One awaits the deluge of replies, the well-articulated and thoughtful analyses that adduce overwhelming evidence from Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira to show you, Robert, Just How Wrong You Are.

One awaits the postmarked entries from the World's Greatest Islamic Legal Authority (as the website devoted to him -- www.scholarofthehouse.com -- maintains), Khalid Abu El Fadl, recipient (thanks to sentimental Vartan -- Hafiz! Sa'adi! Firdowsi! Wonderful memories of wonderful Iran! -- Gregorian, whose soft manners, so useful for an Armenian in negotiating Muslim Iran, and proved transferable to the more subtle kinds of flattery needed to negotiate the Brooke-Astors of that world of New York fundraising and literary lions (Edith Wharton -- thou shouldst be living at this hour!), or from wunderkind yeshiva bocher Noah Friedman, or others of that ilk.

Somehow, though, I don't think that they, or any of the other recipients of the "Reforming Islam" or "Pretending Islam isn't what it is" Carnegie Endowment largesse, just announced, will be accepting the Jihad Watch Challenge. Nor will any sufferers of the Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome who may splenetically be watching this space.

No, no takers I'm afraid -- the Silence will be De... -- oh, fill in the rest of the word yourself.

Posted by: Hugh at June 19, 2005 1:37 PM

there are numerous jihadists who have made it quite clear that they hope to reestablish it if and when they gain power

Not to mention the real, grinding and punative societal codes of dhimma that apply in every single Islamic society on Earth, in which all non Muslim minorities are subject to constant pressure, inferiority, opression and strangulation. That is living dhimmitude, in action, real, tangible, touchable, focussed, unrelenting and true, the practical reality of the 'Submission' which Muslims impose on the infidel within their grasp.

Posted by: Zico at June 19, 2005 2:20 PM

Just found, and am reading an 1896 book entitled: "Armenian Massacres or The Sword of Mohammed- a complete and thrilling account of the terrible atrocities and wholesale murders commited in Armenia by Mohammedan fanatics" by F.D. Greene, M.A.

These were apparently preludes (practice runs) for the better-known "Armenian Massacre" during WW I.

In this work, the dhimmi (second class, or de facto "serf") status of everyone, of any faith but Muslim is a given, -an uncommented on fact-of-life, at least for the Muslims.

This was within a major Empire only a century ago.

Have things changed that fast throughout all of Islam?

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Egypt, etc. uphold similar laws, in varying degrees, except for the "kafir tax" (although it may be ongoing in a disguised form as "fees", etc. that go unnoticed, tacked onto the tourist visas, in-country earnings of foreigner non-Muslims within these Islamic states).

And every Muslim land's legal system skews in favor of the members of their own faith, being rooted in Sharia Law.

Besides, what fun would it be to Restore the Caliphate, and NOT be able to lord it over the lowly "infidels"?

Posted by: BigSleep at June 19, 2005 6:56 PM

Don't hold your breath as you wait for a scholarly reply that will refute the concept of dhimmitude; they won't be able to do so. One only has to look at the news, "the first draft of history," to find examples the existence of actual dhimmi conditions and long time populations of dhimma that have no memory of another existence.

Posted by: epg at June 19, 2005 10:17 PM

If the book mentioned above is the one I think it is, a light-green pictorial cover (a turbaned Turk and perhaps crossed swords, or a palm-tree, I forget exactly what), it may have a lurid title, but the contents are sober eyewitness accounts by American missionaries and others among our Great and Good who were on the spot, in Turkey, and saw what both Turks and Kurds did. It is quite a book, and somewhere in it there is a collective letter signed by important American figures demanding that justice be done, that the collective conscience be moved to action. In this respect, it is like W. C. Stiles's impassioned book after the Kishinev pogrom -- "Out of Kishineff" -- which he dedicated, I recall, to his son "Kent Brooklyn Stiles" (a name that is easy to recall).

That F. W. Greene book needs to be reprinted -- too many people forget that earlier massacre under Abdul Hamid, one which helps disprove the nonsensical justification for the later genocide, in which Turks and their apologists mutter about it being "wartime" etcetera. What "war" was going on in 1894-96?

Posted by: Hugh at June 19, 2005 10:22 PM

One paragraph cut-and-pasted from a posting last January 31 that discusses that 1894-96 massacre:

"The 1869 massacre of Armenians and of other Christians (chiefly Maronites, who were not limited to Lebanon) by Kurds, was followed in 1894-96 by the massacres of Armenians that served as a kind of prelude to the 1915-1922 genocide. Eyewitness accounts by American missionaries testify to the “leadership role” (as business schools like to call it) of the Kurds in this massacre, as a number of such books appeared brimful of such collections of American outrage in the 1890s. In the later genocide, Kurds took part enthusiastically – and why not? It was a war not of Turk against Armenian, but of Muslim against “giavour,” which is why the Turks could, if they wish, blame the promptings of “fanatical Islam” which, they could (falsely) claim, is no longer observed in Turkey. But they can’t; they won’t; Islam can never be disowned, not in the slightest, by Believers."

Posted by: Hugh at June 19, 2005 11:05 PM

Robert,

Maybe you start a debate page, and become a different kind of Ali Sina: PROVE ME WRONG!

It simply cannot be done, not simply because you are so knowledgable (which you are), but simply because Islam has always been a religiously rationalized thug cult.

The fact is that is in our times, Islam must desperately try to convince us that it is NOT what it is, but that is getting more and more difficult, whereas in earlier times, it did what it wanted to do.

Posted by: Ethelred at June 20, 2005 9:34 AM

"Islam must desperately try to convince us that it is NOT what it is, but that is getting more and more difficult..."
-- from a posting above

Considering that the texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- are available on-line, and guides to understanding any seeming contradictions in those texts also are offered on-line (and many Muslim websites must, perforce, tell the truth to their Believers -- and we Infidels can eavesdrop at any time), it is amazing that they have managed to hide that reality -- the reality of the tenets of Islam, and of the history of Islamic jihad-conquest and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims in the formerly non-Muslim lands the Muslims conquered -- as long as they have.

It takes two to tango. It is the wilful laziness, the negligence about Islam, the willingness of large numbers of members of the Western elite to become Arab (and hence Muslim) hirelings, the clever exploitation by Muslims of such pre-existing mental conditions as anti-Americanism and antisemitism, the dismal fact that many of those who are hired and promoted to teach about Islam are apologists, not scholars, of Islam -- and that includes not only Muslims, whose ability to present Islam truthfully is severely limited by their loyalty, but also a good many non-Muslims (John Esposito, John Voll, Carl Ernst, Michael Sells, William Bulliet all come swimmingly to mind, as do a few hundred others, both in this country, proud members of MESA Nostra, and abroad (where the Arabs have funded whole centers in the United Kingdom at Durham, Exeter, and elsewhere, and in France, have managed to have the government itself, crazily relying on the likes of Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel for its "expertise" -- France, which from 1880-1970 had the most experienced and largest cadre of Orientalists in the Western world).

Posted by: Hugh at June 20, 2005 10:34 AM

And does there exist what amounts to a 'permanent, eternal dogma', in organizations like MESA, that "those who were and had been at war with the nascent Islamic community and tried their best to finish it", were deserving of such harsh treatment?

This is both an historical and ethical question. The historical aspect of the question requires critical analyses of historical sources that take into account Muslim bias, and the ethical aspect assumes critical self awareness of the ethical perspective of the historian.

Are there any MESA-like historians who have critically researched and talked about this question and the horrific, and obvious, moral implications of 9:29 in 7th century Arabia itself?

Does there exist any critical commentary, for instance, on Mohammad's seige of the Khaibar Jews or his treatment of the Kuraizah Jews, and the infamous beheading of 700 men, bodies dropping in ditches and all, and the enslavement of women and children?

Do any MESA historians critically discuss these historical events and discuss this historical background to 9:29? Or are the Kurzaiah Jews simply characterized as 'treacherous plotters' who tried to snuff out Mohammad and his followers. And is the massacre of prisoners merely passed over as some kind of 'understandable payback'? And the seige of Khaibar?

Or what about the pagan Arabs? Are they characterized as morally deprived, murderous, slanderous, plotting, vengeful, actors out to get Mohammad at any cost?

Even if we simply limit ourselves to the immediately historical context, is there any critical historical work being done, discussed in seminars, etc.? Or, is the study of early Islam so politicized that such critical historical study is impossible?

Posted by: JTF at June 20, 2005 11:48 AM

Are you blind, too?

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11442

Posted by: Carolyn2 at June 20, 2005 12:04 PM

As a subject, Islam is hardly treated in many departments of Middle Eastern studies. It is too hot to handle, for example, at Columbia, where once Joseph Schacht and Arthur Jeffery both taught the subject. Better, from the Muslim point of view, to relegate the matter to some simpering treatment in a World Religions course, where each "major faith" is given its respectful due, and one does not go beyond the Five Pillars of individual worship -- certainly no Jihad, no dhimmitude, no dar al-Islam versus dar al-Harb, would be mentioned in such a course. Nor would the habits of mind -- the habits of uncritical submission -- that Islam encourages, to such horrific effect.

When Islam is taught as a separate subject, it is handed over to the resident Muslim. After all, so the reasoning goes, who is likely to be a better teacher of Islam than a Muslim himself? Makes sense, of course -- but only if you ignore the peculiar meretriciousness of Muslims in talking about their belief-system, its contents, the textual contradictions that, through the doctrine of naskh (abrogation) are always resolved in favor of a more uncompromising line, the doctrines (taqiyya, kitman) of religiously-sanctioned dissimulation, about Islam itself, and about what the Believer believes.

No, Omid Safi is not about to teach that, nor Kahled Abu El Fadl (do go to www.scholarofthehouse.com, or google "jihadwatch" and "scholar of the house")any other MESA Nostra Muslims.

There are, however, among non-Muslim scholars, some who are not in the Michael Sells-John Esposito--Carl Ernst vein. Some are serious students of early Islam, perfectly willing to read and teach Wansbrough, Crone, Cook, and Luxenberg, to figure out when and where this religion's texts were written, by whom, in what language, and through how many visions and revisions that a moment, alas, nor centuries, seem able to reverse.

No need to give their names here. They are in need of support, promotion, grant-money. They are the people who cannot be fooled. They are learning about Bat Ye'or's studies of dhimmitude. They are reading Ibn Warraq's excellent anthologies. They are studying the buried scholarship that, from 1880-1960, in the Western world, showed that unlike today, the situation was healthy, and many scholars -- Margoliouth, Schacht, Jeffery, Snouck Hurgronje, a hundred others -- knew what was what, and were not fooled.

These people, scattered here and there in the academic archipelago, do not always receive their due. Many of the departments in so-called "prestigious schools" have been locked up by PLO groupies and Muslim apologists (think of Columbia, but also of Roger Owen -- once a thin lecturer at St. Antony's -- partly ruling the roost at Harvard, and think of this or that King Abdul Aziz Professor, or whole bought-and-paid for centers like lean, mean, jogging Esposito's profitable operation at Georgetown.

These dissidents -- for they are akin, in their need to watch their backs, dissidents in the Soviet Union -- exist. They are aware of one another. Some of them are aware of this website. They are heartily sick of the nonsense and apologetics and lies that fill MESA meetings. They exist. They are not in the majority, but they exist. And some, once they have tenure, may decide to come out swinging.

Posted by: Hugh at June 20, 2005 12:13 PM

Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for continuing to quietly but forcefully educate your readers, listeners and correspondents.

There is nothing more powerful than truth & evidence, which you are equipped and educated to readily supply.

I'll put it simply: More power to you!

Posted by: corax at June 20, 2005 12:42 PM

Yay Hugh! You say what needs to be said and say it well.

Posted by: Ibn Rushd at June 20, 2005 1:43 PM

Hugh-

Your memory of the cover of the ARMENIAN book is very close. Light green cloth with a 'Turk', in a red and black vest, standing proudly and wielding a downpointed silver scimitar, with a red crescent & star flag fluttering above him, and, to his right, cringing at his feet, three Armenian 'infidel' women pleading to be spared, -one cradling her child- and mosques and minarets in the backround.

The cover title is: "Armenian Massacres and [in dripping red] Turkish Tyranny".

The collected letters that open the book- by "American citizens who have spent six to thirty years in Eastern Turkey" (including an ex-consul, the editor of the Christian Register, an ex-Governor of Massachusetts, several pastors, author Julia Ward Howe, and the President of M.I.T., etc.), which you mentioned, all attest to veracity the facts included in this chilling and poignant work.

The deja vu all over again feeling -from almost every page- is startling, and disheartening:

"A Christian does not enjoy the respect accorded to a steeet dog. (Pakistan? Indonesia?)

"A number of able-bodied young Armenians were captured, bound, covered with brushwood, and burned alive." (Fallujah, anyone?)

"It is the very essence of Mohammedanism that no ghiaour [dhimmi] has the right to live save in subjection." (Saudi Arabia, y'all?)

"The status of the Christian before the law is that of an alien in regard to his own rights, and of a slave as far as the interests of Mohammedans are concerned." (Jordan, du jour?)

And it is also as if our current newsrooms and government flunk-tionaries are all getting their propaganda directives about the "Religion of Peace" from the same apologists {'diplomatists'] mentioned in this 100-plus year old work.

VIZ- (in the chapter "Islam as a Factor in the Problem")

"It is with reluctance that I approach ...the question... of religious animosities.. But it is unfortunate that these [Muslim] animosities do exist... and have always formed a primary and esential feature... [against] their Christian subjects... A writer who styles himself a 'Diplomatist' in a recent review article of considerable merit, disposes of this phase of the subject [Muslim intolerance of any faith but Islam] by characterizing it as 'pure moonshine'. But the real diplomnatists do not find it so easy to dispose of, nor do the great historians treat it as moonshine."

AND:

"...we are told that the... Turks are tolerant of the members of other faiths. This is true in the same sense that the stomach is spoken of as 'tolerant' of certain easily-digested articles of food. Yes, so long as [infidels] submit to all forms of oppression, and make no claims in regard to rights which are generally supposed to to belong to all men, they are gladly tolerated."

The book may not be in print, but the contents are being reprinted every day.

Plus ca change...

Posted by: BigSleep at June 20, 2005 11:58 PM

BigSleep--

Thank you for allowing me to believe my memory is not going, and even more for those important quotes. What impressed me most about that book was how many of the Great and Good of American society participated in that book -- not only the missionaries, but important personages in American society. (It was the same in 1903 after the pogrom in Kishinev -- from President Roosevelt on down, Americans took sides, took the right side). If this book were to be reprinted (and I remember now that cover in detail, how unashamedly and splendidly lurid it was, and properly so -- though the eyewitness accounts are not sensationalized in the slightest -- there was no need for them to be).

I recall that in that book's testimonies, the Kurds were as blameworthy in the 1894-96 massacres as Turks -- and no one, in that book, seemed to think it was other than Muslim Turks and Muslim Kurds killing Christian Armenians. They keep recording, do they not, the word "giavour" and the particularly ghoulish murders of Armenian priests (often crucified) and of their families (the pregannt wives having their bellies slashed open, the rapes of young girls, all the things that happened on a much larger scale in 1915-1920).

The Cold War is over. We don't need Turkey the way we thought we once did. The E.U. won't have Turkey (and the Turks have only the Arabs to blame -- you know, those Arabs who "have given Islam a bad name" as one hopes Turkish newspapers will begin to write). Turkey needs us (thus the sudden new warming of Erdogan to the U.S.). So they had better change their ways. And when we decide -- may it be sooner rather than later, for god's sake -- to get out of Iraq, and support a free Kurdistan, we need no longer worry quite so much about Turkish reactions.

You see, they have no place else to go.

Posted by: Hugh at June 21, 2005 8:09 AM