Thursday, July 16, 2009

Muhammad’s Monsters: The War of Islam against Minorities in the Middle East and North Africa


from north-of-africa.com

16 July 2009

The rapid and triumphal Islamization of the Middle East beginning in the seventh century, west to North Africa, north to the Caucasus, and east to China, is one of the most profound, permanent, and awesome conquests in history. This military and religious campaign welded a collective consciousness and consti¬tuted a political strategy whose primary concepts included: Muslim holy war (jihad), the Islamic territorial abode (dar al-Islam), and martyrdom (shuhada) on the one hand, juxtaposed to infidels (kuf¬far), tolerated non-Muslim scriptuaries (ahl al-dhimma), and the non-Islamic territorial abode of warfare (dar al-harb). The mission of Islam was spearheaded by the “sword of Muhammad” in order to impose Allah’s last revelation over all mankind and throughout the world. Among the various methods employed, in particular in the Middle East terrain but not only, were deportation, colo¬nization, conversion, repression, and at times massacre of native populations.1

The transformation of the broad Mideastern environment was a process of many centuries that culminated in the defacing and refashioning of many lands and peoples. Byzantine Asia Minor, Armenian Anatolia, and much of Kurdistan, became Muslim Turkey. The Sudan as the land of Kush, Nubia, and Black Africa assumed an Islamic and Arab face. Lebanon’s Pheonician and Christian heritage has been swamped by Islam and Arabism. Mesopotamia, Assyria, and part of Kurdistan were in the grip of Arab-Muslim Iraq. The pre-Islamic Berber/Imazighen/Kabyle character of North Africa struggles in the face of integralist and violent Islam. And Israel, reverberating with the Hebrew-Jewish legacy in the Holy Land, confronts the Islamic contention that Palestine is a sacred waqf domain belonging to the Muslims alone.

While the debate continues regarding the actual historical treatment meted out by Muslims to non-Muslims, Jews and Christians in particular,2 the spirit of our times in the late 20th and early 21st century is dominated overwhelmingly by Islamic fundamentalism linked to a comprehensive Muslim assault for glory and power. The names of Ayatollah Khoumeni (Iran), Osama bin-Laden (Afghanistan), Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah (Lebanon), and Hasan Turabi (Sudan), are some from among the heroic revolutionaries in the Muslim pantheon of iconic figures. Resonating into the boroughs of London, the arrondissements of Paris, and the neighborhoods of Jersey City, Detroit, and Chicago, Islamic movements and mes sages carve out their territory of influence in the quest for ultimate domination within the public domain of discourse and politics.

This is so in the remaining bastions of the (so-called) Christian West and with every greater immediacy and fury within and a bit beyond the Middle East. In May 1998, Libyan leader Muammar Qadhdafi declared that Jews and Christians hate Muslims and insult Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. In the light of this charge, and that by Saddam Hussein of Iraq that Israel defiles Muslim and Christian sanctuaries, the Islamic world is expected to take the road of jihad in order to achieve peace and justice in the world.3 The mujahid bin-Laden, evoking the slogan of the “Great Islamic Republic” throughout the Middle East, repeated the militant refrain in Peshawar in September 2000, calling for war against Jews in Palestine and Christian Americans in Saudi Arabia.4 A year later, the September 11, 2001, Islamic terror attacks in the United States brought home the seriousness and immediacy of bin-Laden’s intentions. His al-Qaidah movement had struck ruthlessly at the political and economic centers of American power.

Meanwhile, attacks in the Far East against Christians and churches in Indonesia, and in Nigeria and the Ivory Coast in Africa, in the year 2000 signaled the scope of the Islamic offensive. The Pakistani “Army of the Righteous” stated the need for jihad against non-Muslims, especially Jews and Hindus, while the march of Allah’s soldiers continued in Bosnia and Kossovo, Chechnya and Kashmir, Palestine and Lebanon.

Of special importance in this regard is the Christian character of Lebanon and the Jewish ethos of Israel as primary targets of Islam’s war against the traditional infidel communities. In 1980, at an Islamic Summit Conference in the Pakistani city of Lahore, the goal was set to have the Middle East totally Islamic with the elimination of the Christians of the Orient and the Jews of Israel. This imperialistic if not genocidal intention appears high on the Muslim agenda until today, considering the pace and direction of events in both occupied Lebanon and intifada-infested Israel.

In an interesting development, the Tibetan Dali Lama condemned both Christians and Muslims in January 2001 for their practice of actively seeking converts. The non-aggressive religions of Hinduism and Buddhism apparently fear for their future. But it is evidently clear that the truly aggressive religion in this era is not Christianity, but rather putative and militant Islam with its explicit agenda of expansion worldwide.

Islam in its formative historical stage surfaced as a conquering and colonizing religious movement that arrogated public space and political power for itself alone. This serves as a model for reproduction in any future era thereafter, subject to the exigencies of power opportunities that are available to the Muslims. There are no fixed frontiers to delimit the scope of the future expansive drive, nor are there any moral or juridical restrictions in pursuing the war. Rather, the exaltation of battle by whatever means is designed to vindicate Islam’s global primacy. The horrors of victory, perhaps for the victors and the vanquished alike, are tangential to the satisfaction of exacting tribute and earning respect from the cringing adversaries of Islam. In this scenario, the minorities in the Middle East are fated, as capitalists for Marx, to disappear in the dustbin of history.

1. Dhimmis:

(a) Jews

Islam in its koranic and traditional self-consciousness considered the monotheistic religious communities of Jews and Christians worthy of no more than a “protected and tolerated” status under Muslim rule. However, with the modern political founding of a Jewish State of Israel and a predominantly Christian state of Lebanon, the normative hierarchy of power was overturned when the inferior, subjugated dhimmi minorities arrogated the right to govern themselves, and even to dominate Muslims as less-than-equal citizens in both Israel and Lebanon. An uncompromising Muslim response was deemed necessary, and certainly legitimate, to re-establish the primacy of Islam in these two Mideastern countries.

Both Pan-Arab nationalism and local Palestinian nationalism had rejected the Zionist claim to Jewish statehood in 1948 and developed a variety of political and military approaches to undermine and unravel Israel’s existence. Islam, though active in the pre-1948 struggle, emerged more recently as an alternative and yet complementary Palestinian framework of belief and dedication, mobilization and warfare, against the rebellious al-yahud of irremediable and obstreperous character. Though a majority in their land and state, the Jews of Israel would be reduced to their minority status in order to re-confirm Muslim primacy.

There were different ways by which the integrity of Jewish identity and the security of Jewish life were disparaged and denied in the past. Jews in Arab lands were considered at times no more than “Arab Jews” in a sweeping assimilative embrace. Living within the parameters of Islamic civilization seemed emblematic of Jews being virtual “Muslim Jews.” But the stridency of the modern Palestinian Muslim movements, with their doctrinal rejection of Israel and their violent mode of armed struggle, sharpened the active war of Islam against the Jewish people.

Modern Zionism, as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, is defamed in the Muslim world as a colonial aggression and invasion that must be repelled by the defensive jihad of Islam.5 According to the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in Article 13 of its covenant, any concession of the land of Palestine is a concession of the religion of Islam. This linkage of politics and religion is a central theme in classical Islam culled for active application. When the liberation of Palestine is achieved through jihad, the rule of Allah will descend and shape the moral and religious life of the Muslims, as the alien Jews will be defeated. Sheikh Ahmad Yasin of Hamas had stated in 1989 that “the solution [to the conflict] is a Palestinian Islamic state on all of Palestine where Arabs, Jews, and Christians will live under Islamic rule.”6 This recalls the model of the dhimma (the apocryphal/historical Muslim pact with infidels) that dogmatically denies equality, dignity, or independence to non-Muslim minorities.

The outburst of Intifada al-Aqsa in September 2000 revealed the surging energy of Palestinian Muslims to confront Israel in a spirit of sacrifice and devotion, with hundreds dead and many more hundreds wounded in the fi rst few months thereafter. Jerusalem, as the third holiest city in Islam, was the political target in this new phase of warfare. The Aqsa mosque situated on the Jewish Temple Mount (Har Ha-bayit), known by the Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, evoked a koranic image and the legend of Muhammad’s nocturnal visit to the Holy City. Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, Arafat-appointed mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, called for “sacrifice until Allah’s victory” and considered the Jews as cowards. To liberate al-Aqsa at the cost of child martyrs is an honor to the parents of the shuhud.7

The Islamic ethos of warfare throughout Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and even within pre-1967 Israeli borders as well, merged from within with the national Palestinian ethos of “armed struggle” (PLO Covenant, Art. 9). It also converged from without with the religious furor emanating from the Islamic Republic of Iran and its promotion of terrorism globally, the virulent Islamic hostility in Egypt to Israel, and Hizbullah’s Shi`ite victory against the Israeli army in south Lebanon, from which the IDF withdrew in late May 2000. In December of that year at a “Jerusalem Day” celebration in solidarity with the Palestinian intifada, Hizbullah’s Secretary-General Hasan Nasrallah referred to Israel as “a cancer that needs to be removed at its roots.”8 The intense conviction of religious truth that fills Muslim hearts and minds bolsters the Islamic and Palestinian ambition of politicide against Jewish Israel. The Jews who survived as a pseudo-tolerated minority have no right to assert themselves as a sovereign majority people.

For its part, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority established in the context of the Oslo Accord from 1993 continues its animosity and rejection of Israel in the traditional Islamic idiom. The school texts used in the educational system in Palestinian-controlled areas, as in the towns of Ramallah, Kalkilya, and Hebron, portray Jews as “the enemies of the prophets and the believers,” morally stained by “fanaticism” and “treachery,” and committed to “racial discrimination.” The Western Wall is not a Jewish site, but part of the Haram precinct, and the land of Palestine belongs to the Muslims and their brother Christians [sic.].9 The formal and written PLO commitment to peace with Israel was not followed by the promotion of a message of accommodation, respect, and co-existence. Israel, demonized as the predator and pariah from the past, remained castigated as the Palestinians’ enemy even after the peace process was launched in Washington. War against the Jews characterized, as before, the new era of peace.

(b) Christians

The “religious and ethnic cleansing” by Islam of what once was the Christian Orient, or largely the Byzantine Orthodox Middle East, is but a euphemism for cultural and human genocide and the willful decimation of primordial native peoples. Once the majority population, Christians in the beginning of the 21st century constitute just three percent of the region’s inhabitants, numbering approximately 15 million, facing more than 350 million Muslims in Turkey, Iran, and all the Arab countries. The religious and historical cradle of Christianity has long become the Muslim-Arab heartland, and even symbolic Bethlehem and Nazareth, which long retained Christian majorities, have succumbed to Muslim majority domination. The basic trend among Eastern Christians in the 20th-century was immigration to the West. This population movement was stimulated by endemic physical insecurity, indiscriminate plunder, religious persecution, and political discrimination directed against virtually all the Christian communities across the region. In fact, the same forces of exclusion and oppression operate in the beginning of our 21st century as well.

• The Armenian genocide of 1915-16 by the Turks, which led to the death of a million and a half people, merits primary mention due to the scope of this horrific crime against humanity. The ancient Armenian people had be come a small and vulnerable minority in its homeland. The historical nexus of circumstances and incompatibilities gave birth to a policy of deportation with instances of fanatical Muslim mobs crying “Allahu Akbar” (God is great), as they burned and butchered the defenseless Christians in the cities of Ayntab and Birecik.10 Turkish nationalism and Islamic passion turned on the Armenians with a satanic ferociousness.

• The massacre at Simel in Iraq of some 600 Assyrian Christians - though Assyrian sources claim close to 3,000 were murdered in the immediate vicinity - in early August 1933 marked the denouement in the history of an ancient Eastern community. Claiming independence in the area of the Lower Zab and Nineveh area but promised only minority guarantees after World War I, the Assyrians were abandoned by the British to the new Iraqi regime, Sunni by religion and Arab by national consciousness.

Meanwhile, in the area of Tur Abdin in southeastern Turkey in the 1990s, Muslim fundamentalists under the name Hizbullah spread their net of terror, seized Christian villages, forced women to wear the veil, and murdered priests. Abouna Symeon, a monk, related that the Muslims say, “We should go back to Europe where Christians come from . . . as if our ancestors weren’t here for centuries before the first Muslim settled here.”11 More recently, an Assyrian Suryani priest, Yusuf Akbulut, in Diyarbekir, was put on trial for calling on Turkey to recognize the Ottoman murder of the Armenians during World War I, and charging also that the Turks had used the Kurds to kill Christians.

Hiding the truth of the past has served in conjunction with destroying any future hope for the ancient Christian communities of the Fertile Crescent, across Armenia, Assyria, and Kurdistan, in the mountains of Hakkiari and Urmia, in the valley of Sapna and the village of Amadiya. Assyrian refugees in London prefer to refer to their lost homeland as “Mesopotamia,” recalling the Assyrian Kingdom from 612 B.C.E., rather than call it Iraq with its Arab Muslim significance under the ruthless Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein.12

Under the mournful circumstances, the dream of a national revival and return can filter but in the recesses of Assyrian imagination while divorced from the political realities of the contemporary Middle East.

The Maronites of Lebanon, with a profound historical religious and national presence in the mountain stronghold of Bsharre and Zghorta, Jubail and Kesrouan, have been confronted by the resurgence of militant Islam in recent decades. Faced with Palestinian terrorists and Syrian occupiers, Lebanon’s Christians also struggled with Iranian-supported Shi`ite movements that, in particular Hizbullah, seek to establish an Islamic Republic. Sheikh Fadallah and other religious authorities consider the Khoumeini revolution in Iran a precedent, certainly an inspiration, for their spiritual and political aspirations in the “land of the cedars.”

The outbreak of Lebanese-Palestinian warfare in April 1975 began, appropriately enough in this Islamic zeitgeist, with PLO shooting at a church ceremony in the East Beirut Christian neigh borhood of Ayn Rummanah, killing four Maronites. Palestinian massacres of Christians followed in 1976 in Damour, exhibiting gang-rapes and mutilated bodies, and in Ayshiyyah, exhibiting burnt bodies in the church. The fighting and slaughter continued, and hundreds of thousands of Christians fled the country. Beginning in the 1980s, Hizbullah conducted warfare against native Christians and the Israeli military presence in south Lebanon. When Sheikh Nasrallah’s own son was killed in battle in 1997, he expressed his paternal sadness but added that according to Islam, true life begins in Paradise with the martyr’s death.13 Meanwhile, in the northern city of Tripoli, where the Islamic Unity movement (Tawhid) is active, the 90 percent Sunni majority harassed the Christian shopkeepers and pasted pictures of Muslim leaders on public walls.

Lebanon, constituted after World War I as a primarily Christian state, symbolized the strengths and hopes of Christians through out the region. But the downfall of Lebanon in recent decades is a sobering indication of the advance of Islamic power and Arab influence. Noteworthy in its irony, in addition, is the fact that both small Israel and Lebanon, as the two Western-oriented democratic countries in the region, and representing the Judaic and Christian civilizations in the ancient Orient, have been victimized by the forces of a ferocious brand of Islam. A popular Arab-Muslim refrain regarding the mournful fate of the Jews and the Christians threatens “first the Saturday people and then the Sunday people” targeted by Islam stalking its prey.

Egypt is the home of the largest single Eastern Christian community, overwhelmingly, of the Orthodox Copt church, that is estimated at over five million within a total population of ap proximately 70 million people. The spirit of Arab nationalism and Islamic revivalism have contributed manifestly to shaping the public domain as culturally inhospitable, discriminating in employment and political office-holding, restrictive in religious privileges and practice, and threatening the physical security of Christians.

Egypt has a deep Islamic identity, not only an overwhelming Muslim majority population, in a period of intense popular religious consciousness. The Muslim Brotherhood represents the sweep of Egypt’s national Islamic identity, and other militant and violent groups actively engage in escalating the tone in Islamic discourse. The constitutional amendment which in 1980 recognized that “the Islamic shari`ah [law] is the principal source of legislation,” and the assassination of President Sadat as a “heretic” by the jihad organization, were each in their own way acts that demonstrated Islam grabbing the political high ground in Egyptian society. The Christians, by implication, felt the increasingly suffocating and intimidating atmosphere.

The Copts of Egypt have requested that the state authorities grant them human and minority rights. But Copts have for many years been excluded from high political, administrative, and military posts. They have called for media broadcasting whose message would recognize their legitimate place in Egyptian life; but instead, public figures call for imposing the traditional jizya poll-tax on Christians, while Sheikh Omar Abd-el Rahman, of the 1993 Twin Towers bombing notoriety, reportedly issued fatawat to kill the Christians of Egypt.

The language of political oppression and linguistic doublespeak employed in Egypt, and then internationally, identifies Muslim assaults against Christians as mere “sectarian tension” (fitna ta`ifiyya) in a way intended to hide the identity of the aggressor and the victim.14

The starkest instance of recent years was the pogrom against the Copts in Kosheh and neighboring communities in Upper Egypt in late December 1999-early January 2000. What began as an argument between a Christian fabric merchant and a Muslim customer ended with the killing of 22 Copts. Chillingly reminiscent from other times and peoples was a rumor instigating the violence to the effect that Christians had poisoned the wells. In March it was reported that the Kosheh killers had been acquitted in court.15 Traditional Islamic legalism frowns upon convicting a Muslim who injured or even murdered a dhimmi.

The condition of the Copts is deteriorating in all domains of Egyptian society. Other examples include attacks against churches, as at Kaser Rashwan in El-Fayoum province in August 2000, im position of Friday and not Sunday as the day off from school as in the Christian village of El-Biadieah in March that year, forced conversions of Christians to Islam, and political intimidation of Christian figures like the patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church to publicly support the Mubarak regime.

The Sudan in Black Africa, and its southern zone in particular, is the focus of another case in the war of Islam against Christianity in these troubled times. Since 1955, a civil war between the Arab-Muslim north and the African-Christian/animist south has left two million dead and hundreds of thousands of refugees in neighboring countries. In addition, more than three million Sudanese, overwhelmingly in the south, were at risk in the year 2000 from famine and drought. It was the proclamation of Islamic law in 1983 by General Numeiri, and the doctrinaire role of the National Islamic Front led by Hasan Turabi thereafter, that signaled the intensification of the life-and-death struggle for freedom and identity for the southerners. Headed by American-educated John Garang from the large Dinka tribe, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and its military SPLA wing, then renewed the guerrilla war against the Khartoum regime, in the hands of Gen. Omar Hassan Al-Bashir since seizing power in 1989. The long war is largely forgotten by the world.

A complex web of cultural, religious, and economic issues sheds light on the longevity and horror of the suffering and struggle. The historical 19th-century slave trade in southern Sudan, conducted by unrepentant Arab traders/missionaries,16 continues in the throes of present-day warfare with the government’s purpose to break the popular back of the southern rebellion and convert the captives to Islam. Abducted boys, uprooted from their native environment, are brought north to Khartoum and forced to become Muslims, while some are sent back to the south for missionary or military purposes.17 The war in the south down to Equatorial province and Juba, the local capital, is unrelenting, with the Sudanese Army and its Muslim militias unwilling to tolerate an end other than the complete domination of the southerners, if not their physical - certainly cultural and religious - annihilation. We note that prior to the British withdrawal from Sudan in 1955-56 the south officially spoke English (not Arabic), had Sunday and not Friday as the day of rest, and freedom for Christianity was the dominant motif of the educational and religious milieu. But the independence of Sudan in 1956 signified the enslavement of the south.

The discovery of oil in the southern area of Bentiu complicated and exacerbated the north-south conflict, for it girded the military loins of Khartoum to preserve control over the region. Yet the SPLA, joined with Nubian and other opposition forces within the National Democratic Alliance, pursues the struggle in the area of Kassala in the east in an attempt to cut off Khartoum from its hinterland and then force a political settlement acceptable to southern aspirations and interests. Meanwhile, the program of Islamization and Arabization remains at the core of the Sudan government’s strategy, a policy of ethnic cleansing as Arab tribesmen push African inhabitants further south, especially away from the oil site of Bentiu. International oil interests and large numbers of Chinese security personnel stationed in support of the Khartoum regime bode ill for the southern struggle.

The vision of a new Sudan, as proposed by John Garang, is an idyllic image of a pluralistic country that recognizes autonomy for the south, freedom of religion for non-Muslims, and national unity for the country as a whole.18 But when land falls under dar al-Islam and is sanctified for Muslim rule, it is inconceivable that it would be voluntarily relinquished in a magnanimous act for conflict-resolution. Moreover, it is an Islamic imperative to expand into lands not yet populated by Muslims and transform them through mosque construction, religious conversion, and dhimmi subjugation. This is indeed the historical script and political prescription concerning the events transpiring in the Sudan during many decades of continued warfare.

2. Heterodox/Heretical Non-Muslims

(a) Alawites/Nusairis

According to legend, a Shi`ite from southern Iraq called Ibn-Nusair fashioned a radical interpretation of Islam’s origins and dogmas in the tenth century in a way that launched a new sect. His doctrine concerning the deification of `Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law in Mecca, on the one hand, and the existence of a trinity of celestial powers on the other, stood in absolute contra diction to orthodox Islamic belief.19 There arose, therefore, a new community of faith with highly syncretic features of Christian and pagan and perhaps Persian vintage, worshiping nature, promoting mixed dancing with unveiled women, as a schismatic Shi`ite sect set free from its presumably initial Islamic moorings. There were never mosques in the Nusairi mountain enclave in northwestern Syria, no sign of prayer, and no pilgrimage to Mecca.

This minority had apparently turned into an apostate community from Islam, and that act of heresy was met by hostility and rejection by the religious and political authorities in the Muslim East. A fatwah by Ibn-Taimiyya in the 14th-century considered the Nusairis an aberration and forbade to bury them in Muslim cemeteries or to eat meat from their slaughtered animals. In his view, the Nusairis were more infidel than Jews and Christians.20 Efforts by the Mamluks and the Ottomans to have them accept Islam failed.

In the 20th century, the Nusairis, now commonly known as Alawites, sought recognition for their separate identity within their own regional autonomous zone in Syria; and yet alternatively, depending on the political situation, they wanted acceptance from knowledged Alawites as Muslims and later in the early 1970s, under far different political circumstances, Imam Musa Sadr in Lebanon declared that the sect is part of the Shi`a branch of Islam. This religious maneuver remained, we may assume, farcical in the eyes of the large Muslim Sunni population in Syria where Hafi z al-Asad, a son of the Alawites from the mountain village of Qardaha, ruled with an iron fist. The Muslims considered Asad’s Baathist regime an atheistic anathema in the hands of a heretical minority dictatorship that represented only 12 percent of the Syrian population.

Events in Syria, like the massacre of 20,000 people in the stir of Muslim Brotherhood rebelliousness in Hama in 1982, illustrated the incongruity of Alawi rule over a society suffused with Islamic faith and Arab nationalist fervor. The fact that Asad, prior to his death in June 2000, was successful in transferring power to his son Beshar does not assure the long-term ability of the Alawite sect to impose its domination over the Muslims of Syria. Th e day of reckoning may come when Islam, as in its imperial past, recovers Damascus and the country from its apostate rulers from the mountain.

(a) Druzes

The appearance of the Druze sect in early 11th-century Egypt was a manifestation of a Shi`ite-Fatimid/Isma`ili faith and regime that elevated the caliphal fi gure of Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah to divine status. This fundamental distortion of orthodox Sunni Islam led to the persecution (mihna) of the new community, which then set its sights on acquiring a safe haven in the southern mountainous area of Lebanon, in Jabal `Amil and Wadi al-Taym. Th e new Druze religion departed from Islam, though at times the adherents pretended to be regular Muslims (taqiyah), but actually divorced themselves from Koran and shari`ah law. Religion had given birth to this new com munity, leaving the Druzes hardly more than allegorical Muslims, with monotheistic faith but without the doctrinal and behavioral paraphernalia of Islam.21 The Bani Ma`aruf, as they call themselves, consider their particular monotheism within an existing mono theistic Middle East to be a special brand, as a philosophical and syncretic quality fills the Druze spiritual universe with a fragrance of depth, eclecticism, and unadulterated purity.

The history of the Druzes is one of an introverted, secret sect surrounded, and sometimes endangered, by the Sunni Muslim majority in Lebanon, Syria, and beyond. Their religious leaders (Uqqal) preserved the collective integrity of this small minority group and, with lay military chieftains, always fought attempts, as in the effort by the Ottoman Turks at the turn of the 20th century, to impose Islam upon the Druzes in the southern Syrian Hawran region. At a minimum, the Druzes were put under Muslim religious authorities even though they claimed that they are independent of the shari`ah.

After Israel’s establishment, the Druze minority in the Carmel and Galilee areas was allowed to administer their own communal courts, no longer subordinated to Islamic law. This development was a result of the Jewish-Druze relationship which had begun in the 1930s, and reflected traditional Druze anxiety with Sunni Muslims, in this case the Palestinian Arabs. The Druze ended up agreeing to full conscription into the Israeli army. In the background of this fascinating military brotherhood between two small Mideastern peoples is the symbiosis in the biblical tale of Moses and Jethro his father-in-law, whom the Druze claim as their spiritual ancestor.

(a) Alevis

This highly mysterious group, which may number as much as ten or more million people in Turkey, seems to be an off shoot of Shi`ism but with an extreme emphasis on the divinity of “Ali.” De void of basic Islamic practices, like fasting in the month of Ramadan or mosque attendance, the Alevis reject shari`ah law and assume the proprietorship of an esoteric religious tradition, which may have absorbed Christian and pagan ideas. They also do not intermarry with Sunnis in Turkey.

When Muslim fundamentalism surfaced powerfully in Turkish society and politics, the Alevis cautiously maintained a low public profile. At the end of the 1990s, however, and though generally considered of non-Turkish ethnic identity, they adopted a more visible presence in Turkish cities and towns, erecting houses of worship known as cemevi, as in Ankara the capital.22 They may consider that the constitutional character of Turkey as a secular republic will always buttress them while containing the challenge of Islam as a rival political doctrine. This will then allow the wayward Alevis the opportunity to feel free to declare their religious identity without inviting any menacing Islamic response.

3. Non-Arab Muslims

(a) Kurds

The imperial rule of Islam dominated Kurdistan and its millennial-old native Kurds in the days of the Abbasid caliphate, the Ottoman sultanate, and the Safavid dynasty, and so, too, under their successor states - Iraq, Turkey, and Iran - in later and contemporary periods of Middle Eastern history. In the heights of their rugged mountain hearth the Kurds, subjugated by the Arab conquest, accepted Sunni Islam but in a way that their core collective identity remained rooted in their particular cultural, ecological, and ethnic way of life. Religious and national identity are often fused, as for Eastern Orthodoxy and Russian identity, or Catholicism and Irish nationality. In the Middle East, Arab nationalism has a Sunni Islamic hue, as if to be an Arab is to be a Muslim, or to be an Iranian is to be a Shi`ite.23 What then of Muslim Kurds?

The consequences of this linkage between nationality and religion are for certain minorities, like Muslim Kurds, harsh and fatal. Such a minority is, at one and the same time, denied any independent or honorable national significance while subordinated to the overarching religious community of which it is a member but that is dominated by another people. In the words of Firat, a Kurd, in a private communication from January 2001:

“Islam is actually the main reason that the Kurds can not unite [because they are nominal Muslims with other non-Kurd Muslims under the common faith of Islam], and one of the main reasons that Kurds do not have a country of their own [as they are subjected, as in Iraq and Syria, to the pan-Arab political framework].”

Kurds were traditionally not considered mainstream, observant, and loyal Muslims by dominant Muslims like the Arabs. First, we have the exceptional case of the Yezidis in the valley of Lalish north of Mosul, with their pre-Islamic faith or apostasy from Islam, worshiping the peacock angel Melek Tawus, who as recently as the 1990s feared the construction of a mosque in Dohuk, northern Iraq, as a sign of impending religious persecution.24 Secondly, saint worship and holy shrines were more predominant than shari`ah conformity and mosque attendance for the Ahl-e Haqq Kurdish adherents, as in Kermanshah in western Iran. Thirdly, Sufi mystical orders, like the Qadiri and Naqshbandi, muted formal Islamic commitment in favor of spiritual and moral exercises. Fourthly, popular Kurdish culture, it seems, only tangentially conformed to Islamic norms and probably more often diverged from them, as eccentrically engaging in mixed bathing.25

In the 20th century, the Kurds demanded and fought in vain in their pursuit of statehood as an expression of the surge of ethno nationalism in their ranks. Conducting minority insurgency with great tenacity over many decades in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq produced, however, no political gain. With a fundamental denial of the very existence of the coherent ethnic-linguistic community of over ten million Kurds in the country, Turkey practiced a harsh policy of cultural repression and physical deportation. The indictment and imprisonment of sociologist Ismail Besikci became the cause célèbre in the struggle for Kurdish recognition in the 1980s. In Iraq, three million Kurds fought a guerrilla war under the charge of Mustafa Barzani, but the campaign collapsed in 1975. The variety of Kurdish parties/militias - KDP, PUK, PKK - continued armed struggle across the Kurdistan homeland, but division within and brutal re pression without left the Kurds subjugated to the repressive states under which they live. In 1988, Saddam Hussein’s forces unleashed the Anfal campaign to destroy his non-Arab Kurdish compatriots The gassing of 5,000 villagers in Halabja became the symbol of Iraq’s “final solution” policy against the Kurds. In 1992, in the aftermath of the Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq’s clutches, the Kurds were able to establish a regional administration, but not more than that, with its capital in Arbil.

(b) Amazighen - Berbers/Kabyle

The struggle of the native Imazighen (especially Berbers in Morocco and Kabyles in Algeria) against the Arab-Muslim invasion of North Africa from the seventh and eighth centuries continued with out interruption into the period of the contemporary state-system. Based on an ancient oral language (Tamazight) rooted in the historical geography of Kabylia, the Rif, and Atlas mountains in particular, preserving an indigenous culture of ethnic fidelity and customary law, this minority of 15 million people persists, some times rebels, but lacks independence and statehood. These Berber communities adopted Sunni Islam early on, but their commitment to the faith was traditionally considered weaker than love of their Berber hearth and their tenacity in maintaining Berber identity at all costs. They apparently lent money at interest, despite the Islamic prohibition, and considered saints rather than learned ulema the venue for sanctity and blessing.26

The Algerian war for independence from French colonial ism (1954-62) found Kabylians, like Belkacem Krim, Ramdane Abane, and Hocine Ait-Ahmed, in the forefront of the armed FLN struggle. They dedicated their energies for a free Algeria that would accommodate the Berber minority, its language and culture, as a respectable component of the country’s national profile. Instead, Algeria with a certain jacobin centralized apparatus was soon defined as an “Arab-Muslim” entity that conjured up an old-new cultural-linguistic colonialism. Furthermore, the connection between language and sanctity regarding the dominant role of Arabic as the state language marginalized the Berber tongue as a parochial folk fossil. It was virtually impossible to speak Berber in the Algerian public domain, though approximately eight to nine million speak it in their homes.

It was this repressive situation that led Mouloud Mammeri in the 1970s to initiate his struggle for legitimizing the Berber language and poetry as expressions of a revived culture. So, too, the courageous efforts of Lounes Matoub, who never felt Arabic to be his own language, to speak and sing in his native though stigmatized Berber dialect as an act of resistance. But Matoub, aged 42, was murdered in June 1998, perhaps by state security forces, perhaps by Islamic terrorists, with the civil war in Algeria raging since 1992, and targeting any and everyone.27 Known for his anti-Islamist sentiments and proud Kabyle identity, Matoub once recalled how it was intimidating to utter a word in the Berber language on a bus in Algiers. He made an effort not to learn Arabic, and at his funeral the mourners chanted, “We are not Arabs!”

The Berber minority has been defiant in the face of violence and repression, demanding “democracy and culture” in a pluralistic ethnic Algeria. The people of Kabylia demonstrated in late April 2001 to commemorate the “Berber Spring” from 1980 in a proud act of ethnic self-affirmation. But in confrontations with the Algerian security forces, 126 unarmed youth were killed. The Berbers face both Islamic and state terror with terrible human losses.

In Morocco, where the Berbers traditionally enjoyed liberty in the rural Bled es-Siba areas, the war against French rule in the 1950s arose within a context of national and Islamic unity of the entire population. Yet independence meant the Arabization of Morocco in rejection of the French and Berber languages - even though the Berber proportion of the total population is estimated as high as 40 percent. The Alawite monarchy served as a unifying Arab-Islamic institution, and assumes this political pretension for the new king Muhammad VI, since his ascension to the throne in 1999. Inasmuch as the dynasty claims descent from Muhammad the prophet of Islam, and the king identifies himself in the classical caliphal role as “commander of the faithful” (Amir al-Mu`minin), he is a unifying point of reference for all Muslims, Arabs, and Berbers alike.

The implication of these aspects in contemporary Moroccan society and politics is the diminution of the Berbers’ status and their language in national life. Amazigh families in the south of Morocco have been displaced with Arabs, and Amazigh place-names have been purged and replaced with Arab ones. Only Arabic is an official language and it is even prohibited for Imazighen to record traditional names in birth registers. It is reported that many younger Berbers are not able to speak any one of their three Tamazight dialects which yet constitute one language, and that moreover the language is a handicap in the economic realm for which spoken Arabic is required.28

4. Power and Rights

The treatment of minorities in Middle Eastern Muslim countries is part of a comprehensive strategy of exclusion, homogenization, and repression in the public and political arenas. Traditionally autocratic authoritarian regimes, from Algeria to Iran, engage in policies that deny or restrict human rights for all persons and peoples. The regime rather than an active citizenry stands at the center of politics. It is often, though not always, the case that Islamic law or Muslim norms serve as a legitimizing pillar in the imposition of a single code of behavior that buttresses the regime.

In Saudi Arabia, where Islamic punishments (hudud) are applied, seven Nigerians charged with bank robbery in May 2000 were summarily beheaded.29 In Sudan, whose penal code is inspired by shari`ah law, 19 men had limbs amputated for the same crime of bank robbery in late January 2001.30 In the same period, the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat executed two Palestinians (one in front of a large cheering crowd in Nablus) who were accused of collaboration with Israeli secret services. Beyond the aspect of judicial arbitrariness in the procedures preceding the sentencing, it is suspected that such punishments are the result of inner clan rivalries among the Palestinians and not necessarily the product of a commitment to Palestinian national solidarity.

In the domain of thought and culture, free-thinkers and public critics have been victims of government repression that reflects Islamic concerns. In the year 2000, Egyptian authorities arrested well known human rights activist and scholar Saad al-Din al-Ibrahim on charges of fomenting divisions and tensions in the country due to his promotion of civil and minority, that is, Coptic, rights. He was later sentenced to a prison term. Author Salaheddin Mohsen, also of Egypt, was also sentenced to three years in prison in January 2001 because his writings were deemed offensive to Islam. These examples illustrate that Islam represents intellectual and political rectitude even though the government, headed by President Husni Mubarak, itself represses Islamic movements who use violence to achieve their objectives. Official Egypt, like monarchical Jordan, accommodates Islam, while at the same time containing its anti regime animus.

While Islam is a powerful force of repression within Arab countries, it is also a catalyst for expansion and a virtual assault on the West beyond the Middle East. The decay of Christianity as a political civilizational entity, along with its porous democratic ethos, exposes Western countries to Islamic penetration in Europe and North America.31 September 11 as a seminal rupture in the consciousness of the United States looms large in this regard. This is of a piece with the vulnerability and weakness of Christian com munities in the Muslim world. In the 19th century and even earlier, Russia, France, and Britain took an active interest in the safety and welfare of Oriental Christians; in the 20th century, national self determination and decolonization served to liberate the Arabs and Muslims, but block the road for Christian minority freedom. The independence of Iraq and Egypt, among other countries, placed Arabs above non-Arabs, and Muslims above non-Muslims.

The halcyon days of European concern for Christians and even military intervention on their behalf, as with the French military expedition to Lebanon in 1861, vanished from the arena of practical politics. When the United States intervened in the Persian Gulf in 1990-1991 on behalf of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, it demonstrated its global and regional strategic priorities; and when it accommodated Syrian occupation of Beirut and almost all of Lebanon in the same years, it obtusely abandoned Christians (and others) to a foreign and oppressive regime. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning the initiative of the American Congress in the 1990s to express concern for enfeebled Christians in the Middle East, and for Lebanon in particular, in declaratory and legislative decisions.

International organizations, particularly the United Nations and its agencies, have lacked the requisite determination and resources to assure the rights of minorities in the Middle East. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 made no reference to “minority rights,” while the right to “self-determination” itself is judged inferior to the right of a state to maintain its national and territorial integrity. The rights of indigenous peoples have been recognized, but no country is agreeable to the notion that such peoples should enjoy the option of secession against the right of the state to assert its complete sovereign prerogatives over its entire territory. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 27, does acknowledge the right of minorities “to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”32 Yet a centralized political regime, anxious about the majority-minority rift within the country, will not agree to grant extensive rights to a dissident group which might thereafter threaten the survival of the country. Nor are some states even willing to recognize the minority’s separate existence: Turkey traditionally called the Kurds “mountain Turks,” while Egypt mockingly considers Copts a natural part of the Egyptian people and therefore unworthy of special rights or considerations. The goal of freedom and dignity for all old Middle Eastern peoples is a noble vision. The most reasonable solution, however, may be one in which the state refrains from interference in the life of the minority so long as it recognizes the right of the state to its sovereign existence.33 In the religious and political milieu of the Muslim and Arab Middle East, more than this - and even this - seems hardly feasible in the days ahead.

By Mordechai Nisan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes

1 On the status of non-Muslims in the eyes of Islam, see Yohanan Friedmann, “Classifi cation of Unbelievers in Sunni Muslim Law and Tradition,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, Vol. 22 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Th e Hebrew University 1998), p. 163-195. For a general historical overview, see Bat Ye’or, Th e Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (London: Associated University Presses, 1996). 2 A recent contribution to this historical debate appears in M.A. Muhibbu- Din, “Ahl al-Kitab and Religious Minorities in the Islamic State: Historical Context and Contemporary Challenges,” Journal of Muslim Minority Aff airs, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2000): p. 111-127. 3 Th e Associated Press, May 1, 1998, quoted in Middle East Quarterly, Vol. VII, No. 4 (December 2000): p. 85; and Jerusalem Post, December 25, 2000. 4 Pakistan Observer, September 2, 2000; and a report from Th e Copts: Christians of Egypt, Vol. 17, Nos. 1 & 2 (January 1990): p. 3. 5 Sheikh Abdallah Azzam, born in Palestine in 1941 and assassinated in Pakistan in 1989, wrote a compelling fatwah (Islamic legal decision) on the subject called “Defense of the Muslim Lands,” (translated from the original Arabic) distributed on Internet site . 6 Ronni Shaked and Aviva Shabi, Hamas: From Faith in Allah to the Path of Terror [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Keter, 1994), p. 112. 7 Al-Ahram al-Arabi, October 28, 2000, quoted by Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Dispatch no. 151, November 8, 2000. 8 Daily Star, Beirut, December 22, 2000, quoted in the Monthly Digest, published by Th e Jerusalem Institute For Western Defence, Vol. 13, No. 1 (January 2001): p. 7. 9 Research on Palestinian textbooks is conducted by Th e Center for Monitor- ing the Impact of Peace, and most of the above quotations are drawn from the Center’s Newsletter, issue 4, available on their Internet site . 10 See the authoritative study by Vahakn N. Dadrian, Th e History of the Armenian Genocide (Oxford: Berghahn, 1995), p. 147-151. 11 Op. cit., Dalrymple, p. 97. 12 Madawi Al-Rasheed, “The Myth of Return: Iraqi Arab and Assyrian Refugees in London,” Journal of Refugee Studies,Vol. 7, Nos. 2/3 (1994): p. 199-219. 13 Nasrallah interviews in Al-Safi r, Beirut, September 16, 1997, and Der Spiegel, October 20, 1997. 14 Aequalitas, Vol. 4, No. 1 (March-April 1999): p. 6, published by the Cana- dian-Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, Chomedey-Laval, Quebec. Note also from the CEOHR, “A Communication on Violations of the Rights of the Copts in Egypt presented to the Center for Human Rights-United Nations Offi ce at Geneva,” April 9, 1996. 15 Information from and Cairo Times, January 13-19, 2000, p. 6-8. 16 Alice Moore-Harell, “Slave Trade in the Sudan in the Nineteenth Century and its Suppression in the Years 1877-80,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (April 1998): p. 113-128. 17 Author’s interview in January 2001 with an anonymous rebel referred to as Philip who fought in the bush with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. 18 John Garang, Th e Vision of the New Sudan: Questions of Unity and Identity, edited by Elwathig Kameir (Cairo: Consortium for Policy Analysis and Development Strategies, 1997). 19 Meir Bar-Asher and Aryeh Kofsky, “Th e Nusayri Doctrine of `Ali’s Divin- ity and the Nusayri Trinity According to an Unpublished Treatise from the 7th/13th Centuries,” Der Islam, vol. 72, no. 2 (1995): p. 258-292. 20 Rene Dussaud, Histoire Et Religion Des Nosairis (Paris: Librairie Emile Bouillon, 1900), esp. p. 29-30. 21 Silvestre De Sacy, Exposé de la Religion Des Druzes (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964, orig. 1838). 22 Krisztina Kehl-Bodrogi, “Th e New Garments of Alevism,” ISIM Newsletter (5/00): p. 23. 23 Henry Munson, “Islamism and Nationalism,” ISIM Newsletter (5/00): p. 10. 24 Christine Allison, “Oral History in Kurdistan: Th e Case of the Badinani Yezidis,” Th e Journal of Kurdish Studies, Vol. II, 1996-1997, p. 37-48. See also John S. Guest, Survival Among the Kurds: A History of the Yezidis (London: Kegan Paul, 1993). 25 C.J. Edmonds, Kurds, Turks, and Arabs: Politics, Travel, and Research in North Eastern Iraq 1919-1925 (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 204-205. 26 Th e Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. II (London: Luzac, 1927), p. 596-602. 27 On Lounes Matoub and his murder, see the Internet site of the World Algerian Action Coalition and the report in the Washington Times, June 29, 1998. In the Kabylian city of Tizi-Ouzou, Berber rioters destroyed public property in an outburst of collective anger. 28 Yamina El Kirat, “Some Causes of the Beni Iznassen Berber Language Loss,” Langues et Stigmatisation Sociale Au Maghreb - Peuples Mediteraneans, Vol. 79 (Avril-Juin 1997) : p. 35-53. 29 Guardian (Nigeria), May 20, 2000, reported in the Monthly Digest of News from the Moslem World issued by Th e Jerusalem Institute for Western Defence, vol. 12, no. 6 (June 2000): p. 11. 30 Th e Sudan Victims of Torture Group (SVTG) of London reported this information on February 2, 2001, that was distributed by Internet site . 31 I examined this subject in my book Identity and Civilization: Essays on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1999), esp. p. 144-153. 32 Patrick Th ornberry, “Th e UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belong- ing to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities: Background, Analysis, Observations, and an Update,” in Alan Philips and Allan Rosas, editors, Universal Minority Rights (Finland: Abo Akademi University Institute for Human Rights, 1995), p. 20. 33 For a thoughtful discussion, see Anthony D. Smith, “Ethnic Nationalism and the Plight of Minorities,” Journal of Refugees Studies, vol. 7, no. 2/3 (1994): p. 186-198; also my article “Th e Minority Plight,” Middle East Quarterly, vol. III, no. 3 (September 1996): p. 25-34.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. - This article is taken from the Book, David Bukay (Editor), Muhammad’s Monsters: A Comprehensive Guide to RADICAL ISLAM for Western Audiences, 2004.

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=593


Leave a commentDiscuss live in the forums
your comments:
Muhammad’s Monsters: The War of Islam against Minorities in the Middle East and North Africa
12 December 2009, par Ajenjar
Algerians have at last understood that they have been reduced to slaves by Islam, that’s why more and more Algerian are turning their backs on the terrorist and oppressive pseudo-religion Islam, which a real grave for humanite.
Muslims Turn to Christ in Algeria - CBN Report !
answer this message

Muhammad’s Monsters: The War of Islam against Minorities in the Middle East and North Africa
23 July 2009, par Jon P.
Please publish OR remove my comment entirely - Jon P. Thanks.
answer this message

Muhammad’s Monsters: The War of Islam against Minorities in the Middle East and North Africa
23 July 2009, by NOA
Azul
It has to be a mistake. Please send it again!
Regards
answer this message

Muhammad’s Monsters: The War of Islam against Minorities in the Middle East and North Africa
22 July 2009, par Jon P.
Interesting !
How much of that is the result of Western European cooperation with these monsters? If they are viewed as such (monsters) why is it that the UN and other Western Countries continue to cooperate with these regimes ?
1/2 view
answer this message

Sunday, July 12, 2009

The clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

by Wafa Sultan
adapted and edited from http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD110706 and taken from [the] February 21, 2006, MEMRITV . . . clip featuring an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera TV. During the interview, Dr.Ibrahim Al-Khouli accused Sultan of being a "heretic" for attacking current aspects of Islamic society.

This English adaptation can be considered the equivalent of "Le choc entre la civilisation et l’arriération, entre le civilisé et le primitif, entre la barbarie et la rationalité. " by Wafa SULTAN, the preceding post at this blog, reprinted from Kabylia Info, where it was posted on Mon, 07/06/2009 - 13:16 by Fernas

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger.' When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma; another time he calls them the 'People of the Book'; and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians 'those who incur Allah's wrath.' Who told you that they are 'People of the Book?' They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them 'those who incur Allah's wrath,' or 'those who have gone astray,' and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.


The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to
respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling.
Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish
scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work
and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have
not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.

The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy.

Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results.

The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that
humankind respect them.

Wafa Sultan

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD110706
TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1050.htm . [Registration and Log-in required]

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Le choc entre la civilisation et l’arriération, entre le civilisé et le primitif, entre la barbarie et la rationalité.

From Kabylia Info

Le choc entre la civilisation et l’arriération, entre le civilisé et le primitif, entre la barbarie et la rationalité.
Wafa SULTAN

Posted Mon, 07/06/2009 - 13:16 by Fernas

"Le choc que nous voyons dans le monde n’est pas un choc des religions ou un choc des civilisations ; c’est un choc entre deux opposés, entre deux ères. C’est un choc entre une mentalité qui appartient aux temps médiévaux et une autre mentalité qui appartient au XXIem siècle. C’est un choc entre la civilisation et l’arriération, entre le civilisé et le primitif, entre la barbarie et la rationalité. C’est un choc entre les droits de l’Homme d’une part, et la violation de ces droits d’autre part. C’est un choc entre ceux qui traitent les femmes comme des bêtes, et ceux qui les traient comme des êtres humains. Ce que nous voyons aujourd’hui n’est pas un choc des civilisations. Les civilisations ne se heurtent pas, elles rivalisent.

Les musulmans sont ceux qui ont entamé le choc des civilisations. Le prophète de l’islam à dit : "J’ai reçu l’ordre de combattre les gens jusqu’à ce qu’ils croient en Allah et en son messager" Quand les musulmans divisèrent les peuples en musulmans et non-musulmans et appelèrent à combattre les autres jusqu’à ce qu’ils partagent leurs croyances, ils déclenchèrent ce choc et débuta cette guerre. Pour mettre fin à cette guerre, ils doivent réexaminer leurs Textes et leurs plans islamiques, qui sont remplis d’appels au takfir (accusation de mécréance) et à combattre les infidèles.

Quelle civilisation de cette terre lui permet d’appeler d’autres gens par des noms qu’ils n’ont pas choisis par eux-mêmes ? Tantôt il les appelle "le peuple des dhimmis", tantôt il les appelle "les gens du livre" et tantôt il les compare à des singes ou à des porcs, ou bien nomme les chrétiens "ceux qui encourent la colère d’Allah" Qui vous a raconté qu’ils sont les "gens du Livre" ? Ils ne sont pas les gens d’un livre, ils sont les gens de beaucoup de livres.

Tous les livres scientifiques salutaires que vous avez aujourd’hui sont les leurs, le fruit de leur pensée, libre et créatrice. Qui vous donne le droit de les appeler "ceux qui encourent la colère d’Allah" ou "ceux qui se sont égarés" et puis venir ici dire que votre religion vous commande de vous abstenir d’offenser les croyance des autres ?

Je ne suis pas une chrétienne, une musulmane ou une juive. Je suis un être humain laïc. Je ne crois pas au surnaturel mais je respecte le droit des autres à y croire. Frères vous pouvez croire aux pierres (réf. aux rituels mecquois) tant que vous ne me les jetez pas. Vous êtes libres d’adorer ce que vous voulez, mais les croyances des autres, ce ne sont pas vos affaires, qu’ils croient que le Messie est Dieu fils de Marie, ou que Satan est Dieu fils de Marie. Laissez les gens avoir leurs croyances. Les juifs sont sortis de la tragédie (l’Holocauste) et ont forcé le monde à les respecter avec leur connaissance pas avec la terreur, avec leur travail pas avec leurs lamentations et leurs cris. l’Humanité doit une majeure partie des découvertes scientifiques des XIX° et XX° siècles à des scientifiques juifs. Quinze millions de personnes dispersées de par le monde se sont unies et ont gagné leurs droits par le travail et la connaissance. Nous n’avons pas vu un seul juif se faire exploser dans un restaurant allemand ! Nous n’avons pas vu un seul juif détruire une église, nous n’avons pas vu un seul juif protester en tuant des gens. Les musulmans ont transformé trois statues de Bouddha en gravats ; nous n’avons pas vu un seul bouddhiste brûler une mosquée, tuer un musulman ou incendier une ambassade.

Seuls les musulmans défendent leurs croyances en brûlant des églises, en tuant des gens et en détruisant des ambassades. Cette façon de faire ne donnera aucun résultat.

Les musulmans doivent se demander ce qu’ils peuvent faire pour l’humanité avant d’exiger que l’humanité les respecte."

Wafa SULTAN
http://www.kabylia.info/islam/le-choc-entre-la-civilisation-et-l%E2%80%99arri%C3%A9ration-entre-le-civilis%C3%A9-et-le-primitif-entre-la-barba

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Iranian Civilization and Islam - (Can Iran recover from Islam?)

Civilizations Destroyed By Islam:

Civilizations in Arabian Peninsula: 1. Nabatian Kingdom 2. Hejaz Civilization 3. Heira Kingdom (Protectorate of Persian Empire) 4. Yemenese Civilization (Protectorate of Persian Empire) 5. Lakhmid Kingdom 6. Mazun State Society (Protectorate of Persian Empire) 7. Humyarite Kingdom 8. Hadramaut Civilization

Civilizations in Africa: 1. Egyptian Empire 2. Carthaginian Empire (Tunis) 3. Siranaeek Kingdom (Libya) 4. Nubian Kingdom (Sudan)

Civilizations in Asia: 1. Phoenician Civilization (Lebanon) 2. Sham Civilization (Syria, Colony of Rome) 3. Anatolia (Turkey, Colony of Rome)

Civilizations Struggling Not To Die: 1. Persian Empire (Present Iran)

We have been struggling with Islam for 1400 years now. We are still alive! Lets keep our holy Persian Culture alive so we will not join the long list of old civilizations extinct by the Islam & presently called "Just another Arab Muslim State"!


the reason we are still alive is that we still have our:

Persian Language Persian Traditions Persian Celebrations (Norouz, Mehregan, Sadeh, Yalda Night, Chahar Shanbe Souri, Sizda Be Dar, etc.) Persian Values Persian Philosophy (Zoroastrianism, etc.) Persian Literature Persian Traditional Music Persian Poetry (Ferdousi, etc.) Persian History

Yazdgird III, Rostam Farokhzad, Apranik, Babak-e Khoramdin, Maziar, Banoo, Negan, Abu Moslem, Yaqoob Leise Saffari, Ferdousi Toosi, Dr. Ahmad Kasravi, Dr. Kourosh Aryamanesh, Dr. Cyrus Elahi, General Ayat Mohaqeqi & thousands of others did not die in vein. Prove it that they did not die in vein.

They died so Iran could live, so Iran would not become another Arab Muslim Nation, another Iranistan (Pahlavi II), another Cesspool.

10. Lets take a good look at the fundamentals of Islam, what has Islam brought to us Persians? A Religion of Terror which openly preaches martyrdom & destruction of all Non Muslim's (exact verses of Quran listed on other articles of IPC) lives & property, a prophet who was a thief, bandit, assassin, murderer, rapist, child molester, & most of all a charlatan! The most fanatical, ignorant, superstitious religion which ever existed in the whole world! What is the true legacy of Islam?

Aba: Islamic Cape Amameh: Turban Ghaba: another Islamic cover Hejab: women's covering Chaghchoor: women's head cover Charghad: Islamic Scarf Lachak: Traditional Islamic Scarf Roobandeh: Women's face cover Maghana'eh: Women's specific head cover Chador: Veil Giveh: Islamic shoes Nalein: Islamic Flip Flop Aftabeh: Islamic toilet Pitcher Tonban: Islamic Pajama Quran: A 1500 years old pile of garbage torn paper, creation of a sick evil charlatan's mind called Muhammad the Bandit. Muhammad: the prophet of terror himself, a delusional, epileptic, schizophrenic, pedophile, child molester, murderer, assassin, rapist, assaulter of women, female slave holder, criminal charlatan! and of course, 1400 years full of history of blood, murder & terror, Islamic Style, which we are still involved with it specially during the last 22 & 1/2 years as we know it as the Islamic Republic of Iran! And we are still denying that the true Islam is not what IRI practices or Taliban practices, but the true Islam is beautiful as Roses & holier than the holy! Give yourselves a break & open your eyes & mind & smell the true stench of Islam all around you & not just inside the mosque!

11. Do you possibly believe that it is only us, the historians that know of the true nature of Islam? do not kid yourselves! Do you really believe that the President of United States, the Vice, & as a matter of fact the whole government of United States & rest of the Western & civilized world does not know of the true nature of Islam?! Of course they do! All logical knowledgeable politicians do know about the true nature of Islam. Then you might ask that why are they saying & pretending that the true Islam is innocent & all these terrorist movements are sacrilege to Allah & Islam?! I tell you why!

US & The West cannot possibly declare war on Islam & all Muslim. It will be a loosing battle, the same battle that the communism lost, the same battle that USSR lost! Religion is so deep in the blood of the masses & Islam is proposing itself as a religion; therefore, it will be disastrous to fight against people's religion. Remember that religion is the opiate of the masses!

Another reason that the West specifically US, will not declare a war on Islam, is that the best way to fight this so called religion & a dangerous political ideology, is to attack the very roots of it & not the pretty branches of it! By roots, I mean the Fundamentalist Islam which is the original Islam & by the pretty branches, I mean the Neo Islam which is trying to sell the civilized face of Islam to the world. If the West manages to destroy the world wide terrorism of the Islamic kind, it will manage to destroy the fundamentalist Islam & that is where Islam gets it's power from. Once the roots of an ideology is destroyed, the branches shall fall! Neo Islam of the modern Muslims like Shariati, Soroush, Bazargan & Yazdi is nothing but a beautiful facade without a content. Once you take the fundamentals of this ideology out of it, then you have to revise it, & revisionism is worst than the "Death of an Ideology"! the destruction of Soviet Union started when they started to revise Communism. First they revised a bit here & a bit there, until there was nothing left of Leninism & Stalinism. And next thing you know, Communism, Russian style, died out! The power of Islam comes from it's fundamentals, it's fanatical beliefs to control the cattle-like masses of illiterate people & to keep the masses ignorant. Once you take that out of Islam, there will be nothing left but the liquidy Soda Pop Islam of Shariati which is a revision of Islam & an insult to the true Islam. By then, most of the battle will be already fought for!


So have in mind that to declare war on the whole Islam, is nothing but a bad tactic to achieve the ultimate strategy of winning the war against Islam. So why not separate the two Islam to the:

Good Islam, Revised Islam, Neo Islam, True Islam, Holy Islam & Bad Islam, Fundamentalist Islam, Fanatical Islam, Fake Islam, Terrorist Islam

And by the end, when the world's battle against Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism is done & it will be won, then there will be nothing left of the Islam, but only a facade wallpaper made of revised meaningless confused politically correct Islam of the Modern Neo Islamists which does not even look, sound, or tastes like Islam! And of course this is the best way to get rid of the power of this ideology, divide it in two fractions of fundamentalist & moderate or reformist & then just sit & watch them eat each other alive & chew each other out! Politics at it's best with a spice of logic! So West, specifically US, is doing the best tactic that they can play for the ultimate strategy of weakening Islam & making it loose it's credibility. It is all well calculated my friends.

12. Why is Islam & Islamic nations way behind the world? As I, mentioned in the past, we can notice many reasons:

a. Lack of individual freedom in Islam. b. Lack of independence of free thought in Islam. c. Renaissance happened in Europe, but it never happened in Islamic Nations! There was a Martin Luther in the West, but there was never one in Islamic world! d. Islam did not give anything to history of human civilization, but it only took & took from the cultures which it destroyed, until there was nothing left to take!

Lets expand on this, When Islam invaded the civilized world, it took over one of the two major super powers (Persia) & it took over all Asian colonies of the other one (Rome). Now, if at the time, Islam had a great navy & capability to invade Europe through Constantinaple, & during it's golden days, then Italy would have been also a Shiite Hole like Iran! Thanks & many fortunes that they could not invade main land Europe back then, or the whole Europe would also end up as backwarded as the Muslim states are! Europe would have ended up being as the middle east or North Africa now!


When Islam took over the so many of the world's civilizations, it had nothing to give, yet it had everything to take & gain. If we study the whole history of Islamic Empire in it's glory days, we will notice that the whole Empire ran by the ingenuity of the occupied country's specialists. All the people who ran the Islamic Empire from scientists, politicians, poets, artists, philosophers, writers, etc. were mostly Persian & leastly from other destroyed occupied civilizations under Islam like Egypt, Cartage or Phoenicia! The Arab Savage Barbarians of the peninsula truly had nothing to offer! Due to the reactionary & oppressive nature of Islam, the Islamic Regime did not let any new creative ingenuity to grow in the Empire, yet purposely, it helped killing every ounce of ingenuity & intellectualism which bloomed in the region! Finally all these bloomed flowers from the occupied nations died out & there were nobody else to replace them! suddenly there were left only, Arabs & their oppressed occupied mongrelized nations under occupation with no present or future sign of ingenuity or creation, & thats when Islamic world died out & fell behind the progressive world.

Many, mistakenly name the major Persian minds as Arabic or Islamic! Minds like:

Omar Khayam father of Algebra, Modern Astronomy, & a famous poet Zakaria Razi father of Chemistry Ebne Sina father of Medicine Kharazmi, Birooni, & so many more were all Persian.

Please do not give the credit to Arabs or Muslims! Look at the Moorish example, for about 800 years Moors owned Spain & Iberian Peninsula. The first 400 years, were the glory days of Islam due to the fact that Persians & other defeated civilization's bright minds were carrying the burden of running the Islamic Empire. Even, Booran (Pretty) The Persian Prime Minister of Islamic Empire during Khalifat of Mamoon the Abassids dynasty, during the occupation of Iran by Arab oppressors, daughter of Hassan Sahl was Persian. Yes even the prime minister of Islamic Empire was a Persian Woman! How odd can it get?! the oppressed women of Iran by the evil of Islam, have sent their candidate to the main court house of the Khalifat to rule! and that is what Persian women are made of! during the first 400 years, all the different local khalifats were sending the share of the central Khalifat of Baghdad to the capital, they were all together pillaging & stealing the world, blind! They were united & strong, but during the second 400 years, every little local Khalifat started singing their own songs, & did not send Baghdad's share to them! they all got separated without the support of Baghdad, they all got weak, even the Baghdad Khalifat! And eventually the last strong hold in Europe, the Khalifat of Granada in Spain surrendered & people like El Sid & Queen Isabelle kicked out the last of Muslims out of Iberia. Moorish Empire of Berbers & Arabs destroyed itself in a way & this finished the 800 years of Muslim supremacy in Iberia including Portugal, Spain, & once even as far as the middle of France! Now Muslim Arab Barbarians just occupied Iran for 171 years & finally got kicked out by The Great Yaghoob-e Leis-e Saffari of Saffarids Dynasty, the greatest freedom fighter of them all & the freedom fighting masses of Iran, yet the roots of oppression & the rotting mentality & corps of Islam remained in Iran & in Iranian's brains until it destroyed Iran once more @ 1979 by Khomeini & his Islamic Reaction!

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:_ahsQvveY2IJ:www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_719.shtml+site:iranian.ws+iranian.ws&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.persian-journal.com/


POLL:

As an Iranian, If (or when) time comes to choose between 'Islam or Iran', which one will you support?

Islam 8.2%

Iran 91.8%

Total votes: 13213

want to add your comment?
http://www.iranian.ws/poll/poll-13.php?action=results&poll_ident=13

Friday, June 19, 2009

ISLAM IN THE PUNJAB (of India)



ISLAM IN THE PUNJAB

(of India)








THE MOSLEM MUGHALS (TURKIC/MONGOLS)

IN THE PUNJAB (India)


MUGHALS is also written as MOGULS


Baba Banda Singh Bahadur (pronounce like this: Banda- "Bun-tha", Bahadur- "Bah-Ha-'th'ur" {'th' pronounced as 'th' in 'the'}

THE SHORT OF IT

In 1713, Banda Bahadur wanted to establish a Sikh State in the Punjab. For this he fought relentlessly with the Mughals. His state lasted just under a year before its collapse. However, after a number of years he was caught in a seize and executed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_region



LYING IS PART OF MOSLEM TRADITION

Towards the end of November 1715, the remaining defenders were running out of ammunition and food. They were trying to exist on boiled leaves and the bark of trees, and were gradually reduced to mere skeletons. Then on December 17, 1715, Abdus Samad Khan, one of the Mughal commanders, shouted across the separating moat, that he would not allow any killing by his men, if Banda opened the gate to the fortress. When Banda ordered the gate be opened, the Mughals rushed in to spear or stab as many as three hundred of the half-dead and helpless defenders. About two hundred were captured alive and handcuffed in twos. Banda had chains round his ankles and his wrists, and was then locked in an iron cage. The Mughals were still afraid that he might escape and so they placed a guard on each side of the cage with swords drawn and the cage was placed aloft an elephant, which led the procession, which paraded through Lahore, before proceeding towards Delhi. Zakarya Khan, the son of the Lahore Governor, then ordered his men to lop off more Sikh heads on the way. The prisoners were first taken to Lahore, and thence to Delhi.


Torture and execution

The cavalcade to the imperial capital was a grisly sight. Besides 740 prisoners in heavy chains, it comprised seven hundred cartloads of Sikh heads with another 200 stuck upon pikes. On February 26, 1716, the procession neared Delhi, and Farukh Siyar ordered his Minister, Mohammed Amin Khan to go out to receive them and to prepare them for a suitable display in the city. On February 29, the citizens of Delhi lined the streets, to get a good sight of the procession.

First came two-thousand soldiers, each holding a Sikh head impaled on his upright spear. Next followed Banda's elephant. A gold-laced red turban was placed on his head, and to add further mockery to his plight, a bright printed scarlet shirt was slipped on his body. Then came 740 prisoners (500 had been collected on the way). These men were chained in pairs and thrown across the backs of camels. Their faces were blackened, and pointed sheepskin or paper caps were clapped on their heads. Behind this line came the Mughal Commanders, Abdus Samad Khan, his son Qamar-ud-Din Khan, and his son-in-law Zakaria Khan. Their men lined both sides of the streets.

For seven days, executions were carried out, until all the ordinary captives had been disposed off. Their bodies were loaded on wagons and taken out of town to be thrown to the vultures. The heads were hung up on trees or on poles near the market-place to be a lesson to all rebels. The jailors next turned their attention to the 20 major leaders, including Baj Singh, Fateh Singh, Ali Singh and Gulab Singh. These men were tortured to the extreme and were asked to divulge the place where they had buried all the treasures that had been looted from Sirhind, Batala and other towns during their better days.

Failing to get any clues after three months, they prepared to put an end to their lives on Sunday, June 9, 1716. Banda's cage was again hoisted on top of an elephant, and he was dressed in the mock attire of an emperor, with a colourful red pointed turban on his head. His four-year old son, Ajai Singh was placed in his lap. The twenty chiefs marched behind the elephant and this procession then passed through the streets of Delhi, and headed for the mausoleum of Bahadur Shah, near the Qutub Minar. On reaching the graveyard, the captives were again offered a choice of two alternatives: conversion to Islam or death. All chose death. They were tortured again before being executed. Their heads were then impaled on spears and arranged in a circle around Banda who was now squatting on the ground. There were hundreds of spectators standing around watching this scene.

Banda was then given a short sword and ordered to kill his own son, Ajai Singh. As he sat unperturbed, the executioner moved forward and hacked the little child into pieces. Banda sat through all this without any display of emotion.

Mohammed Amin Khan, who was standing nearby remarked: "It is surprising that one, who shows so much acuteness in his features and so much of nobility in his conduct, should have been guilty of such horrors."

Banda replied, "Whenever men become so corrupt and wicked as to relinquish the path of equity and abandon themselves to all kinds of excesses, then Providence never fails to raise up a scourge like me to chastise a race so depraved; but when the measure of punishment is full then he raises up men like you to bring him to punishment."

On June 9: The executioner then stepped forward and thrust the point of his dagger into Banda's right eye, pulling out the eyeball. He then pulled out the other eyeball. Banda sat through all this as still as a rock. His face gave no twitch of pain.

The cruel devil then took his sword and slashed off Banda's left foot, then both his arms. But Banda's features were still calm as if he was at peace with his Creator. Finally they tore off his flesh with red-hot pincers, and there being nothing else left in their book of tortures, they cut his body up into a hundred pieces, and were satisfied. (These details of the torture are given in full, by the following writers: Mohammed Harisi, Khafi Khan, Thornton, Elphinstone, Daneshwar and others).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_Bahadur#Torture_and_execution

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Banda_Singh_Bahadur


THE MUGHALS

Mughal is the Persian word for Mongol, and was generally used to refer to Central Asian nomads who claimed descent from the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan. The Mughal rulers were adherents of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

The Mughal Empire (Persian: سلطنت مغولی هند‎ , Urdu: مغلیہ سلطنت), self-designation Gurkānī, گوركانى (which was also the self-designation of the Timurids in Central Asia and Khorasan) was an empire that at its greatest territorial extent ruled most of the Indian subcontinent, then known as Hindustan, and parts of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It was established in 1526 by the Timurid prince Babur, enjoyed expansion and consolidation until about 1707 and survived, even if in drastically attenuated form, until 1857. The empire was founded by the Timurid leader Babur in 1526, when he defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the last of the Delhi Sultans, at the First Battle of Panipat. Mughal is the Persian word for Mongol, and was generally used to refer to Central Asian nomads who claimed descent from the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan. The Mughal rulers were adherents of Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire


WHO WAS THE MOGHUL EMPEROR WHEN BANDA BAHADUR WAS TORTURED AND EXECUTED? (see "Torture and Execution" above)

[The Mughal emperor] Jahandar Shah [not him, he wasn't the Moghul emperor then] was defeated at Samugarh near Agra on 10 January 1713. Following this, the Saiyad brothers, who were the king-makers of that era, placed Farukhsiyar on the throne as nominal emperor. He took the throne On June 11, 1713, at the age of 30. His reign marked the ascendancy of the Saiyid brothers who monopolized state power and reduced the Emperor to an effective figurehead. Saiyid Huseyn Ali became Wazir or chief minister while his brother, Abdullah, became commander-in-chief of the army.

Farrukhsiyar [he was the one when Banda Bahadur was executed] was irked by their supremacy, but could did little to change the situation. Various plots to overthrow the influence of the Saiyad brothers failed. The ensuing internecine strife affected the administration of the empire. Taking advantage of the situation, the Maratha and Sikh factions created anarchy in the provinces. Farrukhsiyar enjoyed some success in his campaigns against the Sikhs; recovered Lohagar from them and executed Banda Bahadur in 1716 AD.

The constant plotting eventually led the Saiyid brothers to depose the Emperor. Farrukhsiyar was imprisoned and starved; later, on February 28, 1719, he was blinded with needles at the orders of the Saiyad brothers. Farukhsiyar was strangled to death on the night of April 27/28, 1719. After accomplishing his assassination, the Saiyid brothers placed his first-cousin, Rafi Ul-Darjat on the throne. Rafi-ud-durjat's father and Farukhsiyar's father had been brothers.

[edit] Trade concessions

It was during Farrukhsiyar's reign, in 1717, that the British East India Company purchased duty-free trading rights in all of Bengal for a mere three thousand rupees. It is said that the Company's surgeon, William Hamilton, cured Farrukhsiyar from some ailment and the emperor was moved to grant trading rights to the Company.[1] This favour aided the British in later years to establish a firm foothold in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furrukhsiyar


Bābur


the Mughal empire was founded by
Zāhir ud-Dīn Mohammad, commonly known as Bābur (February 14, 1483 – December 26, 1530) (Chaghatay/Persian: ظﮩیرالدین محمد بابر‎ , Hindi: ज़हिर उद-दिन मुहम्मद; also spelled Zahiruddin, Zahiriddin, Muhammad, Bobur, Baber, Babar, etc.), was a Muslim Emperor from Central Asia who founded the Mughal dynasty of India. He was a direct descendant of Timur, and believed himself to be a descendant also of Genghis Khan through his mother.[1] Following a series of set-backs he succeeded in laying the basis for one of the most important empires in Indian history, the Mughal Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur

He subdued the population of India with enthusiastic savagery and took joy in unbridled slaughter.


Zahiru'd-Din Muhammed Babur (1526 C.E. - 1520 C.E.)

Babur's Own Words on Killing Hindus:
For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer,
I battled infidels and Hindus,
I determined to become a martyr
Thank God I became a Killer of Non-Muslims!

From Baburnama, the Memoires of Babur Himself:
In AH 934 (2538 C.E.) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had be Daru'l-Harb (nation of non-muslim) for years was made into a Daru'l-Islam (muslim nation).

Guru Nanak on Babur's atrocities:
Source:Rag Asa Guru Nanak Dev witnessed first hand the atrocities Babur committed on Hindus and recorded them in his poems. He says: Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? pg (360)

On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's monster rule:
Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion - those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust.They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces.... ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to [Allah's] God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment pg(417-18)

On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled. Source:Rag Malar, (pg.1288)

http://www.hinduholocaust.com/HinduHolocaustMuseum.htm


The Sikhs

The Sikhs are one of the most prosperous and politically important religious minorities in India. The religion itself is of comparatively recent origin—it dates from the time of Babur—but the history of its community, called Panth , or "Path," by the faithful, is a deeply rooted aspect of Sikh life. Since its inception, the Sikh community has been one of the major factors in Indian history. The Mughals understood that Sikhism was a separatist movement, and by the eighteenth century, the Sikhs had established a separate kingdom with its capital in Lahore. The Sikhs were a major force in the British Allied army as the British gradually annexed the whole of India in the 1850's, and after Indian Independence, the Sikh community, half of which had to flee Muslim Pakistan after partition, became economically and politically the most significant and successful minority community in India. The Sikhs are unique as a religious movement. Founded in the deepest spirituality and mysticism, they are a radically egalitarian group rooted deeply in their sense of community, called "brotherhood" (khalsa ) , and history. The khalsa is unified by one aspect: all Sikhs are disciples of the founding Gurus of the religion—the word, "Sikh," means disciple. They are also, however, a highly militant religion and society; the community has to be protected with the highest martial vigilance and ability. Since the seventeenth century, Sikh fighters have been feared throughout India for their ability and sheer courage. The British, who employed them in their army in the nineteenth century, referred to them as the greatest of the "martial races." It's an odd mixture. On the one hand, Sikhism is one of the most deeply spiritual and profoundly mystical religions of the world, advocating a social harmony and egalitarianism unrivalled by any other major religion, with the possible exception of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Sikh community is a militant, warrior community, willing to fight, sacrifice, or assassinate to protect or further the community.

* * *
To this day, the Sikh community is economically and politically very powerful and is one of the most restive of India's minorities. It has demanded greater autonomy and has militantly defied the government(1). India's Prime Minister was assassinated by her Sikh guards, and Sikh militancy has led to military intervention, including the the invasion of the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar. . . . . . As a separate and militant community, the Sikhs still find themselves partly foreigners in their own country, suspicious of and suspected by the dominant government.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MUGHAL/MUGHAL.HTM



THE FOLLOWING IS FROM
Muslim League Attack on Sikhs
and Hindus in the Punjab 1947
Compiled for the SGPC
by S. GURBACHAN SINGH TALIB

That the Sikh (and Hindu) attack on the Muslims in East Punjab was retaliation under terrible and unbearable provocation is now admitted to be a fact by all impartial people; though it is not known everywhere of what horrible nature, of what prolonged duration and diabolical character was the provocation offered to Sikhs by Muslims over a period of several agonizing months-beginning from December, 1946. There was a war unleashed by the Muslim population of the Punjab to cow down Sikhs, and as a means to that, to carry on among them a total campaign of murder, arson, loot and abduction of women. Sikhs passed through the experience of this war as a people for months; and not thousands, but millions of them were forced to quit their homes for safety in the process. Without a clear knowledge of this part of the story a just and balanced view of the situation cannot be formed.

The details of atrocities committed on Sikhs and Hindus given in these paces are not full or even a fairly large proportion of what actually befell. They are only representative episodes of what happened in a few villages and towns all over West Punjab and other West Pakistan areas. Imagine such things happening in thousands upon thousands of villages and hundreds of towns, and you will then be able to take in the proportions somewhat close to what the reality was-which, in the last analysis must, however, remain inexpressible in its full horror. The facts drawn upon are statements of sufferers of these horrors, recorded from complaints made to the authorities, from reliable press reports and from statements recorded with scrupulous fidelity and signed by those who made them, in the refugee camps in East Punjab.

Sikhs left behind their homes, the richest land in the Punjab, their factories and prosperous businesses, their holy shrines, schools and colleges-all under the pressure of the Pakistan terror, so that according to unbiassed estimates 40% (and these perhaps the most enterprising section of the community) were rendered refugees. They came out of their homes-hammed, despoiled and in unending trudging caravans. This vast human tragedy is too large even for the imagination to take in without the help of facts presented in a telling way.

This record is intended in the first place to rehabilitate the Sikh name, maligned by false propaganda of the leaders and press of Pakistan, and secondly to serve as part of the material for anyone who should set out to write a full history of the Punjab of these terrible 1947 months.

* * *

[HOW FAR CAN A NON-MOSLEM TRUST MOSLEM MEMBERS OF THE POLICE? lw]

A Sikh constable was beaten to death by a wild mob in the civil lines, the Additional District Magistrate was brutally assaulted and a murderous attack was made on a Sub-inspector by a demonstrator who was killed by police fire. . . . C. & M. Gazette-25.2.1947)

Firing had to be resorted to by the Police on this day in Rawalpindi. The Lahore Courts were raided and files tempered with. At Kasur there was violence too.

Regarding the murder of the Sikh police constable at Amritsar, certain details of it are very revealing. The Muslim mob asked the police to withdraw, which the police did. This helpless Sikh constable was beseiged by the Muslim mob, and stoned to death in a most brutal manner. The Muslim members of the police party, among whom there were only a few solitary non-Muslims, did nothing to rescue their comrade from the clutches of the murderous mob. The lesson of it was clear - that a Sikh had been murdered, solely because out of a party of policemen he was the only Sikh. In Congress agitations the police used to be attacked, seldom physically though, as the Police, as the instrument of foreign rule, and no discrimination was made between its Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian personnel as such. But here was a case of such discrimination.

FROM
Muslim League Attack on Sikhs
and Hindus in the Punjab 1947
Compiled for the SGPC
by S. GURBACHAN SINGH TALIB
Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 by S. Gurbachan Singh Talib

Muslim League



MOSLEMS LOOKING FOR CONVERTS--OR SIKHS TO KILL (rape the women first THEN kill them)

from
http://www.sikhlionz.com/1947-Rawalpindi-Shaheedis.htm

The Muslims thugs got angry hearing such answer from Sardarni Lajavanti Kaur. They moved forward towards her. Sardarni jee was holding her 5 year old granddaughter and a grandson. She loudly said the jaikaara, “Bole So Nihaal!! Sat Srree Akaal!!”. Saying this she jumped in the well, in order to avoid getting her granddaughter and herself raped by the Muslims. Within seconds all Sikh women jumped in the well. All 90 jumped in. A person came running to me and told me the whole incident. After hearing this incident, all Sikhs present there said, “Dhan Gursikhee!! Dhan Guru Kalgidhar! I dashed towards the well”.

“At that time what to talk about the pathaans but all aggressors were shaken from within. They were saying that who can kill such people who can sacrifice their lives to save their honour.”

“When I reached the well, my granddaughter, Harbhajan Kaur, my daughter-in-law Kartar Kaur and one sister-in-law Sardarni Ram Rakhee were crying as the well was full and they did not drown. By then 87 lives had been taken. They were taken out of the well. I was baffled. I uttered, “Dhan Gurdev, these daughters of yours have passed your test. Please show me the way too. At that time I had clear darshan of Dhan Guru Nanak Dev jee and Hazoor said, “You still have to see more of this bloodshed. You have to do some more sewa of sangataan”.

“After this bloody massacre, the Muslims got scared and started running away but some scoundrels were left. All Sadh Sangat came to my house and stayed there for the night. Muslims tried to find a lone Sikh to convert but could not convert anyone”.

http://www.sikhlionz.com/1947-Rawalpindi-Shaheedis.htm


Also,

This is an excellent resource for what the Moslems did to the non-Moslems (Hindus and Sikhs)

http://www.geocities.com/hindoo_humanist/partition.html



Turnabout or do onto others as they have done onto you


Finally, the Sikhs of the Punjab rid themselves of the Moslems that had long tortured Sikhs while trying for forceful conversions with the alternative being death.

This contribution is from an East Indian correspondent:

[quote]

"As a rule of thumb, muslims are peaceful as long as they are below a
certain
critical threshold
As soon as they cross that threshold, they are a menace

The key then is to dilute muslims below the critical mass

This critical mass is a function of the local kafir community

For example, among a sikh host, the critical % for muslims is about 65%
Among PC infected white Europeans, this critical % is 5%
* * *
The first and foremost is to recognise that the lands of islam are lost
forever
and the only thing to do is to evacuate the residual kafirs
A cordon sanitaire needs to be imposed on darul islam
mid-east xtians, bangladeshi hindus, etc this extra 20 - 30 million
kafirs
will dilute the muslims below critical mass
In addition, east asians, south americans can be imported to dilute
muslims
below critical mass

Indian Punjab was 33% muslim in 1947, the sikhs reduced it to 0% in 2
months
The sikhs used islamic method on muslims
When the sikhs ruled Pakistan, they shut down all the mosques and
mullahs
were thrown to
their deaths from minarets
When the mullahs declared jihad agains the sikhs, the sikhs invaded
Balakot
( near Afghanistan )
and cut up the chief mullah and burnt his body
The sikh general Nalwa used mass reprisal terror against muslim
civilians
and it was very effective
For any act of islamic terror, he burnt down the nearest muslim town
and no
one allowed to escape
The sikhs have an interesting method to prevent PC
The golden temple has a muslim atrocity museum
You can see sikh gurus tortured to death for refusing to convert to
islam
etc
This is kind of a holocaust museum
In addition, sikhs have a daily evening prayer called Ardas wherein
they
remember all the sikh victims of muslim atrocities

Next is a policy of active containment
For example strict law enforcement
In Gujurat, Modi has tamed the muslims by periodically cutting off
electricity to muslim areas
and getting them to sweat in the hot Indian sun
and giving the police a free hand to thrash muslims
Strict law enforcement has a side effect, each time the more jihadist
elements come out to protest, thrash them
and the rest get tame
Interestingly the only 2 areas in India free of islamic terrorism is
Indian
punjab, where sikhs solved the problem in 1947 and Gujurat where Modi
used
islamic methods on muslims
* * *
Also another tactic used by hindus in India is economic boycott
For example even in Mumbai, no hindu rents a house to a muslim

My favorite is guided tours of kafir women inside muslim ghettos, where
they
can see lecherous islamists
in action first hand and get cured of PC

I would also advice on switching to bio-diesel
Jatropha grows in semi-desert and many trains and cars in India are
switching to biodiesel from Jatropha
Jatropha is far more effective than ethanol

I also suggest setting up pig abbotoirs near muslim neighborhoods
Remove halal food from schools based on animal cruelty
Any other tactic for making their daily life miserable
* * *
The spanish inquisition took 120 years to get spain rid of muslims
The sikhs managed it in east punjab in 2 months

[close quote]


That this de-islamization worked can be gathered from the following:

The following though is written by a Moslem, hence its reliability as to truth and fact must always be in question. their founderr condones lying and deceit in the service of making the entire world Moslem.


Muslims in disguise


Contrary to popular perception, there are still thousands of
Muslims living in Punjab with a disguised identity

By Omar Khalidi
On a sunny afternoon in Kapurthalla town of east Punjab, in the famous ‘Moroccan’ mosque, a man looking every inch a Sikh - with turban, beard, and kada - looks over his shoulder, then with a quick movement of hands does what appeared to be wuzu, and joins me for Zuhr prayers. Being a stranger, I was immediately recognised by the rest of the four namaazis. Then followed an animated conversation about the state of the Muslims in the area. Of the namaazis, two were Bihari labourers, the other two were Kashmiri merchants. As I conversed with them, the absence of Punjabi Muslims struck me. Where are they? Instead of an answer, a meaningful silence stopped the conversation.

Meanwhile, the ‘Sikh’ joined us. Making sure that no non-Muslim was around, he told me, “Janab I am a Muslim, my real name is Allah Ditta, son of Piran Ditta, Arun Singh is my fake name. I belong to a village in Amritsar district. When the partition disturbances took place, we were too poor to travel to Pakistan. Our family of potters was so well integrated in the village that we did not think of migrating hoping that the dark nights of killings would end. Soon, surrounding villages were emptied as a large number of Muslims did cross the border. When the massacres stopped in late 1947, the social pressure of our Hindu and Sikh neighbours and the arrival of the refugees compelled us to hide our faith. Men and women adopted Sikh and Hindu appearances: turbans, beards, bindis, names, and the like.” The story of Allah Ditta/Arun Singh and thousands of others like him forms a tragic chapter in the history of modern India.
http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2001/march01/history.htm

COMMENT by lw:

This could possibly be the miniscule persentage remaining in the area that Moslems would have taken over had they not been discouraged by Sikhs.



The idea of "multiculturallism" in the UK--which could work to replace Moslem immigrants with non-Moslems--good idea, but you can forget-about-it. Why? Read on:


BRITISH "MULTICULTURALISM" ONLY FOR MOSLEMS

A WAY OF PLACATING MOSLEMS IN THE UK



UK Government Ignoring Sikhs ?


Jan 20, 2007 - 3:19:44 PM

uk_flag.gif
The Sikh Commission on Race & Cohesion points to a long running pattern of government statements and initiatives which display “alarming evidence of non-inclusion of Sikhs and Sikh aspirations”. The Sikh Commission says the PM’s landmark speech on ‘multi-culturalism’ and ‘integration’ on 8th December 2006 and similar Queen’s Christmas Day speech (25th December 2006), have brought the issue to a head for Britain ’s 700,000 Sikhs. The Commission says “Sikhs are much concerned at the conspicuous exclusion of Sikhs in the media, in government policy and by the Commission for Race Equality”.

“Over the course of the last five years, Sikhs have been left out of many Home Office, CRE and public discussions, declarations and initiatives on ‘community engagement’. Despite active attempts by Sikh organisations to engage British Ministers and the CRE on community issues, Sikhs have found themselves repulsed by a dismissive and apathetic attitude. There has been zero government or CRE initiative on Sikh racist attacks, Sikh ethnic monitoring and Sikh inclusion in community cohesion discussions.” Says the Sikh Commission. Official comments, statements, reports and declarations by Ministers, Parliamentary Committees and senior public figures on matters such as community relations after 9/11, racist attacks and community cohesion; have omitted Sikh topics and Sikh representation.

The Sikh Commission says Sikhs have made a substantial contribution to life in Britain over the last 100 years. “Over 80,000 Sikh soldiers’ lives were sacrificed defending Britain from attack in the two world wars. Sikh soldiers’ qualified for14 Victoria Crosses for distinguished courage. Since migrating in the 1960s, we have proved to be an exceedingly self-sufficient, hard-working, enterprising community. We have excelled in education, employment, business and home ownership. This is despite decades of social and political racism. Our hard-work, independence and social perseverance; has ensured that we have been a minimum burden on state funds and resources and that our tax contribution to the British state has far exceeded anything our community has taken in terms of resources and monetary benefits.” Sikhs stress they have contributed positively to social life and cohesion, through historic Sikh values of family, community, social interaction, diversity, tolerance and kind-heartedness to their English and British neighbours. “Instead of celebrating this contribution, the Prime Minister and his government, together with the CRE, national media and public bodies choose to exclude Sikhs at all levels.”

The Sikh Commission says the government’s agenda on community cohesion and integration is “incoherent, selective in application, and lacking in equal and wholesome inclusion”. The government’s approach includes some and excludes others. “Integration is about equal and authentic inclusion of all communities that make up British society – both indigenous and migrant. Cohesion, integration and race equality is about everyone being included and everyone participating”.

By: Jagdeesh Singh

© Copyright 2007 by SikhSangat.org




______________________________________
NOTES

1. [indira] Gandhi's later years were bedevilled with problems in Punjab. In September 1981, Bhindranwale was arrested in Amritsar, but was released twenty five days later due to lack of evidence. After his release, he relocated himself from his headquarters at Mehta Chowk to Guru Nanak Niwas within the Golden Temple precincts.[1]

Disturbed by the spread of militancy by Bhindranwale's group, Gandhi ordered the Army to storm the Golden Temple to remove Bhindranwale and his followers on June 3, 1984. Thousands of innocent Sikh pilgrims were killed in the process, leading to widespread anger over the desecration of Sikhism's holiest shrine. The blatant disregard for the thousands of civilians within the temple and excessive use of military force has remained a source of great controversy to this day.

In response to this desecration of the Golden Temple, on October 31, 1984, two of Indira Gandhi's Sikh bodyguards Satwant Singh and Beant Singh assassinated her in the garden of the Prime Minister's Residence at No. 1, Safdarjung Road in New Delhi. As she was walking to be interviewed by the British actor Peter Ustinov filming a documentary for Irish television, she passed a wicket gate, guarded by Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, where they proceeded to open fire with their semiautomatic machine pistols before being shot themselves by other bodyguards. One bodyguard was killed and the other wounded. She died on her way to the hospital, in her official car, but was not declared dead until many hours later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star


1984 Anti-Sikh Riots took place in India after the assassination of Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984. India's Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh guards acting in the aftermath of Operation Bluestar.

Over the next four days nearly 3000 Sikhs were massacred in systematic riots planned and led by Congress activists and sympathizers. The then Congress government was widely criticized for doing very little at the time, if not acting as a conspirator, especially since voting lists were used to identify Sikh families. The then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, son of Indira Gandhi allegedly made a statement "When a big tree falls, the earth is bound to shake" on the Sikh carnage [1][2]. His widow, Sonia Gandhi and current President of the Congress Party, officially apologized in 1998 for the events of November, 1984. The most affected regions were neighborhoods in Delhi.

It is alleged that the anti-Sikh violence were conducted at the behest of the Congress party who actually instigated masses. Many ordinary Indians of different religious dispositions made significant efforts to hide and help Sikh families as outlined in affidavits of Sikh victims and have been active in seeking appropriate justice[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Anti-Sikh_Riots


For Sikh Books - history, etc., click here




Also see

Friday, May 1, 2009

You can take Arabization out of the Amazigh . . .

. . . but, can you take the Amazigh out of Islam?

Under the Arabs, the Berbers became Islamized and soon formed the backbone of the Arab armies that conquered Spain. However, the Berbers repeatedly rose against the Arabs, and in the 9th cent. they supported the Fatimid dynasty in its conquest of N Africa.
from Islamization of the Imazighen

Islam, however, that came with the Arabs, appears to have been embedded deeply into the
Amazigh psyche.

A Moroccan with whom I corresponded, told me of the Moroccan troops that not only broke through German SS troops but terrified them with their ferocity.

I suppose that he was referring to the following incident cited by the American General Mark Clark, The Allied commander, [who] paid tribute to the Goumiers and the Moroccan regulars of the Tirailleur units:

In spite of the stiffening enemy resistance, the 2nd Moroccan Division penetrated the Gustave [sic] Line in less than two day’s fighting. The next 48 hours on the French front were decisive. The knife-wielding Goumiers swarmed over the hills, particularly at night, and General Juin’s entire force showed an aggressiveness hour after hour that the Germans could not withstand. Cerasola, San Giorgio, Mt. D’Oro, Ausonia and Esperia were seized in one of the most brilliant and daring advances of the war in Italy... For this performance, which was to be a key to the success of the entire drive on Rome, I shall always be a grateful admirer of General Juin and his magnificent FEC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goumier

My Moroccan correspondent believed that the Jews owed an expression of gratitude to these Moroccans, although I doubt that the French Moroccans fought to save Jewish lives.

In the next sentence, my correspondent wrote that what he wished most for was to go to Israel and kill Jews.

When I mentioned to him that his people had been defeated by Arabs who had foisted their Islam on them, he replied that Allah had willed it.

AND . . .

from http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/151288 a COMMENT:

Submitted by Charles Martel, Feb 27, 2009 10:34
This is a quote from one of the Berber writers blasting the Islamists:

The (Islamists) author's second error is that he has limited solidarity with Palestine to participation in marches organized by the political current to which he himself belongs [i.e. the Islamists], in cooperation with the pan-Arab current - whether in its left-wing, nationalist salafi, or right-wing liberal forms.

Daniel: Can you explain these three apparently anti-Islamist strains of pan-Arab nationalism?

Daniel Pipes reply:
You mean anti-Islamist strains of anti-Arab nationialism. The Berbers, like the Kurds, see themselves as a separate ethnic group and resist Arabization.

Most Berbers reject radical Islam. Some go further and see Islam as part of the Arabizing package and are cool or even hostile to Islam.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/151288

Reader comment on: Berbers as Anti-Islamists and Anti-Arab Nationalists
The So-Called Arabs Who Built The Pyramids ??
Submitted by Rebecca, Mar 4, 2009 11:21
[excerpt]
The Muslims are always talking about the 'colonizers' - but here is the ultimate example of colonization - and Arabia barely had to lift a finger - now these people are so devoted to Arabia - they have called themselves Arab - even the Egyptians - who's ancestors built the pyramids - are now ditching their history and calling themselves Arab. - Talking to the North Africans there - is even more interesting - they seem devoid of knowledge about their own history - except to say they were conquered by the Arabs (something which they seem extremely happy about!) - it is a great crime !! To do anything at all - they must be in synch with Arabia - which of course is a lot richer then they are - to show how subservient the mindset is - many North Africans will tell you - their country is not rich because they don't have oil ~ perfectly logical in the Arab alternate reality ! - I would venture to say that until the North Africans are free of this Arab slave-like mindset and until they establish their own unique identity - that part of the world will see little or no progress for some time to come - I'm with the Berbers on the identity issue !! I predict that Ethiopia might well emerge as a powerhouse in this region - here are a people who respect their history and so their identity -- this coupled with a respect for human rights - could place them in a good position to bring their country into the modern world -- the other surrounding countries you could say are a part of the wider Arab harem !
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/151620
 
[from] "'Berbers, Where Do You Stand on Palestine?'" As the MEMRI introduction explains:

Throughout the recent fighting in Gaza, the mainstream North African press was nearly unanimous in its support for the Palestinians and its condemnation of Israel. Some Amazigh (Berber) activist groups, though, made a point of distancing themselves from this mainstream view - for which they were attacked by the Islamist press. While a number of conservative and left-wing Amazigh groups expressed support for the Palestinians, others expressed contrary views, to underline their non-Arab identity and their belief that North Africa should detach itself politically and culturally from the Middle East.

Then follow six excerpts from the Moroccan and Algerian media concerning Berber attitudes towards the war in Gaza. Some of it is bitter indeed, as, for example, a commentary by Moha Moukhlis, a Berber activist:

And the so-called 'Arab street[?]' A brainless herd that has been indoctrinated and riled up and that has lost all sense of gravity and direction. They express their hatred for the Jews, whom they hope to exterminate from the face of the Earth… Yet this 'Arab street', which sees itself as the voice of the [world's] peoples, never dared to lift a finger against the crimes committed by the Hamas fundamentalists, or by the Arabo-Islamist regimes against non-Arab populations in Darfur, Kurdistan, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Algeria, or Niger. No! [And] the rights of the Amazigh people are supposed to be sacrificed on the altar of [this] Arab fundamentalism.
Translations of this item (entire Pipes article) into French
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/02/berbers-as-anti-islamists-and-anti-arab-nationalists.html

[Selected] COMMENTS
 
Submitted by Atlas Kahena, Mar 27, 2009 03:26
[excerpts]
Before we attempt to answer the question Where do the Amazigh Stand in regard to this or to that issue, we first need to define who the berbers are.
***
If we ask an arab-islamist, for instance, the answer would be that the Amazigh are Muslims and he/she may even add that they are more Arabs than the Arabs themselves. Another extreme view would only find the truth in one place and one only - The middle Ages: "the Almoravids who established a brutal and bigoted regime on southern Spain in the Middle Ages were Amazigh." What this view failed to mention is that this was done – if it was done at all, in the same exact terms – under the arab-islamist ideology.
The berbers didn't just conquer Spain. It happened with the Arab-Muslim push and conquest that has swept the berbers of North Africa on its way to Spain. Otherwise, why hadn't they done it before? Approaching the Amazigh question is quite a controversy unless we check with the Amazigh themselves. The whistles of the current identity crisis of the berbers were not blown by the copy-cuts of the arab-islamists because those are the ones who lost their Amazighity and if they don't have it, they won't give it.
***
If Israel is an enemy of the Palestine and of the Arabs and I don't see myself as a Palestinian or as an Arab, I don't see why the berbers should be dictated what position to take in this matter. The berbers hardly have the weight to change their own economic conditions, how in the world would they have the power to alter a deeply rooted historically intertwined political problem – More than that, if the Arab countries have not only watched the problem go on for so long but they have contributed to it, what would the berbers do? – knowing that the berbers hardly exist in the eyes of the Arabs.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/152835
 
Submitted by Farid H., Mar 25, 2009 05:01
[excerpts]
As a Moroccan (of Arab ethnicity), I'd like to add a few points:
***
3. With respect to Berber Anti-Islamism, I'm rather skeptical and I don't think that it holds much water, and you can't count on it. There is a small minority within the Amazigh movement that is anti-Islamic and a very, very small fraction that is even openly pro-Israel. But this is statistically totally insignificant. Considering that most hardened Islamists are actually MREs (marocains résidents à l'étranger), and that this group consists of many, many more Amazighs than Arabs (proportionally, when compared to the ethnic make-up in Morocco itself), it is quite evident that Islamism is more prevalent amongst Amazighs (at least outside Morocco).

And while this is objectively verifiable with statistics, my own subjective non-verifiable impression is that when talking about the M.E. conflict, the most radical anti-Israeli comments are more often made by Amazighs than by Arabs. On this point, I may have the wrong (or biased?) impression, but it strikes me as being very visible.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/152736
 
Submitted by Peter Herz, Mar 19, 2009 15:21
[excerpt]
I wonder how many Amazigh stood up for the Jewish communities of the Maghreb when they were being expelled after Algerian independence; or for the right of Muslims to convert to Christianity.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/152503