| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the Muslim Brotherhood's resurgence in Egypt, and its wider implications:
The Muslim Brotherhood seeks its Total Answer in Islam. The problems it addresses may be those that all countries experience -- a ruthless, corrupt, completely worthless regime. In a non-Muslim country, the answer would be Clean Government, and Civil Service Examinations, and an Anti-Corruption Squad and Throw the Rascals Out. In a Muslim country, where the prism of Islam is ready, the Answer of Islam is ready, the discontent with the government (Mubarak, the Al-Saud, this or that despot or petty ruler) will always and everywhere be expressed in Islamic terms, with Islam as the Solution. That would be fine for Infidels if Islam, more Islam, did not mean also something else, and what it means is this: more hatred of the Infidels, unmitigated by worldliness and corruption. And it would be fine if the Infidel world is ready to take upon itself indefinitely the entire burden of ensuring that everywhere Good Government and an Honest and Efficient Civil Service will reign throughout the Muslim lands, and of supplying aid to any Muslims who might feel that they are poor and should not be. And many of them are poor, but the reasons are in the despotism that Islam encourages, and the habit of mental submission that Islam encourages, and the habit of inshallah-fatalism that Islam encourages.And more Islam always means more hatred of Infidels, so that any protest is channeled through Islam -- and in a Muslim country it will always end up being channeled through Islam for all but a small enlightened or quasi-enlightened group (no more than 2-3% of the population). Yet since Islam itself is the main reason for their troubles, for their unresponsive political system, and for the rumors, nonsense, and lies that come so easily to Muslim societies that have never encouraged and cannot encourage skepticism as a way of mental life but rather foster credulity at every step, things will never get better until Islam itself is weakened, constrained, divided, demoralized, seen not as The Answer but, as Ataturk and Bourguiba did, as The Problem.
The Muslim Brotherhood may have won nearly 20% of the seats in Parliament. But in Egypt, the Muslim vote essentially went 100% for Islam. Mubarak is Muslim, leader of a corrupt, meretricious, vicious regime, but a regime of Muslims, sharing Muslim attitudes that shape their worldview, and that are scarcely hidden, save for the few hours a week that are spent meeting with Western dignitaries, or for the odd state visit (that waiting Blair House, or that suite at The Mayflower or at the Hotel Raphael! How eagerly these tin-pot potentates, propped up with Western money, look for an excuse to travel abroad). Those attitudes are well-reflected, are on display, in the viciousness of the official press, which is imbued with anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-Copt, anti-Jewish, anti-Infidel sentiments and the usual Muslim hysteria and hysterical view of the universe.At the very least, all American aid to Egypt-- which by now amounts to $60 billion -- should end. The Egyptians spent $7.5 billion on military purchases in 2004, right after China and India on the list of major buyers, yet for some reason it is believed by some perfectly reasonable to continue supplying this irredeemably corrupt, with an oily exterior, regime, threatened by no one, yet itself a potential threat both to Israel and to Ethiopia (the looming headwaters-of-the-Nile dispute), with $2 billion a year in American aid. Egypt is a world center of anti-Americanism (possibly the most anti-American country, along with Saudi Arabia, in the world) and of antisemitism, that has failed to fulfill a single one of its obligations under the Camp David Accords. The paradox holds: the less aid, whether financial, military, or diplomatic, received by a corrupt regime from the U.S., the more likely that the people in that country will have a more favorable opinion of the United States. In the Middle East, the most pro-American population is that of Iran, where for 25 years there has been no American aid, and instead the Iranian government has done everything it can to whip up those it rules against the United States. But since American hostility to the Iranian regime is clear, the fury with the rulers cannot be deflected, as it is in Egypt, to the distant Infidels in the United States.
What of reformers in Egypt? A good deal is made of certain "reformers" and advocates for "civil society" in the Arab countries. But if one examines them closely, those "reformers" often turn out to disappoint. For they are supporters, in the end, of the Muslim agenda, perhaps muted, perhaps less aggressive or less fervent, but still supporters. One example is Egypt’s Saad Eddin Ibrahim. He owes his freedom -- that is, he owes the Mubarak government's pressure to have his sentence overturned, and for him to be absolved -- to the fact that, at Bernard Lewis' urging, Egypt was threatened with a cut of $30 million dollars out of its (preposterous and maddening) $2 billion in annual American aid. It worked, of course -- if we ever bother to put pressure on Egypt, it will always work (we so seldom bother -- we'll do it to spring a "civil society" quasi-reformer, with a good press, but not to force them to crack down on the antisemitism and anti-Americanism of which the Egyptian press and television are now world centers).
And what about sad-eyed dhimmified scared Boutros Boutros Ghali? Despite being, or having been, the U.N.'s Secretary-General, he always was, and always will be, a court Copt, kept around because he is useful (and his French is so much better than that of the Muslims in Egypt's Foreign Ministry) in disproving that Egypt really does persecute the Copts. Boutros Boutros Ghali must always keep in mind the assassination of his great-grandfather and namesake -- and that was long ago, when Egypt was under the Cromer good-government-and-efficient-civil-service administration, and with many Europeans and Levantines in both Alexandria and Cairo, was a far more civilized and tolerant and altogether more interesting place than it is today. But since then the Egyptian government has engaged first in clearing out the Greeks, the Jews, the Italians, the Armenians of Alexandria (no Durrellian exotica left about the place where Cavafy and Ungaretti were both born). They have shut down the lycees and the old French and English-language gazettes, and eliminated that whole world of fez-wearing hubble-bubble aficionados, with their carriages and their front-running syces, people who might have been at home at some Cairene equivalent of the Blue Parrot along with Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre. The Egyptians were left only with the Copts to dilute Islam, Arab Islam. And these Copts are the very people whose lives are steadily being made more intolerable. Sadat put Pope Shenouda under house arrest. Under the thuggish Mubarak, there have been many cases of torture, and murder -- by Muslim neighbors, by Egyptian police, by the army. Not a word from the U.N., not a word from the World Council of Churches, the Vatican (who cares about those pesky monophysites!), not a word from anyone.
But why be surprised? The failure to read Mubarak the riot act on this, as on his media's treatment of Israel, and on Egypt's failure to live up to a single one of its solemn commitments under the Camp David Accords, is simply par for the appeasement course -- you know, the course we are all staying by failing to analyze, to recognize, to articulate, the permanent menace of Islam.
Who cares if the Copts are the original Egyptians and the Muslim Arabs the invaders? The Jews could say that, and the Christian Maronites, and even the non-Arab Kurds, and the Berbers of the Kabyle as well. But no -- we are endlessly told that this is the "Arab world." No one else exists, really. No one else can. No one else, anywhere in that Arab world.
Posted by Robert at December 8, 2005 9:44 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
>Who cares if the Copts are the original Egyptians >and the Muslim Arabs the invaders? The Jews could >say that, and the Christian Maronites, and even the >non-Arab Kurds, and the Berbers of the Kabyle as >well. But no -- we are endlessly told that this is >the "Arab world." No one else exists, really. No >one else can. No one else, anywhere in that Arab >world.
This is an extremely important issue, something that has been neglected in the historical discourse, in academia and everywhere else. The entire post-colonial mentality in the west, that assumes it iself must be responsible for every misfortune heaped on the rest of the world, cannot survive understanding the real history of the Arab imperialism.
Quijybo
Posted by: Quijybo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 8, 2005 11:11 AM
Egypt is proof the islam doesn't work. At it's apex, the Egyptian nation was one of the most powerful and technologically advanced states in the world. Now look at them.
Posted by: A.G.Frederick III at December 8, 2005 11:57 AM
Because the US military-industrial establishment would arm the Devil if hell came up with enough cash, the US is giving Egypt arms and some money together equal to 2 billion USD per year.
Egypt is 90 percent Muslim, its 10 percent Coptic minority is always in peril, and Egypt increasing is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt is a lethal menace to several
surrounding nations in the region that the US should care more about: Israel (80 percent non-Muslim), Ethiopia (50-55 non-Muslim), Sudan (30 percent non-Muslim), Lebanon (40 percent non-Muslim), Eritrea (31 percent non-Muslim).
Egypt is in a Nile River headwaters dispute with Ethiopia. Egypt doesn't want Ethiopia to dam up any water for irrigation purposes, even though Ethiopians are always on the brink of starvation, and Ethiopians happen to be 50-55 percent non-Muslim.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/et.html
Ethiopia: Religions: Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%
-------------------
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html
Sudan: Sunni Muslim 70% (in north), indigenous beliefs 25%, Christian 5% (mostly in south and Khartoum)
--------------------
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/er.html
Eritrea: Muslim, Coptic Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant
http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Africa/eritreag.htm
Eritrea: religious affiliation: Muslim 69%; Coptic Christian 31%; other (incl. Animist, Roman Catholic, Protestant)
-------------------
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/eg.html
Egypt: Muslim (mostly Sunni) 94%, Coptic Christian and other 6%
-------------------
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html
Muslim 59.7% (Shi'a, Sunni, Druze, Isma'ilite, Alawite or Nusayri), Christian 39% (Maronite Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Copt, Protestant), other 1.3%
at December 8, 2005 2:23 PM
Keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1927.
Long before we had a presence there, long before Israel came into existence.
A the worst part is that the Muslim Brotherhood spawned the evil Yassir Arafat.
Posted by: learjet0450 at December 8, 2005 5:23 PM
Wow! Why is the dissemination of truth so compromising from the MSM? Is there any so-called news media outlet with the guts to look at the other side of the news in the Mohammedan Middle East and North Africa? It is disgusting that no outcry is heard in the Western World over this obvious cruelty to humanity.
Posted by: Theway2k at December 8, 2005 5:30 PM
Pray for the Copts I fear what awaits them will somehow exceed the holocaust of occultist Germany in both scale and brutality, it that is even possible. Mere hundreds of miles and a single border separate the Copts from the ongoing genocide in Sudan engineered by the Sudanese disciples of the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood. There is no ideological difference between those committing genocide in the Sudan and those systematically brutalizing the Copts in Egypt The only difference is the amount of power If the Brotherhood transition from a shadow-government to full power, the entire world will pay the price. Egypt has more human, military, and infrastructural resources that rival all Arab countries combined. If such resources fall into the hand of the Islamists, not only the survival of Middle Eastern Christianity and the safety of Israel would be at stake, but the safety of the entire world.
I assure you that if the Pakis could build few nukes, Egypt could build enough nukes to scorch all of Europe and deliver them much easier than Pakistan or Iran. There are tons of Muslim Egyptian students purposely studying Nuclear Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, and Bio-technology in American and Western universities from Alaska to Australia. Many Egyptian Muslims with PhDs, owing to their ancient Egyptian genes, posses the technical intelligence to wreak havoc on the entire world.
Posted by: have_mercy at December 8, 2005 8:00 PM
Hugh
You are unfairly dismissive of the reformers coming out of Egypt. Your classification of Saad Eddin Ibrahim is wrong full stop. The work of the Ibn Khaldoun Centre may not please you in every respect, but their contribution to a discourse (which you claim does not exist) is invaluable. I think it is laughable how you can just dismiss his work, with a sweep of your pen, without giving him or his work any real consieration.
Your overbroad strategies have the effect of marginalising those like Ibrahim and Subhy Mansour, and the Ibn Khaldoun centre. Your view is shared by Al-Azhar and the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither of you have the time for reformers.
Why do you seek to marginalise the voice of reformers? I think because at the end of the day Hugh, the reform or liberalisation of Islam (albeit unlikely to happen) is the last thing you want.
Wa salam
Posted by: Haidon at December 8, 2005 8:25 PM
No, you have it wrong. I know that in Egyptian terms, the Ibn Khaldun Center is a force for good. But I'm not writing or thinking "in Egyptian terms." I'm thinking in terms of long-range Infidel interests. And Infidels who are persuaded to delay the day of recognition, persuaded to follow the will-o'-the-wisp of doing everything to encourage Islamic "reform" by never quite asking how, in what way, such "reform" of Islam will take place, and what passages in what texts will be eliminated (because without such changes, or the decision that the Qur'an really isn't the uncreated "Word of God" but something different, something to be taken unliterally, with a pillar of salt, the "reformers" are just fooling themselves and others). I don't mind if they fool themselves; it is those "others" -- those Infidels -- of whom I worry. Their civilization, their belief-systems, their take on the universe, if they are even half-true to their own legacy, is superior to anything and everything that ever came out of Islam. So why should one take a chance on Islam, just becuase some nice people, born into it, have managed to dismiss or ignore a lot of it but cannot quite make that Warraqian jump over the north wall while the warden isn't looking, or some other nice but possibly more mentally disoriented people, who convert out of confusion, and a spiritual search, and a psychic fear once they have realized the truth about the matter to fully jettison that faith that they put so much faith into, to drop it and get back to full no-nonsense sanity and a forthright, rather than a back-and-forth, take on the universe.
As you know, I don't have much time for Spiritual Searches or those who keep at them for a long time. Such people, I have noticed, take themselves very seriously indeed. Their spectacular wrestling with God becomes for them an epic event. They try on this faith, discover it isn't what they expected, then wonder what to do next. Sometimes they stick with it, and try to convince themselves, if it is Islam, that it can be saved, can be reformed. But they never quite explain to themselves or to others how. In this respect, there is something about them both comic and tragic. Tragicomical, my lord, Polonius would say. But I wouldn't, because Polonius and I have nothing in common. I'd keep the adjectives separate and short. Not tragicomical. Not tragical. Not comical. Comic. And tragic.
Posted by: Hugh at December 8, 2005 8:42 PM
"...the despotism that Islam encourages, and the habit of mental submission that Islam encourages, and the habit of inshallah-fatalism that Islam encourages."
Islam is THE problem. And, Bush, bless his simplicity, is right, Liberty is the antidote.
Posted by: genard at December 8, 2005 10:11 PM
Liberty is the antidote, but not through democracy. Democracy will bring you another mullarcracy. Secularism first then maybe democracy. What good is liberty and democracy when it can lead to shariah?
Posted by: Haidon at December 8, 2005 10:17 PM
RE: I don't have much time for Spiritual Searches or those who keep at them for a long time.
Hugh, I believe that you are an atheist and I respect that. But why is it that people of "intellect" are afraid of a "spiritual" quest?
The sad part is that people make it much more complicated then it really is.
But to grossly simplify, if you believe in "love" then you automatically believe in God.
Posted by: learjet0450 at December 9, 2005 7:49 AM
Re the "Spiritual Searches" --
I'm not against questioning, wondering, and so on. Think of good old Pierre Bezukhov in "War and Peace." But self-preening over one's depths of joy or despair or mister-in-betweenness get my goat. Most people just aren't that interesting. I remember liking, at age 12, the thrust-and-parry between the atheist and the priest in Roger Martin Du Gard's "Jean Barois."
But that was in another country, and besides, the book is read.
I have noticed that among those who convert to Islam, not of the unspeakable John-Walker-Lindh-Richard-Reid variety, but those who somewhere along the line, five or ten or twenty years ago, thought they were finding the Peace That Passeth Understanding -- good god, if you want an absence of ornament and at most one God then become a Unitarian, and hold its current politics, rather than Islam itself -- and then discover that Islam, oops, has a great deal that is unpleasant, disturbing, mind-stunting, horrrifying about it, and the impulse to shout "help, let me out of here" comes upon you, but you have also made much of your conversion, and much has been made of it, and you are now afraid -- physically afraid -- to let it be known that you are no longer a Muslim so you decide to stick with it, and pretend that "reformers" (you are able to list a half-dozen, one of whom, Farag Foda, was murdered) will do the trick, and you just won't, can't, don't jettison Islam because of this fear, but it is a fear that you cannot quite admit you feel to yourself or to others, so you keep plugging away.
Now I should not have punctuated the above to give it that genuine Molly-Bloom feel. But I'm feeling prim and precise and Priscian, so have distributed those commas and periods and dashes.
Instead of a Spiritual Search, I like to read the dictionary. The bigger the better.
Posted by: Hugh at December 9, 2005 9:27 AM
Well, it looks like the Brotherhood has won 88 seats in the Egyptian Parliament.
Had they not been banned and otherwise suppressed, that total would have in all probability been MUCH higher.
One looks forward to the Palestinian [sic] elections coming up what, next month? How will openly terrorist (i.e., jihadist) groups such as Hamas fare in those?
PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH
More important, as "democracy" spreads throughout the Middle East, how will the Dhimmi Axis (i.e., the MSM, academe, State, CIA, White House) handle the emergence of in-democratically elected government jihadists?
Will they seek to legitimize them, ignore them, or castigate the electorates that elected them?
Look for the Dhimmi Axis in America to take the middle road and pretend that the heavily armed and hateful pink elephant in the corner of the room doesn't exist.
It should go without saying: Look for the Dhimmi Axis in Eurabia to legitimize them.
Boy, keeping up appearances with this Moderate Moslem thing is going to get tough over the next year...
Posted by: Duke Eudes at December 9, 2005 10:17 AM
"if you believe in "love" then you automatically believe in God."
-- from a posting above
One, I have no idea what the phrase "if you believe in 'love' means. Sounds to me like a Hallmark Card picked up at CVS.
Two, if I did "believe in 'love'" you claim I would "automatically believe in God." Presumably this is because for many Christians the phrase "God is love" has meaning. So "belief in love" is "belief in God." What about in Islam, a religion or belief-system with a billion or so adherents? Muslims devoutly believe in God, in Allah. Their God is quite different from the Christian God, from the Jewish God, from Hindu gods, from the gods of pagan mythology. Muslims also are taught, in their canonical texts, to hate the Unbeliever, to wish him ill, to have nothing to do with him except to kill, convert, or subjugate him. Not all Muslims take this to heart, but enough of them do, and have done so, over 1350 years, for us to worry. We might deduce, from the examples of Christian doctrine and Islamic doctrine, that it doesn't matter if you love or hate, that if you "believe in God" you can "believe in love" or "believe in hate" and that, performing the switcheroo around the equal-sign, if you "believe in love" or "believe in hate" then you "believe in God." A sensible person, atheist or Christian or a man from Mars, should prefer Christianity and explanations or organizations of the universe provided by belief-systems other than Islam. But one need not assume that providing an explanation of the universe connected to "God" (Allah, Jehovah -- to limit oneself to monotheisms) is always and everywhere a Good Thing. The record suggests otherwise.
I'm perfectly content with my unbelief. It doesn't keep me from singing Christmas carols, or humming them when I forget the words, liking to look at this or that much-museumed Madonna, reading the King James version of the Bible, or comprehending the significance of Christianity (and its Judaic roots) in the formation of the Western world. The West, and the United States, cannot be understood, are unimaginable, without Christianity. I want the Ten Commandments displayed. I want that old-time religion. I would like more people to have read the Bible, would prefer a Europe where more people took Christianity seriously, and am certain it would be a Europe better able to deal with Islam, a civilizational threat, and to renew ties with the generous, well-meaning, sometimes misguided (with its cult of Growth), not always articulate, ally across the Atlantic.
One can come to understand why even the outward and visible sign of adherence to Christian (or Jewish) belief, one that might not be inwardly supported by a belief in God, is desirable, and should not be dismissed as hypocrisy (but what's wrong with hypocrisy -- the modern cult of sincerity has gotten out of hand). Without some knowledge of Christianity, of the Bible, Western civilization becomes a puzzle, a riddle, from its paintings and sculpture, to much of its poetry and prose and philosophy). I want Pope Benedict to live a long time. I want more sermons from St. Paul's that sound like those delivering them meant it. Donne's Devotions. Herbert, Traherne. Chateaubriand's "La genie du Christianisme" and "La vie de Rance." IJeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Holy Dying, not the thin gruel of unholy Assisted Living and Assisted Dying. The Mathers, Increase and Cotton and Samuel, in their generations, again made part of the standard curriculum in American history, and in American literature, a little more mention of Magnalia Christi Americana, and the role of doctors of divinity, from Theodore Parker to Harry Emerson Fosdick, if you please.
But at the same time, surely there's room in that global village for the village atheist. What's that saying? "It takes a village atheist to...."
I marvel at, but do not attempt to modify or misconstrue or even misunderestimate, the marvelous beliefs of others.
at December 9, 2005 10:44 AM
When explaining the wide support for the Muslim Brotherhood, dont forget to mention the dictatorial government of Mubarak supported by the US all these years, and the charity network this organization has set for the most empoverished. Im not supporting them, just saying to mention the actual reasons for their support.
Posted by: Ispanan at December 9, 2005 1:25 PM
Oh btw, Hugh, altough I didn't read all of your text, I believed you said something of the sort that Muslims are taught to hate unbelievers. If such is the case, I would like you to tell me why, in this case, the Muslim Medieval civilization proved to be the most tolerant of the world, far more than the Christian Medieval one.
Posted by: Ispanan at December 9, 2005 3:27 PM
Ispanan, why bother to respond to someone's message, if you didn't read it all? Lazy! Lazy! Lazy! (I won't bother apologizing for the last because you probaby didn't get that far.)
Hugh, atheists/agnostics like you are in short supply. You write so movingly about the contribution of Christians in the Western world. What is missing in the U.S. is an appreciation for many Christian theologists as deep thinkers. Too often society characterizes all of them as nuts.
One thing I'd like to add...When you speak of Muslim converts who, having realized their mistake, are too scared to leave, it makes me wonder if Hugh, the atheist admirer of Christianity, having defended his position so elegantly and persuasively, would be able to admit to coming to Christ if his heart led him there. Hugh? Would your monstrous intellect allow you to have a change of heart, at least openly? I pray for you and admire you so.
Posted by: former liberal WF at December 9, 2005 7:47 PM
"the Muslim Medieval civilization proved to be the most tolerant of the world.."
-- from a poster above
This is tiresome nonsense. Having swallowed a graet deal of the non-Muslim lands, the Muslim cobra sat back for a few centuries and digested. The Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and later the Hindus of India, were all initially subject to massacres. Once the remaining Christians and Jews had been resigned to their new role as dhimmis, a role that required them to accept a status of permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity (for if a ruler or a mob chose, it could overnight decide to destroy an entire population. In Granada, overnight, in 1066, every last Jew was killed by Muslims. In Toledo, in Fez, in Cairo (Fustat) with with Copts, in Tabriz under Shah Abbas, there were mass forced conversions, or mass killings, of Jews and Christians. See Mary Boyce for what happened to the Zoroastrians. As for the Hindus, though eventually -- after 60-70 million of them had been killed -- they were accorded a kind of honorary "ahl al-kitab" (People of the Book) status, so that instead of killing or converting them, they could be kept around to supply the jizyah which supported the Muslim (Mughal) rule, this hardly constituted an act of tolerance.
Your comment reflects the usual nonsense that has been bruited about, and sometimes accepted by people who are too lazy to investigate the real, as opposed to the false, history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims. It is quite a story, and one could do worse than begin with the books on dhimmis by Bat Ye'or, including "The Dhimmi," "Islam and Dhimmitude," and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam." And then, possibly, proceed to read not only "The Legacy of Jihad" but also go from that compilation to the individual Western scholars represented in it. And then one might go on, but of course few or no Muslims are likely to do so.
But that's alright. My remarks are addressed to fellow Infidels. It is they whose attention one wishes to draw to the scholarship on Islam -- the real thing, not the mountains of apologetics.
Posted by: Hugh at December 9, 2005 10:35 PM
"the Muslim Medieval civilization proved to be the most tolerant of the world.."
-- from a poster above
This is tiresome nonsense. Having swallowed a graet deal of the non-Muslim lands, the Muslim cobra sat back for a few centuries and digested. The Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and later the Hindus of India, were all initially subject to massacres. Once the remaining Christians and Jews had been resigned to their new role as dhimmis, a role that required them to accept a status of permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity (for if a ruler or a mob chose, it could overnight decide to destroy an entire population. In Granada, overnight, in 1066, every last Jew was killed by Muslims. In Toledo, in Fez, in Cairo (Fustat) with with Copts, in Tabriz under Shah Abbas, there were mass forced conversions, or mass killings, of Jews and Christians. See Mary Boyce for what happened to the Zoroastrians. As for the Hindus, though eventually -- after 60-70 million of them had been killed -- they were accorded a kind of honorary "ahl al-kitab" (People of the Book) status, so that instead of killing or converting them, they could be kept around to supply the jizyah which supported the Muslim (Mughal) rule, this hardly constituted an act of tolerance.
Your comment reflects the usual nonsense that has been bruited about, and sometimes accepted by people who are too lazy to investigate the real, as opposed to the false, history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims. It is quite a story, and one could do worse than begin with the books on dhimmis by Bat Ye'or, including "The Dhimmi," "Islam and Dhimmitude," and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam." And then, possibly, proceed to read not only "The Legacy of Jihad" but also go from that compilation to the individual Western scholars represented in it. And then one might go on, but of course few or no Muslims are likely to do so. The "tolerance" of which you speak is the "tolerance" of a Master Race or more accurately, Master Ruling Class (defined by belief-system), that lorded it over the helpless, hopeless non-Muslims. How can any sane person describe this as incomparably "tolerant"? And if Western Christendom was even harsher on Jews in this period, that is hardly an endorsement of Islam; it is an indictment of Western Christendom. What about the famed tolerance of India? Of China? Why do you take as your point of comparison only Europe, at its most intolerant toward the Jews about whom, as is obvious, any tears shed by Muslims over that historic mistreatment will be crocodilish indeed.
My remarks are not really addressed to the poster. He is impoervious to fact and reason. He is merely an excuse, to state things for fellow Infidels. It is they whose attention one wishes to draw to the scholarship on Islam -- the real thing, not the mountains of apologetics. Not the gush and nonsense of MESA Nostra.
Posted by: Hugh at December 9, 2005 10:35 PM
The poster just above wonders aloud about my being willing to admit to a change of heart (i.e. no longer being the contented atheist "who dies in his sleep at the age of 106", should I have such a change puzzles me. What would keep me from admitting to such a change -- that is a belief after unbelief -- if I experienced it? No one would threaten me. I'm hardly in the position of a Muslim, who may inwardly come to doubt or even find antipathetic Islam, but is terrified of admitting it, and comes to dislike Islam even more, and possibly himself, because he realizes he cannot live with the freedom that any non-Muslim living in Infidel lands naturally possesses as his birthright.
So if I had such a change of mind and heart, I would hardly be afraid to mention it. I think I would go out of my way to mention it. But since I haven't experienced such a change, I won't.
Posted by: Hugh at December 9, 2005 10:47 PM
Ah the spiritual search speech. You repeat it so often, particularly when I make a posting as if to think that you have a window into my mind and soul.
Here is a clue for you Mr Fitzgerald, I studied Islam intensely for five years before I converted. I have been fully cognisant of Islam's troubles. I even read the works of Ibn Waraq, and some of Bat Y'eor before I did. So, please, spare me the spiritual search speech. While it may apply to many converts, it does not apply to me. You may wonder why I, despite my knowledge decided to take Shahada. That my learned friend, is irrelevant.
"Reformers" have a stake in this discourse whether you like it our not. Our perspectives should be welcomed, not viewed with hate and enmity.
Of course, I am not arguing that just because there are some reformers that the scrutiny applied to Islam by you Robert and others should stop (it should continue). The prospect for true reform will only surface when Muslims are backed into a corner and forced essentially to take a critical look.
Posted by: Haidon at December 10, 2005 3:58 AM
The Muslim Brotherhood's English website:
Posted by: Haidon at December 10, 2005 5:21 AM
Hugh:
Too bad this is tiresome for you, but then you are not forced to read it. Its even more tiresome for me to see what is spread in this site but I hold on. I thought this site allowed free exchange of ideas, but I guess maybe you don’t like other people to express opinions others than yours.
You mention the wars of the Muslims, and the massacres perpetrated to some of the conquered people even tough part of the death toll must simply be attributed to enemy soldiers deaths, and nobody is ignoring it. But the question is: WERE WARS ONLY CAUSED BY MUSLIMS? Did the Christians not go to war and commit atrocities as well? Did you know that during the First Crusade, once the crusaders took Jerusalem, they locked the Jews of the city in their synagogue and burned them alive? Did you know that no Muslim or Jew survived? Did you know that the crusaders slaughtered them during a whole week? You said that 60 – 70 millions hindus were killed, are you aware to what extent those numbers are the natural result of war? Do you know about the conquest of America by the Europeans? Did you know that the religiously motivated Thirty Years in Europe caused the death of 1/3 of German population. You mention the Granada massacres of 1066 where, according to you, all the Jews were killed. Where did you get that from? The actual story is that the Jews were ordered to leave the city and those refusing to do so were killed. Tragic, but in no way close to your version. You mention mass conversions, but did you know that by year 1500 Muslims Spaniards could only practice their religion in secret? Did you hear about the Jew Golden Age in Muslim Spain? Did you know that Muslim Spain was a heaven for all the Jews that fled from Christian Europe? Will you deny that it was the Jew people who helped the Muslims conquer the Middle-East because they were oppressed by the Orthodox Christian Byzantine empire? The point is that everyone committed atrocities, but even considering this Muslim civilization was BY FAR the most tolerant one, and there is no way you or anybody else will “correct” this “myth”. So before you criticize another religion, wash your own doorstep. You mention China and India? Well I will give you two examples of their superior tolerance: the complete elimination of Nestorian Christianism in China, and the thousands Christian deaths during the Boxer Revolution.
You mention dimmhitude, but in addition to not talk about how those people were treated under other rules, like Christian one. You do not mention either how those under dhimmitude beneficiated from certain privileges, like not doing military service. You don’t mention the good Islam did to India, in particular freeing the women from having to burn in their husband funeral pyre and untouchables from receiving less consideration than cows.
at December 10, 2005 4:08 PM
Ispanan,
methinks you do you need to get some more education in Middle Eastern and general history. About the Arab role in the Holocaust, you commented --on a thread about ahmadeviljad-- to the effect that the Arabs or specifically the "palestinian Arabs" were innocent in the Holocaust. Thereby, you support some of ahmadeviljad's argument. In fact, the Arabs, including Palestinian Arabs, share the guilt for the Holocaust with the Germans, etc. See the reading list on this topic that I offer on that other thread.
As to Muslim civilization being tolerant, well, it's not much of a defense to say that they were just as tolerant as medieval Christians whom you describe as intolerant. In fact, the Muslims were not merely intolerant, but rather they were very exploitative towards the non-Muslim subject peoples, paying special taxes, etc., as others have or will point out to you. Further, their legally ordained humiliation of non-Muslims, dhimmis, is mandated by the Quran. So you should stop making your claim. Now, for an illustration of humiliation and exploitation of Jews in Jerusalem by Muslims, go to these links:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/exploiting-jews-in-jerusalem-before.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/muslimsarabs-exploiting-jews-in.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/jews-as-ultimate-underdog-in-arab.html
The link below goes to an item quoting from Karl Marx's of exploitation and persecution of Jews in Jerusalem before Theodore Herzl was born:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/06/karl-marx-on-treatment-of-jewish_16.html
I am aware that Christians, Hindus, etc. were also subject to the laws of dhimma in Arab/Muslim society.
at December 10, 2005 5:08 PM
From the Muslim Brotherhood site:
"The Muslim Brotherhood's Leader, Muhammad Akef, extorted the abductors of the four European peace activists in Iraq to immediately release them and neither to harm them physically nor psychologically. Akef highlighted that Islam rejects kidnapping of innocents or without-trail detention that based on religious or racial discrimination.
'All local and international convections denounce and outlaw such action, especially when those kidnapped activists are of Christian peace-loving organization that previously showed solidarity to Palestinians. In addition, their rejection for the American occupation of Iraq is announced,' Akef added.
The abduction of such innocent people distorts the image of Iraq. On the contrary, the peace-loving organizations should be supported as they work for the benefit of Iraqis"
Dont seem as extremist and infidel-hating as it is depicted...
Posted by: Ispanan at December 10, 2005 5:56 PM
"You said that 60 70 millions hindus were killed, are you aware to what extent those numbers are the natural result of war?"
-- from "Ispanan" above
Along with the sheer craziness of the rest of the posting, with nonsense followed by the tu-quoque appeal followed by more nonsense (which I urge visitors to read over and study) -- this is the kind of remark that deserves to be pondered. In this poster's world, and his world-view, 60-70 million Hindus killed by Muslim conquerors over 250 years is merely "the natural result of war."
No further questions, your honor. The prosecution rests.
Posted by: Hugh at December 10, 2005 9:25 PM
If you want a picture of what a Muslim Bortherhood led government would be like take a close look at the Human Rights section. In terms of human rights, the Universal ISLAMIC Declaration of Human Rights not the UDHR is a mantelpiece. Also note that Azzam Tammimi is one of the MB's chief policy architects, I implore you Islanan to read these texts carefully.
Also read on this page Dr. Nadia Mahmoud Mostafa's take on Jihad. She says in regards to Israel:
"On the other side, the Intifada in Palestine is continuing in the face of escalating Israeli aggression and the collapse of the peace process. The acts of legitimate resistance are clearly a sort of legitimate jihad, meaning self-defense against aggressors. Yet the US, Israel, and their allies consider them acts of violence and terrorism. The Israeli Zionist discourse badly conflates what they call Palestinian-Islamic terrorism with the acts of terrorism committed against the US. The dominant international media are portraying a distorted image of Islam and Muslims with jihad as terrorism at its core".
The MB is no better than the regime in Iran, and perhaps more dangerous because of their proximity.
As far as your idiotic remarks about the crusades and attempts of moral equalvalency, read Robert's latest..
Posted by: Haidon at December 10, 2005 9:40 PM
Radical Muslims complain about how oppressed the Muslim world is, what they don't point is the obvieous; the Muslim world is ruled by.....MUSLIMS! The " radical " ( actually mideveil reactionary) resposes is " well they are not true Muslims, WE are because we decree such. "
And if you look at Muslim history that is the way the game has been played. The most ruthless and violent and dogmatic makes it to the top and decreed " most holy and devine " by sheer dent of public display of savageness.
This disfuntional culture is a direct result of the example displayed by the Prophet Mohammad and the barbaric Muslim leadership that succeded him. It is little wonder that the Islamic World is in the mess that it is in today.
More Islam as called for by the likes of a Osama Bin Laden , Doctor Z and their hinchman in Iraq will only lead to more barbarism and oppression. This has been historically proven by the regiems in present day Iran and Taliban ruled Afghanistan. These are not shinning examples of a golden new era of civilization, but clear illistrations of oppression and Islamic dogma run amuck. The Islamic Brotherhood of Egypt will only bring more of that same sort of Islamic pig shit to dump on a despirate and deprived population looking for relief from life under Islam.
Well stated Hugh.
----Nossy
Posted by: Nostrodamus at December 10, 2005 9:57 PM
Eliyahu:
You brought the special takes again, then I will repat it again: they paid a special taxe, yes, but in turn they beneficiated of certain privileges, like not doing the military service, and also, NOT HAVING TO PAY A PARTICULAR TAX THAT ONLY MUSLIMS HAD TO PAY. So as you see, the tax thing balances itself. I think this is enough of an answer.
Hugh:
What I mean with my question is to differentiate the people died directly because of the war (like soldiers) from people killed during random slaughters, since you seem to say that those 60 millions people were all innocent civilians that were just dragged from their homes and killed. Both things are condemnable, but very different. And by the way, you also have to consider if part of this number does not refer to Hindus converted to Islam. My post is crazy? Well, if its you who says it, then what else can I do than accept it, although you leave me wandering exactly why it is crazy. But as yourself said, the readers will judge by themselves, and analyse your detailed answer to it. Anyway, since you have talked of remarks having to be pondered, I will quote some of your words, as I think readers will find them most interesting:
A complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained ciizenship and -- unless they are native-born converts -- their countries of origin."
"And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult
The West must "Understand how very useless is the concept of the "moderate" Muslim -- because it is impossible to know when someone's "moderation" is real or feigned" and must take "specific moves to limit Muslim immigration. This can only take place if the Idols of the Age, about Diversity and Everyone Wants the Same Thing and Tolerance is Always the Only Conceivable Policy, are undermined, mocked, and shown up as the dangers they are."
Authored by Fitzgerald and posted by Spencer on the JihadWatch website
No further questions, your honor. The prosecution rests
Haidon:
Yeah, I hadn't seen this about the IDHM, my mistake. About the woman, if he is reffering to suicide bombings, it is obviously wrong: this must be condemned, just as Israelian government crimes against Palestinian civil population is terrorism and must be condemed. As for my "idiotic" remarks, well I tell you the same thing than to Hugh: if you say it, then I cannot but accept it, altough I definitively cannot see what of it was idiotic. But thats ok: keep up with this kind of arguments, and you will see, people will listen to you a lot more.
Posted by: Ispanan at December 11, 2005 12:55 PM
Time for an explanation on the whole dimmi thing:
For several centuries following the codification of the Qur'an, the Islamic Caliphate expanded its political control rapidly through warfare. Conquered peoples—including Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sabians, and Hindus—became dhimmis: protected citizens under Islamic law, allowed the rights listed below on condition of loyalty or acquiescence to the government and paying the taxes mentioned below. The status of dhimmis has varied at different times and between nations.
Rights and obligations of the dhimmis under Islam:
Rights:
Protection of life, wealth and honor by the Muslim state (even against other co-religionist states)
Right to reside in Muslim lands
Right of worship according to their own religion
Right to choose their own religious leaders (patriarchs for Christians, exilarchs and geonim for Jews)
Subject to the approval of the Muslim authorities, who sometimes blocked candidates or took the side of the party that offered the larger bribe[7]
In Saudi Arabia, where no religion apart from Islam is officially recognized, this right is moot
Right to work and trade
Right not to be enslaved
Not always respected, as the application of the devshirmeh under the Ottomans demonstrates
Void, should the dhimmi rebel
Obligations:
Paying jizyah (a poll tax applied to non-muslims)
Paying kharaj (a land tax applied initially to dhimmis but extended in the early 8th century to cover certain classes of land regardless of the cultivator's religion)
Restrictions:
No building new non-Muslim houses of worship, or expand existing locations
No displaying non-Muslim symbols on the outside of their existing houses of worship
No praying non-Muslim prayers, perform non-Muslim rituals, wear symbols of their faith visibly on their clothing, or preach non-Muslim faiths in public
No publishing or sale of non-Muslim religious literature
No asking Muslims to join them in worship
Dhimmis were sometimes subject to other restrictions. Each of the following were forbidden to dhimmis at some point somewhere in the world:
Holding public office
In reality, many non-Muslims held high positions in Muslim states, including Samuel ha-Nagid in Spain, as well as others in Egypt, Iraq, and the Ottoman Empire
Bearing weapons
Riding camels or horses (also rarely enforced)
Building houses of worship higher than mosques
Mourning loudly
Dressing in the same way that Muslims dressed
Dress codes, such as requiring all members of a given religion to wear a particular colour turban or other distinguishing clothing, were sometimes—but not always—enforced, so that dhimmis would be visibly distinct from Muslims; the practice is not found in the Qur'an or hadith
Exemptions:
Exemption from paying zakah "alms to the poor"
Exemption from military service
Exemptions from religious duties and laws specific to Muslims
There is obviously laws who attempts against the rights of non-Muslims. However these laws are comprised in the sharia (Islam law based based on Koran interpretation), and most of them are not reflected in the Koran, like the one who forbids the non-muslims to have a public office. However it is also obvious they had certain privileges. As well non-muslim are exempted from the zakah, a taxe only imposed to Muslims. Let's see what these taxes are exactly:
Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book, and/or non-Muslim living in lands under Muslim rule. There was no amount permanently fixed for it, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.2 Females, children, the poor, and hermits were exempt from it. The disabled and elderly were exempt unless they were independently wealthy, as were mendicant monks—those living in productive monasteries had to pay. In addition, if a non-Muslim chose to serve in the army, he would be exempt from the jizya
Now let's see what is the Zakat, the take imposed only on Muslims:
There are two main types of zakāt:
Zakāt on self (zakāt fitr or fitrah) is a per head payment equivalent to cost of around 2.25 kilograms of the main food of the region (this may be wheat, dates or rice, depending on the place) paid during the month of Ramadan by the head of a family for himself and his dependents to the zakāt collector (amil).
Zakāt on wealth (zakāt mal) comprises all the other types of zakāt, such as on business, on savings, on income, on crops, on livestock, on gold, on minerals, on hidden treasures unearthed, etc.
Zakāt is distributed among 8 asnaf (categories) of people:
Fakir - One who has neither material possessions nor means of livelihood.
Miskin - One with insufficient means of livelihood to meet basic needs.
Amil - One who is appointed to collect zakāt.
Muallaf - One who converts to Islam.
Riqab - One who wants to free himself from bondage or the shackles of slavery.
Gharmin - One who is in debt (money borrowed to meet basic, halal expenditure).
Fisabillillah - One who fights for the cause of Allah.
Ibnus Sabil - One who is stranded in journey.
What does all this mean?
- The discrimination about taxes is a fallacy -both Muslims and non-Muslims have their own taxes to pay.
- Muslims have the obligation to defend the society while non-Muslim have none.
- If the non-Muslims decide to do the military service, like the Muslims, they would be exempted from their taxe, which means they would actually pay LESS than Muslims.
- The liberty of cult is allowed, yet restrained.
Anyone can see these laws were an authentic revolution considering the time in which they were born. Furthermore, we have to consider these aren't even laws prescribed by the Kuran, but by the sharia, and in this sense, and considering the sharia has harder laws than the Koran, this represents a considerable advancement. Now of course, these laws weren't always respected, but evidently, this cannot in any way be blamed on Islamic religion.
Dhimmis in Islam vs. minorities in non-Muslim societies
Some non-Muslim but monotheistic societies in the medieval period had comparable laws. For instance, after Europe became Catholic, severe and harsh restrictions were imposed on European Jews before Islam came to Spain. However, the Arian Visigoths of Spain had been tolerant of Jews, a tradition that lingered in post-Visigothic Septimania, exemplified by the career of Ferreol, Bishop of Uzčs (died 581). Visigothic persecution of Jews had to wait for the conversion to Catholicism of the Visigothic king Reccared. The same synod of Catholic bishops in 633 that usurped the Visigothic nobles' right to confirm the election of a king declared that all Jews must be baptised. Then the Visigothic Code (or Forum Judicum) was introduced, with an entire book dedicated to laws concerning Jews. It forced Jews not to prevent their children from baptism, prohibited them from celebrating Passover, undergoing circumcision, marriage of relatives, observing dietary laws, reading books that the Christian faith rejects, and testifying against Christians—as well as forbidding Christians from defending or protecting Jews, and forcing Jews to abstain from labor on Sundays and Christian holidays: see Visigothic Law Code.
Dress codes and other restrictions were forced by Christians on Jews, as well as Muslims in Europe. In Spain they were enforced, and penalties were levied if mudejars did not observe them. As early as 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran under Pope Innocent III issued a decree that Muslims and Jews shall wear a special dress to distinguish them from Christians.
Yet one more proof that no matter how good the religion are, there will be often ways to misinterpretat them...
Posted by: Ispanan at December 13, 2005 8:00 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)