One more victim living under threat. I’m not sure how to put this, and I’m not sure how the pro-islam lobby will see this, but I can almost hear it: “more anti-islam polemics! when will they leave us alone??”
Well, when you start doing something about your breathren threatening other people, obviously. But you don’t really care, do you? Because any suggestion of responsibility for these threats will be met with the same, tired mantra: “Kill the jews who have invaded Palestine”.
Oh well. Anyway, Jihadwatch.org puts the whole Robert Redeker saga in perspective:
He “accused Islam of ‘exalting violence,’” and they threaten to kill him. Doesn’t anyone notice the irony here?
It seems French philosophy teachers who speak about Islam are targets. He isn’t the only casualty, it seems. You can read the full text of Robert Redeker’s text over at Michelle Malkin’s blog, here. The same post also features an article by Prof. Egon Flaig, an interesting bit below:-
The rules of engagement for jihad are flexible. According to Khadduri, anything is possible, from mercy to mass enslavement to mass killing, just like with Greeks and Romans. This is a fundamental difference between the holy war of islam and of Old Testament Judaism, which prescribed the killing of all males outside of Israel, and the killing of every living thing within Israel (Deuteronomy 20, 10-20). We usually are outraged at what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem in 1099. Yet, the Crusaders acted in accordance with the ius bellum of the times, Muslim conquerors did the same all the time and everywhere: 698 they hit Carthage, in 838 Syracuse; the notorious vesir of the Cordoban Caliphate, Al Mansur, led 25 wars in 27 years against the Christian realms of northern Spain, enslaving, destroying, laying waste. They hit Zamora (981), Coimbra (987), Leon, Barcelona twice (985 and 1008), then Santiago de Compostela (997).
The worst destruction was wreaked by the jihadis on Byzantine Anatolia, which was then still full of cities; the massacre of Amorium (838) has remained a symbol for a long time; the urban culture of Anatolia never recovered from it.
The Seljuk Alp Arslan had entire Armenian cities massacred, the worst being the capital Ani in 1064. Bat Ye’or’s evaluation therefore is more than justified: “Its lack of measure, its regularity and the systematic character of the destructions, which Islamic theologians had decreed to be law, make the difference between jihad and other wars of conquest”.Certainly, mass enslavement remained the favourite aim of the wars. That was the way in which, as early as the eight century, the biggest slave-holder society developed that world history has ever known; it demanded a permanent influx of new slaves, transformed the African continent into the biggest supplier of slaves, a destiny which Europe narrowly avoided.
I’m still trying to figure out this siege mentality muslims have. Non-muslim lands are houses of war, apparently, so is it natural to assume that all non-muslim lands have a thing against muslim lands? What about lands that couldn’t give two shits about muslim lands? What about them? Are they still considered ‘houses of war’? Imagine the Swiss being regarded as war-like; it’ll be a rich joke, wouldn’t it?
Also, there are muslims who complain that bringing up historical facts about the brutality of muslim armies is, I don’t know, not fair? By this, they consider any consideration of historical events an affront to them if it impeaches the image of a peaceful religion. But these events happened. Muslims killed and enslaved millions, hindus, spanish, etc. It’s not a present reality, it’s a historical past - and you can’t even own up to it? But why?
I really, really, wish to know.
Comments (3)
You know from the news, the Germans are very ashamed of their WWII past and have memorials of remembrance and remorse of their atrocities. The even go to lengths to confront the new wave of neo-nazis within their nation. The Japanese on the other hand, while not owning up to massacres in Nanjing and other South East Asia countries, are moving forward, not looking behind. They are more indifferent than anything else due to whitewashing maybe in their history lessons?
Fortunately I’ve met Muslims from the Middle east and neigbouring regions recently that do not in any bit represent the hatred and anger of these people. They see with logic how old school teachings need to be modernized and how certain old practices need to be abolished to suit current times. Sometimes these non-Arabs/non-Abraham Muslims(Indons, West Africans, Euros, Malays) seem more wiser and religious than the descendents of Ishmael themselves. How do you reckon that?
I take your point on history - different communities have been dealing with their past in different ways, though Japan’s practice of trying to erase the collective memories of the Nanjing massacres - amongst others - is pretty dangerous. Those who cannot - or refuse - to remember the past are condemned to repeat it, to borrow Santayana.
It’s good to know that the more moderate, modernist voices in the Mid-east are all for moving with the times. Unfortunately, their voices are now being drowned out by their louder, more radicalized brethren.
What’s frustrating, for me personally, is how we both know there is a huge groundswell of moderate muslims around the world, but there seems to be a concerted lack of any effort - at least overt effort - to curtailed these more radicalized elements within their community.
I was reading something off some of the more conservative, American blogs, and the common thread amongst the comments posted was that when moderate muslims don’t do anything (or don’t do enough), people get the impression that they are standing at the sidelines, silently cheering. Something’s got to give, you know what I mean?
There are those who suffer a fate far worse than the infidels, those who recant their faith to bluntly put it.
I feel sorry for them. They hit a dead road at both ends.
If they speak up, they will be torn to shreds and if they keep silent, they suffer in silence. I am sure they are scared out of their lives. There’s always a psycho out there like that guy who killed Van Gogh’s decendant.
This is why the human being part of being human should come before religion.