Raymond Ibrahim on Western Ignorance of the 'Conditions of Omar'

The following by Raymond Ibrahim is reposted here with permission of Middle East Forum:

Western Ignorance of the 'Conditions of Omar'

by Raymond Ibrahim
PJ Media
March 22, 2014

http://www.meforum.org/3801/christians-syria-dhimmitude

Raymond Ibrahim

A jihadi group occupying the Syrian town of Raqqa recently gave Christian minorities living there three choices: 1) convert to Islam, 2) remain Christian but pay tribute and accept third-class subject status, or 3) die by the sword.

According to the BBC, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria issued a directive

"citing the Islamic concept of "dhimma", [which] requires Christians in the city to pay tax of around half an ounce (14g) of pure gold in exchange for their safety. It says Christians must not make renovations to churches, display crosses or other religious symbols outside churches, ring church bells or pray in public. Christians must not carry arms, and must follow other rules imposed by ISIS (also known as ISIL) on their daily lives. The statement said the group had met Christian representatives and offered them three choices—they could convert to Islam, accept ISIS' conditions, or reject their control and risk being killed. "If they reject, they are subject to being legitimate targets, and nothing will remain between them and ISIS other than the sword," the statement said."

Because several Western media outlets uncharacteristically reported on this latest atrocity against Syrian Christians, many Westerners are shocked—amazed to hear of such draconian conditions.

Muslim Cleric: US Aid To Egypt Is An Islamic Tax Showing American Submission To Islam

The following by Raymond Ibrahim is reposted with permission of Middle East Forum:

Muslim Cleric Calls U.S. Aid to Egypt 'Jizya'

by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com
March 19, 2013

http://www.meforum.org/3468/us-aid-egypt-jizya

As earlier suggested, the wonderful thing about Salafis—those extra "radical" Muslims who seek to emulate as literally as possible prophet Muhammad's teachings and habits—is that they are so unabashed and frank about what they believe. Such is the degree of brainwashing that they have undergone. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded much earlier, doublespeak is not second nature to the Salafis.

The most recent example comes from Al Hafiz TV, an Egyptian Islamic station. During a roundtable discussion on the U.S. and foreign aid to Egypt, an Islamic cleric, clearly of the Salafi bent—he had their trademark mustache-less-beard—insisted that the U.S. must be treated contemptuously, like a downtrodden dhimmi, or conquered infidel; that Egypt must make the U.S. conform to its own demands; and that, then, all the money the U.S. offers to Egypt in foreign aid can be taken as rightfully earned jizya.

Historically, the jizya was money, or tribute, that conquered non-Muslims had to pay to their Muslim overlords to safeguard their existence, as indicated in Koran 9:29. As the spirit of Islam continues making a comeback, Muslims around the world continue calling for non-Muslims, especially Christian minorities under Islam, to resume paying the jizya, which was abolished in the 19^th century thanks to European intervention.

Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time

That's not a cynical thought; it's the title of Karen Armstrong's new book (and a cynical thought). Efraim Karsh reviews Armstrong's book for the New York Sun.

He explains that Armstrong is one of those that claims that 'Jihad' is the quest for self-improvement as opposed to Holy War--that Islamist terrorist attacks are extremist reactions to arrogant US policy. As a result, according to Karsh:

"Muslims have never nurtured dreams of world conquest," wrote Karen Armstrong, a prominent representative of this view, shortly after September 11. "They had no designs on Europe, for example, even though Europeans imagined that they did. Once Muslim rule had been established in Spain, it was recognized that the empire could not expand indefinitely."

But the Moslem occupation of Spain, 2,000 miles from Arabia, was not the end of their imperialism--from there they invaded France, where they were defeated in 732 at the battle of Poitiers.

Bernard Lewis goes into even more detail. In What Went Wrong, Lewis describes century by century of Moslem expansionism:

In the course of the seventh century, Muslim armies advancing from Arabia conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa, all until then part of Christendom, and most of the new recruits to Islam, west of Iran and Arabia, were indeed converts from Christianity. (p.4, emphasis added)

That, of course, was just the beginning. During the eighth century, Lewis describes how, using North Africa as their base, the Arab forces were joined by Berber converts as they went into Spain and Portugal and invaded France.

In the ninth century they conquered Sicily and sacked Rome--resulting in the Christian counter-attack known as the Crusades, hardly the offensive unprovoked attack that the Arab world condemns.

In the thirteenth century, the Tartars conquered Russia and later converted to Islam--meaning that Russia and much of Eastern Europe was subjected to Moslem rule till they freed themselves in the late 15th century.

During a third wave of attacks, the Ottoman Turks conquered Anatolia, captured Constantinople, invaded the Balkan peninsula and reached as far as Vienna.

Armstrong also writes that Mohammed himself was really a man of peace:

"whose aim was peace and practical compassion" and who "literally sweated with the effort to bring peace to war-torn Arabia"; an altruistic social reformer of modest political ambitions, whose life was "a tireless campaign against greed, injustice, and arrogance" and who founded "a religion and cultural tradition that was not based on the sword but whose name — ‘Islam' — signified peace and reconciliation."

Karsh counters that such a description is a whitewash, because in fact:

the Qur'anic revelations during Muhammad's Medina years abound with verses extolling the virtues of fighting "in the path of Allah," as do the countless sayings and traditions (hadith) attributed to the prophet. As he told his followers in his farewell address: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.'" Had it not been for his sudden death, Muhammad probably would have expanded his control well beyond the peninsula.

But Armstrong goes even further in painting her picture of Mohammed and Islam:

Ms. Armstrong glibly claims that "Later in the Islamic empires, Jews would enjoy full religious liberty and anti-Semitism would not become a Muslim vice until the Arab/Israeli conflict became acute in the mid-twentieth century." For one thing, such ahistorical analysis ignores the deep anti-Jewish bigotry dating to Islam's earliest days, which made it highly receptive to the worst precepts of Christian anti-Semitism, such as the "blood libel." For another thing, Armstrong overlooks Islam's pervasive mistreatment of its non-Muslim subjects, or Dhimmis as they are commonly known, who have been allowed to practice their religions in return for a distinctly inferior legal and institutional status, rife with social indignities and at times open persecution. [emphasis added]

Jews had "full religious liberty"? Jews were dhimmis and by definition had second class citizen status, with limits on any form of public religious expression that would annoy their Moslem rulers.

Wikipedia has a documented, if disputed, section on the limitations on the religious practice of dhimmis:

Although dhimmis were allowed to perform their religious rituals, they were obliged to do so in a manner not conspicuous to Muslims. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols, such as crosses or icons, was prohibited on buildings and on clothing (unless mandated as part of distinctive clothing). Loud prayers were forbidden, as was the ringing of church bells or the trumpeting of shofars. According to one hadith, Muhammad said: "The bell is the musical instrument of the Satan." (Sahih Muslim 24:5279). This hadith actually refers to music in general, this is not aimed at Church bells.

Dhimmis had the right to choose their own religious leaders: patriarchs for Christians, exilarchs and geonim for Jews. However, the choice of the community was subject to the approval of the Muslim authorities, who sometimes blocked candidates or took the side of the party that offered the larger bribe.

Dhimmis were prohibited from proselytizing on pain of death. Neither were they allowed to obstruct the spread of Islam in any manner. Other restrictions included a prohibition on publishing or sale of non-Muslim religious literature and a ban on teaching the Qur’an.

As required by the Pact of Umar, dhimmis had to bury their dead without loud lamentations and prayers. Incidents of harassment of dhimmi funeral processions by Muslims, involving pelting with stones, battery, spitting, or cursing, even by Muslim children, were common regardless of place and time. [go to their site for hyperlinks and footnotes]

But historically, Moslems resorted to more than just harrassment in their mistreatment of Jews. Mitchell Bard gives a summary:

At various times, Jews in Muslim lands were able to live in relative peace and thrive culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death. Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews.

When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.⁾

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).

Karsh fittingly concludes his review of Armstrong's book:

"If we are to avoid catastrophe, the Muslim and Western worlds must learn not merely to tolerate but to appreciate one another," Ms. Armstrong emphatically concludes her book. I couldn't agree more. Provided of course this is done in good faith and without rewriting the historical truth, let alone violently suppressing critical minds and dissenting voices.

Armstrong's book will not bring us any closer to the goal which Armstrong claims to seek.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Efraim Karsh and Karen Armstrong and Mohammed and Dhimmis and Islam.

Does CAIR Want To Raise Your Taxes?

Think about it.

World Net Daily, among others, notes that

Ibrahim Hooper, the future CAIR spokesman, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune on April 4, 1993: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

Under Moslem law, non-Muslims pay a tax called jizya. According to Wikipedia:

In states ruled by Islamic law, jizya or jizyah is a per capita tax imposed on non-Muslim adult males, known as dhimmis.

...In practice the word is applied to a special type of tax, levied on those who did not accept Islam, and applied for the benefit of the Muslim community.

...The imposition of jizya upon non-Muslims is mandated by the Qur'an 9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

And Hooper is not alone. According to Daniel Pipes:

as reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

And CAIR is not the only one that wants to put in practice the Moslem law that would impose the jizya. Imam Zaid Shakir, an American Muslim leader, is quoted by the New York Times as saying:

"Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country," he said.

What are the chances of that happening?

In the US, we may forget Islam's past history of global conquest.
We may even ignore the Islamists' goal of world domination.
But higher taxes?
No red-blooded American will allow that!

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and CAIR and Jizya and Islamists and Dhimmis.

Does It Even Matter What the Koran Says--Centanni Conversion

Here is the YouTube video of the conversion--it may take a minute to come up:


Reuters reports that Steven Centanni and Olaf Wiig have been released by the Palestinian terrorists.

And what is the Reuters headline?

Kidnapped Fox journalists convert to Islam on video

Two kidnapped Fox journalists appeared on a new videotape released by their captors on Sunday in the Gaza Strip, in which the reporters said they had converted to Islam, the Fox News Channel said.

...They were shown separately sitting cross-legged, reading a statement which Fox said was an announcement that they had converted to Islam. At times in the video they were wearing long Muslim robes.

If that is indeed the highlight of the entire story, then maybe Reuters should tell the entire story, which is left to Fox News.

On the one hand, like Reuters, Fox provides the storyline that the Palestinians are anxious to push on a gullible world:

The day had begun with promises by senior Palestinian officials that the two would be released in coming hours.

At the same time, before the journalists' release, a new video was released, showing Wiig and Centanni dressed in beige Arab-style robes. Wiig, of New Zealand, delivered an anti-Western speech, his face expressionless and his tone halting. The kidnappers claimed both men had converted to Islam.

But Fox also gives Centanni's side of this part of the story as well:

Both of the men were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, Centanni said.

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

The issue with Reuters pointedly making the conversion the headline is summed up by Andy McCarthy at The Corner:

Will Reuters, which thought the "conversion" was newsworthy, report on that?

Or will we get the usual slew of "mainstream" Muslim experts who tell us that in Islam "there is no compulsion in religion," and that jihad is "the inner struggle against sin"?

According to the Koran Surah 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion"

Apparently holding people at gunpoint does not count.
Neither does forcing Jews and Christians to pay the jizya tax as part the package of living as second class citizens under Islam--dhimmis--count either, apparently.

On this verse, Michael Cook writes in The Koran: A Very Short Introduction:

It does not compromise the notion of absolute religious truth, but it strongly suggests that the true religion can nonetheless coexist with any and all forms of false religion. For the traditional scholars, as we will see later, such a declaration of unconditional - not to say indiscriminate - tolerance was an embarrassment; they had to find ways and means of getting it out of the way. [emphasis added]

But does it even matter what the Koran says when those 'traditional scholars'--who are clearly in control of Islam today--have obviously been very successful in getting this verse out of the way in practice.

These days it is just trotted out for show by groups like CAIR.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Centanni and Koran and Islam and Islamic Fascists and Terrorism.

Were Jews Really Better Off Under Islam?

"...on the whole, Jews fared better under Muslim rule than Christians did"

Bernard Lewis, "The New Anti-Semitism."


Andrew Bostom does not see eye-to-eye with Bernard Lewis, although he has enormous respect for him. Bostom quotes Lewis from 1974 on the issue of Dhimmitude, which Lewis doesn't think was all that bad:

The dhimma on the whole worked well. The non-Muslims managed to thrive under Muslim rule, and even to make significant contributions to Islamic civilization. The restrictions were not onerous, and were usually less severe in practice than in theory. As long as the non-Muslim communities accepted and conformed to the status of tolerated subordination assigned to them, they were not troubled. The rare outbreaks of repression or violence directed against them are almost always the consequence of a feeling that they have failed to keep their place and honor their part of the covenant.

Bostom brings a number of sources to counter Lewis' assessment, including S. D. Goitein, who was a contemporary of Lewis. Goitein wrote:

Christians and Jews were not citizens of the state, not even second class citizens. They were outsiders under the protection of the Muslim state, a status characterized by the term dhimma, for which protection they had to pay a poll tax specific to them. They were also exposed to a great number of discriminatory and humiliating laws…As it lies in the very nature of such restrictions, soon additional humiliations were added, and before the second century of Islam was out, a complete body of legislation in this matter was in existence…In times and places in which they became too oppressive they lead to the dwindling or even complete extinction of the minorities.

Mitchell Bard has an online article, The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries, that gives the details.

There is also a talk that Bostom gave last month which covers how Jewish dhimmis were treated in historical Palestine--it can both be viewed and heard as audio at The Heritage Foundation web site.

One claim that is made in defending the treatment of Jews under Islam is that they suffered less in Moslem countries than in Christian ones.

I wonder if to the degree that this may be argued, it might be because whereas in Christian countries there were generally no laws differentiating between Jews and non-Jews (with the major exception of Nazi Germany), under Islam the inferior status of the Jew and the racist sentiment was institutionalized--hard-wired into Islamic law itself--and so the daily humiliation of the Jew took the edge off any Moslem desire for violence, at least until Jewish success put Jews in a more equal footing with Moslems, at which point Moslems were just as capable of the mass-murder of Jews as the Christians were.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Dhimmis and Islam and Bernard Lewis and Andrew Bostom.

Taheri Stands By Article on Iranian Badge For Non-Muslims

Back on May 19, Amir Taheri, Iranian author and journalist, wrote one of the 2 articles that appeared in The National Post in Canada on the Iranian plans to institute colored badges for non-Muslims in Iran:

While the Iranian economy appears to be heading for recession, one sector may have some reason for optimism. That sector is the garment industry and the reason for hopefulness is a law passed by the Islamic Majlis (parliament) on Monday.

The law mandates the government to make sure that all Iranians wear "standard Islamic garments" designed to remove ethnic and class distinctions reflected in clothing, and to eliminate "the influence of the infidel" on the way Iranians, especially, the young dress. It also envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean).

The new law, drafted during the presidency of Muhammad Khatami in 2004, had been blocked within the Majlis. That blockage, however, has been removed under pressure from Khatami's successor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Of the 2 articles, his is the only one still online.

Yesterday, Taheri wrote a short article defending his article--which he still believes is accurate and the truth of which may yet be borne out by future events:

The law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. A committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of implementation.

Many ideas are being discussed with regard to implementation, including special markers, known as zonnars, for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the only faiths other than Islam that are recognized as such. The zonnar was in use throughout the Muslim world until the early 20th century and marked out the dhimmis, or protected religious minorities. ( In Iran it was formally abolished in 1908).

I have been informed of the ideas under discussion thanks to my sources in Tehran, including three members of the Majlis who had tried to block the bill since it was first drafted in 2004.

I do not know which of these ideas or any will be eventually adopted. We will know once the committee appointed to discuss them presents its report, perhaps in September.

Interestingly, the Islamic Republic authorities refuse to issue an
official statement categorically rejecting the concept of dhimmitude and the need for marking out religious minorities.

I raised the issue not as a news story, because news of the new law was already several days old, but as an opinion column to alert the outside world to this most disturbing development.

Since world opinion has had no effect on Iran developing nuclear weapons, it's hard to imagine that it will have any effect on any Iranian plans for a special dress code for their second-class non-Muslim citizens.

Technorati Tag: Iran and Yellow Badge and Dhimmis and Amir Taheri.

Irans History With The Yellow Badge

Though for now it seems that Iran is not planning to force Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to wear special identification, from some of what has been written in reaction to the initial report it has become clear that Iran--both historically and currently--does not treat non-Muslims well.

The New York Sun, in an article describing the inability to confirm the Iranian implementation of a special badge, notes the lower status of non-Muslims in Iran:

Iran's constitution already carves out special status for non-Muslims. For example, it prohibits non-Muslims from obtaining senior posts in either the army or government. A national ordinance made into law in 2000 and 2001 requires all non-Muslim butchers, grocers, and purveyors of food to post a form in the window of their place of business warning Muslims they do not share their faith. At the time the code was defended in order to enforce Islamic dietary law. Muslims in Iran officially enjoy preference over non-Muslims in terms of admission to universities and colleges.

On the history of the yellow badge in Iran, an article for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, quotes Professor Amnon Netzer of the Hebrew University that a yellow badge was enforced in Iran on many occasions:

Sometimes it wasn't really yellow, it was red. And we don't know precisely its beginning. But some of the poems of the classical period [mention the ribbon], and these [poems] more or less belong to sometime before the invasion of the Mongols into Iran. We know, more or less, that the last period [in which] this patch was worn by the Jews by force was at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th.

In Badging Infidels in Iran, Andrew Boston--author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims--writes a long piece on the equally long history of Iranian treatment of non-Muslims, noting that Shiite Islam in Iran contains within it a hatred for non-Muslims in general and Jews in particular:

Visceral, even annihilationist animus towards Jews is a deep-rooted phenomenon in Shi’ite Iran, hardly unique to the contemporary post-Khomeini Shi’ite theocracy, including the current regime of Ayatollah Khameini and President Ahmadinejad...These Shi’ite clerics emphasized the notion of the ritual uncleanliness (najis) of Jews, in particular, but also Christians, Zoroastrians, and others, as the cornerstone of inter-confessional relationships toward non-Muslims.

Boston quotes Anthropology Professor Laurence Loeb, who during the early 1970's studied and lived in the Jewish community of Southern Iran. Loeb writes about the Shiite belief in the impurity of non-Muslims and its connection to wearing a badge, a:

badge of shame [as] an identifying symbol which marked someone as a najis Jew and thus to be avoided. From the reign of Abbas I [1587-1629] until the 1920s, all Jews were required to display the badge

Professor Loeb emphasizes, “Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behavior by Muslims.”

An example of those excesses are found in the writings of Mohammad Baqer Al-Majlisi, an influential Shiite cleric during the 17th century. Al-Majlisi describes the requirements of non-Muslims, such as the blood ransom jizya, a poll-tax, based on Qur’an 9:29, as well as other restrictions in the areas of worship, housing, dress, transportation, and weapons (which according to Boston were intended to render the dhimmis defenseless).

Al-Majlisi describes the extent of the impurity regulations:

And, that they should not enter the pool while a Muslim is bathing at the public baths…It is also incumbent upon Muslims that they should not accept from them victuals with which they had come into contact, such as distillates, which cannot be purified. In something can be purified, such as clothes, if they are dry, they can be accepted, they are clean. But if they [the dhimmis] had come into contact with those cloths in moisture they should be rinsed with water after being obtained. As for hide, or that which has been made of hide such as shoes and boots, and meat, whose religious cleanliness and lawfulness are conditional on the animal’s being slaughtered [according to the Shari’a], these may not be taken from them. Similarly, liquids that have been preserved in skins, such as oils, grape syrup, [fruit] juices, myrobalan, and the like, if they have been put in skin containers or water skins, these should [also] not be accepted from them…It would also be better if the ruler of the Muslims would establish that all infidels could not move out of their homes on days when it rains or snows because they would make Muslims impure.

Along the same lines, Boston quotes the late Persian Jewish scholar Sarah (Sorour) Soroudia on the prohibition of non-Muslims being outside in the rain--Soroudia notes that the regulation was enforced in Jewish communities in Iran as late as 1923

In closing his article, Boston again quotes from Professor Loeb, who wrote in 1976:

Despite the favorable attitude of the government and the relative prosperity of the Jewish community, all Iranian Jews acknowledge the precarious nature of the present situation. There are still sporadic outbreaks against them because the Muslim clergy constantly berates Jews, inciting the masses who make no effort to hide their animosity towards the Jew. Most Jews express the belief that it is only the personal strength and goodwill of the Shah that protects them: that plus God’s intervention! If either should fail…

This is in contrast to Meir Javdanfar, an Israeli Middle East expert who was born and raised in Tehran, and was among those quoted that the report about Iran reinstituting a yellow badge for the Jews was false. In that article Javdanfar was quoted as saying:

"Nowhere in the law is there any talk of Jews and Christians having to wear different colours. I've checked it with sources both inside Iran and outside."

"The Iranian people would never stand for it. The Iranian government wouldn't be stupid enough to do it."

Contrary to Javdanfar's assurances, historically there is an awful lot that the Iranian government--and general population--will stand for.

• See also Iran Wants To Renew The Yellow Badge Enforced Under Islam and Nazis
• See also Report About Iranian Yellow Badge May Be Incorrect

Technorati Tag: Iran and Anti-Semitism and Islam and Dhimmis and Yellow Badge.

Report About Iranian Yellow Badge May Be Incorrect

The report about Iran instituting a special badges for non-Muslims may be incorrect (hat tip historymike's musings)

Iran report of Holocaust-style badges questioned
2006-05-19 09:06:12

The National Post is sending shockwaves across the country this morning with a report that Iran's Parliament has passed a law requiring mandatory Holocaust style badges to identify Jews and Christians.

But independent reporter Meir Javdanfar, an Israeli Middle East expert who was born and raised in Tehran, says the report is false.
"It's absolutely factually incorrect," he told The New 940 Montreal.

"Nowhere in the law is there any talk of Jews and Christians having to wear different colours. I've checked it with sources both inside Iran and outside."

"The Iranian people would never stand for it. The Iranian government wouldn't be stupid enough to do it."

Political commentator and 940 Montreal host Beryl Waysman says the report is true, that the law was passed two years ago.

"Jews should wear yellow strips, Christians red strips, because according to the Iranian mullahs, if a Mulsim shakes hands with a non-Muslim he becomes unclean."

Meanwhile, another report on the authenticity of the story comes from Amir Taheri, an Iranian author of ten books on the Middle East and Islam:

While the Iranian economy appears to be heading for recession, one sector may have some reason for optimism. That sector is the garment industry and the reason for hopefulness is a law passed by the Islamic Majlis (parliament) on Monday.

The law mandates the government to make sure that all Iranians wear "standard Islamic garments" designed to remove ethnic and class distinctions reflected in clothing, and to eliminate "the influence of the infidel" on the way Iranians, especially, the young dress. It also envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean).

The new law, drafted during the presidency of Muhammad Khatami in 2004, had been blocked within the Majlis. That blockage, however, has been removed under pressure from Khatami's successor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

AllahPundit discusses the back and forth of the story--he thinks it's true based on Taheri's credentials--at Hot Air.

Update 5/20:
The source for the latest on the story and how it is playing out continues to be Allahpundit at Hot Air.
Among the repurcussions of the apparently erroneous report:

• Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Wiesenthal Institute has written a letter to Kofi Annan for clarification of the story.
• The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has issued a statement indicating that although the story is unsubstantiated, it is indicative of a dangerous situation
• There is a post at left-wing Daily Kos claiming that the story is a set-up by Conservatives to support an attack on Iran

• See also: Iran Wants To Renew The Yellow Badge Enforced Under Islam and Nazis
• See also: Iran's History With The Yellow Badge

Technorati Tag: Iran and Nazi Germany and Holocaust and Islam and Dhimmis.

Iran Wants To Renew The Yellow Badge Enforced Under Islam and Nazis

According to a report at Canada.com:

Iran eyes badges for Jews
Law would require non-Muslim insignia

Chris Wattie
National Post

Friday, May 19, 2006

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

Historically, the yellow badge that the Nazis forced Jews to wear was predated by the yellow badges Jews were forced to wear under Moslem rule:

637: Muslim forces capture Caesarea, forcing the city's estimated 100,000 Jews to follow the Pact of Omar, which meant they had to pray quietly, not build new synagogues and not prevent Jews from converting to Islam. The Jews were also forbidden from riding horses and holding judicial or civil posts, and were forced to wear a yellow patch for identification.

807: Harun Al Rashid, Caliph of the Abbasids forces Baghdad Jews to wear a yellow badge and Christians to wear a blue badge.

That Iran is seeking to renew this is not surprising, given Iran's ties to Nazi Germany during WWII.

• See also: Report About Iranian Yellow Badge May Be Incorrect
• See also: Iran's History With The Yellow Badge

Crossposted on Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Iran and Nazi Germany and Holocaust and Islam and Dhimmis.

The Difference Between Islamists and Rodney Dangerfield

In Misreading the Enemy, David Ignatius writes about the difficulty of negotiating with Iran and Al-Qaeda. Iran is theocratic regime, and therefore:

For a theocratic regime that claims a mandate from God, the very idea of compromise is anathema. Great issues of war and peace will be resolved by God's will, not by human negotiators. Better to lose than to bargain with the devil. Better to suffer physical hardship than humiliation.

He points to similar difficulties with Al-Qaeda and the fact that bin Laden has expressed the willingness to show patience and wait for the West to tire--"being patient and steady is much better, and the end counts."

Ignatius gets to his point at the end of his column:

A word that recurs in radical Muslim proclamations is "dignity." That is not a political demand, nor one that can be achieved through negotiation. Indeed, for groups that feel victimized, negotiation with a powerful adversary can itself be demeaning. That's why the unyielding Yasser Arafat remained popular among Palestinians, despite his failure to deliver concrete benefits. He was a symbol of pride and resistance. Hamas, too, gains support because of its rigid steadfastness, and a strategy that seeks to punish pro-Hamas Palestinians into compromise will probably fail for the same reason.

The Muslim demand for respect isn't something that can be negotiated, but that doesn't mean the West shouldn't take it seriously. For as the Muslim world gains a greater sense of dignity in its dealings with the West, the fundamental weapon of Iran, al-Qaeda and Hamas will lose much of its potency.

The problem is that Ignatius is himself misreads the enemy. What is dignity...what is respect? It is to be treated as an equal. Rodney Dangerfield's persona, in complaining about the lack of respect he got, was asking for nothing more than equality, to be treated like everyone else. However, what Islamists are demanding is not being treated as an equal.

It is all very well and good for Ignatius to write that "for a theocratic regime that claims a mandate from God, the very idea of compromise is anathema." However, in this case we are talking about the mandate as recorded in the Koran, on the basis of which Moslem countries have historically treated non-Moslems as dhimmis--second class citizens, with predictable results. And on the basis of which:

o Moslems in India claim the Taj Mahal
o Hamas demands the return of the Spanish city of Seville
o Other Islamists go one step further:

Unfortunately for Spain's Muslims, the militants who swear loyalty to Osama bin Laden are history buffs too. In claiming responsibility for the March bombings, they cited the loss of "Al Andalus" as motivation.

"We will continue our jihad until martyrdom in the land of Tarik Ben Ziyad," they said in a communique issued after the massacre, alluding to the Moorish warrior and original Islamic conqueror of the Iberian peninsula.

In a post from last year--Defender of the Faith--David Frum writes about “Islam in Britain,” a report by the UK Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, available from www.isic-centre.org. The report quotes Zaki Badawi, president of London’s Muslim College, holder of the Order of the British Empire, who is also widely recognized as the “unofficial leader, representative, and advocate of Britain’s mainline Muslims.” According to Mr. Badawi

”A proselytizing religion cannot stand still. It can either expand or contract. Islam endeavors to expand in Britain. … Islam is a universal religion. It aims at bringing its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community, the Umma...This reflects the historical fact that Muslims, from the start, lived under their own law. Muslim theologians naturally produced a theology with this in view – it is a theology of the majority. Being a minority was not seriously considered or even contemplated. … Muslim theology offers, up to the present, no systematic formulation of the status of being in a minority.” [ellipses added]

The report concludes:

”Muslims find it difficult to assume minority status in a majority non-Muslim society. More than other minority communities, they constantly, sometimes subconsciously, strive to redress the balance and assume an expanding and dominant position in their host countries.”

If, according to Ignatius, "as the Muslim world gains a greater sense of dignity in its dealings with the West, the fundamental weapon of Iran, al-Qaeda and Hamas will lose much of its potency," then why is it demanding ever more on the one hand, while seeking to put limits on the Western value of free speech and cultural symbols (going so far as to have the crown or the cross of St. George removed from police badges) on the other?

Technorati Tag: Islam and Islamists and Washington Post and Hamas and Moslem World and David Frum and Zaki Badawi.

Bernard Lewis: The New Anti-Semitism II--Arab Humor

On a different tack on Anti-Semitism, Lewis gives an example of the Jewish stereotype in the Arab world, in terms of folklore and humor:

An interesting difference in hostile stereotypes can be found in anecdotes, jokes, and the like. The main negative quality attributed to Jews in Turkish and Arab folklore was that they were cowardly and unmilitary—very contemptible qualities in a martial society. A late Ottoman joke may serve to illustrate this. The story is that in 1912, at the time of the Balkan war, when there was an acute threat to the Ottoman Empire in its final stages, the Jews, full of patriotic ardor, decided that they, too, wanted to serve in the defense of their country, so they asked permission to form a special volunteer brigade. Permission was given, and officers and ncos were sent to train and equip them. Once the Jewish volunteer brigade was armed, equipped, and trained, ready to leave for the front, they sent a message asking if they could have a police escort, because there were reports of bandits on the road.

In particular, Lewis uses this anecdote to explain the humiliation the Arab world felt in the aftermath of the War of Independence, and the subsequent wars it instigated and lost:

This is a very interesting human document. Is it hostile? Not really. It shows a sort of amused tolerance, at once good-humored and contemptuous, that may help us to understand the bewilderment and horror at the Israeli victories in 1948 and after. We have some vivid descriptions at the time of the expectations and reactions of 1948. Azzam Pasha, who was then the secretary-general of the Arab League, is quoted as having said: "This will be like the Mongol invasions. We will utterly destroy them. We will sweep them into the sea." The expectation was that it would be quick and easy. There would be no problem at all dealing with half a million Jews. It was then an appalling shock when five Arab armies were defeated by half a million Jews with very limited weaponry. It remains shameful, humiliating. This was mentioned at the time and has been ever since. One writer said: "It was bad enough to be conquered and occupied by the mighty empires of the West, the British Empire, the French Empire, but to suffer this fate at the hands of a few hundred thousand Jews was intolerable."

According to Lewis then, the humiliation that the Arab world felt was not due to the fact that Jews were for over a thousand years dhimmis--subjugated second class citizens--but because they were historically considered weak and cowardly. In this Lewis is consistent in his view of "Dhimmitude":

If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes.

In contrast, Dr. Mitchell Bard, author of Myths and Facts, has an article on The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries where he details how Jewish communities in various Moslem communities in various periods of history were subject to the destruction of synagogues, living in ghettos, and the mass slaughter of Jews. Bard quotes G.E. Von Grunebaum, author of "Eastern Jewry Under Islam":

It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms.

But unlike the issue of former dhimmitude, the Arab view of Jews as cowardly comes into play in the way that Israel conducts itself in dealing and negotiating with the Palestinian terrorists from Oslo on--in the constant talk of the need for concessions and seeming reluctance to see to it that the Palestinian Arabs keep their promises and obligations.

It is one thing for Arabs to tell stereotypical anecdotes about Jews--it is another for Israel to insist on playing the part.

See also:
o Bernard Lewis: The New Anti-Semitism I--The Jewish Lobby
o Bernard Lewis: The New Anti-Semitism III--The UN

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jews and Anti-Semitism and Dhimmis and Spain.

The Hamas Covenant and Jihad

Power Line points out that MEMRI has a new translation of the Hamas Covenant:

In view of the recent victory of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the Palestinian Authority Legislative Council elections, it is important to make the Hamas covenant [1] available in English for English speaking readers. The English version which is currently posted in a number of websites is not satisfactory, and therefore MEMRI is providing here a closer, more accurate translation.

Power Line notes:

A reading of the covenant demonstrates that Hamas exists for two purposes alone: 1) to eliminate the state of Israel, and 2) to replace it with an Islamic state. These purposes are apparent in every article of the charter, though in some more concisely than others. Article Six, for example, provides:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian movement that is loyal to Allah, adopts Islam as a way of life and works to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Under the wing of Islam, followers of other religions can all live safe and secure in their life, property and rights; whereas in the absence of Islam, discord arises, injustice spreads, corruption burgeons, and there are conflicts and wars.

Article Eight is even more concise:

Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model to be followed, the Koran its constitution, Jihad its way, and death for the sake of Allah its loftiest desire.

First of all, the idea that "Under the wing of Islam, followers of other religions can all live safe and secure in their life, property and rights" has 2 problems:

1. It is contingent upon living as dhimmis, second class citizens with restrictions and a protection-tax.

2. It just isn't true:

At various times, Jews in Muslim lands were able to live in relative peace and thrive culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death. Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews.

Read the rest for a history of the Moslem persecution and murder of Jews.

Secondly, on the issue of Jihad and death for the sake of Allah -- Hamas, along with others, have mangled the concept of Jihad, badly. According to Bernard Lewis in The Crisis of Islam:

Those who are killed in the jihad are called martyrs, in Arabic and other Muslim languages shahid...The Arabic term shahid also means "witness" and is usually translated "martyr," but it has a rather different connotation. In Islamic usage the term martyrdom is normally interpreted to mean death in a jihad and reward is eternal bliss, described in some detail in early religious texts. Suicide, by contrast, is a mortal sin and earns eternal damnation, even for those who would otherwise have earned a place in paradise. The classical jurists distinguish clearly between facing certain death at the hands of the enemy and killing oneself by one's own hand. The one leads to heaven, the other to hell. Some recent fundamentalist jurists and others have blurred or even dismissed this distinction, but their view is by no means unanimously accepted. The suicide bomber is thus taking a considerable risk on a theological nicety. (p38-39 emphasis added)

Of course, this is assuming that the suicide bombers themselves--as well as their enablers--are really taking Islam and sharia into account, or just using it for purely politcal and military aims.

Then there is the issue of the murder of innocent women and children in Islam. Lewis writes:

Because holy war is an obligation of the faith, it is elaborately regulated in the sharia. Fighters in a jihad are enjoined not to kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to torture or mutilate prisoner, to give fair warning of the resumption of hostilities after a truce, and to honor agreements.

Lewis presents this as straightforward. He does not address the excuses used by terrorists that every Israeli (even children?) are part of the Israeli army. As far as sharia requiring agreements to be honored, someone obviously forgot to tell the PA...and Hamas.

On the issue of Kassam rockets, sharia apparently provides Hamas with some leeway... :

...The medieval jurists and theologians discuss at some length the rules of warfare, including questions such as which weapons are permitted and which are not. There is even some discussion in medieval texts of the lawfulness of missile and chemical warfare, the one relating to mangonels and catapults, the other to poison-tipped arrows and the poisoning of enemy water supplies. On these points there is considerable variation. Some jurists permit, some restrict, some disapprove of the use of these weapons. The stated reason for concern is the indiscriminate casualties that they inflict. [emphasis added]

...but seemingly not when it comes to suicide bombers:

At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point--as far as I am aware--do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders.

In The Danish Cartoons and The Hijacking of Islam, I quoted Lewis on extremist groups and their selective interpretation of Islam. Hamas is dressing up their own agenda in selective interpretation of sharia. In so doing, they fit right in with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Al Qaeda--a distinction they no doubt are proud of.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Hamas and Terrorism and Israel and Islam.

Hamas Improves on the Arafat Model

There was a time, when Arafat was in charge, that it was frowned upon for leaders of countries dependent on Western aid to come right out in public and say that their goal was to destroy Israel. Arafat's technique was to say one thing in public in English for international consumption and something else in Arabic for his Moslem audience. The West was so eager to believe in Oslo that even when Arafat's words in Arabic were translated into English, you could hear the creaking sound as people bent over backwards to justify and explain what Arafat really meant.

But today you don't even have to go to the trouble. Take Hamas for example. If you phrase things just right, then like looking at a Rorshach ink blog, the listener can hear what he wants to hear. The Jerusalem Post quotes a Hamas spokesman and even does us the favor of explaining what he's supposedly saying:

Sheikh Adnan Asfour, one of the political leaders of Hamas in the West Bank, said Hamas did not want to destroy Israel or remove it from the map.

"Hamas recognizes Israel as a fact on the ground," he said. "But we don't recognize the legitimacy of its occupation."

But Asfour didn't say that Hamas did not want to destroy Israel. All he said is that Israel's existence is a fact, but does not think its occupation of Palestinian land is legitimate. Does this imply that he--or Hamas--is ready to live with Israel or have given up on the idea of destroying it?

Further:

Asfour reiterated his movement's willingness to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 boundaries and to reach a long-term cease-fire with Israel.

"That way the Israelis would be able to guarantee their security and we would also be able to live in security," he said. "Let's leave the conflict to future generations to resolve."

Even assuming that the Hamas definition of a Palestinian state matches Israel's definition--including agreement on what the capital of this Palestinian state will be--how is leaving the issue to future generations anything more than a Hudna? How long is "long-term"--is it as long as it takes a child with a gun to be old enough to learn how to fire a rocket?

And Hamas has more than one spokeman:

Another Hamas representative, Anwar Zaboun, said negotiations with Israel were not haram (forbidden by religion).

"It's forbidden to make concessions on our rights," he said. "But negotiations and discussions are not sinful."

Anyone notice that Zaboun just said that it's OK to negotiate and discuss but not to concede anything? Just what does that leave to negotiate? Apparently Zaboun and Abbas went to the same school of negotiation.

Then there is Khalid Mish'al, whom The Guardian informs us is head of the political bureau of Hamas, but neglects to mention that he is one of Israel's most wanted terrorists (hat tip Conservajew). Mish'al assures us:

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people. [emphasis added]

The nonsense about "peace and harmony" is easily disproved by the documentation at jewishvirtuallibrary.org that gives a history of the Moslem persecution of Jews.

As a side note: to minimize the history of Moslem persecution and murder of Jews by contrasting it to the Holocaust is like pointing to the murder of over 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 and ignoring the non-Moslems murdered and injured by Islamists in 2005 alone in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Chechnya, Dagestan, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kabardino-Balk., Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine (Jebaliya and Gaza City), Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, UK, and Yemen.

Numbers alone are not the issue--it is the persistant hatred, persecution and murder by Islamists.

(Actually, if we count only non-Moslems the number is less since we would have to exclude the Palestinian Arabs killed by Hamas in 2 "work accidents".)

In any case, while it is awfully nice of Mish'al to bring up how Jews are refered to as "the people of the book" in Islam, he does seem to have forgotten that based on the Koran, Moslem clerics teach that the Jews Are the descendants of apes, pigs, and other animals--as documented by MEMRI.

One last point made by Mish'al--that Jews are to be respected and protected. The typical reader of the article might assume that the protection Mish'al is refering to is from outsiders; actually it is protection from the Moslems themselves. The American Thinker points to an interview last year with yet another Hamas spokesman:

Interviewed by Wall Street Journal reporter Karby Legget (and published in the December 23-26 edition The Wall Street Journal), Hassam El-Masalmeh, who heads the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, confirmed the organizations plan to re-institute the humiliating jizya, a blood ransom Qur’anic poll-tax (based on Qur’an sura [chapter] 9, verse 29), levied traditionally on non-Muslims vanquished by jihad, and forced to live under Islamic Law (the Shari’a). Under the Sharia’s regulations, either the non-Muslim infidels must convert to Islam, or they pay the jizya—classically, in a humiliating public ceremony which often involved blows to the head or neck—and their life and belongings are protected. The nature of such “protection” is clarified in this definition of jizya by the seminal Arabic lexicographer, E.W. Lane, based on a careful analysis of the etymology of the term:

The tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain.

Mish'al is merely giving Jews an invitation to go back in time to classical Islam when non-Moslems, Jews and Christians, were treated as second-class citizens--dhimmis.

As long as there are Western leaders and journalists who are predisposed towards a positive or sympathetic view of Islamist terrorists in their guise as freedom-fighters or politicians, it becomes that much easier for Hamas to pursue their goals. After the obligatory expressions of shock and disapproval are done with, excuses can always be found by the West to pursue policies that ultimately will do no one but Hamas any good. Just watch.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Hamas and terrorists and Dhimmis.

These Pirates Didn't Sing Opera

I pray you, pardon me, ex-Pirate King!
Peers will be peers, and youth will have its fling.
The Pirates of Penzance

In an article appearing on National Review Online, Joshua E. London writes about the first case of an unprovoked attack on Americans by Muslim terrorists under the protection of Arab dictators--when Thomas Jefferson dealt with the Barbary pirates:

The Barbary states, modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, are collectively known to the Arab world as the Maghrib (“Land of Sunset”), denoting Islam’s territorial holdings west of Egypt. With the advance of Mohammed’s armies into the Christian Levant in the seventh century, the Mediterranean was slowly transformed into the backwater frontier of the battles between crescent and cross. Battles raged on both land and sea, and religious piracy flourished.

The Maghrib served as a staging ground for Muslim piracy throughout the Mediterranean, and even parts of the Atlantic. America’s struggle with the terror of Muslim piracy from the Barbary states began soon after the 13 colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776, and continued for roughly four decades, finally ending in 1815.

One of the key points London makes is to focus on the reason behind the ongoing conflict between these Moslems on the one hand and the US--which did not understand the reason for the attacks in the first place. The answer to that question was later explained at a meeting:

the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.” [emphasis added]

Based on this, Mr. London makes what should be a point well taken but one that will undoubtedly ignored anyway:

Note that America’s Barbary experience took place well before colonialism entered the lands of Islam, before there were any oil interests dragging the U.S. into the fray, and long before the founding of the state of Israel. [emphasis added]

True, Israel holds a special place in the hearts of Moslems, in part as the dhimmis that got away and are now the equals--and more--of the one-time Moslem empire.

After all, while Moslems are fond of pointing to "Palestine" as occupied territory, they tend to gloss over the history of the Moslem attempted expansion which started from the originally Christian areas of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa, and invadedRussia, Belgrade, Spain, Budapest, and Vienna, France and Iceland--before the Moslem invaders were repulsed. (see Israeli Occupation? Moslems Are Just Being Modest) The Crusades were a reaction to Moslem imperialism, a piece of history that seems to get forgotten.

Daniel Johnson, a senior editor and columnist for the London Times and Daily Telegraph, and currently a columnist for the New York Sun writes in How To Think About The Crusades:

In that larger perspective, they take their place as a short-lived counteroffensive against another, much lengthier, and much more relentless holy war — namely, the Muslim jihad against Christendom. For the fact is that whereas the Crusades were a temporary phenomenon that flourished for some two centuries and had quite limited purposes, jihad is and has been a permanent and ubiquitous fact of Islamic life.

Jihad evolved into a doctrine of Islamic jurisprudence as a byproduct of the great Arab expansion after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, thus predating the First Crusade by more than four centuries. Muslim scholars were well aware of the uniqueness of this institution. Ibn Khaldun, the greatest of all Islamic historians and a key witness from the period just after the Crusades, compares Islam with Christianity and Judaism in this respect:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force… . The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense.

But today, past history amounts to little. Quoting Santayana is droll. The Crusades were evil. The Moslems were victims--and don't even mention the 'C' word, lest you offend. Meanwhile, the Barbary pirates are forgotten. Moslems are not all evil, but without the viewpoint of history we are being led to the belief that the West, and Israel, is.

As long as millions of dollars are being offered to universities to offer even more courses on Islam, isn't it about time to finally have an honest presentation of Islam and Islamic history--warts and all--instead of babying those who claim that Islam and Moslems are just being misunderstood. It's time for Islamic studies not only to grow but also grow up.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tags: Israel and Islam and Crusades.