Monday, May 26, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
by Rizwan Salim
from Islam Watch
On the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition (December 6, 1992), it is important for Hindus (and Muslims) to understand the importance of the event in the context of Hindustan's history, past and recent, present and the future.
Savages at a very low level of civilisation and no culture worth the name, from Arabia and west Asia, began entering India from the early century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished countless Hindu temples, shattered uncountable sculpture and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of Hindu kings, killed vast numbers of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women. This story, the educated-and a lot of even the illiterate Indians-know very well. History books tell it in remarkable detail.
But many Indians do not seem to recognise that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed the historical evolution of the earth's most mentally advanced civilisation, the most richly imaginative culture, and the most vigorously creative society.
It is clear that India at the time when Muslim invaders turned towards it (8 to 11th century) was the earth's richest region for its wealth in precious and semi-precious stones, gold and silver, religion and culture, and its fine arts and letters. Tenth century Hindustan was also too far advanced than its contemporaries in the East and the West for its achievements in the realms of speculative philosophy and scientific theorising, mathematics and knowledge of nature's workings. Hindus of the early medieval period were unquestionably superior in more things than the Chinese, the Persians (including the Sassanians), the Romans and the Byzantines of the immediate proceeding centuries. The followers of Siva and Vishnu on this subcontinent had created for themselves a society more mentally evolved-joyous and prosperous too-than had been realised by the Jews, Christians, and Muslim monotheists of the time.
Medieval India, until the Islamic invaders destroyed it, was history's most richly imaginative culture and one of the five most advanced civilisations of all times.
Look at the Hindu art that Muslim iconoclasts severely damaged or destroyed. Ancient Hindu sculpture is vigorous and sensual in the highest degree-more fascinating than human figural art created anywhere else on earth. (Only statues created by classical Greek artists are in the same class as Hindu temple sculpture). Ancient Hindu temple architecture is the most awe-inspiring, ornate and spell-binding architectural style found anywhere in the world. (The Gothic art of cathedrals in France is the only other religious architecture that is comparable with the intricate architecture of Hindu temples). No artist of any historical civilisation have ever revealed the same genius as ancient Hindustan's artists and artisans.
Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chroniclers and others of the time. A number of temples were merely damaged and remained standing. But a large number-not hundreds but many thousands-of the ancient temples were broken into shreds of cracked stone. In the ancient cities of Varanasi and Mathura, Ujjain and Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi and Dwarka, not one temple survives whole and intact from the ancient times.
The wrecking of Hindu temples went on from the early years of the 8th century to well past 1700 AD a period of almost 1000 years. Every Muslim ruler in Delhi (or Governor of Provinces) spent most of his time warring against Hindu kings in the north and the south, the east and the west, and almost every Muslim Sultan and his army commanders indulged in largescale destructions of Hindu temples and idols. They also slaughtered a lot of Hindus. It is easy to conclude that virtually every Hindu temple built in the ancient times is a perfect work of art.
The evidence of the ferocity with which the Muslim invaders must have struck at the sculptures of gods and goddesses, demons and apsaras, kings and queens, dancers and musicians is frightful. At so many ancient temples of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, for example, shattered portions of stone images still lie scattered in the temple courtyards.
Considering the fury used on the idols and sculptures, the stone-breaking axe must have been applied to thousands upon thousands of images of hypnotic beauty.
Giving proof of the resentment that men belonging to an inferior civilisation feel upon encountering a superior civilisation of individuals with a more refined culture, Islamic invaders from Arabia and western Asia broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan. So morally degenerate were the Muslim Sultans that, rather than attract Hindu "infidels" to Islam through force of personal example and exhortation, they just built a number of mosques at the sites of torn down temples-and foolishly pretended they had triumphed over the minds and culture of the Hindus. I have seen stones and columns of Hindu temples incorportated into the architecture of several mosques, including the Jama Masjid and Ahmed Shah Masjid in Ahmedabad; the mosque in the Uparkot fort of Junagadh (Gujarat) and in Vidisha (near Bhopal); the Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra right next to the famous dargah in Ajmer-and the currently controversial Bhojshala "mosque" in Dhar (near Indore).
Hindu culture was at its imaginative best and vigorously creative when the severely-allergic-to-images Muslims entered Hindustan. Islamic invaders did not just destroy countless temples and constructions but also suppressed cultural and religious practices; damaged the pristine vigour of Hindu religion, prevented the intensification of Hindu culture, debilitating it permanently, stopped the development of Hindu arts ended the creative impulse in all realms of thought and action, damaged the people's cultural pride, disrupted the transmission of values and wisdom, cultural practices and tradition from one generation to the next; destroyed the proper historical evolution of Hindu kingdoms and society, affected severely the acquisition of knowledge, research and reflection and violated the moral basis of Hindu society. The Hindus suffered immense psychic damage. The Muslims also plundered the wealth of the Hindu kingdoms, impoverished the Hindu populace, and destroyed the prosperity of Hindustan.
Gaze in wonder at the Kailas Mandir in the Ellora caves and remember that it is carved out of a solid stone hill, an effort that (inscriptions say) took nearly 200 years. This is art as devotion. The temple built by the Rashtrakuta kings (who also built the colossal sculpture in the Elenhanta caves off Mumbai harbour) gives proof of the ancient Hindus' religious fervor.
But the Kailas temple also indicated a will power, a creative imagination, and an intellect eager to take on the greatest of artistic challenges.
The descendants of those who built the magnificent temples of Bhojpur and Thanjavur, Konark and Kailas, invented mathematics and brain surgery, created mindbody disciplines (yoga) of astonishing power, and built mighty empires would almost certainly have attained technological superiority over Europe.
It is not just for "political reasons" that Hindus want to build grand temples at the sites of the (wrecked) Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, and the Mathura idgah. The efforts of religion-intoxicated and politically active Hindus to rebuild the Ram Mandir, the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir, and the Krishna Mandir are just three episodes in a one-thousand year long Hindu struggle to reclaim their culture and religion from alien invaders.
The demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992 was just one episode in the millennial struggle of the Hindus to repossess their religion-centered culture and nation. Meanwhile, hundreds of ancient Hindu temples forsaken all over Hindustan await the reawakening of Hindu cultural pride to be repaired or rebuilt and restored to their original, ancient glory.
This article was published in Hindustan Times on December 28, 1997
Rizwan Salim is a reviewer of New York Tribune, Capitol Hill reporter, assistant editor of American Sentinel.
12 Nov, 2007
This post was originally scheduled for publication at the Islamic Danger blog on 11/29/07.
Name: vbv Date: Sunday November 11, 2007 Time: 22:20:33 -0700
Indian muslims raise a lot of hue and cry for the demolition of a mosque which was actually in disuse in Ayodhya, while quite oblivious of the fact of thousands of temples razed to the ground during the 700 years of islamic rule! This article should make these maverick muslims / imams/kazis/mullahs to get their perspectives right.
Name: another infidel indianDate: Monday November 12, 2007Time: 05:47:57 -0700
>>This story, the educated-and a lot of even the illiterate Indians-know very well. History books tell it in remarkable detail. Oh, no, our history books written by pseudosecularists from JNU and AMU tell us about how benevolent our muslim rulers were, that the greatest ruler of hindustan, akbar, was not a hindu. not a single mention on how horrific the impact of islam on indian culture was. the full horror of jazia is never explained. And any attempt to redress the same is termed "saffronization", and put down by those same pseudosecularists. India must have an awakening just like Israel, and like Palestine, we should also have a Hindustan and boot the anti national elements out.
Name: BobbyDate: Monday November 12, 2007Time: 12:58:33 -0700
The barbaric invaders were specialized in one thing - warfare and looting other people's land and property. Learned, cultured and peace-loving people stood no chance against this onslaught. Buddhism was wiped out from what is now Afghanistan and now Tibet because they had pursuits other than violent ones. To survive you first need to be able to fight offensive or defensively - that is something that islamists had recognized and the rest of the world can ignore at their peril - in this war against Islam.
Name: kafir/infidel ( & Ex-communist ).Date: Tuesday November 13, 2007Time: 22:33:42 -0700
The article written perhaps by an Ex.Moslem - reflects his courage,his integrity,his fairmindedness,his clear conscience & honesty, his ethical values based on kindness,truth and facts. The credit must go to him. This should open the minds of lot of Indian/Bangladeshi/pakiSATANI Moslems and propel them to learn,think, introspect and act to make themselves feel good,live as decent human beings, with honesty,kindness,compassion ,finally to account for themselves what they do in their lives with their lives. Do not bother about ridiculous fairy ,imaginary tales of Mo & his ISLAMIC jannat. Even a child cant tell such stupid ways as ALLA did . How can ALLA ( in reality MO ) say that sex & wine are not good here in this life but at the same time promising 72 houris virgins with firm,bulging breasts & with prepubescent cherubic boys, endless reservoirs of wine in ISLAMIC JANNAT ,once a Moslem becomes a martyr after killing ,torturing or tormenting infidels,kufrs ? This shows How ISLAMIC ALLA ( MO ) is perverse ,sadist in thinking !!! .......... In this connection all Moslems must remember that in 1971 , during Bangladesh liberation war , ISLAMIC army of PAKISATAN committed genocide proportion killings of 3 million Banladeshis including large number of Hindus , 200000 women raped . This is from Bangladesh Govt figures. ......... Also look at DARFUR regions of SUDAN , a Moslem country . In the past 4 to 5 years ( just infront of our eyes ) the ISLAMIC army ( janjaveed ) , fully unleashed their evil ,cruel,wicked,barbaric ways of rape,arson,killings,destruction of black Moslems - in which an estimated 200000 people - men,women,children , were killed. The same thing happened in UGANDA under the monster rule of IDI AMIN. Do all of you remember these events which happened in the past 30 to 40 years ? In NIGERIA , 3 yrs back when the Ms.universe pageant was to take place , an article in a news paper ,telling the truth about ISLAM founder Mo's sexual life - lead to widespread riots ,arson,killings that resulted in 250 deaths !!!!! Any good ,decent human being will get revulsion at this abominable cult called ISLAM .
Name: NathanDate: Wednesday November 14, 2007Time: 16:29:45 -0700
I must also wonder about how Africa was adversly affected by the muslim conquest of the Northern Christian territories. Was Africa so different from Pre-Christian Europe with its warring tribes. Christianity acted as a great civilizing force to Europe as its principles began to be known more and more by the common people. Islam destroyed North Africa, cutting off the south from trade and interaction with the Byzntines, European, and Eastern civilizations. Islam brought its barbaric religion, legal system and slave trade to Africa and little else. Imagine what the world could have been like were it devoid of Islamic Anti-Civilization.
Name: AllatDate: Friday November 16, 2007Time: 07:36:22 -0700
What the islamics did was also -1 Inflict a self-hatred on the forced converts - hating their own "race. Other Hindus that converted willingly to escape the Caste system, didn't know until too late, that they had jumped from the frying pan into the fire - because they were STILL considered inferiors. To the Arabs, anybody else is inferior. -2 - The aspect of the sacred temple dancers was changed, so that they were henceforth to be considered whores, the wearing the rhythmic ankle bells - was a stigma 3 - The thinking of the Indigenous People was changed, in that the birth of girls was to be considered a tragedy, not only because the girls would be future victims of abuse from islamics, but even today, the poor Indian farmers and lower class kill their little girls, cause the custom is deep.
previously published at http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-islamic-invaders-did-to-india-by.html
Sunday, May 18, 2008
You must know it and its followers well
"Therefore I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril."
--Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Islam warriors Looking for Saladin
This article, superbly explains why the fight against Islamic terrorism without taking into account Islam itself is futile.
September 11 came as a shock to Americans. It was like a blow from someone in the shadows - someone that they don't know or understand. The Chinese Strategist Sun Wu who wrote the "Art of War" said: "Know thyself and know thy enemy. One hundred battles, one hundred victories."
Well-meaning people in the civilized world still argue what 911 was all about. Some argue that it is about poverty and lack of democracy in the Muslim world. Others say it is about Israel. These may be contributory factors. Yet the Chinese occupy Tibet for decades without provoking suicide bombers. The British occupied Gibraltar for centuries without triggering violence from Spaniards. There is poverty in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Yet these people don't turn to terrorism and suicide attacks.
There is more at work here than just poverty or US Middle East policies. Unfortunately, the politically correct crowd has not followed Sun Wu's advice to "Know thy enemy". They must be made to realize that September 11 was just another chapter of the history of jihad, which began nearly 14 centuries ago.
It was Prophet Mohammed himself who led the first jihad against the infidels. At the crucial battle of Badr, the flame of jihad was kindled. It is a spirit that inspires extraordinary courage that is terrifying to the enemies of Islam.
There are two kinds of jihad - the lower and the higher kind. The lower jihad is fought on the battlefield. The higher jihad is a struggle to improve oneself. But it is the lower jihad that one attains the prize of martyrdom. Militant Muslim scholars argue that it is the duty of Muslims to spread the religion by conversion if possible or by force of arms if military power comes to them.
Ayatollah Khomeini said: "Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of (other) countries that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”
At the battle of Badr, the Muslims were outnumbered by the Meccans. The Prophet was worried and prayed fervently. Nine hundred well armed Meccans with seven hundred camels and a hundred horses faced three hundred Muslims.
The Prophet said: “If the Muslims were defeated that day, Allah would never be worshipped again.”
Then he fainted and when he opened his eyes, there was a smile on his lips. He had seen the angel Gabriel in a dream coming to help the Muslims. Then he told his men: “By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain this day fighting against them with steadfast courage, advancing not retreating, but God will cause him to enter Paradise.”
A soldier who heard these words flung away the dates he was eating and plunged into the enemy, fighting till he was killed. When the Prophet was asked what would make Allah joyous with his servant, he replied: “When he plunges into the midst of the enemy without mail.”
At a critical moment in the battle of Badr, a dust storm blew, blinding the Meccans. The angels led by Gabriel galloped in to aid the Muslims. The Meccans lost and fled. The lesson from Badr is that a Muslim’s thoughts should focus on martyrdom and leave it to Allah to secure victory. In the long run, Allah would assure them victory. In the short run, they might suffer defeat. But death even in defeat only hastens their entry into paradise. So, either way they win. Strategy is important but reliance in Allah must take precedence over man made strategies. This is the spirit of jihad. This is the spirit that inspires the members of Al-Qaeda.
This spirit is best summed up in a hadith from Sahih al Bukhari where the Prophet said: "Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords". It is really an invitation to die for Allah.
That is why Holy Warriors from the 7th century to the present day followers of Osama bin Laden are so dangerous. As I argued in my article, "Once were Warriors", Islam was designed to facilitate Arab imperialism. It is a warrior's religion and few ancient armies fighting with swords, bows and spears could defeat them as you will see when I continue my story.
The Prophet's jihad continued and the Muslims were defeated at the battle of Uhud. What happened was that a group of archers disobeyed orders to guard the rear, rushed forward to get their share of booty, thinking that victory was theirs. This allowed the Meccans to launch a cavalry charge into the opening and won the day.
But Muslims found victory in defeat. The Muslims lost because of the sin of greed for gold. The Muslims learned the lesson that sin leads to defeat. Defeat on the battlefield thus led them to victory in the higher jihad - the inner struggle to purify oneself of sin. The Koran said in 3:139: "Lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."
This spiritual renewal will pave their way to eventual victory. Verse 3:166 says: " What ye suffered on the day the two armies met, was with the leave of Allah, in order that He might test the believers."
Thus with the example of Uhud before them, members of Al-Qaeda will not be deterred by defeat in Afghanistan. Instead, they will see it as a test of faith and a lesson from Allah to purify themselves from sin and to rededicate themselves to Allah's cause.
It was this faith that enabled the Muslims to conquer Arabia in the 7th century. At this point they were about to explode into history. In about 628, the Roman Emperor, Heraclius was in Jerusalem. It was there that he received a letter from Mohammed, asking him to become a Muslim. This was in fact an invitation to surrender to Allah and his Prophet. Failure to do so meant war. Mohammed also sent letters to the rulers of Persia, Abysinnia, Bahrain and Oman.
Some things have not changed in 14 centuries. In a letter to America, purportedly written by Osama bin Laden published in the Observer on November 24th, the terrorist leader (or holy warrior depending on which side you are on) said:
"As for the second question that you want an answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."
His confidence in eventual victory is shown from this verse from the Koran (61:9) that he quoted in the letter:
"It is He who has sent his Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it."
Towards the end of the letter, Osama said:
"If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this crusade Bush began, just like the other Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace."
Now, let us get back to the 7th century. Mohammed died in 632 and Abu Bakr became the first Caliph (successor). He told the assembled Muslims:
"Obey me as long as I obey God and His apostle, and if I disobey them you owe me no obedience."
These idealistic words opened the door to rebellion for future rulers of Muslim lands right up to this present day - making Muslims a prickly bunch of people for any ruler to handle. The need for compromise from unbending orthodoxy makes Muslim states vulnerable to charges of disobedience to God.
The Economist (October 13, 2001) reported that an 80 year old cleric, Sheik Hamoud bin Ogla an-Shuaibi issued a fatwa against the ruling Saudi family. When summoned by the authorities to explain himself, he said:
"Whoever backs the infidel against Muslims is considered an infidel."
This sentiment is common in Saudi Arabia and that is why Osama bin Laden is such a hero there. When the King invited the Americans to deal with Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden was furious.
This is because the last injunction that the Prophet gave was: "Let not two religions be left on the Arabian Peninsula."
The Koran (5:51) also says: "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number."
Clearly, it is against scripture to allow the infidel Americans to put their boots on sacred Arabian soil. Trying to explain that they need the military strength of the infidel United States to protect Saudi Arabia from the powerful Iraqi army do not impress men of faith.
Did not Allah grant the impoverished mujahideen victory against the Soviet Union? What is Saddam Hussein compared to a superpower? It was clear to Osama and Sheik Hamoud that the House of Saud preferred to rely on the infidels rather than on Allah. Therefore, can they really be true believers? Osama got angrier when the Americans did not go home after Saddam was defeated.
Jihad, according to moderate Muslims, is permissible only for self-defense. But what is considered as self-defense? To Muslims like Osama, having infidel troops on sacred Arabian soil is an offense to Islam and merits a jihad. The clause of self-defense opens a wide loop-hole for creative interpretation.
Osama is of course not the first to declare jihad against "Christendom". Under Umar, the second Caliph, Christendom lost Egypt, Palestine and Iraq. Byzantine armies weakened by years of warfare against the Persians were no match for the Arab warriors who could hide in the desert where the Romans could not go. The Christians were also weakened by division. The Emperor favored the Orthodox Church and the Nestorians, Monophysites and Copts resented this.
Under Umar, the ancient Persian Empire was also partially conquered. After Umar came Uthman and later Ali (Mohammed’s son-in-law), the last of the Rashidun Caliphs. Ali did not last long and was murdered by one of his followers, a Kharajite, for compromising with Muawiya. Of the four "rightly guided" Caliphs, only Abu Bakr died a natural death. Muawiya was the son of Abu Sufyan, Mohammed's old enemy before he converted to Islam (i.e. submitted to Allah and his Prophet).
Muawiya became a great Caliph. When he died, the Umayyad empire stretched from the Maghreb to the Sind in India. Civil war started soon after he died. In the internecine warfare, Prophet Mohammed's grandson, Husayn (Ali’s son) was killed by the forces of Yazid, the son of Muawiya at the battle of Karbala.
His head was cut off and presented to Yazid and kicked around like a football. Such irreverence to the Prophet's family make me wonder if Abu Sufyan and his family were true believers. More likely, Abu Sufyan (who lost two sons fighting Mohammed at Badr) converted to preserve his life. That is why the Koran and Hadiths recorded that there were many hypocrites who were constantly plotting against the Prophet.
I suspect that Abu Sufyan’s family had a blood feud against Mohammed’s family in which they finally won. Even today, Bedouin families still wage blood feuds. Abu Sufyan and his family may not be true believers but hijacked the Islamic movement for their own purposes. This topic could be the subject of a speculative article on Islam’s early days. But I digress too much. Let’s get back to the history of jihad.
Within fifty years of the death of the Prophet there were three rival Caliphs at each other's throats. Abdal Malik (a son of Abu Sufyan’s nephew) emerged the victor and became a great Caliph. The empire grew larger than before and lasted till 750.
During this time, another attempt was made to take Constantinople in 717. Muawiya had tried and failed because of lack of winter provisions. This new jihad against Christendom was led by Maslama, the brother of the Caliph, Suleyman. The Muslim force comprised of 180,000 Arabs and 1,800 ships. The Byzantines repulsed them with Greek fire and the energetic efforts of Emperor Leo. The Muslims retreated and Constantinople became the eastern gate that shut out the Muslim tide for another eight centuries till it fell to the Turks.
Elsewhere, Muslim forces were more successful. Spain fell and the tide of jihad entered France. Charles Martel stopped them there at the battle of Poitiers. This was the western gate and Christendom was saved. If the Franks had been defeated, Gibbons said:
"Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomed."
Decline set in eventually. The Umayyad Caliphs were irreligious and I suspect some of the Caliphs may not have been true believers. For example, Caliph Walid II stuck a Koran on his lance and shot arrows at it! He said to the Koran:
"You hurl threats against the stubborn opponent. Well then, I am a stubborn opponent myself. When you appear before God at the day of resurrection just say: My lord, al-Walid has torn me up."
His court was full of debauchery. He surrounded himself with poets, dancing girls and musicians. The Umayyads have always been considered “godless” by their opponents and failed to satisfy the pious.
According to noted Islamic historian, Rafiq Zakaria, "it was their betrayal of the concept of Islamic brotherhood, irrespective of race and language, that brought them down."
He is echoing a familiar theme among Muslim historians. Decline will always come when Muslims forget Allah's commandments as had happened in Uhud. Renewal lies in a return to the first principles as taught by the Prophet. This theme will play again and again throughout the centuries right up to the present day. For the Muslim, history is a cycle of rise and fall and then renewal.
In 750, a general, Abul Abbas invited 80 Umayyad nobles to his home for dinner and slaughtered them. This ended the Umayyad dynasty with the exception of Spain. Abbas established the Abbasid caliphate, which reached its peak at the time of Harun al Rashid. Then it too declined and the Caliph was reduced to being a figurehead. The empire was in reality divided up by rival groups.
Now lets fast-forward to the Crusades. By the 11th century, Christendom was strong enough to mount a counterattack. In 1061, Count Roger invaded Muslim Sicily and Sicily returned to Christendom in 1091. In 1085, Frankish knights fought alongside Spaniards to recover Toledo. The re-conquest of Spain had begun. But Muslim power was still potent and made inroads against the tottering Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was defeated at Manzikert and never recovered.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus I asked the Pope for help. In the same year, Pope Urban II launched the first Crusade to help the ailing empire and to recover the Holy Land, which was originally part of the Byzantine Empire.
By 1099, the Crusaders captured Jerusalem and massacred Jews and Muslims. The loss of Sicily and the Holy Land was a humiliation for Muslims. The third most sacred city, Jerusalem with its Dome on the Rock was under infidel rule and Crusader states were established.
But in 1187, Saladin declared jihad and recaptured Jerusalem after defeating the Christian army at Hattin. The defenders threatened to destroy Al Aqsa and the Dome on the Rock. A deal was struck. In exchange for ransom, the Christians could leave. Saladin kept his word and not a Christian was killed.
To many modern Muslims, the Crusades are still fresh in their memories. The presence of Israel is a humiliation for them. To people like Osama bin Laden, Israel is a modern Crusader State supported by the USA. Muslims are waiting for a modern day Saladin to restore the Ummah to power and glory.
They cannot understand why Allah seems to have deserted them. Muslims are amongst the poorest and least educated people in the world ruled mostly by tyrants who appear to be doing the bidding of the infidel Americans. To them, it should not be this way. Many Muslims still dream of their golden past when their green pennants fluttered proudly from Spain to India.
What makes the humiliation worse is that the infidel west is corrupting the minds of Muslims with their ubiquitous alien culture. Many Muslim women are envious of the freedom that their occidental sisters enjoy, which brings shudders to the conservative. Western ideas about democracy are seductive and are a challenge to the Muslim model of the Islamic state where all laws are made not by man but by God as revealed through the Prophet.
This lament for their low estate can be seen in a poem, called Shikwa, written by Iqbal, an ideologue of the Pakistan movement. The poem asks why Allah is unfaithful to Muslims when Muslims remain faithful to Him. A part of the poem says:
“Your blessings are showered on homes of unbelievers, strangers all.
Only on the poor Muslim, Your wrath like lightning falls.”
To other Muslims, it must be because they have not been faithful enough to Allah. The solution is greater piety and sacrifices. To the members of Al-Qaeda, keeping faith with Allah means martyrdom. Greater devotion will lead to renewal of the Ummah as happened many times in Islamic history. That is why some see Osama bin Laden as the new Saladin coming to restore Muslims to their rightful place in the world. The sad truth is, as I argued in “How Islam failed Muslims”, that Islam retarded their progress.
However, I would like to add that the Islamic world is by no means monolithic. No religion is. Not all Muslims will see things the way I described in this article. But many do. The danger is that political correctness may have blinded many westerners to the dangers. Such people like to insist that Islam means peace. And that Osama’s ideas do not represent the “real Islam”.
The truth is a lot more complex. It does not matter what real Islam is. There is a militant component in Islam and there are many Muslims whose worldview is as I described. For those afflicted with political correctness, let me leave you will a quote for Ayatollah Khomeini:
“But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless. “
If you are one of the politically correct, I think he was referring to you.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
. . . the people who founded our country had a much more humble and better idea about how the country would need to be defended. They didn't assume that America would be forever, and they certainly were not under a delusion that we could be protected by our legal system from foreign threats to our security. They had a very strong conviction that there had to be an accountability nexus between the people who made national security decisions and the people whose lives were at stake. And what that meant was that the courts essentially were going to have no role in national security. They had an important role in our system, but not in protecting our nation from foreign threats.
Presume everybody that comes to court is innocent in our domestic legal system. How can anybody think that will apply to armed militants under declared hostilities against the country? Not individuals. How can anybody think that that would apply?
You hear a lot about, "We need to bring terrorists into our system, give them the full power of due process that we would give to a tax cheat," and get them convicted under all those presumptions that you just described, and then that way we can feel good about ourselves.
About Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheik," now in prison in the U.S.
. . . and the "sweeping under the prayer rug" of the murder of Meir Kahane, the founder of the Jewish Defense League
Speaking of the "blind sheik:"
. . . he didn't have to ask for asylum until the end because we just let him in. It really was awful. I mean, he was on the list, but we didn't read the list and then when he got here it turned out that, you know, one office is investigating him and the other is giving him a green card as a religious instructor, you know, not our finest hour, but unfortunately a sort of a steady theme of all this. You know, if we look back at the 1993 attack, we had very good reason to know that it was coming. We had the FBI conducting surveillance in the late 1980s of these guys as they were conducting paramilitary training out in Long Island. We had, you know, a CIA angle to this because they were basically funding large parts of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and they were doing it through the Pakistanis who were very sympathetic to the most anti-American elements of the mujahideen, and then we had this murder of Meir Kahane, the founder of the Jewish Defense League in 1990 where that murder was committed by a guy named El Sayyid Nosair, who was actually reporting to the Blind Sheik even while the Blind Sheik was over in Egypt, and though it was quite clear from the stuff that was seized from him that he was part of something that was much bigger and had much more ambitious designs than just the murder of Kahane, there was a decision made at that time to treat that murder like it was the work of a lone gunman, in order to prevent any religious element from getting into the case, which I think was a big mistake unfortunately.
I wanted to believe in 1993 the stuff that we were putting out, you know, that he [the blind sheik] basically perverted who was otherwise a peaceful doctrine. But what I found was going through all of his thousands of pages of transcripts and statements, was that when he cited scripture to justify acts of terrorism, to the extent he was quoting scripture or referring to it, he did it accurately, which shouldn't be a surprise.
". . . he [the blind sheik] was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence, graduated from Al-Azhar University in Egypt. Why in the world I would have thought that I or the Justice Department would know more about Islam than he would is beyond me now that I look back on it, but back then I was pretty confident that we must have been right when we said that he was basically perverting the doctrine.
. . . you assumed him [the blind sheik] to be a fruitcake. Nobody, nobody's religion could actually have things in [Islamic] scripture that he was citing, and you found out everything he said was there. It opened your eyes, and I think this is the kind of thing. . . . and you've talked about the notion here that they declared war on us, you cite 1993. We didn't take it seriously until 2001. Do you think we still take it seriously?
. . . We're taking it less seriously. . . . the reporting that's come out since -- I guess it was about April 24th -- is that the internal syncing at least in parts of the administration -- and this is something the State Department's pushed for a long time -- is that we make a mistake call jihadism, jihadism; because there are all kinds of jihad, not just forceable jihad. This is how the thinking goes. And, by the way, while there may be all kinds of jihad, jihad is a military concept. That's how it grew up. That's the reason there is a Muslim world in the first place. But secondly the idea is that when you call them jihadists, you are somehow emboldening them as if what they were relying on is how we regard them rather than how they see themselves.
We're so intimidated by the idea that there's a religious label on this and everybody is so afraid of their shadow to talk about it, that whenever you say what is obvious -- which is that you can't take the "Islam" out of Islamic terror and that the main cause of this is not democracy or lack of democracy; or, you know, ancient hatreds or the economy, poverty, or whatever our excuse is this week. This is driven by doctrine. You know, we have poor people all over the world. They're not all committing terrorism.
The ideology that we're talking about here is 14 centuries old. It existed and thrived before there was a United States. It has commanded the allegiance of the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the educated and uneducated -- to some extent, Sunnis and Shi'ites, princes and paupers. You know, you can't pigeonhole one rationale for why it exists other than the obvious one, which is that it's a matter of doctrine and the people who believe it believe it's a divine injunction and that mankind doesn't have a right to make laws which run afoul of what they believe is the law that was handed down by Allah directly to Mohammed 14 centuries ago.
What's it going to take to wake people up again to the existence of this threat, and just because we've thwarted one on our soil for seven years; however we've done it, doesn't mean the threat's gone away or is any less intense. What's it going to take?
Well, I hope it doesn't take another attack. . . . [regarding pulling out of Iraq] the worst thing we ever did was pull out of Lebanon in 1983 when the Marine barracks got hit. The next worst thing we probably ever did was pull out of Somalia when that got ugly. These people -- and when I talk about "these people," I mean people like Bin Laden and the Blind Sheik -- if used to a fair thee well as a recruiting tool this notion that they're the strong horse, we're the weak horse . . . . What they have going for them that we don't, is they have basically eradicated our threshold idea of what is civilized behavior. They are willing to do anything to win, and they're absolutely sure that history is on their side. Unless we become more sure than we are now that we're right, and that we have a need to show them that however long it takes, we're going to do what has to be done to win; you know, we can't rely on the fact that we're a super power and that it's inevitable that we'll win this thing.
The title of the book: Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. The author is Andrew McCarthy.
from "Talking to Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad," an interview by Rush Limbaugh.
Hat tip to Jihad Watch http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020882.php
who pointed to this interview. More there.
Friday, May 2, 2008
CAN THE WEST (THE FREE WORLD) WIN AGAIN?
CAN WE WIN THIS WAR AGAINST ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM AND THE MOSLEM DRIVE TO MAKE US SUBMIT TO A STIFLING IDEOLOGY OF SEXUAL REPRESSION AND DICTATORIAL ASCETICISM*?
* asceticism = Practice of the denial of physical or psychological desires in order to attain a spiritual ideal or goal.
CAN THE EUROPEANS (NON-MOSLEMS) RECOVER THEIR HERITAGE OF SAVAGE WARFARE, AND AGAIN BECOME WARRIORS?
AND HOW ABOUT THE AMERICANS? CAN AMERICA RECALL ITS NO-NONSENSE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THOSE WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE IT?
CAN WE RID OURSELVES OF THE CREEPING DESIRE TO PLEASE, TO INCORPORATE THE INCORPORABLE INTO OUR SOCIETIES THAT HAVE ADVANCED FAR BEYOND THE STAGNANT, STALE IDEOLOGY OF DEATH AND INTOLERANCE THAT THREATENS US?
WE DESCEND FROM WARRIOR TRIBES AND CIVILIZATIONS WHOSE SAVAGERY, CRUELTY AND BARBARITY FAR EXCEEDS THAT OF THOSE WHO FOR THE SAME MILLENIA ROAMED PARCHED DESERTS ON DROMEDARIES IN BARE-EXISTENCE MISERY.
AND WE HAVE FAR OUTSTRIPPED THE IDEOLOGY-TRAMMELED SAND-DWELLERS THAT HAD LONG AGO BEEN FORCED TO REMAIN OUTSIDE THE FERTILE PORTIONS OF THE WORLD TO EKE OUT A MISERABLE EXISTENCE ON THE MOST INHOSPITABLE PARTS OF THE EARTH.
YET THEY HAVE TRIED AND TRIED AGAIN TO CONQUER US, TO TAKE WHAT WE HAVE BUILT AND ACCOMPLISHED MAKE US THEIR SLAVES TO SUPPORT THEIR INDOLENCE WITH OUR BRAINS AND MUSCLE. THIS IS THE HISTORY OF THE FOLLOWERS OF THIS IDEOLOGY THEY CALL "ISLAM."
THEY HAVE APPROPRIATED WHAT OTHERS HAVE WROUGHT AND BOASTED IT AS THEIR OWN ACCOMPLISHMENTS. THEY HAVE OBLITERATED ALL HISTORY OF THEIR OWN BEFORE THE IDEOLOGY CALLED ISLAM WAS INVENTED AND THAT OF EVERY CULTURE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUBJUGATE.
THEIR ARROGANCE HAS NO BASIS, FOR THEY CAN BOAST OF NOTHING BUT A DRIVE TO SUBJUGATE AND FEED OFF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF OTHERS.
YET THEY THREATEN US AGAIN. AND THE METHODS THEY USE ARE THE SAME ONES THAT HAD PROVEN SUCCESSFUL FOR THEM 13 CENTURIES AGO:
OFFERING CONVERSION TO THEIR IDEOLOGY
"PROTECTION" IN RETURN FOR HEAVY TAXATION
AND SUBHUMAN STATUS AS THEIR INFERIORS
ALL THESE OFFERS ARE UNACCEPTABLE TO US
WE MUST USE FORCE
TALK: ARGUMENT, DEBATE, DIPLOMACY
WILL NOT WORK
BECAUSE THE ISLAMICS LIE, DECEIVE, CHEAT, ARE UNTRUSTWORTHY
BUT, CAN WE OF THE WEST, PEEL OFF THE VENEER OF
"NICENESS," FAIRNESS, HUMANITARIANISM, COMPASSION, PITY, AND
OTHER STRENGTH-SAPPING CULTURAL AMELIORATION
THAT WE HAVE DEVISED TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH EACH OTHER
TO DEFEAT THE DECEITFUL ISLAMICS?
WE WILL HAVE TO.
WE MUST GET BACK TO THE BASICS OF WARFARE.
WE WILL EXAMINE ISLAMIC WARFARE
CONTRASTED WITH WESTERN WARFARE
IN COMING POSTS
TO SEE WHICH WILL PREVAIL.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON HAS HIS OWN IDEAS ON THIS TOPIC:
According to Hanson, Western values such as political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate form an especially lethal combination when applied to warfare. Non-Western societies can win the occasional victory when warring against a society with these Western values, writes Hanson, but the "Western way of war" will prevail in the long run. Hanson emphasizes that Western warfare is not necessarily more (or less) moral than war as practiced by other cultures; his argument is simply that the "Western way of war" is unequalled in its devastation and decisiveness.
Dr. Hanson is most famous for his 2001 book Carnage and Culture in which he argued that the military dominance of Western Civilization, beginning with the ancient Greeks, is the result of certain fundamental aspects of Western culture. Hanson rejects racial explanations for this military preeminence. He also disagrees with environmental explanations, as put forth by authors such as Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel.
Carnage and Culture examines nine battles throughout history, each of which is used to illustrate a particular aspect of Western culture that Hanson believes contributes to the dominance of Western warfare. The battles or campaigns recounted (with themes in parenthesis) are the Battle of Salamis (480 BC; free citizens), the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC; the decisive battle of annihilation), the Battle of Cannae (216 BC; civic militarism), the Battle of Tours/Poitiers (732; infantry), the Battle of Tenochtitlan (1521; technology and reason), the Battle of Lepanto (1571; capitalism), the Battle of Rorke's Drift (1879; discipline), the Battle of Midway (1942; individualism), and the Tet Offensive (1968; dissent).
Though Carnage and Culture appeared before the September 11, 2001 attacks, its message that the "Western way of war" will ultimately prevail made the book a best-seller in the wake of those events. Immediately after 9/11, Carnage and Culture was re-issued with a new afterword by Hanson in which he explicitly stated that the United States would win the war on terror for the reasons stated in the book.Hanson cites the Theban general and statesman Epaminondas, the American generals Sherman and Patton, as well as Winston Churchill as his heroes.
Victor_Davis_Hanson - Wikipedia
[This post first appeared at the now-censored Islamic Danger blog on 4/27/07 as http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/04/can-west-free-world-win-again-can-we.html. To try and see more at this restricted blog, click on <<> "Home" at the very bottom of the post. This may or may not work. I cannot tell, as I, as an "author" of that blog, can still access it. Give it a try, and let me know as a Comment here.]
Wars can only be won by overwhelming force, not the series of half measures we apply today. If we don't have the stomach for war then we should stay home. I don't nlike waste, I believe in a mission and a plan to accomplish the mission no matter how un-PC it is.
To elaborate on what you said, sounder, here's what's wrong with how we've been going about fighting the Islamic enemy:
"Empty talk of “complete victory” notwithstanding, our official foreign policy regarding America's security against Islamic terrorism is: accepted defeat. We have not been willing to take military action against the most important threats against us, and the type of military action we have been willing to take has not succeeded in making us safer. And most disturbing of all, despite our travesty of a foreign policy, the vast majority of once-enraged Americans has not demanded anything better. Most Americans acknowledge that Iraq is a debacle, that we will not be safe anytime soon, and that we have no plans to deal effectively with threats such as Iran's nuclear weapons program—yet there is widespread resignation that this is the best we can do. This—in response to a threat caused by pip-squeak nations, against the most powerful military in history."
The quote is from: “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense." Read the whole thing by clicking on the foregoing title and link.