timeimmortal

Islamist blogger Shaukat Khawja really, really doesn’t like Jews — so much so, in fact, that he would rather that Theodor Herzl’s proposal that all Jews convert (or be converted) to Christianity had gone through back in its day.

Got that? A radical Muslim so hates the Jews that he would rather they had all been converted into infidel Christians, instead of being allowed to remain Jews.

And why?

Speaks Shaukat:

The history of the world would have been so peacefully different if the propsed mass Baptism of European Jewry had gone through.

Because clearly, Jews are responsible for all the wars of the world, right?

How much more true would Shaukat’s statement be, I wonder, were it modified to allow for the possibility that Muhammad had been killed in a tribal skirmish just prior to his first “visitation” from whatever demonic entity decided to temporarily assume the identity of Gabriel?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Update - the Meltdown: I seem to have touched a nerve, as Shaukat has now done two things. He had begun by demonstrating the maturity I have come to expect from him now, on par with that of a twelve-year-old casting angry aspersions from atop a playground. But following that up, he says a couple of…well, to be honest, his statements are gems in their own right.

For example:

Without going into Biblical treatment of Jews, which quotes contempt coming from Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul - I wonder why Jews were expelled from almost every European country — England topping the list — expulsion of Jews for almost 350 years. Could it be interpreted as a sign of Christians’ love or hatred towards Jews - and for what reasons???

Poor grammar aside, it is interesting that Shaukat chose to mention Moses — the man who, arguably, was the instrument by which God established the foundations of Judaism — as an example of one who has only demonstrated “contempt” for Jews. I suppose a narrow reading of, for example, the Book of Exodus could lead one to think that, since Moses does spend quite a bit of time castigating the Hebrew people for their sinfulness.

But then, the Hebrew people did sinful things in the desert, not the least of which was to build a golden calf and worship it. Humanity as a whole regularly sins, and periodically needs to be corrected, sometimes harshly. Certainly, Jesus and St. Paul both give example of this, as did Moses in his day.

Following Shaukat’s odd statement, though, is a list of dates in history that supposedly demonstrate Christian persecution of Jews. And, to be fair, many of the dates he lists do in fact accurately mention instances of persecution of Jews by Christian religious authorities. Other dates he lists, however, do not belong on the list.
Read the rest of this entry »

And a good thing it is that we did. In theory, the Durban conference is supposed to be a “World Conference Against Racism“, but in practice it turned into an exercise in the very thing it purportedly was convened to oppose.

The so-called Durban II conference “has gone completely off the rails” and Canada wants no part of it, said Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity.

“Canada is interested in combatting Racism, not promoting it,” Mr. Kenney told The Canadian Press. “We’ll attend any conference that is opposed to racism and intolerance, not those that actually promote racism and intolerance.

“Our considered judgment, having participated in the preparatory meetings, was that we were set for a replay of Durban I. And Canada has no intention of lending its good name and resources to such a systematic promotion of hatred and bigotry.”

The 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban turned into “a circus of intolerance,” Mr. Kenney said.

One government official on Wednesday called the conference “a gong show.”

Arab and Muslim countries ganged up in their criticisms of Israel. Israel and the United States walked out in protest; the Liberal government of the day remained in an effort to decry the attacks.

With Libya elected to chair the next gathering, Cuba appointed vice-chair and rapporteur, and anti-Israel rhetoric and actions building, Mr. Kenney said his government was left with no choice but to abandon the preparatory process for the followup meeting.

Canada applauded the government, saying Durban I “degenerated into a hate-fest directed at Israel and the Jewish delegates attending the conference.”

The group’s executive vice-president, Frank Dimant, said Ottawa has acted “clearly and decisively by refusing to participate in a venue that pays lip service to anti-racism but in fact provides a platform for the promotion of hatred and bigotry.”

You know, it really is so true, what RightGirl notes: every day that we have a Conservative government, Canada embarrasses me a little less. That’s not to say that ’s government has a perfect track record (far from it, to be sure!), but it is to say that I can’t recall times under past Canadian governments in which I have felt genuine pride at being Canadian. All too often under the Liberals, it seemed that the definition of what was Canada consisted of little more than syncophantic adoration of the UN and all its initiatives. I like that under the Conservatives, Canada is a global player that isn’t afraid to act in its own interests, or in the interests of one or two of the nations it regards as allies, even if it means snubbing other nations or transnational bodies in the process.

And this is a principled rejection that has taken place here. The UN has become the playground of thug states and third-world tinpot dictators; any organization that lets Libya (of all places!) chair a conference about human rights, racism, or pretty much any other issue is not worth the time it takes to acknowledge its existence.

I’m thinking that Philip Carl Salzman’s article may see its author charged with a hate crime before too long.

Today’s religious map of the Middle East traces to the unification of the Arabian tribes under the banner of Islam in the 7th century, and their subsequent conquest of much of the known world. Muhammad’s genius was in finding a way to unite the myriad of fissiparous, feuding Bedouin tribes of northern Arabia into a cohesive polity. Just as he had provided a constitution of rules under which the people of Medina could live together, so he provided a constitution for all Arabs, but this one had the imprimatur not just of Muhammad, but of God. Submission — Islam — to God and His rules, spelled out in the Koran, bound Arabian tribesmen into the community of believers, the umma.

Building on the tribal system of “balanced opposition” — the subject of yesterday’s essay — Muhammad was able to frame an inclusive structure within which the tribes had a common, God-given identity as Muslims. But unification was only possible by creating a tribalized enemy against which Muslims could make common cause. This Muhammad did by opposing Muslims against infidels; and the dar al-Islam, the land of Islam and peace, against the dar al-harb, the land of infidels and conflict. Through the precepts of Islam, traditional Bedouin raiding was sanctified as an act of religious duty.

With every successful battle against local unbelievers, especially after the critical early battle against the Meccans, more Bedouin joined the umma. Once united, the Bedouin warriors of the umma turned outward, teaching the world the meaning of jihad, holy war. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Arabs, in lightning thrusts, challenged and beat the Byzantines to the north and the Persians to the east, both weakened by their continuous wars with one another, thus imposing their control over the Christian majority in the Levant and the Zoroastrian majority in Persia, and therefore over the entire Middle East. These stunning successes were rapidly followed by conquests of Christian and Jewish populations in Egypt, Libya and North Africa’s Maghreb (Arabic for “the West”), and, in the east, central Asia and the Hindu population of northern India. Not content with these triumphs, Arab armies invaded and subdued much of Christian Spain and Portugal, and all of Sicily. Since the Roman Empire, the world had not seen such power and reach. All fell before the Saracen blades.

Most accounts of Islamic history, even that of the Lindholm’s esteemed The Islamic Middle East, glide over these conquests, as if they were friendly takeovers. But the truth was very different.

The evidence is overwhelming that vast numbers of infidel male warriors and civilians were slain, and that most of those spared, particularly the women and children, were enslaved for domestic and sexual servitude. While men who willingly converted were spared, their wives and children were taken as slaves. In conquered regions, children were regularly taken from parents, while on the borders — especially in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Africa south of the Sahara — raiding for slaves was normal practice. Of the male slaves, a substantial number were made eunuchs by the removal of sex organs, in order to serve in harems. This account of the Arab campaign in northern India illustrates the usual procedures:

“During the Arab invasion of Sindh (712 CE), Muhammad bin Qasim first attacked Debal. It was garrisoned by 4,000 Kshatriya soldiers and served by 3,000 Brahmans. All males of the age of 17 and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved. “[Seven hundred] beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh (that is, had taken shelter in the temple), were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels.” Muhammad dispatched one-fifth of the legal spoil to Hajjaj, which included 75 damsels, the other four-fifths were distributed among soldiers.”

The multitude of reports from Muslim, indigenous and other sources of the Islamic conquests are equally detailed and equally daunting to a modern reader. It is true that throughout history intergroup relations in most of the world were exploitative and repressive, and not infrequently brutal and bloodthirsty. The world of Islam was not so much an exception to this, as exemplary of it.

The theological foundation of the Arab Empire was the supremacy of Islam and the obligation of each Muslim to advance its domination. The notion of Jihad, in particular, served to establish the Muslim community’s permanent state of war against the dar al-harb until the infidels’ conclusive submission and the absolute world supremacy of Islam.

Yet even as Islamic armies were coming to dominate the known world, fissures emerged within Islam, which would give rise to the bloody internecine battles that continue to this day in Iraq and elsewhere.

Most notably, the relentless oppositions within tribal life have been reflected on a large scale in the battles between Sunni vs. Shiite, a battle originating in a squabble between closely related kin groups over the leadership of the Islamic empire following Muhammad’s death. Their divergent philosophical orientations are based on two tribal principles: Sunnism recognizes leaders based on consent; Shiism recognizes leaders based on descent. The continued anatagonism between the two groups constitutes one of the many ways in which the tribal spirit continues its dominance in the Middle East.

The history of the Middle East, and of Islam, is fascinating, but it is also blood-soaked beyond even the wildest excesses of the Crusades (although it admittedly pales in comparison to the body-counts of the Soviets and the Chinese). But we may yet see a day come in Canada where it is a punishable offence to even mention that fact. Until then, though, I’ve re-posted the length of Salzman’s article here, because it contains in it too much detail to pass up losing once the National Post website cycles it out of the archive.

Blog as newspaper clipping folder.