The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Is ISIS Faithful to Islam?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“We are not at war with Islam,” said John Kasich after the Brussels massacre, “We’re at war with radical Islam.”

Kasich’s point raises a question: Does the Islamic faith in any way sanction or condone what those suicide bombers did?

For surely the brothers and their accomplice who ignited the bombs in the airport and set off the explosion on the subway did not do so believing they were blasting themselves to hell for all eternity.

One has to assume they hoped to be martyrs to their faith if they slaughtered infidels to terrify and expel such as these from the Islamic world and advance the coming of the caliphate of which the Prophet preached.

And where might they have gotten such ideas?

Kasich’s word, radical, comes from the Latin “radix,” or root.

And if one returns to the roots of Islam, to the Quran, does one find condemnation of what the brothers did — or justification?

Andrew McCarthy was the prosecutor of the “Blind Sheikh” whose terrorist cell tried to bring down a World Trade Center tower in 1993, and plotted bombings in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels.

The U.S. government depicted the sheikh as a wanton killer who distorted the teachings of his faith.

Yet, McCarthy discovered that Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was no imposter-imam, but “a globally renowned scholar — a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium.”

Seeking to expose the sheikh as a fraud who had led his gullible followers into terrorism, against the tenets of their faith, McCarthy discovered that “Abdel Rahman was not lying about Islam.”

“When he said the scriptures command that Muslims strike terror into the hearts of Islam’s enemies, the scriptures backed him up. When he said Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law was established throughout the world, the scriptures backed him up.”

“[T]he Blind Sheikh’s summons to Islam was rooted in a coherent interpretation of Islamic doctrine. He was not perverting Islam,” writes McCarthy in the Hillsdale College letter Imprimis. McCarthy goes on:

“Islam is not a religion of peace. … Verses such as ‘Fight those who believe not in Allah,’ and ‘Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war’ are not peaceful injunctions….”

In its formative first century, Islam conquered the Middle and Near East, North Africa and Spain with sword and slaughter, not persuasion and conversion.

Undeniably, there are millions of Muslims in America who love this country and have served it in every walk of life, from cops, firemen and soldiers, to doctors, scholars and clergy.

Yet when “moderate, peaceful Muslims” were called to testify as defense witnesses, says McCarthy, they could not contradict the Blind Sheikh’s claim that he had correctly interpreted the Quran.

The questions that arise are crucial.

ORDER IT NOW

When we call Islam a “religion of peace,” are we projecting our own hopes? Are we deceiving ourselves? Are the Muslims we respect, admire and like, as friends and patriots, assimilated and “Americanized” Muslims who have drifted away from, set aside, or rejected many core beliefs of the Quran and root teachings of their own faith?

Are they simply secularized Muslims?

When the Afghan regime we installed sought to cut off the head of a Christian convert, was that un-Islamic? Or does Islam teach that this is the way to deal with apostates?

Is the hate spewing forth from the Ayatollah toward Americans and Jews un-Islamic? Is the Saudis’ cutting off of heads and hands of adulterers and thieves and suppressing of women un-Islamic?

Or is that what the Quran actually teaches?

Have the Islamists of al-Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, al-Qaida and ISIS in Syria and Iraq — who daily die fighting in the name of Islam — misread their sacred texts?

Are they all heretics who fail to understand the peaceful and loving character of their Islamic faith?

Or is the West deluding itself? Is it possible we are the ones misreading the sacred books of Islam and what the triumph of Islam would mean for our civilization — because we lack the courage to face the truth and do what is necessary to avoid our fate?

Islam is rising again. Of its 1.6 billion adherents worldwide, many are returning to the roots of their faith, seeking to live their lives as commanded by the Prophet, the Quran and Sharia.

Western survival would seem to dictate a halt to all immigration from lands where this deadly virus we call “radical Islam” — with which Kasich concedes we are at war — is rampant, just as we would halt immigration from lands where the bubonic plague was rampant.

That would surely contradict the cherished beliefs of Western liberals.

But, then, as James Burnham reminded us, “Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: ISIS, Islam, Terrorism 
Hide 98 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. […] On Unz: is ISIS faithful to Islam? […]

  2. consonantes says: • Website

    There has always been a link to blood from every religion on earth.
    No man kills without an order from “above”.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
  3. Rehmat says:

    “We are not at war with Islam,” said John Kasich after the Brussels massacre, “We’re at war with radical Islam.”

    Do bigots like Pat Buchanan and Kasich know what the so-called ‘Radical Islam’ means? I suggest they all learn the truth from FBI’s 2006 report that says that between 1990-2004 – Christian radicals (87%) and Jewish radicals (7%) were involved in terrorist activities on American soil than Muslim radical (6%).

    “The global war on terror cannot be won through counterterrorism alone…The immediate war goal must be to destroy militant Islam and the ultimate war goal the modernization of Islam,” – Dr. Daniel Pipes, the famous anti-Islam radical Jew, writing in ‘The Jerusalem Post’, April 6, 2004.

    The term “radical” has been applied to many people, who were considered threat to western colonization, such as Nelson Mandela, Rev. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, Sayyid Qutb, Dr. Ali Shari’ati (the Shia Qutb), Sayyid Maududi, Imam Khomeini, and others. However, now this term is being associated with any Muslim who dare to criticize foreign powers occupying traditionally Muslim lands especially the Zionist regime in Jewish occupied Palestine. The western historians never called Nazis as “Judeo-Christian radicals” or IRA as “Catholic radicals” or the Jewish terrorist groups which killed tens of thousands of Palestinian natives – as “Jew radicals”.

    Historically, many of Biblical prophets were “radicals” for challenging the status quo and taught against the corrupt and racist ruling classes – such as Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus – and of course the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who became “the living example of progressive, emancipatory radicalism,” – as described by Michael Hart in his book, ‘The 100″.

    So, in conclusion, the next time some jerk call you “a radical Muslim”; don’t apologize, be proud.

    There can never be peace in the world without justice. Everyone, including Muslims, need justice. But justice cannot be achieved without effort, both intellectual and physical. It involves challenging the power of the corrupt and greedy world elites, who do see Islam as a “radical” threat to their political, economic and cultural domination.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/04/02/nothing-wrong-being-a-radical-muslim/

  4. Marcus says:

    Islam is a silly and repugnant religion, but history shows that they aren’t much of a threat on their own unless we invite them in. The previous threat was Ottoman expansion, and even that was a case of mostly “white” converts using Western technology (the cannons that breached Constantinople’s walls were built by Germans).

  5. Kamran says:

    Very autistic article.

  6. @Rehmat

    between 1990-2004 – Christian radicals (87%) and Jewish radicals (7%) were involved in terrorist activities on American soil than Muslim radical (6%)

    Ok, Jews make up 2% of the US population, yet committed 7% of the terrorist acts. Muslims, in 2010, made up 0.9% of the US population and committed 6% of the terrorist acts. Seems like both groups are committing terrorism wildly out of proportion with their population and both groups need to be deported back to the Middle East.

    We don’t need Jews or Muslims in the US.

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @Rehmat
    , @Corvinus
  7. Muslims have every reason to fear being murdered by the Anglo/Zio Empire. You don’t need to read the Koran (or the Bible). You don’t need to consult ancient history. Just consider what has happened in Muslim nations since the Empire green lighted Saddam Hussein to attack Iran.

    Pat concludes that we should not accept immigrants from the greater ME. He is correct only because we have earned the enmity of Islam. His crack pot attack on Islam and the Koran is shameful and stupid.

  8. KenH says:
    @Chris Mallory

    You took the words out of my mouth. I’ll add that terrorism has been defined downward so that if some Christian spray paints the word “kike” or a swastika on the front of a Jewish Community Center then that’s “terrorism” even though the only thing hurt were Jewish sensibilities. I’m not aware of any cases of Christian “terrorism” in the U.S. where they are tormenting and killing Muslims, Jews or other non-Christians into accepting the word of Jesus Christ or over some perceived slight committed by those groups.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    , @Jeff77450
  9. Dave37 says:

    If Christians aren’t allowed to freely exist in the Middle East why should we let Moslems come to the Christian West which they often want to change into something like where they came from. Heck why try to save the Middle East at all, they’ll still sell their oil and buy more guns to kill each other until they become a threat to the rest of the world, at which point places like Russia and China will react, and they don’t pull their punches.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Talha
    , @Thirdeye
  10. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave37

    If Christians aren’t allowed to freely exist in the Middle East why should we let Moslems come to the Christian West which they often want to change into something like where they came from.

    If Muslim lands in the Middle East are ringed with Anglo zionist military bases and infiltrated with Anglo zionist spies and assassins, all in service of the goal of destabilizing their society, destroying their economy, changing their government and way of life, why should we not expect Muslims from that region to attempt to retaliate in kind?

    A = cause
    B = effect
    A comes before B

    Who invaded the other’s lands first, Anglo zionists to ME, or Muslims to USA?

    btw Christians have been proselytizing in the ME for several hundred years.

    When did Muslims start proselytizing the US?

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @KenH
  11. . . . why we Americans prayed on Friday night before the Yellowjackets took on the Eagles.

  12. Talha says:

    I am an avid reader of Mr. Buchanan, but when he writes on Islam, he seems out of his field. The nice thing though is that he himself does not state he is coming to any conclusions, he is merely posing rhetorical questions; I can respect that.

    Is ISIS Faithful to Islam?

    This is not a question for the layman (Muslim or not), this is a question of the gravest consequence and must be addressed to the top qualified Sunni scholars of the Muslim world that form the normative voice. In that case the odds are clearly against them; please name one body of traditional Sunni jurisprudence that has claimed them to be legitimate.

    And if one returns to the roots of Islam, to the Quran, does one find condemnation of what the brothers did — or justification?

    One will find both…just like one can find justification for drinking alcohol and its prohibition or prostrating to human beings; which is exactly the case against untrained/unqualified people delving into primary texts to derive rulings – it…is…deadly.

    Yet, McCarthy discovered that Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was no imposter-imam, but “a globally renowned scholar — a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium.”

    OK, so the one figure used to bolster the argument is a scholar who is considered the spiritual head of Gamaa Islamiyya [IG](a terrorist organization) . Furthermore, his graduate degree was in tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis) not usul al-fiqh (jurisprudence); which would qualify himm to give opinions on things like why a verse of Qur’an was revealed or the opinions of various scholars on a particular verse. A person could be the most knowledgeable man in the world on the science of the recitation of Qur’an – it gives him zero legitimacy to give fatwas. Let’s also gloss over the fact that many IG members have repented and renounced their views while dialoguing with scholars from Azhar during incarceration.

    Yet when “moderate, peaceful Muslims” were called to testify as defense witnesses, says McCarthy, they could not contradict the Blind Sheikh’s claim that he had correctly interpreted the Quran.

    How could they? What qualifications did they have to refute him? Did you call muftis from Sarhanpur, or Qayrawan, or Selangor to the stand?

    When the Afghan regime we installed sought to cut off the head of a Christian convert, was that un-Islamic? Or does Islam teach that this is the way to deal with apostates? Is the hate spewing forth from the Ayatollah toward Americans and Jews un-Islamic? Is the Saudis’ cutting off of heads and hands of adulterers and thieves and suppressing of women un-Islamic?

    Let’s, for the sake of argument assume all of that is true and supported – “heads of adulterers” never heard that one – what do the practices of anybody overseas have to do with Muslims within America adhering to American law. Do we have to care whether or not Muslims (or Jews for that matter) believe polygamy is right or flogging a slanderer is correct – as long as they adhere to the canon of the land? Does a Muslim have no choice but to accept the values of Post-Modern Enlightened Christian Humanism as superior to his own or be considered a 5th column?

    Have the Islamists of al-Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, al-Qaida and ISIS in Syria and Iraq — who daily die fighting in the name of Islam — misread their sacred texts?

    Asking the wrong question – are they even qualified to read (ie. interpret and derive rules) from their sacred texts?

    Islam is rising again. Of its 1.6 billion adherents worldwide, many are returning to the roots of their faith, seeking to live their lives as commanded by the Prophet, the Quran and Sharia.

    Correct – because secular liberalism is showing itself to be “the ideology of Western suicide” so is it surprising they are opting out? Yet not every Tom , Dick and Abdullah have the right to say what the ‘Sharia’ is and this should be made plainly clear.

    • Replies: @Qasim
    , @anonymous
  13. Talha says:
    @Dave37

    If I may…

    The oldest Christian communities (the same ones that ISIS fanatics are oppressing) have lived in those lands since antiquity and under multiple historical Muslim sultanates and caliphates. Trust me, if the religion stated that they should be wiped out, warrior steppe people like the Seljuks would have had no problem carrying that out.

    May God bless you and yours.

    • Replies: @Dave37
  14. Talha says:
    @anonymous

    If I may…

    why should we not expect Muslims from that region to attempt to retaliate in kind?

    Sure, it is not surprising to expect a military response from say Iraq when one invades it – that just makes sense. However, Muslims cannot retaliate ‘in kind’ or indiscriminately because Islam laid down rules of engagement since its inception that does not allow the targeting of the innocent, especially women and children (even if non-Muslim armies are using their own families as human shields – literally holding them in front of them). And it does not allow a Muslim to carry out attacks in a land where he has been given safe conduct by virtue of visitation rights or citizenship. As Mufti Rafi Usmani (may God preserve him), former Mufti of Pakistan stated, “Islam is absolutely clear on this issue. Two wrongs do not make a right. If they feel that the US or the UK are killing innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, it does not give them the right to kill innocent citizens in London or New York.” These rules have been laid down for centuries in books like al-Mabsut, Siyar al-Kabir, etc.

    When did Muslims start proselytizing the US?

    We’re here, we’re doing it – probably less active than, say 7th Day Adventists – it’s protected by the Bill of Rights.

    May God bless you and your family.

  15. KenH says:
    @anonymous

    If Muslim lands in the Middle East are ringed with Anglo zionist military bases and infiltrated with Anglo zionist spies and assassins, all in service of the goal of destabilizing their society, destroying their economy, changing their government and way of life, why should we not expect Muslims from that region to attempt to retaliate in kind?

    Belgium did not invade any Middle Eastern country. Belgium recently started to help bomb ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. ISIS, we are lectured, is supposedly a radical, teeny, tiny offshoot within Islam and apostates according to many Muslims and Western elites. Therefore, there were no grounds for retaliation when Belgium was simply trying to help “real” and “moderate” Muslims in their fight against the radicals who have allegedly hijacked Islam.

    Why didn’t the peaceful, pious and “real” Muslims rat out the terrorists? Why are Muslims in Brussels aiding and abetting ISIS if they are apostates and hijackers of an otherwise peaceful religion? And why, according to some news reports, are a growing number European Muslims, in some cases third and fourth generation, flocking to the banner of ISIS when all righteous and pious Sunnis claim it is not real Islam? Some Muslims are speaking with forked tongues.

    Most disconcerting to me is the fact that Muslims are turning on the very nations and people who have given them safe haven and who feed, clothe and medicate them. That is grounds for very serious retaliatory measures by the Europeans and strong evidence that Muslims are totally incompatible with Europeans and Western institutions.

  16. Dave37 says:
    @Talha

    The Christian Armenians might want to comment on that assuming they are not all spies, assassins or Zionists. But heck Muslim paranoia is understandable, perhaps you can also guess how many in the other parts of the world view Middle East Moslems.

    • Replies: @Talha
  17. Qasim says:
    @Talha

    Hi Talha, I agree with a lot of what you write, but I don’t agree with the way your posts make a sharp delineation between Wahhabism/Salafism on one hand and the Sunni jurist tradition on the other.

    I think it is more accurate to view Wahhabism as Sunnism on steroids, or Wahhabism as Sunnism’s bastard step-child that it doesn’t want to acknowledge. But the resemblance between the two lets one know who Wahhabism’s father is!

    So while it is true to say Sunni jurists have unanimously condemned ISIS, the planks of ISIS-like ideologies have a strong and legitimate basis in the Sunni jurist tradition. In fact, it was al-Shafii (maybe the most influential jurist in Islam’s history) that claimed the reason for jihad was disbelief, not oppression. And Sunni jurists often claimed the “sword verses” abrogated the more than 100 peaceful, coexistence verses centuries before “Islamophobes” started doing it.

    And the overwhelming majority of Sunni jurists throughout history argued for capital punishments being applied in the cases of blasphemy and apostasy.

    Even the concepts of what shariah is, what defines an “Islamic state”, and the absolute necessity of establishing said state are all ultimately attributable to Sunni jurists. As I am sure you know, the Quran itself is surprisingly silent on such matters.

    So while traditional Sunnism acts as a check on extremism, it in many ways is the source of that same extremism! Ultimately this issue is going to have to be addressed if we ever want to get to a point where ideologies like ISIS cease to exist.

    • Replies: @Talha
  18. Art says:

    Warmongering Christian preacher John Haggy and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman share something. They share the old testament.

    The bad part, the fly in the ointment of both Christianity and Muslimism – is Judaism.

    One can trace the blood thirsty part of Christianity to the Old Testament.

    Mohamad created his religion with the starting point of Judaism.

    Just look at Israel and all the death that surrounds it and flows from it.

    Judaism celebrates death – its holidays are all about death to its enemies.

    End of Story!

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  19. Please stop calling Islam a religion. It is not. Islam is a system of government based on religious principles. As such, it violates separation of church and state, and is incompatible with Western culture at a fundamental level.

  20. @Rehmat

    I’m not sure who is the ‘we’ is John Kasich speaks of. Perhaps he has a turd in his pants. As far as you, Retchmat, it’s time to play Cowboys and Sandniggers. We’ll see how it works out…

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  21. @Rehmat

    “There can never be peace in the world without justice. Everyone, including Muslims, need justice.”

    Justice is exactly what we want to give you.

  22. Rehmat says:
    @Chris Mallory

    OK idiot – Muslims makes the largest religious minority in Christian-majority America – so where your Jewish population stand?

    Jews make less than 2% American population as compared to more than 3% Muslim population if you include members of the Nation of Islam.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/16/farrakhan-forgiveness-is-not-jewish/

  23. Rehmat says:
    @Bronco Billy

    NOPE Billyhound – it’s time for you to suck-up to AIPAC like the others.

  24. Rehmat says:

    “When we call Islam a “religion of peace,” are we projecting our own hopes?”

    It’s not hope Buchanan – you’re repeated the statement of Muslim-hating Daniel Pipes.

    Anyone who believes that Islam commands its followers to suck-up to foreign murderers and fascists as US Christians are doing – then he is living in a fool’s paradise.

    Islam is certainly not a “Religion of Peace” as defined by the Zionist facists. To them, a total submission of Muslims to foreign domination would only make their religion “peaceful”. History read from objective sources tells us that it were Muslim countries where the western Jews took refuge to escape centuries-old Christian persecution. It was Israeli professor Israel Shahak who said that Jewish religious literature is the most racist, hateful and war-mongering among the world religions. It were the Judeo-Christian West which wiped-off entire Muslim and Jewish population in Spain (1492 CE) and Palestine (1099 CE). It were they who killed 100-180 million Native Americans between 16th and 18th centuries. It were they who killed 100 million Africans so that they can have 10 million African slaves to run their households and plantations. It were they who killed over 110 million civilians during the two World Wars. It were they who murdered 100 million Christians and Muslims in Russia and Ukraine under Jewish-communist rule.

    Another recent religious crap came from Laurie Goodstein, the Jewish ‘religious correspondent’ for the New York Times and the Washington Post. Her guests were Chris Hitchens and Dr. Tariq Ramadan (watch video below). Author and writer for many of pro-Israel printed media outlets, Chris Hitchens, is a known ‘Islamophobe’. He called Muslim World as “fascism with an Islamic face”. He supported Salman Rushdie for writing filth against Islam. He is also part of Israel Hasbara (propaganda) Committee. However, like a coward, Chris Hitchens, like to hide his hatred of Islam behind his so-called being ‘secular humanist’. Tariq Ramadan, who was projected as the Muslim Martin Luther before 2004 – has become Muslim Helen Thomas since his criticism of fellow Jew humanists for not criticizing Israel’s Zionazi policies.

    Laurie Goodstein’s problem with Islam is that since there is no Papacy in Islam or any other religious Establishment – some Islamic scholars preach hatred toward Jews and Israel. Chris Hitchens commented: “Islam requires the belief that the Prophet Muhammad was a perfect human being and that Koran is a perfect book. These are categories that do not exist. Yet any challenge to them is heresy. The demands that you believe these imperatives do not lead to peaceful outcomes. If you want diversity, you need a secular state with a godless constitution. Secularism is the only guarantee of religious freedom”.

    If some fool believes in Chris Hitchens’ rant – it means there is no ‘secular state’ in the West – where both Christianity and Islam are insulted and vilified while Holocaust has replaced as the ‘State Religion’.

    https://rehmat1.com/2010/10/11/is-islam-religion-of-peace/

  25. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Or is the West deluding itself? Is it possible we are the ones misreading the sacred books of Islam and what the triumph of Islam would mean for our civilization — because we lack the courage to face the truth and do what is necessary to avoid our fate?

    The West as a whole isn’t deluding itself; the public are being deliberately lied to by the political and media class. I assume because they’re being paid to lie by the cheap labor lobby.

    Everything Isis has done is explicitly sanctioned in the Koran *if* it’s in the context of a justified jihad – kinda like the concept of a “just war.” The argument with the scholars is they say Isis isn’t qualified to call one.

    The 7th century details of that conflict: normalized child rape, crucifixion, slavery etc, are a side effect of guerrilla warfare tactics that were *normal* in the 7th century getting written down into a religious book and so still used 1000+ years later.

    Everything Isis has done in Syria has been literal (deliberately so imo to put softer imans on the spot). The media are lying.

  26. While all intelligent men can agree that Islam is a violent and puerile mockery of a religion and Mohammed a false prophet, that does not in any way absolve the U.S. of the criminal wars waged on behalf of Israel in the Mideast. At the very least, the west in general and the U.S. in particular should offer right of return to all Palestinians in exile to what is now called “Israel” as a gesture of goodwill.

  27. Truthster says:

    Pat surely knows that he assigns to Islam alone a feature of all the desert religions – Judaism, Chrsitianity and Islam. The Old Testament is full of examples where Jews are told to smite their enemies. Christianity had the Crusades, the wars over various forms of the reilgion over centuries in Europe, the Inquistion and the bloody colonisation (which continues in neocolonial form) of the entire non-Christian world, with violence and genocide unparalleled in human history. We can pass over the two World Wars growing out of conflict in Christian Europe.

    Pat is fine when he sticks to isolationism but here he has a plank not a mote in his eye.

    On the other side of the world, China is fortunate never to have had a religion in the sense of a Guy in the Sky who sent his adherents on missions of conquest.
    Or as Kissinger put it, both Americans and Chinese think themselves exceptional people.
    The difference is that Americans demand that everyone be like them. Missionaries. The Chinese do not care so long as others do not bother them. This actually makes the Chinese view of the world well suited to the 21st Century. Maybe it is time to “learn from the East.”

    • Replies: @Talha
  28. Talha says:
    @Qasim

    Dear Qasim,

    May God bless you for keeping me one my toes. Let’s take things one at a time…

    I don’t agree with the way your posts make a sharp delineation between Wahhabism/Salafism on one hand and the Sunni jurist tradition on the other.

    There is no doubt they are Sunni. Technically, the definition of Sunni is one who adheres to the following creeds: Ash’ari, Maturidi and Athari. They will undoubtedly say they follow the Athari creed (though many are outliers since they come to anthropomorphic conclusions – termed tajseem). However, they will turn around and consider Ash’ari and Maturidi creed to be heretical. They do of course rely on the works of scholars of the past Imams Nawawi, Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyya (may God have mercy on them) but do not feel the need to adhere to one of the existing four schools of Sunni jurisprudence and have (dangerously) promoted the idea that one can go to the sources themselves and derive rulings – this is a sharp break from Sunni tradition, though it has its historical precedents.

    I think it is more accurate to view Wahhabism as Sunnism on steroids, or Wahhabism as Sunnism’s bastard step-child that it doesn’t want to acknowledge.

    Wahhabism is definitely a ‘break with the past’ Sunni tradition. It does not always lead to sanguinary results, but it tends toward the extreme. The problem with these two ideologies is that they sprang up with the assumption; that Muslims, and the Sunni tradition, was mired in misguidance for centuries since the first three generations, that basically – “No one has understood Islam properly except the Prophet (pbuh) and early Muslims, and our shaikh.”

    It is 100% correct to state that there is no Wahhabism without Sunni Islam as much as one could say there is no Spanish Inquisition without Catholicism.

    In fact, it was al-Shafii (maybe the most influential jurist in Islam’s history) that claimed the reason for jihad was disbelief, not oppression.

    Imam Shafi’i (may God elevate his station) was a scholar of the highest rank, but he was not infallible. His school did indeed hold that position from their interpretation of the sources. Imam Mawardi (may God illuminate his grave), a Shafi’i himself, writes in the Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (Rules of Governance), regarding the jizyah as either “a penalty for their disbelief, in which case it is extracted to humiliate them” (the Shafi’i position) or “as compensation paid in return for their being guaranteed safety, in which case it is taken with gentleness” (the position of the Hanafis and others). Opponents and critics of Islam love to quote the Shafi’i exegete Imam Ibn Kathir (may God have mercy on him) – but they will never quote from works like Fath ul-Qadeer of the Hanafi Imam Ibn Humam (may God have mercy on him). The question I always pose is, when was the Shafi’i position ever applied? The successive caliphates of Islam (after the Rashidun) have been Maliki (Umayyad), Hanafi (Abbasid), Ottoman (Abbasid) – let’s even take into account the Fatimid (Ismaili) or even the Sokoto Caliphate (established in Western Africa and isolated from the Ottomans) by Uthman Dan Fodio (may God raise his rank) which was Maliki. I’ll answer my own question; the Shafi’i position was actually put into practice in the early Abbasid period in regions of Khorasan (a staunchly Shafi’i province) where they used make non-Muslim men stand out in the heat or otherwise humiliate them by slapping or the like when they came to pay jizya. Critics love to cite something like this, but what they do not cite is that this practice was repudiated by the Chief Justice of the Abbasids at the time, the Hanafi judge Abu Yusuf (may God have mercy on him). Furthermore, is anyone (from the current Shafi’i scholarship) actually promoting the historical Shafi’i ruling, are they asking to get rid of the Hanafi doctrine that has defined normal international relations well into the era when the nation-state was founded? The late Shaikh Ramadan Buti (may God grant him a high station) – himself a contemporary Shafi’i of the highest order – concluded that the other schools had the evidence on their side in the matter. If critics want to crucify Islam based on a minority position that has sat on the books and been put aside for centuries in favor of other juristic conclusions (and being abandoned by the scholars of that very school in our day) – so be it – that simply shows the desperation of their argument.

    And the overwhelming majority of Sunni jurists throughout history argued for capital punishments being applied in the cases of blasphemy and apostasy.

    No argument there – as did most of Western Christian legal theory before the Renaissance. The only difference being that I would posit it was preferable to be an apostate in Muslim lands because the death was very quick – no hanging you up or crucifying or torture or being burnt at the stake. The problem is ISIS and their ilk applies this very, very liberally. It basically comes down to, if you don’t agree with us, you are an apostate. Iraq was (at least the Sunni side) a center of Hanafi tradition; hundreds of scholars and prayer leaders have been killed by them:

    So while traditional Sunnism acts as a check on extremism, it in many ways is the source of that same extremism!

    Correct, when unqualified people try to delve into their works to derive rulings that suit their needs. I remember coming across a minority ruling (studying with my teacher) within the Hanafi school that a marriage contract with a time limit is a valid contract. So, according to that opinion, I could marry a woman for one night – wink, wink – you see where I am going with this? But, as scholars will tell you, fatwas aren’t given on minority opinions because they do not reflect the soundest ruling based on the evaluation of the evidence. I don’t know if you’ve come across the way ISIS tried to bring together a hodgepodge of evidence to support their burning of the Jordanian pilot – it is pathetic, even to someone who is just a student like me.

    Again, one must return to the most qualified voices of the Sunni Orthodox tradition to see what indeed constitutes what the Islamic position is on a matter; ISIS is totally unqualified to speak.

    May God bless you abundantly.

    • Replies: @Qasim
  29. Talha says:
    @Dave37

    Dear Dave37,

    Thank you for bringing up that very valid point. The horrible tragedy of the Armenians took place in the days of the waning influence of the Ottoman caliphate; a Turkish nationalist secular order – The Young Turks – had basically taken hold of the ship of state and were primarily responsible for the Armenian tragedy. The Armenians knew this, which is precisely why Armenian nationalists hunted down the Young Turk leadership across the world and assassinated them. They did nothing to the members of the Ottoman dynasty.

    That is not saying there were not instances of communal violence within Ottoman lands against religious minorities from time to time – that would be patently false. I was talking about general policy over centuries versus occasional exceptions to the rule.

    May God bless you and your family.

  30. Talha says:
    @Truthster

    Dear Tuthster,

    I would agree with your conclusion. Historically, Europeans have been fighting each other all the time and just got really, really good at it, so much so that they were able to bring almost 3/4 of the world to heel in short order. I mean the Opium Wars – good God!

    I forget which Western intellectual said it, but he stated something like (in the aftermath of World War 2) “The only reason why the Europeans aren’t fighting now is because they realize the next time they fight, it’ll be the last time they fight.”

    May God save our world from strife and chaos.

  31. Corvinus says:
    @Chris Mallory

    “Ok, Jews make up 2% of the US population, yet committed 7% of the terrorist acts. Muslims, in 2010, made up 0.9% of the US population and committed 6% of the terrorist acts.”

    The raw numbers is actually the more relevant statistic. You are more likely to get into a car accident than be a victim of terrorism by a Muslim or a Jew in the United States.

    “We don’t need Jews or Muslims in the US.”

    Feel free to do something about it rather than complain on a blog.

  32. Corvinus says:
    @Johnny Smoggins

    “While all intelligent men can agree that Islam is a violent and puerile mockery of a religion and Mohammed a false prophet…”

    Praytell, who are these intelligent men? What are their actual views on the subject? Would you fall under this description as being “intelligent”?

  33. Christian says:

    There are many passages in the old testament calling for the followers to kill non believers even to rape and enslave the virgins females of the competing tribes (the rest were to be killed).

    To be fair its called the OLD Testament for a reason. A case can be made that Islam revived old ideas that Christians had moved passed hundreds of years earlier, but to claim these ideas are some how unique to Islam is simply untrue.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  34. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    When did people like Kasich and ‘religion of peace’ Bush become Islamic scholars and able to tell us all about it? ISIS calls itself the ‘Islamic Caliphate’. Can it get any clearer than that? This is straight from the Muslims themselves.

  35. Qasim says:
    @Talha

    Hi Talha, many thanks for your detailed and thoughtful reply.

    To make where I am coming from more clear, I don’t doubt that a version (or many versions) of Sunnism can be propounded that rejects extremism. What I do doubt is whether can extremism can be completely extirpated from the Sunni tradition in a manner that the intellectual underpinnings of Sunnism are still left standing.

    So it is fine to say most jurists have rejected al-Shafii’s view on disbelief being the reason for jihad. But how can Sunnis say this view is completely beyond the pale, an undeniably bigoted grotesque opinion that has no place in civilized discourse, when it was adopted by al-Shafii himself, perhaps the founder of Sunnism as we know it and quite possibly the 2nd most influential Muslim who ever lived? And I would argue his view on jihad was widely adopted throughout Islamic history, what reason did the Visigoths or the Indians have to be invaded? Had they spent decades mercilessly persecuting Muslims before they were attacked? And I understand he was not infallible, but at what point does the wrongness and immorality of your opinion start to be held against you and your system of thought?

    So even if one in 10,000 Sunnis come to the conclusion that “Well, it is the minority opinion these days, but I adhere to the position that jihad must be waged on the non-believers, and apostasy and blasphemy are capital offenses. And it would be nice if there was some official governmental body to carry all this stuff out, but unfortunately there is no such body these days so vigilantism is the next best option”, then Sunnism doesn’t have the ability to totally refute this sort of argument. And even 1 in 10,000 people holding these kinds of views when there are more than a billion Muslims can lead to a lot of chaos. And as far as the countries allowing Muslim immigrants to their countries, how can they be 100% confident as to what opinion their Muslim citizens hold, or whether they might adopt a more belligerent posture when they are in a stronger position?

    Don’t get me wrong, I think Mr. Buchanan would have been better served asking why America has been propping up the most barbaric and reactionary form of Islam for the past 60 years, although in his defense he has asked these sort of questions in different articles of his. But all the stuff going on in Europe and here does raise the question of whether Sunnis (as a group) can play the (beta-male) minority role without seeking to impose their values on others.

    Finally, what do you think of Mutazilism?

    Thank you for your indulgence 🙂

    • Replies: @Talha
  36. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    I reply only to thank you for your ongoing, articulate, respectful, and enlightening contributions to this website.

    • Replies: @Talha
  37. @Christian

    To be fair its called the OLD Testament for a reason. A case can be made that Islam revived old ideas that Christians had moved passed hundreds of years earlier, but to claim these ideas are some how unique to Islam is simply untrue.

    It is a very subtle, but very widespread, error nowadays to believe that there is some kind of contrast between the New and the Old Testaments, as if the New Testament heralded some sort of enlightened, abstract, protestantized religion over against the Old Testament’s blood, soil, and justice. This is simply flat-out wrong. When God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity, told Joshua and the Israelites to slaughter every living thing in Jericho, this was the very same God who, as Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, died for our sins on the cross. There is no “moving beyond old ideas”; God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. We most approve and give glory to all the works of the Most High; and if we find ourselves balking at the fact that God would order such a massacre, the problem is not with God but with our own “enlightenment values.” Jesus never preached inalienable rights, humanism, nonviolence, or the value of the individual. Modern Westerners preach those things and they have projected them into Christianity, hoping to make it into a religion in their own image and likeness. But God is what He is; He is not what we wish Him to be.

    • Agree: Ozymandias
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Ozymandias
  38. Anonym says:

    Pat, if you are taking flak you are over the target. Methinks they doth protest too much.

    I am not sure whether these wars in MENA are doing Western countries any good. I tend to doubt it. However, it seems pretty obvious that there are few if any advantages to having cohorts of Muslims in our lands, and the immigration should be halted and reversed as and when it is politically possible.

  39. Talha says:
    @anonymous

    And thank you for your encouraging words; may God honor you for the honor you have shown me.

    It is posts like these that makes me feel the effort I have put into researching my responses to be worthwhile.

  40. Awfully presumptuous to assign God a gender, don’t you think? The Creator is a more useful term really and from reading your post it would appear that you’ve mixed up the actual Creator with various depictions and definitions written by mere mortals long ago trying to explain the inexplicable whilst obtaining authority by falsely claiming direct communication with said Creator.

    It leads to all sorts of lunacy.

    • Replies: @Talha
  41. Talha says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Excellent points…people have forgotten their roots.

    These are two very eye opening books on the subject of slavery from the inception of Christianity in first century Palestine.

    As the author states:
    “I approach the study of slavery and early Christianity as a historian and as a Christian.”

    She furthermore finds:
    “In antiquity the vast majority of Jesus’ followers – at least those who left any written record – did not regard slaveholding as morally repugnant.”

    Christians must bear in mind; the Gospel, did not land in your hands directly. It was transmitted to you by generations before you up until that same first generation who sat and learned at the feet of our Master Jesus (pbuh) himself. One must make up their mind; if they were so morally blind as to not see the obvious evil in slavery, how can one take any moral teaching from them? Either that, or one has to (as Intelligent Dasein has stated) make the case that one’s own set of morality need be called into question as being a true marker for universal values for all places and all times.

    The Muslim resolution to the issues of what occurs in the Old or New Testament seems crudely simple – what concurs with the Qur’an, we take, what does not, we reject as accretions.

    May God bless you for being brave in your forthrightness.

  42. Talha says:
    @Qasim

    Dear Qasim,

    May God bless you again for your enlightened discussion.

    What I do doubt is whether can extremism can be completely extirpated from the Sunni tradition in a manner that the intellectual underpinnings of Sunnism are still left standing.

    It cannot…this is a part and parcel of the religion and has been prophesied to raise its head every once in a while. This is how the brilliant Shafi’i exegete Imam Ibn Kathir (may God raise his rank) described their phenomena:
    “If they ever gained strength, they would surely corrupt the whole of the Earth, Iraq and Shaam [Syria] – they would not leave a baby, male or female, neither a man or a woman, because as far as they are concerned the people have caused corruption, a corruption that cannot be rectified except by mass killing.”

    If the extremist, blood-thirsty Khawarij could rise up within the first generation of Muslims, just a few decades after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh), what chance do we have to escape it. This is a test and must be met with as the first community met with it; preaching to them to call them back to the community and fighting the rest as long as they insist on causing bloodshed – if they secure their arms, they can go home, even with their extremist beliefs (only God can judge their hearts for that).

    But how can Sunnis say this view is completely beyond the pale, an undeniably bigoted grotesque opinion that has no place in civilized discourse, when it was adopted by al-Shafii himself, perhaps the founder of Sunnism as we know it and quite possibly the 2nd most influential Muslim who ever lived?

    As you know, we are a tradition that puts high emphasis on adab – etiquette. We will simply not describe Imam Shafi’i (may God grant him a high station) in that way for some errors of judgement. He thought what he was deriving was the correct ruling. We simply discard it and make it known we have not and will not implement it. We will not throw out his massive contribution to the many sciences he influenced based on some mistakes. And to what purpose? To please some people who; 1) have no qualms making up lies about the religion to force it to bend the knee until it fits their idea of what a religion should be and 2) would call us out on the disingenuous nature of that position (for instance, why didn’t centuries of solid Sunni scholarship reject Imam Shafi’i wholesale – what makes us special?). The book I am currently studying with my teacher is the Hidayah of, the 12th century scholar, Imam Marghinani (may God be pleased with him). It is a book of comparative jurisprudence which the Hanafi rulings are explained with evidences and alongside the evidences of other schools to dispute their positions. In ruling after ruling, the text breaks down the logic or evidence that it feels is lacking in the Shafi’i position, but it never, never mentions his name without stating “may God have mercy on him”. Another case is the brilliant 10th century scholar of exegesis, Imam Tabari (may God have mercy on him). To this day, his brilliant contribution to the science of Quranic exegesis is valued and utilized. However, many people do not know that he was a jurist of such rank that he had his own juristic school (Jariri). This school does not exist any more, it could not stand the test of time; either the scholars over time judged it lacking in its juristic model and evidences for its positions or it was simply subsumed into another school. No – we will be forthright and honest. I feel no need to water down or feel ashamed – the position the Sunni Orthodox scholarship (as a whole) seems very reasonable vis-a-vis Imam Shafi’i’s rulings.

    And I would argue his view on jihad was widely adopted throughout Islamic history, what reason did the Visigoths or the Indians have to be invaded?

    And I would agree with you if the landscape of that time was post-UN Earth. It simply was not. To project our current state of affairs and international compacts and conventions as defining international norms of that era is completely anachronistic. Kingdoms and empires went to war all the time, they had no reason to or not to, it was simply a question of whether or not one had the logistics to project one’s power beyond one’s border and the preference of which direction to expand. Let’s take a couple of examples to illustrate the point…

    Charles Martel crushed the Muslim armies at the Battle of Tours, and what exactly did he do after that – go for the jugular in the rest of Umayyad Iberia? No, he fights to a point where he feels his Western border is secured and continues on to invade and consolidate fellow Christian and heathen kingdoms to the East. Why didn’t William of Normandy stay on his side of the English Channel, did the Saxons call his mother names? Did the Sassanid Empire not invade Arabia because they really felt that it should be kept as an autonomous region for the various Semetic ethno-linguistic groups and they (being Persians) ought not to interfere – or because they felt it just wasn’t worth it? I think you see where I am coming from. That time was a different time, when the scholars of Islam defined it as Dar ul-Harb (Abode of War) they had defined it precisely – war was the norm rather than the exception. Unless one specifically had a treaty with another sovereign (whether that be emperor, monarch, etc.) one could expect to be attacked at any time with no notice and one conducted policy (intelligently) with that in mind. This was irrespective of one’s religion or one’s ethnicity or even one’s heritage (how many siblings conquered their own brother’s kingdom and had him blinded and thrown in a cell to rot). If one wants the Muslims to apologize for militarily crushing the Sassanid, Byzantine or any other empire, don’t hold your breath. If there were Muslim abuses of the population, that is another factor and that goes against the ethos of the rules of war as defined well within the texts from the earliest sources. This is attested to by honest military historians, like the one I love to quote, Prof. David Nicolle who wrote the book, Armies of Muslim Conquest, among other entries on various Muslim armies.

    Sunnism doesn’t have the ability to totally refute this sort of argument.

    Sure it does, see my other post. First of all, those people have no right to claim to be able to stake a position on anything as they are unqualified just as much as they have the right to perform knee surgery because they have a stack of medical and surgery manuals by their side. Secondly, as I mentioned in my post, a fatwa is not given on a minority opinion or on an opinion that doesn’t have sound backing, even if from a scholar of a tremendous rank (they are not infallible) – again, especially if the scholars of that very school are making that claim. Otherwise, I cannot tell you the mockery of a religion we would have if we took minority opinions from the past from very legitimate scholars.

    And as far as the countries allowing Muslim immigrants to their countries, how can they be 100% confident as to what opinion their Muslim citizens hold, or whether they might adopt a more belligerent posture when they are in a stronger position?

    You can never be 100% confident whether or not someone will hold a belligerent posture when they are able to martial the necessary resources. I will only speak of the United States as the kinds and volumes of immigrants here are just different from the European situation. By the views I am reading on this site, it seems plainly obvious that given the requisite political power, some would not balk at shipping my family overseas and even include Blacks that have lived here for hundreds of years. They have far less to worry about from me than I have from them. If they are truly afraid of the 2% of the population, they have far, far less confidence in the foundations of civil society in the United States (built on the solid bedrocks of Anglo-Saxon discourses of liberty and the smoke of their rifles) than I do. And I would ask them, do they truly think that their utopia would arise from the ashes of the houses they have burned down or from the jobs that they would have us vacate? Would their marriages once again be strong, their children be plenty and be ever obedient, disease-inducing obesity be a distant memory, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor be halted? To ask the question is to have answered it.

    But all the stuff going on in Europe and here does raise the question of whether Sunnis (as a group) can play the (beta-male) minority role without seeking to impose their values on others.

    This is an excellent question, but let’s take the Sunnis out of it. Essentially, this is a question on the cross-roads of demographic reality and democratic institutions. Ask yourself, is the fact that Utah imposes the most restrictive rules on the sale and composition of alcohol an affect of the large Shariah-oriented population or another demographic reality? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Do many people know that a young lady of 12 years can be married with her parents consent in Massachusettes, and 13 in New Hampshire (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage)? Someone should tell them that Muslims seem to have a disproportionate influence in drafting their family laws. Can one state (or county) have nude beaches and another restrict them?

    Finally, what do you think of Mutazilism?

    By now you know which angle I’m coming from…in my view Mu’tazilites are Muslims, no doubt, but I feel they place an overemphasis on the assumption that rationality can explain the mysteries of the universe. Furthermore, their views, and the views of people like Ibn Rushd (may God be pleased with him), may have made sense to a world that knew only Newtonian physics, but once humanity split the atom, the quantum mess that we found inside belies their conclusions on causality, they need to revisit their assumptions – the Ash’ari and Maturidi models stand firm – the Athari don’t really need to take a stance. Another thing is that the Mutazilites, with their emphasis on the mind have rarely produced the fruits of the heart; I don’t know one Sufi order associated with them, nor do I know of anything that they have produced that moves the heart like the poetry of Rumi or Hafez or Iqbal (may God illuminate their graves).

    Thank you for your indulgence

    I have indulged you and request compensation in the form of prayers for myself, my teachers and the welfare of the country we live in.

  43. Thirdeye says:
    @KenH

    When Christian fetus freaks bomb women’s health clinics for providing abortion services that is Christian terrorism.

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @Jeff77450
  44. Thirdeye says:
    @Dave37

    Eastern Christian communities have an enduring presence in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. Syria hosts public celebrations of Christmas. You know something else? Muslim Imams address Christmas Mass in Christian churches. Don’t confuse the conflict between Buchanan’s Roman Church and Islam with a conflict between Christianity and Islam in general. The Roman Church targeted eastern Christians as well as Muslims in its crusades. Understandably, the Roman Church is not popular among the targets of their crusades, Christian or Muslim.

  45. Is ISIS Faithful to Islam?

    Is eating Alawite livers halal?

    • Replies: @Talha
  46. Talha says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    That is brilliant use of logic and rhetoric! I mean that with all sincerity – you have literally distilled my paragraphs to a single sentence! I hope I never have to debate with you on any subject!

  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A foolish article, all religion is in decline as it comes up against science and education. In 99% percent of cases religion is inherited from parents. Medieval states used religion to keep their populations in check as does Pakistan, Saudi, Israel, etc. It is time for forward thinking countries to stop giving these countries a free ride.
    What was appointing Saudi as a guardian of human rights about?
    Was it just the bribing of british politicians?

    Atheism is the fastest growing ‘religion’. Thank God!

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  48. Talha says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    Dear NtD,

    I don’t know if you are referring to my posts or not. If so, the difficulty lies in the translation of concepts into Arabic. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has always been referred to by the genderless pronoun ‘hu’ in Arabic. This pronoun is equally valid in referring to males or gender-neutral objects. It does not translate over well into English since ‘It’ is not befitting when referring to an object that has consciousness or volition.

    God has never been assigned a gender in Islam, you will never hear of anything calling him a ‘father’ (or ‘mother’) because of our strict adherence to the teaching that God created time-space and transcends it completely.

    In fact, many of the Sufi’s in their poetry, if anything, are guilty of the opposite. For many of them God is affectionately referred to as Layla (metaphorically) as the object of their desire and love. Yes, that’s Layla – like the song by Clapton – it has inspirations from the story of Layla and Majnun.

    May God bless you and yours.

    • Replies: @Talha
  49. KenH says:

    And as far as the countries allowing Muslim immigrants to their countries, how can they be 100% confident as to what opinion their Muslim citizens hold, or whether they might adopt a more belligerent posture when they are in a stronger position?

    They cannot and are taking a huge risk in allowing Muslims into their lands. History shows that if you play the odds with Islam you eventually lose. Just ask the shrinking Coptic Christian community in Egypt (who used to be the majority) or Syria where Christians also used to be the majority once upon a time. Turkey, formerly Byzantium and Anatolia were once Christian. The Middle East used to be the cradle of Christendom. Or you could ask the Christian Serbs of the Kosovo province who learned that when Muslims become a majority or near majority they indeed become bellicose, belligerent and intolerant towards non-Muslims.

    That’s why I feel it serves little purpose in getting preoccupied with the minutiae and vagaries of Islamic scripture and holy texts. The Koran/Quran still has plenty of verses and commandments that buttress the world view of ISIS and others who subscribe to a militant form of Islam and as evidenced in the foregoing paragraph, Muslims always seek dominance over non-Muslims when they occupy the same living space.

    • Replies: @Talha
  50. KenH says:
    @Thirdeye

    Ok, Christian fetus freaks bomb an abortion clinic maybe once every 5-7 years and the death toll is 2-3 people if there’s a death toll at all. This pales in comparison to the lethality of Muslim terror attacks on U.S. and Europeans soil. Furthermore, this fetus freak “terrorism” is being done in their own country and directed against their fellow citizens. So if Muslims want to terrorize fellow Muslims in Muslim nations, so be it. I don’t care. When they come here and do it, that’s a problem that needs to be dealt with using the harshest measures.

    I challenge you to provide examples where American Christians are tormenting, terrorizing and killing Muslims and other non-Christians in American or anywhere in the Western world simply for practicing a faith other than Christianity.

  51. @Johnny Smoggins

    While all intelligent men can agree that Islam is a violent and puerile mockery of a religion and Mohammed a false prophet

    All thanks to the goddess, who in her wisdom knew that the intelligence of men is frequently distorted by their their own strength and impulse to react violently before thinking carefully, and so created women with less strength and more compassion, and a greater ability to resist bulls&%t lies.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  52. Rehmat says:
    @Art

    Nyeth dude – your story ends on ignorance.

    Pope Francis has confirmed on several occasions that Judaism is sort of mother of Christianity – while Islam is foreign religion that has no Semite roots – because the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was not among the 12 sons of Jacob (Israel).

    The state of Israel was created by the Western Christian leaders to solve Europe’s ‘Jewish Problem’, which Nazis failed to achieve.

    The Christians became ‘Blood thirsty’ when Roman Pagan King inserted four Books of Jewish Bible (OT) into the Christian Bible in 325 CE. With a century, the Vatican became a colony of the Organized Jewry.

    On September 16, 2014, Janet C. Phelan, an investigative journalist and author, published an informative post, entitled, The United States and Israel: A Dance of Deception in which she shed some light over the European’s hatred towards Jews, Zionism, Israel, Israel’s Dumb Iron Dome and the new Jewish religion, the Holocaust.

    “To understand the dysfunctional US-Israel relationship which has been plagued with self-deception, betrayal and false intent from its inception. To begin with, one must understand that the state of Israel was in large part created by those who despised Jews,” Phelan said.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/09/17/israel-was-created-to-solve-europes-jewish-problem/

    • Replies: @Art
  53. @Intelligent Dasein

    “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

  54. @Anonymous

    “A foolish article, all religion is in decline as it comes up against science and education.”

    Political Correctness is a religion, and it has subverted and co-opted science and education to its cause. PCians, while claiming to believe in science, have ‘tabula rasa’ as one of their core tenets – a direct contradiction to the theory of evolution they claim to believe in. You have been duped by semantics, my friend.

  55. @SolontoCroesus

    “…created women with less strength and more compassion, and a greater ability to resist bulls&%t lies.”

    Now there’s about a steaming pile of nonsense. Women’s suffrage has an exceptionally poor record that contradicts your statement. Slap ‘hopey and changey’ on something and they’ll buy into it. Women are more likely to vote on emotions, not less. It’s no secret why feminism has been wielded as a weapon to help destroy Western civilization.

  56. Talha says:
    @KenH

    Dear KenH,

    Just ask the shrinking Coptic Christian community in Egypt (who used to be the majority) or Syria where Christians also used to be the majority once upon a time. Turkey, formerly Byzantium and Anatolia were once Christian. The Middle East used to be the cradle of Christendom.

    Your assumption is that the indigenous peoples of that land did not become less and less Christian because they simply found the creed of Islam and its return to simple, unadulterated monotheism (which was quite visibly the Old Testament) while not losing their connection with Master Jesus (pbuh) to be more attractive. They were familiar with the laws and the biblical prophets. As I have mentioned, many Christian scholars and thinkers have considered Islam not to be a new religion, but a Christian heresy. The ones who didn’t – stayed Christian, as is evidenced by their (dwindling) existence to this day.

    Or you could ask the Christian Serbs of the Kosovo province who learned that when Muslims become a majority or near majority they indeed become bellicose, belligerent and intolerant towards non-Muslims.

    I know something about this. My wife and I traveled in Kosovo to do relief work after their war. I saw many Kosovans. I met with the ones that were as you described. They did NOT appear to be religious. They were ethnic Kosovar nationalists that had the veneer of religion on them. I could easily see these kinds on men turning on the Christian minority as soon as the UN KFOR left. As for others of us, we went into the Christian neighborhoods and handed out candy to their children – we did not proselytize, we simply wanted them to know there were Muslims who valued them as fellow human beings.

    That’s why I feel it serves little purpose in getting preoccupied with the minutiae and vagaries of Islamic scripture and holy texts. The Koran/Quran still has plenty of verses and commandments that buttress the world view of ISIS and others …

    This is obfuscating the issue – the interpretation of these texts and the authority one has to do so is the paramount debate of our time; you are seeing the results if we lose this debate. The question is not whether non-Muslim minorities are mistreated in many Muslim countries – that is obviously the case. The question that the article poses is; whether this is the correct interpretation of Islam. There is no doubt that when some fool burns a Qur’an in the US, some Muslim fool burns down a church in Pakistan (or worse). What do the qualified scholars have to say about it? Here is a statement that was issued by some of the highest ranked Muftis in Pakistan after the bombing of a church in 2013:
    Terming the attack against the teachings of Quran and Sunnah, they said, “Islamic Shariah gives full rights of protection to the life and property of all citizens without any distinction of religion. Islam has even defined strict punishments for those who do not honour the right of protection to life and property of any citizen.”
    http://www.nationalturk.com/en/killing-innocent-non-muslims-un-islamic-pakistan-religious-scholars-43148/

    The problem is, you are looking at videos with crowds of young belligerent men led by people like Anjum Chaudary with laughable scholarly credentials – I honestly doubt he has working knowledge of Arabic. Britain has many qualified Muftis and scholars, some have been my teachers. Please find one of these aggressive “Shariah-for-UK” demonstrations being led by a trained, qualified scholar (not some ‘Imam’ who is simply a prayer leader) – just one.

    Muslims always seek dominance over non-Muslims when they occupy the same living space.

    Here is an example of a man that represents the ethos of Islam because of his learning. Shaikh Abdul Qadir (may God illuminate his grave), of Algeria, was a learned Maliki scholar and Qadiri spiritual guide. When the Christian French invaded his land, he fought them for almost 30 years. These same French betrayed the terms of his surrender by hauling him off to Paris instead of allowed him to go into exile in Damascus. When they finally did release him, he played a well documented role in the communal riots that occurred against Maronite Christians by Muslims and Druze. He gathered forty of his ex-mujahideen and opened up his estate to fleeing Christians – including the members of the French embassy – and had his men train their guns on the attacking Muslim and Druze to hold them off. He told his men that this was as much a jihad as the one they fought in the deserts of Algeria. Due to this, the same French who had fought him for three decades awarded him their highest honor. President Lincoln sent him a set of pistols. There is a town in Iowa (half a day’s drive from my house) named after him, Elkader.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelkader_El_Djezairi

    Can you find just one similar example – of a man who fought a people on the battlefield, was betrayed by them, then turned around and protected them in their time of need and earned their highest honor of chivalry – in any other religion? And what sets him apart from the fools in ISIS? His knowledge and connection to the true Islamic tradition.

    May God allow us to vanquish the ignorance that may consume us all.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Talha
    , @KenH
  57. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Ooops! I meant “from Arabic” obviously…

  58. Avery says:
    @Talha

    {Your assumption is that the indigenous peoples of that land did not become less and less Christian because they simply found the creed of Islam and its return to simple, unadulterated monotheism…}

    It is no assumption.
    And too do know something about this:

    I will not list the long history of forced Islamization and Turkification visited upon the indigenous Christian peoples of Asia Minor by invading Muslim Turkic tribes over many centuries. But yours is an astonishing statement. You honestly believe Christians in Asia Minor “less and less Christian because they simply found the creed of Islam”.

    I take it you have never heard about the Genocide of Christian Armenians, Christian Assyrians, and Christian Pontic Greeks by Muslim Turks and their Muslim Kurd collaborators?
    Or you pretend you never heard.
    Or you are denying it.
    Which is it?

    Approximately 4 million indigenous Christians were murdered 1915-1923 alone by descendants of nomad Turk invaders from Uyguristan.
    Not counting 100s of 1000s of Christian children abducted and forcibly Islamized.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Talha
  59. Learning says:

    I don’t recall Christians or Jews bashing heads in over simple disagreements.

    http://madworldnews.com/liberal-teacher-muslim-refugee/

    • Replies: @Talha
  60. Art says:
    @Rehmat

    Killing in the name of a tribal god – is fundamental to Judaism. Death to tribal enemies is the theme of Jew holidays.

    The wrongheaded ideology of tribal warmongering by Christians and Islam can be traced back to the Jew Old Testament.

    I do not know about Islam, but the ideology of Jesus Christ is that all life is scared. Love you neighbor, love your enemy, blessed are the peacemakers, live by the sword die by the sword – is the ideology of Jesus.

    Jesus said “you can know a tree by the fruit it bares” – well look at Israel – what fruit does it bare? How many Muslims, Americans, and Europeans have died in the last twenty years because of the worlds Jews?

    This is the Twenty First Century – there is NO reason for war. We have cell phones and airplanes – we can know everyone – we have science and the productive capacity to serve all – 99% of us do not benefit from war – we know this – who is currently dragging us to war – what death ideology do they hold.

    There are good peaceful parts to Christianity and Islam – why do the Jew and their MSM trash both?

    When it comes to tribal matters – the Jew are a throwback – a sick people with a sick ideology who celebrate death.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
    , @Talha
  61. Talha says:
    @Avery

    Dear Avery,

    I take it you have never heard about the Genocide of Christian Armenians

    Of course I have, here is what I wrote in another post:
    The horrible tragedy of the Armenians took place in the days of the waning influence of the Ottoman caliphate; a Turkish nationalist secular order – The Young Turks – had basically taken hold of the ship of state and were primarily responsible for the Armenian tragedy. The Armenians knew this, which is precisely why Armenian nationalists hunted down the Young Turk leadership across the world and assassinated them. They did nothing to the members of the Ottoman dynasty.

    Christian Pontic Greeks by Muslim Turks

    Yes, heard of this one too.

    Christian Assyrians

    No – proof?

    Not counting 100s of 1000s of Christian children abducted and forcibly Islamized.

    Correct, except for the numbers (https://www.wordnik.com/words/devshirme), you refer to the devshirme used to produce the elite, fearsome Jannissary Corps. With a Janissary Corps of hundreds of thousands (as you claimed), the Christian monarchies and empires of Europe would have been a memory. That was a uniquely Ottoman enterprise. Nobody in the history of Islam (even other Turkic people like Seljuqs or Turkomen) had ever implemented it. I have no clue how they even religiously justified it. It was something the Ottomans started well into their rule and ended it when they felt it no longer served a purpose.

    Is this really the place to play my genocide is bigger than yours? Or the inverse of such games?

    Can you answer for why just a few decades before the Armenian Genocide, the Ottoman lands had to deal with a mass influx of Muslim Circassians from the Circassian Genocide, or why Orthodox Russia under Ivan razed the Muslim Tatar city of Kazan (plus its population) to the ground? I certainly do not place that at the feet of the teachings of Christianity, I see it as an aberration.

    The point of the article is; do these particulars represent Islamic teaching just because certain Muslims carried it out. Why should Christianity get a pass for conflicts like the Opium Wars or the Russian actions under Ivan? One has to be consistent in the application of their judgments otherwise it is just hypocrisy. I do not blame Christianity for such things and simply expect the same treatment for Islam.

    May God bless you and your family.

  62. Talha says:
    @Avery

    And I forgot to add, my comments were not under the assumption of just the territory of what is now modern Turkey. If you look at KenH’s words it was obvious he was referring to Christendom in the Middle East as a whole; inclusive of Egypt, the Levant and (probably) parts of Persia.

  63. Talha says:
    @Learning

    If I may…

    Are you seriously saying that you’ve never heard of a Christian or a Jew kill someone over a dispute regarding how much one owes another for a bag of weed? Or the like?

  64. Talha says:
    @Talha

    I will however say this…I do agree (somewhat) with the import of your message. If we are not successful in stemming the tide of this abhorrent ideology among the Muslim masses, it will not mean much whether it is in congruence with Orthodox Islamic teachings or not. Muslims as a whole will face the consequences of our inability…it would help us though if pressure could be taken off from things like the invasion of Iraq, supporting and arming extremist groups, drone strikes, etc.

    As the former Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Rafi Usmani (may God preserve him) stated: “an angry young man is in no-one’s control”…

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4711003.stm

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  65. Rehmat says:
    @Art

    Jesus’ message is of peace – who was the idiot said that. Go and ask 40% of the Nuns being rapped by Christian priests or hundreds of thousands of Christian boy rapped by fellow Christians.

    Take for example, Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile (1926-2011), who was knighted by Pope John Paul II in 1990 for charity work – rapped 400 boys during his 25 year service at the BBC.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/10/30/pope-knighted-the-most-jewish-catholic-paedophile/

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Jeff77450
  66. @consonantes

    You are wrong, oh pagan one.

    • Replies: @consonantes
  67. Thirdeye says:

    In a curious way I agree with Burnham’s thesis that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide. We disagree on how it is the ideology of Western suicide. He does not see the roots of the Western suicide in the contradictions that arose from classical liberal ideology confronted with the issue of community interest. The contradictions were deferred by leaving the issues of community interest to largely religious traditions. Those traditions were weakened by the increasing centrality of individuated, then corporate, commerce in civic life. The question arose as to what would replace them as social modulators.

    Marx saw the contradictions between classical liberalism and community interest as leading to class war that would eventually consume capitalism and replace it with socialism that would put community interest first. He turned out to be mistaken as to the inevitable replacement of capitalism, but he was on the money about the inability of the liberal capitalist model to reconcile itself with community and moral interests. Its ultimate expression, devoid of community and moral structure, is corporate neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is indeed the suicide of the West.

    Postmodernism and multiculturalism reflect the nihilism of neoliberalism, while maintaining an artificial veneer of humanistic universalism. But that universalism itself bears a whopping contradiction in a multicultural environment. It only works if universalism is embraced by all cultural parties, which is cultural assimilationism and a sense of belonging to one national community. The choice is between assimilation and chaos. The civilizations that succeed will be the ones that avoid that chaos because they are not saddled with self-destructive liberal baggage that undermines the primacy of community interest.

  68. @Talha

    Hello Talha,

    I wasn’t responding to your posts which seem sincere, knowledgeable and respectful. I was responding to the posts that state He and His word and the like as if it is the only interpretation of what is real and true. Such people are to be found across the spectrum and they do more harm than good. Religions, all of them, can be used for good and for evil purposes and examples of both abound.

    Certainly the power that created you created me also and the rest of us here too. The Sun’s life giving rays fall on us equally as does the rain. Many inspired individuals (pbut) have attempted to explain this source of life and all things but by definition they can only attempt to understand and explain that which is quite beyond us all. It is the dogmatic approach that I object to.

    Khalil Gibran in the Prophet, one of my favourite books, states that we should say we have found a truth rather than the truth. I find much simple wisdom and beauty in his writing.

    Peace

  69. Art says:
    @Rehmat

    “Go and ask 40% of the Nuns being rapped by Christian priests or hundreds of thousands of Christian boy rapped by fellow Christians.”

    Rehmat,

    Hmm — Mr. Muslim —– it is said “that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”

    Judging a whole religion by some of its preachers can be misleading.

    Art

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  70. MEexpert says:

    For the umpteenth time, please remember that there is no such thing as radical Islam, only radicals who happen to be Muslims. No one ever labeled KKK members as radical Christians. No one calls Netanyahu a jihadist.

    The modern day historians and analysts do not try to understand the true Islam. They take Qur’anic verses out of context and splash all over the news media to rile up the ignorant population. People who truly know Arabic language know that a single word used in different places means totally different depending upon the context.

    Pat says:

    “What I want Andrew C McCarthy to do is bring up not only those verses he paraphrases, but the verses preceding and immediately following those verses, and then we’ll talk.”

    I have seen these phrases quoted by every TV commentator but without the preceding and the following phrases. Furthermore, who said this sheik represented all the Muslims. Were the so called “moderate Muslims” also knowledgeable Muslims?

    Pat Buchanan is being dishonest when he complains about Ayatollahs spewing hate towards American and Jews. For one thing the hate is towards the US government and Israel. He also fails to mention what the US and the Israeli governments have done to the Iranian people. From overthrowing the duly elected democratic government in 1953, the bomb blast by the Israel supported group MEK of the newly elected Iranian post revolution parliament where 90 members died. Also many Iranian engineers and scientists killed by Israeli Mossad all over the world. Not to mention the propaganda all over the world implicating Iran in every kind of crime.

    He is also wrong to include Hezbollah in the same group as al-Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Hezbollah is a resistance group protecting Lebanon and not a terrorist organization. The only reason it is classified as terrorist organization is because it inflicts terror in the hearts of Israel army.

    I invite Pat Buchanan to study the Shia Islam (the Islam original), i.e. the Islam that the Prophet and the Qur’an presents. He will find out that Islam is nothing but about peace and friendship. Yes, there were wars during his time but they were all defensive wars where the Muslim armies were always outnumbered by the enemy armies.

    Problem started when some of his companions disregarded his orders and wishes and hijacked Islam. The Wahabi/Salafist slogan of “The book (Qur’an) being enough” is not new. It was first raised by Omar bin Khattab who later became the second Caliph. After the true successor to the Prophet Ali ibn Abi Talib was assassinated the Islam went into the hands of Umayyad dynasty whose ancestors used to be the enemies of Islam and still were. What Muawiyah, Yazid and those who followed them did to consolidate their power they called it Islam. This is what Saudi Arabia, the other monarchies in the Middle East and these terrorist organizations are doing. These Omayyads and later the Abbasids slaughtered or poisoned all the rightly successors of the Prophet, i.e. the Shia Imams, which continues today by Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    All of this is available in the Sunni traditions and history books, if only the western scholars were to look sincerely. Saudi Arabia is frantically trying to remove all such references from these books. Since they can’t change the Arabic version of Qur’an, they are changing the translations. Every Pilgrim returning from Hajj is given a copy of Qur’an with a translation that has been altered.

    Pat Buchanan should read the books written by Shia scholars, such as Khomeni, Seestani, and Khoei. These are just the few modern day leaders but there are hundreds of old authors that have written volumes on the true Islam. Some people know about it but they contain material that goes against Israeli propagandists and those spewing hatred towards Muslims including the Saudis. Saudis have no more to do with Islam than the man on the moon. They are using Islam just to keep their power.

    I hope Pat will take up my challenge and then write another article.

  71. Rehmat says:
    @Johnny Smoggins

    That’s what Gilad Atzmon, Roger Tucker and Helen Thomas had said many times: “Get the Hell out of Palestine.”

    Gilad Atzmon is an Israel-born writer and an award-winning Jazz musician. He is also a war veteran (Medic) during Israeli occupation of Beirut in 1982. He got disgusted with the Israel’s religious and political/social racism and immigrated to Britain. Now, he hates to be called ‘Israeli’ and considers himself as a ‘Hebrew speaking’ Palestinian. Gilad claims to have received 200 death threats so far.

    Gilad Atzmon spoke (video below) at the Stuttgart Conference on Palestine held in Germany on November 26-28, 2010.

    “We all agree about one state – which is the only ethical, universal and viable solution. However, the universalism is very foreign to Jewish culture.”

    “The world “Shalom” doesn’t mean “peace” – in Jewish culture it mean “security of the Jewish people”.

    “The “loving your neighbor” is quite foreign to Jewish culture”.

    “The political concept of Western is disastrous. Look at their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    “A few weeks ago a very brave Israeli came up with names of 200 Israeli war criminals in Gaza. Some Israeli media outlets blamed me for leaking that information.”

    “The Israel’s comparison with Nazi Germany is wrong because Israel claims to be a ‘democracy’ while Germany under Nazis was not. Israeli are worse than Nazis”.

    “Israel’s comparison with apartheid South Africa is wrong. South Africa never carried out the ethnic-cleansing of the Native Africans as Israelis are carrying-out against the Native Palestinians.”

    “Israelis are doomed. The US, Britain and Germany would not be able to save them. Ultimately, they are subject to Palestinians’ kindness”.

    https://rehmat1.com/2010/12/11/gilad-atzmon-israelis-are-subject-to-palestinians-kindness/

  72. Rehmat says:
    @Art

    Hmmmm…..

    This Muslim threw a stone at your Judo-Christian ‘glass house’ – why don’t you respond Daniel Pipes?

    In 2014, Rev. Kevin D. Annett, secretary ‘International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS)’ announced that criminal proceeding against Zionist Pope Francis (Jorge Bergoglio), Jesuit Superior General Adolfo Pachon, and Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby (with Jewish family roots). Watch a video below.

    Rev. Kevin D. Annett has claimed that these three along with the former Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) belong to the notorious child abuse cult known as the Corona Novem, or The Ninth Circle (or Crown).

    In February 2014, the ‘UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC)’, slammed the Vatican for adopting policies allowing priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children. However, like Israel, the Vatican too, ignored the UNHRC warning.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/03/26/itccs-pope-francis-is-member-of-child-abuse-cult/

  73. Jeff77450 says:
    @KenH

    Agreed. How many of these so-called Jewish/Christian terrorists proclaimed something to the effect of, “I’m doing this to promote/advance the Jewish/Christian faith” in the course of committing their so-called terrorist acts (re. Allahu Akbar)?

  74. Jeff77450 says:
    @Rehmat

    You can’t read the New Testament objectively and conclude that Jesus approves of the many crimes & atrocities that have been committed in His name.

    Conversely you can read the Quran (objectively) and logically conclude that Mohamed–a false prophet, murderer, rapist and pedophile–would approve of the many crimes & atrocities that have been and are being committed in the name of Islam. “In a nutshell,” that’s the difference between the two men and the two belief-systems as they relate to civil society.

    http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/195861)

  75. Jeff77450 says:
    @Thirdeye

    And when was the last time that an abortion-clinic was bombed? 1984?

  76. KenH says:
    @Talha

    Your assumption is that the indigenous peoples of that land did not become less and less Christian because they simply found the creed of Islam and its return to simple, unadulterated monotheism…..

    That was true in some cases while other conversions were due to Copts believing that the grass was greener with Islam after being frustrated with the Byzantine Christians of Constantinople. And over time some Copts got tired of dhimmitude and paying the jizya since it’s not what it’s cracked up to be and reluctantly converted and not because they found Islamic dogma so enticing. Then there was the persecution and forced conversions then (such as under al Hakim in the 11th century) just as now which adds up over the centuries.
    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/550.christian.girls.kidnapped.and.forced.to.convert.in.egypt.since.2011/38177.htm

    There were periods of relatively humane and tolerant treatment and periods of persecution, humiliation and forced conversion. The main takeaway from my examples is that when Islam appears in or conquers a nation, eventually Christians and other non-Muslims become a small, often persecuted minority or disappear altogether.

    I know something about this. My wife and I traveled in Kosovo to do relief work after their war. I saw many Kosovans. I met with the ones that were as you described. They did NOT appear to be religious……..

    Be careful, as you seem to be arguing that if the Kosovar Muslims were more pious they would not have become so antagonistic towards neighboring Christians. Yet they still were (antagonistic) and followed a radical, militant Islamist in Alija Izetbegovic who had deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical and presumably pious Islamists throughout the middle east. It’s of note that Izetbegovic did not feel his flock was sufficiently Islamic and mujahadeen throat cutters from Afghanistan and other Muslim nations who came to assist the Bosnian Muslims were dismayed at the lack of religious ardor and Westernized behavior of them.

    Therefore, lack of religious piety is not a precondition to hostility towards non-Muslims when you had a radical Islamist in Izetbegovic leading the largely non-pious, semi-apostate Muslims of Kosovo against the Christians in a jihad. The key is the deeds of the Muslim/Muslims and not in what they say, believe, profess to believe, or in their attempts to put troubling passages in the Koran or Hadith into a context that is less inflammatory towards non-Muslims.

    This is not to say that all Bosnian Muslims hated Christians as there are accounts of Muslims and Muslim villages wishing to remain neutral and at peace with their Christian neighbors being harassed, persecuted and even killed by the KLA and Izetbegovic’s goons.

    This is obfuscating the issue – the interpretation of these texts and the authority one has to do so is the paramount debate of our time; you are seeing the results if we lose this debate.

    It’s obvious you have made an exhaustive study of your religion and I commend you for that, but many of your co-religionists have not and there will never be a consensus among Muslims on the interpretation of Islamic holy texts leading to perpetual amity among Muslims and non-Muslims. More than a few Muslims will simply interpret the Koran, Hadith and other texts in a way that suits their murderous objectives as in the case of ISIS, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram.

    No doubt some Muslims are angered and horrified by the actions of radicals, but I’m dealing in groups and group dynamics ensures there will always be some degree of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims (with Muslims being the aggressors in almost all cases) when they are forced to share the same living space regardless of whether some individuals on both sides have good will towards the other. This is evinced by world history and current events.

    In Darwinian terms, Muslims have out-competed Christians and non-Muslims usually because they are willing to be much more ruthless and intolerant. The only exception is Catholic Spain who, after being conquered and occupied by N. African Muslims, regrouped and gave the Muslims a taste of their own medicine and killed, persecuted and forcibly converted them culminating in their forced expulsion from the Spanish peninsula.

    Can you find just one similar example – of a man who fought a people on the battlefield, was betrayed by them, then turned around and protected them in their time of need and earned their highest honor of chivalry – in any other religion?

    This man was true to his principles and my hat is off to him, but that is one isolated case of Muslim magnanimity towards non-Muslims and it isn’t common or doesn’t constitute a trend. Europeans are providing safe haven and protection to hundreds of thousands of Muslims fleeing the war torn middle east, so does that count for nothing? And Europeans are being repaid by suffering rapes and sexual assaults of their women, disruption of church services in some cases and terrorist attacks. America allowed you and your family to immigrate here where you enjoy the same rights and privileges as those whose descendants founded and built this country and who have fought in its wars. You don’t have to pay the equivalent of the jizya just because you aren’t white and Christian.

    BTW, the Taliban just murdered 67 Christians in an Easter Sunday bomb attack in Pakistan where I believe you hail from.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Marcus
  77. Talha says:
    @Art

    Dear Art,

    This is the Twenty First Century – there is NO reason for war.

    And every reason to avoid it at all cost due to the amplified destructive nature due to technological advancement.

    You sir, earned a prayer for that one – no, two prayers. When I hear Christians say things like this, I am remined of the verse of the Qur’an (that both I and my children have memorized):

    “…and We sent Jesus the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him, compassion and mercy…” 57:27

    One thing I would caution is about lumping all Jews together. I agree that Jews have a disproportionate influence in the media and politics, but my contention would be that the wrong Jews do. As you know, many Jews are the most vociferous critics of Israel (some being published here on UNZ). In my experience, you will find Jews on both sides of almost all issues; for example, you’ll see some demanding Guantanamo be open perpetually and yet you’ll see other Jewish lawyers working pro-bono on behalf of detainees.

    “Blessed are the peace-makers for they shall be…” – you know the score…

    • Replies: @Marcus
  78. Talha says:
    @KenH

    Dear KenH,

    It does seem we agree in many of the same points. Like I said (and I believe you agree), if we cannot dispel the ignorance among the Muslim masses, we are done for. And, yes, I don’t think there will ever come a time when you won’t have some group misinterpreting the text to suit their agenda; if you want a 100% guarantee, it’s not going to happen.

    A couple of points though, al-Hakim was possibly insane and encouraged the spread of a cult to worship him:

    http://www.britannica.com/biography/al-Hakim

    Not a good example of anything.

    Regarding the conflict over Kosovo; what did Izetbegovic have to do with it? He was the leader in Bosnia during the break-up of Yugoslavia. And if you think that war was a one-sided aggression against Serbs and Croats – you are rewriting history. That was a nasty civil war among the three sides. I knew a Croat Christian who served in the Muslim Bosnian army – not a very clean war at all. Muslims from other places flocked into Bosnia to protect fellow Muslims that were under an arms embargo and logistically weak, have you not read of the Siege of Sarajevo? I’m not going to stand here and say they didn’t do some horrible things against some of the Christian population (the Hague has sentenced Muslims and Christians for war crimes in that conflict) – but you make it seem like they came in there for the express purpose massacring Christians.

    In Darwinian terms, Muslims have out-competed Christians and non-Muslims usually because they are willing to be much more ruthless and intolerant.

    OK, so Michael Bonner, author of the excellent book Jihad in Islamic History is dead wrong when he states, “…the central Islamic lands on the whole practiced convivencia much more often than not. Though far from perfect, a practical system of tolerance prevailed in the central lands of Islam, right down until the modern era” and “there is no doubt that the history of the dhimma compares favorably with the treatment of non-Christians in Europe during most of the pre-modern era”. Do you have evidence to the contrary from a reliable source?

    Europeans are providing safe haven and protection to hundreds of thousands of Muslims fleeing the war torn middle east, so does that count for nothing?

    That counts for a lot, honestly. And the Muslims who are being ungrateful by breaking the law and harming their hosts cannot back it up with Islam – their actions are condemned by Islamic law (read any of my previous posts to see references to medieval texts on jurisprudence). The Europeans should have a very low-tolerance policy for such behavior, they should consider themselves to be on probation and behave accordingly.

    BTW, the Taliban just murdered 67 Christians in an Easter Sunday bomb attack in Pakistan where I believe you hail from.

    Incorrect, they killed 14 Christians and 44 Muslims and I’m sure the numbers will go up respectively:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/death-toll-in-pakistan-easter-suicide-attack-rises-to-72-authorities-vow-to-hunt-down-perpetrators/2016/03/28/037a2e18-f46a-11e5-958d-d038dac6e718_story.html

    We Muslims are, by far, pint for pint of blood, pound for pound of flesh their majority victims; stack the European bodies side-by-side with the Muslim ones from Muslim lands – no comparison. But some of them think a mafia-style hit on a young teenage girl advocating education is divinely-favored – so, not surprising.

    May God bless you and your family.

    • Replies: @KenH
  79. Marcus says:
    @KenH

    The Islamic invasions of the Indian subcontinent are a great example of how Islam is effective as an empire building force (as a religion it’s silly): various Turkic and Iranic tribes united at different times under ghazi warlords to plunder the wealthier “kafir” lands, (India was fabulously wealthy at the time) but when they ran out of infidels to kill and plunder (and sometimes before that), they turned on each other and their lands declined into the poor, inbred trash heaps that they are now.

    • Replies: @KenH
  80. Marcus says:
    @Talha

    You’re speaking with a forked tongue. Islam erupted onto the world scene with conquest from Spain to India. I’m not condemning it for being violent, that’s what humans do, but let’s be honest here. To paraphrase Naipaul, Arabs were the most successful imperialists, since people they conquered remember it as a liberation.

    • Replies: @Talha
  81. Talha says:
    @Marcus

    Dear Marcus,

    You’re speaking with a forked tongue.

    I most certainly am not. A person who does not recognize the difference between the pre-modern wars (that were fought mostly by armies on plains or in valleys or involved the siege of a few capital cities or forts) and current conflicts in which almost every city seems to be turned into a mini-Stalingrad has not been paying attention to the trajectory of the human cost of war. Add on it populations’ dependency on modern necessities like water purification plants (unlike people of the past who would drink well-water or the like – before, during of after conflict) and compounding factors (like un-exploded ordinance in civilian areas or carcinogenic affects of certain projectiles and explosives, etc.) and you have a lethal mix where military to civilian casualties are the inverse of what should be deemed morally acceptable. Modern warfare is an anathema. It should be avoided as much as possible.

    but let’s be honest here

    Indeed, let’s – as far as the past is concerned, here is what I wrote in another post, by which I stand firm:
    To project our current state of affairs and international compacts and conventions as defining international norms of the pre-modern era is completely anachronistic. Kingdoms and empires went to war all the time, they had no reason to or not to, it was simply a question of whether or not one had the logistics to project one’s power beyond one’s border and the preference of which direction to expand. Let’s take a few examples to illustrate the point…

    Charles Martel crushed the Muslim armies at the Battle of Tours, and what exactly did he do after that – go for the jugular in the rest of Umayyad Iberia? No, he fights to a point where he feels his Western border is secured and continues on to invade and consolidate fellow Christian and heathen kingdoms to the East. Why didn’t William of Normandy stay on his side of the English Channel, did the Saxons call his mother names? Did the Sassanid Empire not invade Arabia because they really felt that it should be kept as an autonomous region for the various Semetic ethno-linguistic groups and they (being Persians) ought not to interfere – or because they felt it just wasn’t worth it? I think you see where I am coming from. That time was a different time, when the scholars of Islam defined it as Dar ul-Harb (Abode of War) they had defined it precisely – war was the norm rather than the exception. Unless one specifically had a treaty with another sovereign (whether that be emperor, monarch, etc.) one could expect to be attacked at any time with no notice and one conducted policy (intelligently) with that in mind. This was irrespective of one’s religion or one’s ethnicity or even one’s heritage (how many siblings conquered their own brother’s kingdom and had him blinded and thrown in a cell to rot). If one wants Muslims to apologize for militarily crushing the Sassanid, Byzantine or any other empire, don’t hold your breath. If there were Muslim abuses of the population, that is another factor and that goes against the ethos of the rules of war as defined well within the texts from the earliest sources.

    May God bless you and your family and preserve them from witnessing the ravages of war.

  82. Marcus says:

    You continue to obfuscate, the early Muslim armies, including those of Muhammad and his pals, clearly saw themselves as carrying out a religious duty to subjugate infidels, period. You basically answer your own question by comparing Muslim jihads to other imperialisms that adhered to reasonable limits: the caliphate kept pushing east and west well after it had conquered enough land to sustain itself.
    “If one wants Muslims to apologize for militarily crushing the Sassanid, Byzantine or any other empire, don’t hold your breath.”
    I don’t want them too, but that would be foolish indeed, considering that the Islamic view, which has been taught to the descendants of the conquered, is that those conquests were divinely mandated and their enemies were hell-bound kafirs. Your ancestors likely converted because they wanted to aver the humiliation of being dhimmi. You bow to your conquerors’ homeland and pray in his language: that’s the most successful imperialism ever.

    • Replies: @Talha
  83. KenH says:
    @Talha

    It does seem we agree in many of the same points. Like I said (and I believe you agree), if we cannot dispel the ignorance among the Muslim masses, we are done for. And, yes, I don’t think there will ever come a time when you won’t have some group misinterpreting the text to suit their agenda; if you want a 100% guarantee, it’s not going to happen.

    A couple of points though, al-Hakim was possibly insane and encouraged the spread of a cult to worship him:
    http://www.britannica.com/biography/al-Hakim
    Not a good example of anything.

    It is but one example, but you missed my more important point from my previous post, which is; There were periods of relatively humane and tolerant treatment and periods of persecution, humiliation and forced conversion. It seems you focus on only the periods of tolerance and humane treatment of non-Muslims and act as if the bad times for Christians are highly anomalous and atypical.

    Regarding the conflict over Kosovo; what did Izetbegovic have to do with it? He was the leader in Bosnia during the break-up of Yugoslavia. And if you think that war was a one-sided aggression against Serbs and Croats – you are rewriting history.

    Really? Izetbegovic is a central figure in the Bosnian conflict. His desire to turn Bosnia into an Islamic state and use of KLA terrorists to attack Serb police and civilians in Kosovo in effect alienated Serbian Christians and started the conflict. However, once the war started ancient, long suppressed hatreds were unleashed and atrocities were committed by all sides including Croats and Serb Christians and at times it became a vicious cycle of small scale atrocities. The Balkans has always been a complicated region.

    The problem is that liberal Western journalists stationed in Sarajevo regurgitated the pro-Muslim propaganda being vended by the radical Izetbegovic gov’t and created a false narrative of aggressive, murderous Serbs typified by wicked Slobodon Miliosevic and peace loving, innocent Muslims to elicit sympathy, money and assistance from other nations. THAT is re-writing history.

    OK, so Michael Bonner, author of the excellent book Jihad in Islamic History is dead wrong when he states, “…the central Islamic lands on the whole practiced convivencia much more often than not. T

    I’d have to read the book but if his thesis is that living under Muslim rule from antiquity until now is akin to being at Disney World for non-Muslims then yes, he’s dead wrong. It hasn’t always been a house of horrors either, but if convivencia invariably reigned during Muslim rule then he will need to explain why Christians and non-Muslims eventually become tiny minorities or vanish altogether over time. Need I remind you that Christians in Iraq, Syria and even Egypt are now facing total extinction by Muslims who skipped madrassa on the day they taught the concept of convivencia.

    By contrast, virtually every nation conquered, settled or colonized by white Christians sees an explosion of the indigenous, often non-white population after the period of war and conquest. S. Africa, India and America are three examples.

    That counts for a lot, honestly. And the Muslims who are being ungrateful by breaking the law and harming their hosts cannot back it up with Islam

    On this point we basically agree.

    Incorrect, they killed 14 Christians and 44 Muslims and I’m sure the numbers will go up respectively:

    My mistake as the radio program I was listening to as I was typing my previous response stated all 67 dead were Christians. However, from the Washington Post article; Officials vowed to hunt down the Islamist militant bombers who claimed they targeted Christians — yet killed many of their Muslim brethren in the bargain.

    It seems the intended targets were Christians and not Muslims and the bomber(s) miscalculated and thought only Christians would be present. From a CNN article:

    The religious group (Christians) makes up only 2% of the population, and tensions are high between them and a hardline Muslim core which wants to see a strict interpretation of Islamic law take precedence in Pakistan’s legal system.

    So here we go again on the endless merry go round of Islamic jurisprudence and what it means. It would seem the objective is for Christians to be terrorized into accepting Sharia law. Convivencia reigns in Pakistan!

    We agree on some things and spiritedly disagree on others, but I appreciate the thoughtful and respectful responses.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Marcus
  84. KenH says:
    @Marcus

    Good point. This penchant for infighting and division among Muslims helped the Spanish Christians slowly retake territory by launching raids from their Northern redoubts and steadily push Muslim frontiers further and further South until they were relegated to coastal areas only.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  85. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. Buchanan,
    It happens again and again – people open up the Quran and pick all the verses that deal with pagans or infidels and how they should be dealt with. The problem with this is that the Quran took 23 years in the making and it was in its infancy when pagans and infidels sought to destroy Islam and its followers up to and including the founder himself, Mohammad. He was stoned, poisoned, and repeatedly plotted against by his own tribesmen and others who saw him as a danger to their social and economic system. Now the point is this: All references to self defense and fighting back and waiting for the enemies etc. are for specific events that took place (all documented by name and date) and were directed against particular few people who led campaign after campaign to kill the early Muslims. I didn’t know this myself till I met some scholars who opened my eyes to this critical ‘time’ and ‘specific event’ issues that only came and went and SHOULD NOT Be GENERALIZED. Self defense is ones duty by all accounts but going after pagans and infidels is not UNLESS they transgress first!
    It has been 1,600 years since Muhammad came and went and like Christianity Islam has seen more than it’s fare share of ignorance and fanaticism and strict adherence to things NO LONGER or SIMPLY NOT APPLICABLE any more. It is a grave mistake that we as Muslims commit against ourselves and others when we quote our holy book completely out of context and forget that the name of our God is The Merciful and Beneficent and Muhammad ALWAYS taught to forgive first and punish as a last resort.

  86. Marcus says:
    @KenH

    An expansionist ideology/religion founded to unite warring tribes with the promise of conquering and looting their wealthier neighbors isn’t going to stop finding enemies when all the kafirs are gone.

  87. Talha says:
    @Marcus

    Dear Marcus,

    the early Muslim armies…clearly saw themselves as carrying out a religious duty to subjugate infidels, period

    No – not period – that is factually incorrect. That view is certainly the interpretation of the Shafi’i school as I cited in a previous post:
    Imam Mawardi (may God illuminate his grave), a Shafi’i himself, writes in the Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (Rules of Governance), regarding the jizyah as either “a penalty for their disbelief, in which case it is extracted to humiliate them” (the Shafi’i position) or “as compensation paid in return for their being guaranteed safety, in which case it is taken with gentleness” (the position of the Hanafis and others). The question I always pose is, when was the Shafi’i position ever applied? The successive caliphates of Islam (after the Rashidun) have been Maliki (Umayyad), Hanafi (Abbasid), Ottoman (Abbasid) – let’s even take into account the Fatimid (Ismaili) or even the Sokoto Caliphate (established in Western Africa and isolated from the Ottomans) by Uthman Dan Fodio (may God raise his rank) which was Maliki.

    It is a minority opinion, on the books as theory, applied exactly when officially? That certainly does not make the case for a well-argued absolute statement.

    Your ancestors likely converted because they wanted to aver the humiliation of being dhimmi.

    Incorrect, I am descended from the Prophet (pbuh) through the noble line of Lady Fatimah (may God grant her a high station) – so, opposite side of the coin. Many of my friends are descended from the indigenous peoples of the Indian subcontinent. They certainly do pray (in gratitude) for their progenitors that first converted to Islam to save them the trouble of having to decide whether to throw in their lot with a single, indivisible, transcendent, personal Creator as opposed to local deity that may or may not have the head of one animal or another and is in competition with the deity across the river.

    Arabs were the most successful imperialists, since people they conquered remember it as a liberation.

    You cite Naipaul, a novelist. I admit, I am tempted to cite Emily Dickenson in refutation of his statement, but I’ll stick with Prof. David Nicolle (Phd Edinburgh Univ.) – an expert in medieval military history and especially of the Middle East. In material terms, Naipaul would have been correct if the (Arab through and through) Umayyad Caliphate would have stuck around. As it were, as Dr. Nicolle makes clear, with the Abbasid revolt initially led by Khorasani Arabs was, within a couple of generations, taken over by Persians wholesale – except in name. As the son of the Abbasid Caliph Harun Rashid famously stated, “The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour.” It was, in essence, the Sassanid ‘Empire Strikes Back’. Much of the Islam, as we know it now, came from this time with a disproportionate influence from ethnic Persians and others from Transoxiana – not Arabs. The Abassids proceeded to inundate their armies with various Turkic people who then basically (this is a really abridged version) took over as the Ottomans after the Mongol invasion. Even the Umayyad Caliphate that remained in Spain was not Hijazi Arab, but Berber. So, in material terms, the Arabs initially conquered and acquired a great amount of territory and gave the various indigenous people the same set of beliefs that allowed them to then turn around and wear the religiously-mandated mantle of the caliphate and legitimized their authority over the Arabs.

    You bow to your conquerors’ homeland and pray in his language: that’s the most successful imperialism ever.

    Do me a favor, go speak to one of the people of the Cacausus mountains (Chechens, Daghestanis, etc.) and tell them you know that all that talk about them accepting Islam at the hands of the spiritual masters of the Naqshbandi order is all baloney and that you really empathize with their tragic plight; that their ancestors were forced to accept Islam under the feet of the Arabs. But please, record it and post it on youtube; I have never seen a Chechen incapacitated by laughter before.

    May God preserve you and your family.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  88. Talha says:
    @KenH

    Dear Ken,

    It seems you focus on only the periods of tolerance and humane treatment of non-Muslims and act as if the bad times for Christians are highly anomalous and atypical.

    I do nothing of the sort. I am specifically citing these instances in order to rebut hyperbolic statements like ‘Muslims always…’ and ‘Islam has never…’. Just in this thread I have mentioned the Armenian genocide, the instances of the Shafi’is in Khorasan humiliating non-Muslim men when they paid jizyah, the horrendous church bombing in Pakistan of 2013, the fact that some Muslim Bosnians were war criminals. In other posts I have mentioned clear instances like the Almohad forced conversion of Jews in Spain, the massacre of Jews in Grenada in 1066, the forced conscription of Christian children into the Ottoman army as Janissaries. Please peruse my posts, I have likely mentioned historical events you were not aware of.

    Izetbegovic is a central figure in the Bosnian conflict.

    Correct. Why are you conflating the Yugoslavian Civil War of 1992-1995 and the War over Kosovo 1998-1999? Though both had to do with the break up of Yugoslavia inherently, but the KLA had made no moves during the first war in which Mr. Izetbegovic played a huge role. I am asking, what did Izetbegovic have to do with the Kosovo War? Please furnish some proof that he was behind the KLA – and please, please not some random Serbia nationalist site. Please pay my intellect at least that much respect.

    …KLA terrorists to attack Serb police and civilians in Kosovo in effect alienated Serbian Christians and started the conflict.

    Sounds right to me. I met some of these guys. Ultra ethnic nationalists, they thought they were God’s gift to the planet, descended from ancient Illyrians, etc. Myself being a Muslim, their nationalism was scary and off-putting. It would surprise me in no way that they would take actions like that.

    I’d have to read the book but if his thesis is that living under Muslim rule from antiquity until now is akin to being at Disney World for non-Muslims then yes, he’s dead wrong.

    I am citing people with doctorate degrees in military history, people that speak multiple languages, have done sound research and been published by institutions like Princeton University Press. You are not citing something published from, say Cornell, Berkeley, Cambridge, Oxford. You have set up a straw man, ‘if his thesis is…Disney World for non-Muslims’ and dismissed it with an opinion. He never claimed as such and has documented historical pogroms and instances of forced conversions in that very work and still come to the conclusion that with all of that in mind (including the events I cite above), in the balance, “Islamic lands on the whole practiced convivencia much more often than not”. If you wish to deny the claim find an authoritative source to do so. Again, please grant me and others respect by not linking to some random site on polemics or some self-published author.

    then he will need to explain why Christians and non-Muslims eventually become tiny minorities or vanish altogether over time.

    He does, part of it is simple peaceful conversion:
    “The larger context was an increase of tension and isolation among Christian communities that, having adopted the Arabic language among themselves, and having come to realize that the rule of Islam was definitively there to stay, found their own numbers decreasing through peaceful conversion to Islam.” That is Christianity; as for the others (fire-worshiping, ancestor-worship, shamanism, or localized paganism) put them on a scale against Semetic transcendent monotheism – you make the call.

    Part of it is social mobility:
    “To begin with, some members of the larger group tried to join the elite. In order to do this, conversion to Islam was necessary but not enough.”

    Lessen tax burden:
    “One’s obligation to pay jizya thus ended on conversion to Islam.”

    And, yes, the occasional forced conversions:
    “On the whole, however, such episodes remained exceptional, like the episodes of forced conversion to Islam.”

    Keep in mind also, proselytizing to the Muslim population was not allowed, so that avenue was cut off as far as being able to recuperate numbers.

    There is of course another factor; the Mongol invasions made a drastic dent in the populations (Muslim and non-Muslim). Eventually, the Mongol conquerors changed their religion, and they chose Islam – bear in mind, they were the ones hold the swords over everyone else’s heads at the time, nobody forced them:
    “Consequently, when the Mongol elite of Iran and Iraq converted to Islam, toward the end of the thirteenth century…”

    All of the above factors are a very rational explanation.

    Need I remind you that Christians in Iraq, Syria and even Egypt are now facing total extinction by Muslims who skipped madrassa on the day they taught the concept of convivencia.

    No need for reminding…welcome to the Reformation. How many of these people has studied at the feet of traditional, qualified scholars?

    By contrast, virtually every nation conquered, settled or colonized by white Christians sees an explosion of the indigenous, often non-white population after the period of war and conquest.

    I don’t know why people insist on claiming that Arabs held hegemony and ethnic superiority over everyone else. That basically ended with the Umayyads, see my response to Marcus backed by the writings of military historian Prof. David Nicolle.

    So here we go again on the endless merry go round of Islamic jurisprudence and what it means. It would seem the objective is for Christians to be terrorized into accepting Sharia law.

    Yes, that may be the goal by those ignorant of their religion and unqualified to interpret the texts, the ones who are knowledgeable are certainly not; I already cited to you how the top Muftis of Pakistan condemned a similar bombing in 2013.

    And I agree, may God grant you respect and may people treat you with civility for the tone in which you have engaged me. We disagree, no problem, people can see the history of our discussion and see what appeals to their intellect.

    • Replies: @KenH
  89. Marcus says:
    @Talha

    It was applied basically all throughout Muslim history, when infidels (other than pagans) were offered the choice of converting, becoming a dhimmi, or fighting, look at Muhammad’s letters to neighboring rulers.

    “They certainly do pray (in gratitude) for their progenitors that first converted to Islam to save them the trouble of having to decide whether to throw in their lot with a single, indivisible, transcendent, personal Creator as opposed to local deity that may or may not have the head of one animal or another and is in competition with the deity across the river.”

    I’m sure it had to do with that motivation and not getting tired of having to be spit on while paying jizya, having temples destroyed, women raped, etc. I’d feel ashamed that my ancestors didn’t resist the Muslim savages instead (there are still a few Hindus left in Pakistan and even Afghanistan), but I can’t speak on their behalf.

    I agree the Turkic and Iranic peoples eventually took over the mantle from the Arabs, Islam was good at recruiting new warrior peoples with promise of plundering infidels whereas the Iranians found increased social mobility by doing so (look at the Barmakids). It was “Persianized” Turks who carried jihad into southeastern Europe, India, etc. Sure lots of syncretic forms of Islam have developed (as is the case with other evangelical religions) but it remains true that mainstream Muslims are: expected to memorize Arabic book, take Arabic name, pray to Makkah, adopt barbaric medieval Arab laws, consider pre-conquest past “Jahiliyya,” etc.; and the more syncretic forms are subject to being attacked by Arabizing hardliners, as is happening now in the Mideast.

  90. Marcus says:
    @KenH

    TBH i think the Balkan conflicts were more ethnic than religious: Bosnians and Albanians mostly secular and the Serbs were the most barbaric in their behavior, but the “Islamic declaration” of Izetbegovic (not the moderate face he presented to the Western powers) reflects what the Muslim mainstream really thinks of kafirs.

    • Replies: @KenH
  91. KenH says:
    @Talha

    I do nothing of the sort. I am specifically citing these instances in order to rebut hyperbolic statements like ‘Muslims always…’ and ‘Islam has never…’……..Please peruse my posts, I have likely mentioned historical events you were not aware of.

    I don’t recall saying “Muslims always or Islam has never”. I do recall saying Muslims almost always. I was aware of most if not all of the events you mentioned although one event overlooked in the genocide of Armenian Christians was the earlier massacre of up to 400K by Turkish Sultan Abdul Hamid II from 1894 to 1896.

    Correct. Why are you conflating the Yugoslavian Civil War of 1992-1995 and the War over Kosovo 1998-1999?…….. Please pay my intellect at least that much respect.

    Information may have gotten inadvertently jumbled together. Yes, there were two phases with Izetbegovic playing a leading role in 1992-95 with his wish to create an Islamic state out of Bosnia which alienated Serbs and Croats while he only seemed to be on the margins during 1998-99. Even though the KLA formed in 1991 it wasn’t until after the first phase that they began waging attacks against Serbs in Kosovo around 1996 which invited reprisal attacks by Serb paramilitaries. Even though there doesn’t appear to be a relationship between the KLA and Izetbegovic, many in the KLA were Islamic fundamentalists just like him and thus, they were birds of a feather.

    I am citing people with doctorate degrees in military history, people that speak multiple languages, have done sound research and been published by institutions like Princeton University Press. You are not citing something published from, say…..

    The book by Michael Bonner you cited seems to be an exposition on the concept of Jihad and not a study on convivencia, at least based on the title and what little I can learn from the table of contents. It may well be an excellent work, but is not the final word on relations between non-Muslim minorities and their Muslim masters throughout history. And it doesn’t take a Phd from a top university to use historical inference and deductive reasoning to conclude that it is disadvantageous for non-Muslims to live under Muslims and that, as a non-Muslim you will eventually suffer in some manner under Muslim rule.

    Non-Muslims are not flourishing in Muslim societies today and haven’t for a very long time…..they merely exist…..a fact you refuse to accept and it is idiotic and suicidal for Europe and the West to allow so many into their nations. Conversely, Muslims living in white, Western nations are growing and in some cases, thriving such as in the USA where the ultra left wing Obama gov’t values and prefers minorities over the historic white majority.

    Re: Your examples of reasons for converting
    This merely proves the arguments of Islams’s critics and detractors. That is, that there is a system of punitive measures within Islam for encouraging the Kafir to convert to Islam. The fact that non-Muslims are disallowed from preaching to or proselytizing Muslims only adds to their diminution over time. All of these factors combined eventually turn a society almost totally Islamic which is by design and the point I made (or thought I made) in previous posts.

    No need for reminding…welcome to the Reformation. How many of these people has studied at the feet of traditional, qualified scholars?

    It seems ISIS and other extremist Muslims are willing to overthrow the traditional, qualified scholars if the teachings don’t comport with their vision of Islam.

    Yes, that may be the goal by those ignorant of their religion and unqualified to interpret the texts, the ones who are knowledgeable are certainly not; I already cited to you how the top Muftis of Pakistan condemned a similar bombing in 2013.

    And yet these Muftis, for all their supposed influence and power, are unable to stop members of their flock from harming Christians and other non-Muslims. If Islam is that decentralized and its leading scholars that powerless to influence behavior of fellow Muslims, then there will always exist a vacuum that will be filled by the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other violent extremists.

    Best

    • Replies: @Talha
  92. KenH says:
    @Marcus

    Could be although despite their faults, I haven’t seen evidence where the Serbs were attempting to make a Christian state out of Bosnia and marginalize Muslims whereas Izetbegovic wanted to make it an Islamic state based on sharia principles. And Albanian Muslims destroyed 156 Serbian churches between 1999 and 2004, so it’s safe to assume that religion did play a prominent role in the conflict.

    The Croats and Serbs killed each other with glee even though they were both Christian, so ethnicity was the driving factor in their case.

  93. Talha says:
    @KenH

    Dear KenH,

    That is, that there is a system of punitive measures within Islam for encouraging the Kafir to convert to Islam.

    If you are saying Islam historically, officially instituted a policy in Muslim society to incentivize conversion – 100%, guilty as charged. I wanted to posit (and by citing resources) that it was not because of mass slaughter and forced conversion as people are implying; it did happen, but (as Bonner states) was “atypical”.

    And it doesn’t take a Phd from a top university to use historical inference and deductive reasoning to conclude that it is disadvantageous for non-Muslims to live under Muslims

    No doubt, and every historian I have read states the same; they also simply posit that a Christian village under the Abassids fared much better than a (hypothetical) Muslim village under William the Conqueror. In pre-modern times, there was no long-standing Muslim minority living under Christian rule in the West because, when the Christians got a chance, they kicked them all out or forced them to convert (as in Spain). Ivan did bring the Muslim Tatars under his rule by showing them what would happen to them by razing multiple cities like Kazan (plus their populations) to the ground – but that did lay a generally solid foundation for a multi-faith Russia. That model actually seems to work somewhat since there is a kind of federalism where you have Muslim ethnic majorities in their own semi-autonomous regions (like Tartarstan, Daghestan, etc.); gives people breathing space. Ethnic Russians have the same problem though, they are not multiplying. The Crusader kingdoms ran the gamut from being bearable to their Muslim subjects to downright oppressive and murderous. If you have counter evidence to any of this, please submit.

    Muslims living in white, Western nations are growing and in some cases, thriving

    True, we should thank God for His blessings and pray for the welfare of the nations that we live in. This is essentially what happens in a nation-state governed by secular laws and (general) meritocracy and with the separation of church and state – a division that Muslims hand no hand in drafting at the Peace of Westphalia. The European monarchs did that because they saw that if they didn’t stop the bleeding due to rampant Christian sectarian violence (15 to 20 percent of the prewar population according to http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399301/obo-9780195399301-0127.xml), there wasn’t going to be a population to govern.

    Though, even in modern times you’ll see some amazing gains, like the fact that the historical fourth Chief Justice of Pakistan was the brilliant (Christian) Hon. Alvin Cornelius.

    All of these factors combined eventually turn a society almost totally Islamic which is by design and the point I made (or thought I made) in previous posts.

    Probably, unless non-Muslims have a disproportionately higher birth-rate.

    It seems ISIS and other extremist Muslims are willing to overthrow the traditional, qualified scholars if the teachings don’t comport with their vision of Islam.

    Correct, and slaughter those same scholars by the dozen.

    And yet these Muftis, for all their supposed influence and power, are unable to stop members of their flock from harming Christians and other non-Muslims.

    This is a major, major problem – we have a crisis of authority and you are seeing the fruits – again, think Protestant Reformation – that was NOT a table discussion.

    May God spare us from seeing such chaos in our land.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  94. Marcus says:
    @Talha

    Regarding one of the few instances of Christians ruling Muslims Ibn Jubayr says the Normans were fair to the Muslims under their rule in Sicily and Syria/Palestine, but who knows if that’s representative of the entire middle ages.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Talha
  95. Talha says:
    @Marcus

    Dear Marcus,

    Thank you, for the correction. Instead of:
    The Crusader kingdoms ran the gamut from being bearable to their Muslim subjects to downright oppressive and murderous.

    I should have put:
    The Crusader kingdoms ran the gamut from being fair to their Muslim subjects to downright oppressive and murderous.

    I do not in any way want to rewrite history; it was acknowledged among the Muslim world that European Christians produced chivalrous men like King Richard (who was in charge of Normandy) so I think we are talking about the same people as opposed to the vile Renald of Chatillon.

    May God bless you and yours.

  96. Talha says:
    @Marcus

    In general, Western European Christians were an unpredictable lot. They had no problem slaughtering indigenous Middle Eastern Christians of the Orthodox variety on their way to the Holy Land and in various sieges. The Fourth Crusade being the upshot of all this with a Western Crusader army that ends up never making it to the Holy Land at all, but simply besieging and sacking two Christian cities (one of them being Constantinople). And from what I’ve read, Constantinople never recovered fully from this defeat and fell eventually to the Ottomans afterward.

    I love this very quick summary (my daughter introduced me to this brilliant series):

    Dag, yo – that’s whack!

    • Replies: @Marcus
  97. Marcus says:
    @Talha

    The Papacy was somewhat effective in keeping Latin Christians from being overly brutal in their wars against each other, but when it came to wars against opponents of “Christendom” (Orthodox, Cathars, Muslims, pagans, etc.) it was usually up to the mercies of the commanding officer or ruler. The more sensible ones, like Alfonso VI and Roger II, tried to ingratiate themselves to cosmopolitan local populations for practical or humanitarian reasons. Certainly the Jewish and Arabic-speaking writers would have been seen as useful by Christian nobility when the Church maintained something of a monopoly on learning in Christendom.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS