re: "Raymond Ibrahim: The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests"

Raymond at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") provided some historical context that contrasts with today's bland pronouncements.

Money quote(s):

"Few events of history are so well documented and attested to as are these conquests, which commenced soon after the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (632) and tapered off circa 750. Large swathes of the Old World—from the India in the east, to Spain in the west—were conquered and consolidated by the sword of Islam during this time.

By the standards of history, the reality of these conquests is unassailable, for history proper concerns itself with primary sources; and the Islamic conquests are thoroughly documented. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of primary source materials we rely on do not come from non-Muslims, who might be accused of bias. Rather, the foremost historians bequeathing to posterity thousands of pages of source materials documenting the Islamic conquests were not only Muslims themselves; they were—and still are—regarded by today’s Muslims as pious and trustworthy scholars (generically, the ulema)."

&

"It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.638), for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the “Muslim world.”

According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed."

What is today called the "Muslim world" was once, variously, the Roman- and Byzantine Christian Mediterranean world and the Persian empire.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis,” paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death.

Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

Ironically, these exceptions are now portrayed as the rule in America’s classrooms, as many textbooks suggest or at least imply that most people who converted to Islam did so under no duress, but rather through peaceful contacts with merchants and traders; that they eagerly opted to convert to Islam for the religion’s intrinsic appeal, without noting the many debilitations conquered non-Muslims avoided—extra taxes, second-rate social status, enforced humiliation, etc.—by converting to Islam. In fact, in the first century, and due to these debilitations, many conquered peoples sought to convert to Islam only to be rebuffed by the caliphate, which preferred to keep them as subdued—and heavily taxed—subjects, not as Muslim equals."

Pillage, booty, slaves, and taxes. And all to the greater glory, &tc.

"The dissimulation of how Islam was spread in the early centuries contained in Western textbook’s mirrors the way the word jihad, once inextricable to the conquests, has also been recast. Whereas the word jihad has throughout the centuries simply meant armed warfare on behalf of Islam, in recent years, American students have been taught the Sufi interpretation of jihad—Sufis make up perhaps one percent of the Islamic world and are often seen as heretics with aberrant interpretations—which portrays jihad as a “spiritual-struggle” against one’s vices."

And yet "jihad = inner spiritual struggle" is now the textbook answer throughout the military and the IC, and said with a straight fact to boot!

To aid in the disorientation, while Pres. Bush can not be seen by the current administration to have done anything right, ever, his pronouncing that "Islam is a religion of peace" is accepted without a twitch. Weird.

"(T)he Islamic conquests narrated in the Muslim histories often mirror the doctrinal obligations laid out in Islam’s theological texts—the Koran and Hadith. Muslim historians often justify the actions of the early Islamic invaders by juxtaposing the jihad injunctions found in Islamic scriptures."

&

"In closing, the fact of the Muslim conquests, by all standards of history, is indisputable. Accordingly, just as less than impressive aspects of Western and Christian history, such as the Inquisition or conquest of the Americas, are regularly taught in U.S. textbooks, so too should the Muslim conquests be taught, without apology or fear of being politically incorrect. This is especially so because it concerns history—which has a way of repeating itself when ignored, or worse, whitewashed." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

3/1

re: "Timeless Islamo-Realism from Princeton’s Patricia Crone"

Andrew Bostom ("Uncreated, Uncreative Words") relayed some highlights of Patricia Crone.

Money quote(s):

"“Muhammad’s God elevated [this] tribal militance and rapaciousness into supreme religious virtues…In short, Muhammad had to conquer, his followers liked to conquer, and his deity told him to conquer: do we need any more?” "

In short, he told them what he knew they'd want to hear.

"Muhammad’s God endorsed a policy on conquest, instructing his believers to fight against unbelievers wherever they might be found…Arab soldiers were told on the eve of the battle of Qadisiyya [as recorded by the great Muslim historian Tabari], with reference to Iraq; ‘if you hold out…then their property, their women, their children, and their country will be yours.’ God could scarcely have been more explicit. He told the Arabs that they had a right to despoil others of their women, children, and land, or indeed they had a duty to do so: holy war consisted in obeying."

This predates the modern entitlement state by a millenia, but the underlying principle remains the same: you owe me what I want because I want it.

10/16

re: "Why Will It End?"

Zenster guest-posts the second essay of a three part series at Gates of Vienna ("At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.We are in a new phase of a very old war.").

Money quote(s):

"Why Will it End?

Short answer ― Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it.

Tragically, for Islam there is no possibility of a happy ending. It has often been said that the only peace which Islam ― famously known as “The Religion of Peace” ― offers anyone is the peace of the grave."

Islam means "submission" (to the will of Allah). Which is not how CAA defines "peace." Especially when said will tends to interpreted (and enforced) on the ground by what is essentially mob rule.

"The Islamic concept of takfir (“impure”), literally assures this in that a more devout Muslim is religiously sanctioned for killing a less pure Muslim. This lack of purity could be interpreted as someone who does not pray all five times a day or consumes food during daylight hours over the course of Ramadan. The possible paths descending into Islamic “impurity” are as numerous as they are varied and it is an ironclad guarantee that Islam will always be torn by internecine violence.

Exacerbating this situation is the West’s collective inability to discern Islam in general and why there is so little hope for it. It echoes the ancient parable about a group of blind men describing an elephant." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Islam just seems so far away, for most folks. Even those Americans who've had the most exposure to it, our men and women in uniform, have to travel for days before they encounter it. And when they do, it's in environments that seem more like something out of Star Wars or John Carter on Mars than the Planet Earth they're accustomed to.

So until that halal shop or mosque opens up on your block, it's hard to believe islam has much to do with the West.

It's like war, in that way. You may not have much interest in it, but it's very interested in you.

"Islam is so voluminous and just sufficiently varied enough that it seems to defy description. This is especially so for the less informed who can but bear shocked witness to the endless discord and bloodshed that pervades the Islamic world."

Again, it appears to most Westerners as something you see on TV, like a movie or something that's not quite real. Until it is.

"Islam has routinely slithered away from history’s spotlight as the cause of ruined civilizations, genocides, mass enslavements and untold human suffering which transcend anything Europe or America ever aspired to in their wildest dreams.

Islam also manifests as a flag around which this world’s criminal elements continue to rally under a banner of religiously sanctioned murder, rape, pedophilia, looting and thieving which, terrorism aside ― as if that was even possible ― fills police blotters and drains global coffers with an almost enviable consistency unmatched by all but the most accomplished career politicians. Like any wall, Islam continually and everywhere builds enclaves which exclude unbelievers within their own domains and barricades Muslims from influences both external and even the threat of internal “westernization” that just as often sees young Muslim women murdered by their own families in so-called “honor killings”."

These would be some of those uncomfortable (even "inconvenient") truths that don't become apparent until it's much too late. Unless, of course, one reads history and pays attention to the news that's not on their local TV station.

"Islamic hijra has thrust Muslims deep within Western civilization only see them infect every last institution with their steady subversion of Constitutional rights and basic liberties. Hackneyed cries of “racism” and “Islamophobia” ― as if a fear of Islam could ever be irrational ― are trotted out in response to every legitimate criticism of Islam; even as Muslims set about stifling free speech and freedom of expression around the world." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

This is why "Exhibit 3-85" (from the Holy Land Foundation trial) should be required reading.

(Don't be afraid; the English translation starts about midway down the document, p. 15.)

"Compounding all of this havoc are the Islamic “principles” of kitman and taqiyya. They amount to religiously sanctioned deceit and outright lying. As if this were not bad enough, the situation is further exacerbated by Mainstream Media’s adamant refusal to provide accurate and unbiased reporting about Islam’s seditious goal of toppling Constitutional democracies throughout the West.

Islam remains a predatory entity that has not been able to establish any self-sustaining degree of industry or technology for almost a millennium. It has relied upon piracy and looting for nearly the entire span of its existence." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The Islam "package" of the koran, sharia law, and the various elements of Arabic cultural imperialism that accompany it can be seen as somewhat like a computer program or even a computer virus. The multiple memes and re-inforcing behaviors comprise a sort of meta-meme that acts (and re-acts) to extend the area and population under its sway. In a sense, it's frankly an amazing and elegant piece of business.

"One immense irony is that ― despite Islam’s aspirations for a global caliphate ― it is unhealthy for too many unbelievers to be converted into Muslims. Once this happens, the jizya (“poll tax”) can no longer be collected, nor can possessions, businesses or estates be confiscated so readily. There have already occurred phases in Islamic history where further conversion of natives living in occupied lands was discouraged as it interfered with the appropriation of wealth that is central to financing more jihad. It is also vital to remember that any refusal to pay the jizya is punishable by immediate death.

Conversely, there is a twin principal to jizya known as hijra which derives from the Arabic word for “migration” or “flight”. In this case, it is a that strategy involves flooding Muslim immigrants into those Western nations which cannot be overcome militarily. Displaying a regular pattern of behavior, these new arrivals ― in strict accord with Islamic law ― refuse to assimilate or integrate and form exclusively Muslim enclaves while gradually instituting shari’a law whenever possible.

This form of demographic warfare is commonly known as “stealth” or “soft” jihad and it is the strategy of choice for many within Islam who seek to conquer the West."

Again, Exhibit 3-85 invites much closer reading. Zenster isn't just making this stuff up out of hairballs.

"This is nothing other than a process of colonization and it is reflected in how non-Muslims are routinely driven out of these enclaves through threats of violence, boycotts and extortion. Furthermore, when a sufficient population density is attained, even visiting non-Muslims are subjected to physical assault and threats of violence should they stray into one of these “no-go zones”. Due to Islamic polygamy, such population densities arrive far sooner than typical demographics for the host nations involved.

Once established, there begins a process of draining financial support from local or central government. This is in addition to criminal predation upon surrounding neighborhoods in the form of robbery, theft and extortion. Due to purdah ― the confinement and isolation of Muslim women ― typically there is a surge in the pimping, sexual assault and rape of non-Muslim women in areas around these enclaves. Minors are especially vulnerable to this because of how Islam regards Mohammad’s marriage to his six year-old child bride, Aisha, as a model of perfect conduct. Central to any understanding of Islam is that this entire process is one of obtaining tribute (jizya) from unbelievers.

This tribute is regarded as being their automatic due in that Muslims consider themselves to be the world’s Master Race. A proper understanding of Islam cannot be had without recognizing this one central point." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

9/21

re: "Does the acquittal of Geert Wilders signal a changing Netherlands?"

Robert Zeliger at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors Of Foreign Policy") marked a significant development in Holland.

Money quote(s):

"The Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders has called the Quran a "fascist book" that ought to be banned. He has referred to the Prophet Mohammed as "the devil," and said all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be stopped and immigrants currently there should be paid to leave. He's said women who wear the hijab should have to pay a tax and if Muslims continue immigrating, it would mean the end "European and Dutch civilization as we know it.""

Clearly offensive speech (at least to Muslims, and certainly at least some others) but Constitutionally-protected speech in an American context. It's nice to see this sort of thing (free speech, that is) catch on in foreign parts.

"(H)e was acquitted on charges of inciting racial hatred."

If a member of parliament can't speak freely, what hope is there for the average citizen?

"(T)he truth is that the social and political ground have been shifting in the supposedly tolerant society for years. Last year, Wilders's Party for Freedom won 15 percent of the vote in national elections, making it the third largest in parliament. And his ideas are slowly creeping into mainstream politics: The Netherlands has some of the strictest immigration laws in Europe, and has banned face-covering attire like the niqab.

The current government depends on Wilders and his party to remain in power. Though not formally part of government, they are at the very least a silent partner. Without their votes, the minority-government wouldn't be able to pass its legislation."

Good political analysis, answering the question: "So what?"

"Wilders's judge today said that while some of his statements were "crude and denigrating," they were nevertheless protected speech. But the decision might widen the scope of the debate on multiculturalism in Dutch society, and embolden Wilders to take his anti-Islam and anti-immigration crusade further."

Widening "the scope of the debate on multiculturalism" should be considered a feature, not a bug. Why should a social construct or consensus (which is apparently far from universally held) be exempt from debate?

re: "Muslim Rape Culture and Lara Logan"

Daniel Greenfield at Right Side News ("The Right News for Americans") puts the assault on Lara Logan into cultural and historical context.

Money quote(s):

"When Lara Logan traveled to Egypt to cover the Tahrir Square protests, she was unaware that she was going to be working in a country where sexual harassment rates of women and especially foreign women are so high as to be universal. In a politically correct profession, such truths are politically incorrect. And even now all of the coverage studiously avoids mentioning one dangerous word. Islam.

Muslim rape culture did not begin in Tahrir Square and it won't end there. Not when it actually began in the year 624 when Mohammed came up with an ingenious means of rewarding his followers. In addition to the trophies of war, he made it legal for them to capture and rape married women.

Previously that would have been considered adultery. Now it was an incentive to become one of Islam's Holy Warriors. It doesn't take much to imagine how ugly and awful the camp of Mohammed's followers was for a woman. That's why the Burka was invented."

Sex slavery. It's not a bug: it's a feature.

"In a tribal society, rape is a crime against property and honor. To a father, his daughter's virginity is a valuable item that increases her market value. Marrying her off is way to build a relationship between two families. To a husband, his wife's chastity maintains the value of his property and insures that the offspring is his. To assault a woman is to commit a crime against the communal property of a family. But a woman herself has no rights over her body that any man is bound to respect. As Lara Logan discovered in Tahrir Square."

Once upon a time I held to the theory that the Old Testament was a useful cultural survival manual for a herding and farming culture a couple of thousand years ago. And by "cultural survival manual" I meant that it was a manual which, if followed by a culture, would enable it to survive as a culture.

The Koran, in some respects, is a similar work. Only the type of culture whose survival (and expansion) it instructs is somewhat different.

Of course, since most of the West trends (or used to) towards the Christendom end of Judeo-Christianity, the New Testament's supercession of the Old Testament frees the Western world from an outdated model that would encourage cultural stasis.

(But I'm no theologian.)

"Like all social rules, they don't apply equally. The daughter of a wealthy and westernized urban family will enjoy an immunity from them, that the daughter of a poor family in a village will not. The wealthy daughter will attend the London School of Economics, use Twitter and serve as an example that her country and Islam are really very liberated. The poor daughter will be a second wife to some bored fat merchant and be considered lucky if he doesn't beat her to death when she loses her looks.

Meanwhile the young men will roam the streets bored and frustrated. They will steal anything not nailed down, join protests and sexually harass women. When Western reporters poured into Cairo to report on a pro-democracy movement, they surrounded themselves with what they thought were pro-democracy protesters. What they were actually doing was walking into one of the largest overcrowded cities in the world, where gangs of protesters had smashed the police, and created an open state of anarchy. Muslim rape culture did the rest.

As far as her attackers were concerned, Lara Logan had no rights they were bound to respect. She wasn't the wife or daughter of anyone they knew. She wasn't even a Muslim. They had no bond of kinship with her. Which meant that just like the uncovered in Mohammed's camp, she didn't belong to anyone. And that meant she was fair game."

Political correctness blinded media personalities like Lara Logan (and others) to the real dangers to be found in a Middle Eastern city during an uprising. I'm just glad she wasn't more badly injured.

"In Muslim rape culture, a woman cannot actively decline a man. She can only passively demonstrate that she is off limits by defeminizing herself. Lara Logan hadn't done that. But even if she had, it wouldn't have done much good. Previous gang assaults on women in Cairo a few years back had targeted even those covered from head to toe. To add fuel to the fire, came the chants of, "Yahood, Yahood." "Jew, Jew". Mohammed's ruling had made it legal to capture and rape Jewish women. The association may not have been directly made, but indirectly it was there. Lara Logan had been marked as a member of an enemy tribe.

The reasoning is awkward, but Islamic jurisprudence is the product of such awkwardness. It derives from the will of Mohammed whose only consistent principle was to do whatever he wanted. As a prophet he frequently made and broke his own laws, and then made new ones. Four witnesses are required for an act of sexual immorality, because at one point three witnesses accused Mohammed's own wife of such an act. Prior to that Mohammed had taken action based only on a single witness.

Mohammed modified the law to allow him to marry his son's wife and to shift the turns of his own wives. After Mohammed had received another urgent 'revelation' allowing him to do as he sexually pleased, his wife Aisha said, "O Allah's Apostle I do not see but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you." There you find the whole of Islamic jurisprudence. It was a code that existed only to please Mohammed's sexual impulses."

_____

Hat tip to Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings ("Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!").

re: "Ground Zero Imam: Islam is a Religion of Peaceful People Who Fly Off the Handle Over Mere Speech"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") is watching the pre-game before the King hearings.

Money quote(s):

"Mind you, they haven’t actually happened yet, but for some reason the mere fact he going to have some kind of hearings justifies shutting it down. Why? Because his utterly peaceful co-religionists might go all terrorist over this."

What's that cliche from the first few months after 9/11? Something like: if you shut down the hearings then the terrorists win.

"I have long identified this as freeloading on terrorism, where a supposed “moderate” Muslim tells those of us in the West, don’t draw cartoons of Mohammed (pedophilia be upon him), don’t criticize his faith and so on. Because, you know, if you do, one of us Muslims are going to go and commit terrorism.

In short, don’t actually exercise and enjoy your freedom. Live your lives limited by intimidation. And then we will get along famously."

Nice little Bill of Rights you've got there, be a shame if anything happened to it.

"(I)nstead of trying to talk us out of exercising our freedom, if you really think your co-religionists can’t be expected to control themselves, why don’t you work on that instead? That seems like the bigger problem to me.

It comes down to this. Either Islam is compatible with freedom or it is not."

That is the key question. We already know that the Judeo-Christian West is compatible with freedom, because they essentially invented it. And they're not exactly stingy about franchising either.

"(I)f you can’t expect Muslims to deal with criticism, blasphemy, etc. without going on a killing spree, then Islam is not compatible with American freedom. And I don’t think you want to see where that road takes us.

But I know for a fact this isn’t true. I know of and work with Muslims every day who would never resort to violence over that kind of thing. They rightly consider statements like Imam Feisel’s as a betrayal of those millions of good Muslims who believe in freedom and Allah.

But it is hypocritical, Imam Feisel, to try to reap the benefits of terrorism without admitting responsibility for terrorism. It is hypocritical to pretend to denounce terrorism while simultaneously enabling it. And It is hypocritical to say that your people will murder over mere words, but to simultaneously pretend that Islam is not a problem in America."

One of the strengths of Western Civilization is its reverence for reason, for working things out, and for being unwilling to overlong tolerate the holding of mutually exclusive ideas and ideals. It took nearly a century and then the bloodiest of civil wars but the United States worked out the slavery vs. all-men-are-created-equal inconsistency. (It only took another century to get to the Civil Rights Act that took that logical contradiction another lap closer to resolution.)

So given our history, Americans aren't all that likely to be unendingly patient with this sort of cognitive dissonance.

S&S - Danish leader chosen for top NATO post

Stars and Stripes



Danish leader chosen for top NATO post


By Kevin Dougherty, Stars and Stripes

Mideast edition, Sunday, April 5, 2009


STRASBOURG, France — As summits go, this weekend’s gathering of NATO members seemed especially productive, with the alliance addressing a number of issues, from Afghanistan to the selection of a new secretary general.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The annual North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting of heads of state tapped Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to lead the alliance. He will succeed Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in August."

&

"Turkish officials were said to have been against his appointment for his alleged refusal to rebuke the 2005 publication of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, which many Muslims found offensive. In response to a question about the supposed controversy, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Rasmussen "a democrat" and said there was "no reason for pre-conceived notions" about the Dane and his views toward Muslims or their revered prophet. "