."
Very true. The IRA had been infiltrated all the way up to the top, as recent revelations have shown. Also, the Loyalist Paramilitary units were let loose. Politically, the Catholic church and the SDLP were working very closely with the UK govt, etc to isolate the IRA. Ironically, the Real IRA's only supporters can be found in Kosovo where the KLA recently tried to sell huge quantities of Semtex to the organisation. Speaks volumes.
Anyway, all very different with what Israel is faced with. Until it's foes reach out to Israel, then Israel must keep up the good fight. Which is forever, unfortunately.
And yet Tony Blair is not the worst--not by far. Bush and Rice are no better, and Jimmy Carter . . . well . . .
This from an article in the Washington Post about unreasoning optimism over the Plestinian "peace process":
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Monday that he believes the path to peace with Israel is now open and that a Palestinian state can be achieved before the end of the Bush administration in January 2009.
Echoing a near-identical statement made Sunday night by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert . . .
"This is a historic time, a time of real opportunity," Rice said.
It goes on in this vein. It is a long article, and nowhere does it mention an end to terrorism against Israel, nor does it in any way address Hamas, with their even more bellicose Jihad.
I hate to be such a cynic, but this will all be very predictable. The only thing in question is just what incident will bring about a "derailing of the peace process". A sticking point with Israel over the "right of return" or East Jerusalem? Another Mohammed Dura-like incident? Maybe a coup against Abbas as Hamas moves to take over the West Bank?
The possibilities are near endless, and are certainly endlessly depressing.