| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the larger issues involved in the Azeri destruction of an Armenian cemetery:
Islam, like other religions, was ruthlessly suppressed in the Soviet Union. For some this suppression apparently took. This forcible break with Islam was something that only a regime such as the Soviet Union could allow itself to enforce. But there were many – in Azerbaijan as well as elsewhere – among whom it did not take. And so now Islam is at work again in Azerbaijan, with the destruction of the ancient Christian cemetery. The destruction of one or two graves might be the work of vandals. If an entire ancient cemetery disappears -- the way the Jewish tombstones on the Mount of Olives were pulled up by British-led, British-trained and supposedly well-behaved Jordanians, and used to line the floors of their army latrines -- then something else is at work: complete disrespect, even hatred, for those who are not Muslim, and for everything that might conceivably be sacred or important to those non-Muslims.Of course in the mists of time, when no one was looking, no doubt Muslims destroyed monuments, churches, temples, cemeteries, statuary and artifacts of every kind.
One opens "The World of Islam" by Ernst J. Grube (Curator, Islamic Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art), part of the series "Landmarks of the World's Art," and finds on p. 165 a picture of the "Kutb Mosque (Quwaat al-Islam) Delhi" shown and described:Built by Kutb al-din Aibak in his fortress of Lallkot near Old Delhi in 1193. This mosque is the earliest extant monument of Islamic architecture in India and its combination of local, pre-Muslim traditions and imported architectural forms is typical of the earliest period. The mosque is built on the ruins of a Jain temple...So the earliest "extant monument of Islamic architecture in India" was "built on the ruins of a Jain temple" -- that temple being made into "ruins," of course, by the Muslim invaders.
But that was then, you think to yourself.
And this is now. And now, in the full light of history, knowing that they are being watched, surely they will not do such things. Surely, in this new 21st century, Muslims everywhere will watch their steps, and not desecrate, vandalize, destroy as before.
But then you look only at what has happened since the new century began, since 2000. And here is a tentative list off the top of my head:
• Bamiyan Buddhas, 1,500 years old, in Afghanistan, destroyed by Taliban with explosives, and technical help from Saudi and Pakistani engineers.
• Tomb of Joseph in Israel, reduced to rubble by the "Palestinians," despite that site supposedly being sacred to Muslims as well as to Jews.
• A Hindu temple in Kuala Lumpur, where Hindus and Chinese both labor under the disguised Jizyah of the Bumiputra system.
• Orthodox churches and monasteries, destroyed in Kosovo and Bosnia, in full view of NATO troops, the U.N., and the world's media.
• And then, of course, the thousands of churches destroyed in Indonesia, as recorded by the Barnabas Fund.
• The remaining Greco-Bactrian artifacts among the tiny holdings in the Kabul Museum.
• The damage done to the Temple Mount structure by the excavations and vandalism to Solomon's Stables from the "Palestinians."
• Statuary vandalized by Muslims -- both Christian statuary in a church in northern France, and pagan statuary in the Piazza del Popolo.
Oh, these are just things that come off the top of one's head. Should one recall the damage done to the Parthenon by Turkish Muslim troops, or to the Sphinx by generations of Muslim Arabs in Egypt? Or the damage done to the monuments of classical antiquity or left by other pre-Islamic civlizations, all of which are, in the Muslim view, worthless, part of a general Jahiliyya (time of ignorance), and not to be treated with respect or interest?
Start your own list. Do what Sita Ram Goel and Indian scholars did in compiling merely a list of the thousands of Hindu temples destroyed by Muslim invaders. Make up a list, for example, of the Christian churches of Constantinople, for five hundred years the richest, most important city in all of Christendom.
Go ahead. Now look that list over. Now think about the Louvre, the Prado, the National Gallery, the Uffizi, the Alte Pinakothek, the Rijksmuseum. Think of what those who followed the strictures of the late Sheik Bin Baz, or the still-living Al-Qaradawi, or the primitive Ahmadinejad, would do to the contents of all those.
What do you propose to do about it?
Posted by Robert at May 31, 2006 10:16 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
A bit more background on this, with some photos of the headstones:
http://www.iwpr.net/?p=%3cp%3eNo%20item%20found.%3c/p%3e&s=f&o=261191&apc_state=henh
Posted by: Mr Jones![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 31, 2006 10:42 AM
Mr. Fitzgerald, have you formed an opinion on why the Egyptian antiquities and monuments haven't been destroyed yet?
And are there groups who've tried, or are trying to get those monuments done away with?
Posted by: Dan at May 31, 2006 1:37 PM
Dan,
Probably because they attract tourists with $$$ and also beguile Infidels who, by the sheer fame of those monuments, would be harder to hoodwink than they have been with regard to little Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and cemeteries and Hindu temples elsewhere. Islam could sort of get away with the destruction of Buddhist statues -- it was the Taliban after all, and the Taliban is formally detachable from Islam by naive consensus, it was in some remote part of the world where only National Geographic photographers might go to be splashed one month on the cover of an issue to be forgotten after one's dentist appointment; and the Saudi and other support was covert and swept under the rug perhaps by its realpolitikisch allies. Destruction of the most famous ancient art in the world, Egyptian artifacts, by a supposed ally and supposedly un-Talibanish orthodox Muslim regime, would go too far. When Muslims aren't epileptically rabid, they are clever & cunning.
at May 31, 2006 1:50 PM
Why weren't the Bamiyan Buddhas destroyed for 1,500 years? Lack of dynamite. Lack of those Western-trained Saudi and Pakistani engineers who proved so helpful to the Taliban.
However, what damage could be done easily was done. Lots of tomb-robbing. The Sphinx could have its face defaced, and it was. Coptic churches could be destroyed whenever the spirit moved a Muslim mob, and at times, the spirit did.
In recent decades some, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood, have suggested that all pre-Islamic monuments be destroyed. The argument deployed by opponents of this is not that these are examples of the great and wonderful continiuum of history. Not at all. The arguments have consisted of appeals to Egyptain self-interest, that is to the loss of tourist dollars. Elsewhere, the more fanatical have not hesitated to destroy even Islamic buildings. Think of what the Saudi government has done in Mecca (for more on this, go to "The Religious Policeman"), including an old Ottoman fort, and even places associated with Muhammad.
Nothing is safe. The fact that some things, such as the Bamiyan Buddhas, managed to survive for 1,500 years, and for more than a millennium after a Muslim presence showed up in the area, before being destroyed, should not reassure us. Why not? Look at the rubble that is the Bamiyan Buddhas today.
Posted by: Hugh at May 31, 2006 4:24 PM
Television,
I believe Islamic invaders did loot some of the tombs. But that's been going on since antiquity, anyway. But wouldn't you say that many monuments in Egypt are of such size and solidity that it surely wouldn't be easy to damage them? Would it have been even feasible to damage, say, the temple at Luxor before the age of high explosives?
As for the future, who knows? There are rumblings.
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 31, 2006 4:26 PM
Pipped at the post.
Hugh comments on what the "Saudi government has done in Mecca". See here for more comment and a picture of the religious police blowing up an ancient mosque:
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001966.html
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 31, 2006 4:31 PM
This link provides an interesting perspective (complete with photos) regarding the Saudi destruction mentioned by Hugh.
From: AlienSphere: How about Respecting our History?
The Ajyad (Ecyad) Fortress stood proud on bulbul mountain in Mecca since 1781. Its purpose was to protect the holy city from invaders. As a city landmark, the Ajyad fort was a destination by itself. The image of the castle is still imprinted in my memory since my early childhood. Eventually, however, I came to realize that there is no room for pride in the world that I live in and eventually the invaders will come to the castle’s gates. And they did turn up in 2002 with their dynamites and bulldozers and leveled both the castle and the mountain that supported it. Although the destruction of common Islamic historical sites represented a wahhabi pattern, not much fury was generated in the Muslim world (except for Turkey which accused the Saudi government of performing a Taliban like cultural vandalism).In response to Turkey’s accusations, the Saudi government gave the usual excuses: we want to build new towers, we want to offer the pilgrims more accommodations, we want to develop and update the city, blah blah. I am asking the government, nevertheless, to tell me how many of those visitors can afford to stay in one of the newly built luxury rooms or afford a meal in any of its restaurants? In addition to the real reasons that I mentioned before, here are a couple of other explanations why this is happening:
1- To eliminate the Idea of Moderate Islam. As put by Eric in Classical Values: “They [wahabbis] hate the idea that their religious places were once ruled by forces of moderate Islam.” So, the solution is to eradicate all traces of that past.
2- To erase the Ottoman past from the Arabian Peninsula. The Wahhabis are even going to great lengths to eliminate Ottoman influence from existing historical architecture. The mosques of the Balkans, including Gazi Husrevbeg Mosque in Sarajevo are witness to that. And the idea of having an Ottoman era castle standing as a historical witness in their own backyard is unbearable. Historians actually point out that the castle was built by the ruling Ottomans to keep the Wahhabi sect out of Mecca.
****
We need another Frank Capra (Why we fight) to visually communicate Fitzgerald's/Spencer's clear vision to our government as well as our military. (video is tiny at link. ONE HOUR to review this short documentary Note MANY PARALLELS to today!)
Back in WWII our soldiers were provided with details identifying what was at stake within historical context along with a clear perspective on what was at stake.
That damn PC veil (WoT) must be replaced with war on jihad or better, and the education offered by Spencer and Fitzgerald will fill in the gaps to turn this islamist wet dream around.
Posted by: justamomof4 at May 31, 2006 9:09 PM
Mr. Fitzgerald, have you ever detailed in a post the destruction the Wahabis wrought in Mecca?
If so, I would like to read it.
I've read some cursory references to that damage. But no specifics.
And if you know, I think it would help the rest of us truly appreciate the austerity and destructiveness at the heart of Wahabism.
at May 31, 2006 10:44 PM
Wasn't bin Laden's father (and presumably it's still a family business) the chief builder/ engineer for the house of Saud? The re-developments around Mecca that a lot of this destruction makes way for must be a big earner for the company and It's likely that one fifty-third of the income would somehow find its way to the black sheep of the family. - of course, the daughters and other female beneficiaries would only get half as much as the males but you get my meaning.
Posted by: wallyUK at May 31, 2006 11:01 PM
"have you ever detailed in a post the destruction the Wahabis wrought in Mecca?"
-- from a posting above
Simply click on the excellent link provided, even before your question was out, by Yojimbo a posting or two above that posted question, and take a look at what the Saudis have done in Mecca and Medina.
Guardians of the Two Holy Places indeed -- if you like bulldozers, and mutawwa chasing you away from paying your respects to any stones but the main attraction.
at June 1, 2006 12:41 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)