Muslims may not be on course for another set of gas chambers as some seem to think (see this entry), but Islamophobia in Europe is taking on yet another of the characteristics of traditional European anti-Semitism: the conspiracy theory. We've all heard of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forged document containing supposed plans for Jewish world domination fabricated by a Russian agent about a century ago; the tone of a Melanie Phillips diary entry revealing a similarly conspiratorial document of the authorship of members of the Muslim Brotherhood brought precisely this to mind. A blog called the Daily Ablution has published a series of articles about the 14-page document, allegedly discovered during a raid on a villa near Lugano in Switzerland by Swiss and Italian police in November 2001. "The Project", supposedly dating from 1982, is made to sound like a plan for Muslim world domination, "a strategic plan whose ultimate ambition is 'to establish the Kingdom of God everywhere in the world'". (More: Crooked Timber.)
You can find a translation of the piece, published 6th October this year in the Swiss newspaper Le Temps here at an Australian Baptist ministry website. (You might notice that it assures the reader that this is "not a conspiracy theory"; you might remember receiving messages assuring you that they are "not spam" which then offer you penis enlargements - even if you're a woman - or a share in the author's $30m stash if you can help him get it out of Nigeria.) It seems that only one copy of the document has ever been found anywhere, namely at Mr Nada's villa; Nada denies that it is Brotherhood policy or that he is its author, claiming that it was written by researchers he refused to name, and said that he agrees with 15 to 20% of the document's content. Put another way, he disagrees with 80 to 85% of it. Youssef Nada is a long-standing member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has run a chain of companies including an offshore bank, al-Taqwa, registered in the Bahamas. The bank was closed down in 2001, and came under investigation after 9/11, along with the Barakaat bank alleged by the US government to be a conduit for al-Qa'ida. However, Newsweek reported in June this year that after three and a half years of investigation, Swiss investigators could not find enough evidence to charge Mr Nada with anything.
As an example of the kind of red herrings I found when doing my own investigations, an earlier Newsweek report claimed that among al-Taqwa's shareholders were three of the Bin Laden clan, a vast and wealthy extended family with close connections to both the Saudi royal family and the Bush family. One of them, of course, is now better known for his involvement in terrorism, but the rest of the family is known to have nothing to do with this. Any Google search for Nada's name will return dozens of results from hostile weblogs.
An un-named western civil servant who studied the document described it as "a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the long term, the greatest danger to the European societies" (the auto-translation substituted "companies", which is also translated in French as societes), alleging that it will become a danger over ten years during which the establishment of parallel state institutions such as "Muslim Parliaments" of the sort existing in the UK will be seen. "The slow destruction of our institutions, our structures will start then." Quite apart from the fact that the "Muslim Parliament" in London was not a Muslim Brotherhood foundation, it was not really a parliament either; it was one of many organisations established by the Khomeini fan club in London, and supported Iranian positions on such matters as the Rushdie fatwa. The Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, which is supportive of the "parliament" and those around it, alleges that both its founder, Kalim Siddiqui, and his successor personally appointed and dismissed members of the "parliament" without going through normal procedures - hardly the way a parliament is run! The institution declined with the passing of Dr Siddiqui, but is commonly used by Islamophobes today as a "proof" of the existence of Muslim para-state entities.
Scott Burgess has begun translating sections of it, having reached the third of the tract's so-called "points of departure", a summary of which can be found listed at this post. One might notice that only one of these, the fifth, pertains to the establishment of an Islamic state, and one might ask whether its advocacy of "parallel, progressive efforts targeted at controlling the local centres of power through institutional action" concern non-Muslim countries at all, or just Muslim ones. Burgess intends to translate the rest over the weekend, so we will see, insha Allah, how the fifth point expands and exactly how much it should concern anyone in the west. I see little in the parts of the document translated so far to give the impression that it is a plot for gaining control over non-Muslim western societies by infiltration, as was alleged by Melanie Phillips in the diary post which drew my attention to the controversy.
Perhaps the question we should be asking regarding this document is not whether it is authentic but rather whether it is really relevant. The aim of the Muslim Brotherhood, namely the establishment of Islamic modes of government in Muslim countries, has never been any secret. Burgess suspects that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is either heavily influenced by it (judging by similarities between it and his own book, Priorities of The Islamic Movement in The Coming Phase) or among its authors, more likely the latter.
He cites Reuven Paz, "an internationally recognised expert on Muslim extremist groups", as claiming that the Project "reflects a vast plan which was revived in the 1960s, with the immigration of Brotherhood intellectuals, principally Syrian and Egyptians, into Europe". The reader might remember that the Brotherhood was involved in the Hama uprising in Syria in 1982, which led to that city being destroyed by the Russian-backed Assad regime and much innocent loss of life. The reason these intellectuals moved to Europe and America is because the dictatorships of the Arab world made their operations impossible. Their influence, even today, is concentrated in areas with a heavy Arab immigrant population. While the Muslim Brotherhood's ideas have their adherents in the Asian Muslim community, that community has its own traditions (and its own variety of political Islam, the Jama'at-i-Islami and some well-appointed organisations run by its members); like other Egyptian scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi has a mostly Arab audience. This may well explain why the European Council for Fatwa and Research is based in Dublin, not London; while London no doubt has more Arabs than Dublin, Dublin's Muslim community is mostly Arab.
The tract will, of course, strengthen the position of those who complain when people like al-Qaradawi visit this country, but really I fail to see why his involvement in what they think is a conspiracy to take over the west by underhand means is more serious than his support for suicide bombings. What fruit has this "conspiracy" borne in twenty years? The fact that they can get their articles published from time to time in the UK's third biggest "quality" daily and have occasional contacts with mayors like Ken Livingstone, and only then on matters affecting the Muslim community, and share a platform with some Marxists and people from the outsider faction (Benn, Corbyn etc) in the Labour party. And all this while Muslims in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, which are mostly Arab and thus more likely to be influenced by al-Qaradawi et al, are considerably worse off than they are here.
As a commenter on the latest Daily Ablution post on the issue has already pointed out, little in this document suggests violence, "atleast right out there in glaring obviousness". The latest extract Burgess has reproduced mentions assisting Muslim causes in places like Eritrea, Sudan, the Phillippines, Kashmir and Somalia (remember that it was written in the early 1980s at a time when a Marxist regime was in power there, hence the references to killing scholars and persecuting the religious). Such matters are unlikely to raise any disagreement from Muslims anywhere, and that would particularly have been so in the early 1980s when, for example, Pakistan was allied to the USA (unlike India) and was a relatively free country for religious Muslims. As so often happens, attitudes are being attributed to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood which are in fact common among Muslims generally.
"The Project" is, in my assessment, not the explosive document some might think; it will give some people one more excuse (as if they need one in this day and age) to oppose visits by some Arab scholars to this country, and no doubt people will be accused from time to time of Brotherhood sympathies and of being part of "the Project". People might ask how much progress they have made in this country in a conspiracy lasting more than twenty years. Of course, if someone who contributes to a debate has an agenda, it's important that we know what that agenda is, whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood's or anyone else's, but if this really is a plan for the secret infiltration of institutions of all sorts worldwide, it's not come to much.
Great article Yusef, but whoah!!! most of it unfortnatlly wnet way over my head. I appoligize I just dont now much about Islam or Mosloms. Like where do you get the time to write such stuff!!!
I had a conversation with my older brother(idiot, red-state Republican-type guy) the other night and we got talking about the Iraq war(it was wrong) and one thing that kept poping up in the discussion(about the Iraq war) was how the US(and Britain) defeated Nazi Germany and look how Germany turned out. So that's thought to be an example we could follow and a reason for patience there. I told him he was a numbskull! This is a whole different situation ok. Germany has Germans (white Europeans) who knew what we were talking about when we tried to rebuild their country, whereas Iraq is a country of people who are of the Arab persuasion. You just can't compare the two okay! Not in terms of cultural traditions or how violent they are or anything like that. I say we must respect the proud Arabic cultural traditions of countries which have Arabs peoples in them, not try to defend ourselves against those traditions. No matter how difficult those traditions may be for us to understand, or endure. Only that way lies peace if you ask me. Haven't you also noticed that stupid righties just don't seem to "get" what we're saying about Iraqis being Arabs??
P.S. Not to mention Muslims.
Mike, that's not the argument I'd use to contrast Iraq 2003 with Germany 1945. Mine would be "The Germans submitted to American occupation, because the alternative was Soviet occupation, which was far worse. Iraq by contrast has no hostile neighbour scary enough to make American occupation look like a lesser evil."
More comical, incoherent ramblings.
Too easy, too obvious, too moronic.
Thanks for kicking off the start of my week with a belly laugh.
Sir Toppenhat.
It seems that the only conspiracies that are acceptable are the ones that are created by jews or where jews are the potential victims.
Thats what I've noticed anyway.
Well, someone asked this question in the pub on saturday, so I'll pose it here. Aside from being possibly fakes, and even if genuine only the "genuine" supremacist ramblings of a faction of little significance to mainstream European politics, are the contents of The Project much different from the Project for a New American Century? So far, I'm not sure.
Hi Jarndyce,
Thanks for the thoughtful question. It must have been posed earlier in your drink session :)
Anyway, the question was spot on. It addresses the cruicial point that somehow eludes even the most intellectual analysts that are presented to us everyday.
I think the issue here is that people build their thoughts on top of abductive foundations. Foundations which they may not even suspect exist from outside of within them! Their axioms of reasoning have been set without them even knowing. There's also some type of superiority complex at work which I find tends to border on racism.
As Noam Chomsky said: "..For some, the brainwashing has been complete". And that applies to Muslims or non-muslims. It doesn't really matter.
However, when talking politics, I find it more on the anti-X camp....those who are "anti-Something" (anti-Muslim) but never "pro-Anything".
I am not sure if I am making sense ..lol!
Good post. It does seem that Muslims are now being typecast in the way that Jews used to me. We are all out to rule the world, we are a fifth column, we want to steal your women.
Sad that the world isnt seeing this.
Arab persuasion?
Who did the persuading?
Then theres Eurabia, or what I like to call Protocols of the Shaihks of Darul-Islam. Ha Ha Ha.
anonymous
"I am not sure if I am making sense."
Actually, Mike is making a lot more sense than you right now.
"We are all out to rule the world, we are a fifth column, we want to steal your women."
Are you quoting your prophet Muhammad?
Its interesting to note that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" holds far more currency in the Muslim world than it does among the civilized nations.
Do you often play the fool, ST?
"Its interesting to note that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" holds far more currency in the Muslim world than it does among the civilized nations."
1)It was made in Russia
2)What are you basing that on?
Well a number of years ago Ramadan TV in Egypt ran a 24-part series based on the "Protocols" entitled Horsemen without a Horse. As could be expected, for that part of the world, it was a great success. Excuse the pun but this is so beyond the pale.
I don't even think our own BBC would go to such lows
This topic is gettion so like boriing!!!! I saw teh movie "The Message" (for the first time this week) and wrote a review about it last night.
In early to late early mid 2003, American. U.S. President George Bush did a wrong war on Iraq, which as you may or may not is a Muslim Country. In the debauchle thats followed since. We've seen how wrong it was indeed(can give link's if you want). All of which just goes to show that Bush could of used a healthy dose of watching a little certain movie I like to call Which was called, The Message (1976).
The Message, in essence not to put a fine point on it. Is a movie about none other than tte life and times of the man himself, The Honorable Sir Elijah Abdallahvich Mohammed (PHUB), the founder of the Muslam religion himself. (Bare with me-not sure how to fully write the honoriffic from Arabic so I try my best(no offense meaned). I hadn't know this before but Mohammed was the leader of the Muslam race from the get-go. That's not the only thing. As the movie demonstrates, apperently he was a person talked to GOD himself or pro'phet in Arabic. (You have to remeber- this was all take place way back in like 622 BC in less inlightened time's before the separation of church and state was fully crystallized)
Mohammed (from what I can tell here played ably and charismaticly by Anthony Quinn (River's Edge, Despertly Seeking Susan)), struts and walks across the screen like a giant. A presence. Every moment that Mohammed he's on the silver screen you just can't take your eyes off. Waht happens in the movie involves lots of complacated intrigues nad passions(and I don't certainly don't want to give SPOILERS) but I'll try to lay it out for you as best I can to a lay person, so as in order to set the scene for you:
As I said, the time is ancient times like 662 B.C. (at LEAST) wehn humanity was still in its infancy and people settlements was still confined in Arab Land only(this was well before we spread out to become the different diverse races of we see today). The place is Mecca, which is a Holy City (one of the Holiest Cities your ever gonna find frankly- its off the charts or at least way up there) in or near waht is now modern day Iraq I think(have to check topo maps to be honest- I'm not 100% certain so don't quote on that). Mohammad is born in Mecca and has a uncle too (not sure who played the uncle).
But even though its all Arabs on Arab Land(the way meant to be)not all's well and peaceful in this otherwise seeming idllyic paradise. All is not as is seems. For you see. Mecca is run by a bunch of Businessmans leaders (captains of industry types) who just want to use the gods for profit not for worship. They set up statutes of gods and just wait for the dough to come raking in (remaniscent of modern day shopping malls- mega stores like Walmart or something).
Mohammad's the first one to look around and go, Hey that's not right. We should have only one god. (Many basis for this- I guess probably the others don't pay decent living wage or healthcare, also, God tells Mohammad to say this in the cave). I forgot to point out Mohammad was in a cave for awhile(don't worry its not weird or anything I think it was like for his TM time)
So anwyays Mohammad is just doing his protests and everything and the Big Business is like, well. We have to put a stop to this. So they KICK HIM OUT of his homeland. That's right I'll say that again. They KICK him out and take over. For waht. For profits.
Is this starting to ring any bells yet?
Mecca's Big Business(other gods business) takes over and kicks out Mohammed of leading his OWN COUNTRY, all for profit. America, Big Oil takes over Iraq nad kicks out Saddam/Zaqrawi/ect of leading there OWN COUNTRY, all for... yup. So in both cases(to coin a phrase) you could say they choose profits over prophets(hey that rhymes- Heh).
Well. This is the tragedy of a scale that we have no seen since the wrong Iraq War. And you know that Anthony Quinn's not going to take this lying down don't you? In a dramatic scene of monologue (to the camera) Quinn makes his case. We HAVE to fight back. The conflict between the peaceful ways of religion etc(peace/bla bla) and violence is palpable. But of course Quinn is right(he decides), like Zarqawi today, he realizes they CAN"T take the lost of there homeland lying down.
So they fight back. Well sort of- first there hanging out in differnet town (Cole'Medina (sp?) for awhile. Theres some battle scenes(same style as Braveheart but alittle better- camels ect). Finally they walk back into Mecca cuz the main Mecca guy now knows he's beaten. (At least SOMEONE has the presence to understand you can't win a UNWINNABLE war. Unlike SOME Presidents I know).
Along the way Mohammed- is (surprisingly) killed in battle. When Anthony Quin is taken down by that spear- imagine my shock and his followers shock(because you can't think someone like this can die). But no matter. It seems Mohammed rises again to continue leading fighting the good fight because everyone still talks to him(you just don't see Ahtony Quinn anymore). And by the end the main Mecca leader bows down to reborn spirit-Mohammed(I think- hard to understand this part due to editing glitches) as he takes his rightful place on the throne of Mecca central palace (easy to spot- big black square designed palace). Where he has remained to this very day, so I'm told.
Its a splendorous movie. A movie of action, adventure and life. (Excellent production values BWT). But what's more. I think we (here in the West/Occident) could learn alittle something from it. This is a sticky issue here but bare with me.
Let's speak frankly, friends. The Occident has alot of weird ideas about the Islams' religion. ALOT of ideas. Like how its all about violence and stuff. How it goes hand in hand with terror and telling other people waht to do. The treatments of women. All that. You've heard it all before I don't even have to go into it. We've all heard this time and time again so many times I'm sick of it(BOY am I sick of it).
Whats great about this movie is it dispells all that.
You see, Mohammed's followers (I guess the first Mislams) have some disputes among themselves from times to times. Should they give equal rights? How should they treat there prisoners. Waht about African-Americans are they equal? And so on. Because sometimes there's a Islam who wants to do something(chob a head of or whatever) but guess waht.
In every case Mohammed comes down on the progressive side of the ledger. EVERY CASE (and balieve me I was counting). He says we should treat are women equal because there like are mothers and/or sisters. He says wehn you take prisoners in battle or elsewhere, give them some food(VERY considerate). He says Islam is about the people all men equal having equal say(hello? like democracy before Diebold?). He says no races are better (not even Arab!). He even says treat Chrenstians, and , the same(because I guess even though they came later they have a book too).
UPDATE: Oh yeah forgot to mention. Near the end he even says, we shouldn't convert people by forcefully or by death. And I paraphase: "Every man comes to God at different speeds. We should respect that."
WATCH IT AND WEEP DHINGERS.
If a Neocon can see this movie and still come out spewing the viscous clabtrap diatribe's about Muslim's culture well then all I can say is they must be stupid becase its all right there up on the screen. Islam is NOT the violents religion its about brotherhood and equality. And that's not me talking thats straight from the mouth of Anthony Quinn.
Color, 177 min.
Mike, where have you got this "information" from?
Anthony Quinn plays Hamza, the *uncle* of the Prophet (*sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam*). Elijah Muhammad was the leader of the so-called Nation of Islam in the 20th century. The NOI are not considered Muslims; they never were, because their beliefs and practices are very different from ours besides their well-known racism.
"Well a number of years ago Ramadan TV in Egypt ran a 24-part series based on the "Protocols" entitled Horsemen without a Horse. As could be expected, for that part of the world, it was a great success. Excuse the pun but this is so beyond the pale."
Thats it?
Earlier this year a number of Russian MP's signed a petition to have jewish organisations in the country banned. The Protocols is still fairly popular in Eastern Europe in general. Do you not consider Eastern Europeans as part of the civilized world?
"I don't even think our own BBC would go to such lows"
Are they part of an anti-semitic conspiracy as well.?
Actually, Mike is making a lot more sense than you right now
Sir Toppenhart, I am not surprised Mike makes a lot more sense to you. Surely, gREAT minds think alike, I am told
Mike
You seem to have a bad case of ADS!
How else to explain that you watched a whole movie thinking Anthony Quinn played Mohammed when Quinn actually played the Prophet's uncle, HAMZA!!!
It is a basic tenet of islam that the face of Mohammed must *never* be represented in any way. If an actor had played the part of Mohammed he would very quickly have departed this life, along with fellow actors, producers etc. The film is largely seen from the POV of the unseen Prophet which is why characters speak straight to camera.
As it was, when the film first came out, many islamists objected to any of the Prophet's 'companions' and family being depicted on infidel celluloid and death threats flew thick and fast. The film has become somewhat more acceptable over the years as its potential for spreading The Message to naive 3rd world audiences was appreciated.
IIRC the producer of 'The Message' was the late Moustapha Akkad,(murdered a couple of weeks ago by fellow Muslims) who made a fortune from the 'Halloween' films. (Funny that films about slashing and killing promiscuous young western females should have appealed to Akkad - or is it?) Most of the budget was put up by Libya's Colonel Ghadaffi, who also financed another Akkad celluloid da'wa epic, 'The Lion of the Desert'.
Deliberately or not, you also avoid another interesting aspect of this film. The version you saw was specifically made for western audiences, using many familiar western actors and based on a screenplay by a (non-muslim) veteran screenwriter. It was deliberately formulated to give the rosiest possible rendition of the Prophet's life for western audiences.
The version shown in the ME was shot back-to-back using a non-western cast speaking arabic. This version apparently is truer to the source material and less reticent on such basic matters as waging Jihad, hatred of Jews and infidels etc. You can find details of both versions on the invaluable IMDB website.
Sorry, but it seems you have as strong a grasp on 'reel' life as on real life...
ADS is that like Lou gehrig' disease? Sorry but seems your thinking about another movie(Bang the Drum Slowly). That's Deniro not Anthony Quinn. Its ok though I like the part were they play teh made up card game
Attention Deficiency Syndrome (aka: Attention Deficiency Disorder):
Like watching 'Life of Brian', and then telling people, 'Wow, I didn't know Mel Gibson was so SHORT!"
Or being congenitally unable to address the contents of a post.
Never mind, 'The Message' was all true. It was a cine-verite documentary that captured real people and actual events. The best part was Mohammad doing a lively Greek dance. Jacques Cousteau filmed it from the bottom of the sea using a swordfish as a camera.
Now your just being rediculous. Are you even on the right blog(like, do you knkow where you are? no offense)
Shamil
"Thats it?"
Well no. "Horseman without a horse," the Egyptian TV hit series was no low-key affair it was broadcast by 14 Arab TV networks and watched by millions. Moreover, it is not the only anti-Semitic production to be galloping across the screens each evening during Ramadan. (Contrast that to Christmas viewing)
Not to be outdone Al-Manar, the Hizballah TV station from Lebanon, features Dr. Ghazi Hussein, a veteran salaried PLO lackey and a former adviser to the late Syrian president Hafiz al-Asad. Hussein sits in the studio and knowledgeably defines the typical characteristics of the Jew, including "lying, treachery and greed" and goes on at length to describe Jewish baseness. The program, incidentally, is called "The Spider’s House," a reference to the remark by Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah that Israel is doomed to fall apart like a spider’s web. The program’s promo includes video clips promising that "Israel will be obliterated," with appropriate images for illustration.
Around the same time, Syrian TV ran the dramatic locally produced series, "The Collapse of Legends." Its central premise is that there is no archeological evidence to support the stories of the Old Testament; that the Torah we hold holy is nothing but one big forgery made up by rabbis; that it has no connection with the Ten Commandments, but is rather a fabrication of history designed to give the Jews a claim to the Land of Israel. So in the dramatized serial, a group of Syrian archeologists sets out on a campaign to expose a group of Zionists who have infiltrated their party with the aim of tampering with the ancient antiquities at the famous archeological site of Ebla, in order to give some scientific basis to the forged scripture.
Shamil I think this puts our Slav neighbors in the amateur leagues when it comes to anti-Semitism.
Sir Toppenhat,
Can't we just send them some real American tv shows, like "The Dukes of Hazard"? Who has time to hate when Daisy Duke is prancing across the screen in high-ride cutoffs and low-ride halter tops.
"Who has time to hate when Daisy Duke is prancing across the screen in high-ride cutoffs and low-ride halter tops."
Even Mohammed would have married her (if she were seven or nine)
Waiting for the Nigerian fatwa...
"Shamil I think this puts our Slav neighbors in the amateur leagues when it comes to anti-Semitism."
Except that anti-semitsm in arab countries is motivated by conflict with Israel.
What's they're excuse in Eastern Europe?
I don't see how you can judge Russian MP's wanting to ban Jewish organisations as not serious.
Britain's situation is allegedly pretty serious
(what with the BBC and all) so I don't see how you could say that Russia's situatiopn isn't serious. I don't see British MP's trying to ban jewish organisations.
Shamil
"Except that anti-semitsm in arab countries is motivated by conflict with Israel."
Sorry no excuse, non-Muslims are treated like dog-dirt in many Muslim countries but you don't see our mass media spewing out the vile filth against Islam or Muslims that the Arab media seems so deft at when portraying Judaism and Jews.
It seems when judging Islam and Muslims we move the goal posts.
"Sorry no excuse, non-Muslims are treated like dog-dirt in many Muslim countries but you don't see our mass media spewing out the vile filth against Islam or Muslims that the Arab media seems so deft at when portraying Judaism and Jews."
Some would argue that the western media does spew out filth gainst Islam.
I don't think there is such a thing as non-muslim solidarity. These arab countries have actually been at war with Israel recently.I don't think it's just about solidarity with the Palestinains.
I wasn't excusing it I was just giving the reason for it. If Russia goes to war with Israel (which may well happen in the near future) I think you'd see similar material in the Russian media assuming its not there now.
What muslim countries treat non-muslims like dirt?
I'm not denying it I just want some examples.
What muslim countries treat non-muslims like dirt?
In Saudi Arabia, all religions except Islam are prohibited (and even Shi'a are persecuted - eg they cannot repair their mosques). Can't really think of other examples, except the late unlamented Taliban of course.
I suspect that the Islamophobes are claiming that Saudi is representative of the entire Muslim world...
Shamil and George,
"What Muslim countries treat non-Muslims like dirt? I'm not denying it I just want some examples."
My jaw dropped at that one. How about a potted history. I'll start in the dark continent, Sudan and its three decade, very well documented genocidal war against its southern Christians and animist population, Egypt and its official and non-official persecution of its Coptic citizens. Turkey did away with most of its Armenian and Assyrians population in 1915, but even an Islamophile like William Dalyrmple wrote scathingly how the Turks treat their few remaining Christians. Iraqi Christians without the protection of Saddam are now oppressed by what you guys probably refer to the Iraqi resistance. Next door in Iran, Christians have been killed or locked up for proselytizing. Ditto Pakistan. Radical Muslims in Indonesia have been waging a war against Christians in the Spice Islands. East-Timor also comes to mind.(refresh my memory was it 200.000 or 250.000 bodies)
Just to add to the issue of anti-semitism in Russia. In January this year an Israeli minister who met with Putin quoted him as saying anti-semitism was a threat to his regime.
Not very serious huh.
George,
"Can't really think of other examples, except the late unlamented Taliban of course."
Unlamented by whom? Every Muslim I know was dead-set against the Americans unseating those hirsute bastards. I'm a Arab Christian, and yes very much an Islamaphobe, can you really blame me. If your Muhammad hadn't come along the whole Middle East would not be the huge insane asylum it is today.
LOL!!!! Asma that is teh funnyist thing I have ever heard. Imagine a Arab Christian Yah right.
Im suprised you didnt say that we progressives must must love Saddam Hussein. Doesnt it make you mad guys, well it should. Saddam was a bad man we all know that. Of course the world is better off with out him.
But stop and think about it.
You cant just go off and do nation "building". We dint just go mold China in are own image because of Tin Man Square Massacre, did we. USA population is only 250 million. World popultion is probably like two or three times as much at least may be more. How can we "afford the price in blood and gold" to do Chimpler's Global Imperial Empire.
Asma We cant cant solve all the worlds problems thats what the UN is for we have to support the UN. And mabye the UN will protect all those persekuted christians you talk about.
And, we got problems right here at home(and in England too) what we need to take care of. Prolems of Homelessness. HIV/AIDES. Social justice. Raceism. Cronic under funding of education and progressive social pogroms. We got to fix the "safety" net.
Way off topic, but I am halfway through Gerald Brenan's "South from Granada” Lovely book from a fine writer. I would have loved to have seen that part of the world before mass tourism. If any of you guys want to catch up with your reading over the Christmas hols, I highly recommend it.
"I'll start in the dark continent, Sudan and its three decade, very well documented genocidal war against its southern Christians and animist population,"
The government doesn't like black people period. Isn't a genocide supposed to be going on in the muslim Darfur.
"Turkey did away with most of its Armenian and Assyrians population in 1915,"
This was lead by Ataturk's clique though. It was no longer an islamic government.
"Iraqi Christians without the protection of Saddam are now oppressed by what you guys probably refer to the Iraqi resistance."
According to the US military most of resistance are Saddam's former people. I'm sure more Shi'ites and Sunnis are being killed on a religious basis than christians.
"Next door in Iran, Christians have been killed or locked up for proselytizing. Ditto Pakistan."
There are laws against proselytizing in many countries. There are Churches in Tehran.
"East-Timor also comes to mind.(refresh my memory was it 200.000 or 250.000 bodies)"
Who killed them though? The place is 90% Catholic.
Shamil,
"Isn't a genocide supposed to be going on in the Muslim Darfur."
Apparently yes, and your point?
There might be churches in Iran and Pakistan but so what! Are Persian and Pakistani Christians allowed to proselytize, and gob of freely as you guys are allowed to in the West?
Actually Ataturk didn't rid Turkey of the Caliph until the early twenties, so yes Islam can be blamed for this genocide, moreover, you would be hard put to explain the late 19th cent mass murder of Christians in Anatolia while Ataturk was still in nappies and presumably had no hand in.
East Timor might be 90% Catholic, but Indonesia is 90% Muslim, so it would be a fair bet to say that the military is overwhelmingly Muslim. Therefore, it would be fair to presume that it was Muslim soldiers responsible for the mass-murder of Christians.
"Actually Ataturk didn't rid Turkey of the Caliph until the early twenties, so yes Islam can be blamed for this genocide, moreover, you would be hard put to explain the late 19th cent mass murder of Christians in Anatolia while Ataturk was still in nappies and presumably had no hand in."
I said Ataturk's clique ie The Young Turks. Ataturk never deposed any Sultan. The last sultan was deposed in 1909.
"East Timor might be 90% Catholic, but Indonesia is 90% Muslim, so it would be a fair bet to say that the military is overwhelmingly Muslim. Therefore, it would be fair to presume that it was Muslim soldiers responsible for the mass-murder of Christians."
But the military aren't accussed of carrying out the massacres. Local militias are. I don't see what the difference is anyway. Human rights abuses are commited in Ache which is mostly muslim.
Sir Toppenhart,
It is worth pointing out to you, just in case you are unaware, that Islam teaches peace... but also teaches resistance to aggression, forbids indiscriminate killing of human beings and production of any weapons (e.g bombs, nuclear weapons, fighter planes) to carry out such acts, forbids usury, encourages fair trade, promotes family live, forbids injustices, encourages charity, forbids cheating and treachery, encourages honestly, forbids slavery, encourages manumission, protect freedom of conscience, forbids social vices, etc.
This is the religion I was taught. As for some of your commentary lifted verbatim from TV screens, I am not sure how they apply to Muslims and Islam just as priests who spend the night romancing little boys do not resonate Christianity and the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him). Hope that helps.
Hint: Interpretation will always be a human endeavour.
"Just as priests who spend the night romancing little boys do not resonate Christianity and the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him). Hope that helps."
Actually this is not a problem just confined to the Christian world. I heard that this behavior is still quite common in the Pathan areas of Afghanistan. Moreover, it could be said that Jesus never romanced little girls, your prophet did.
"Moreover, it could be said that Jesus never romanced little girls, your prophet did."
Jesus never "romanced" anyone.
And please don't pretend that your views on sex are shaped by Christianity.
Moreover, it could be said that Jesus never romanced little girls, your prophet did.
Sir Toppenhart,
How come the contemporaries/adversaries of Muhammad (peace be upon him) never accused him of romancing little girls.
They accused him of many things, such as being a sorcerer, etc, etc, but they never accused him of romancing little girls.
This accusation would have to come 1400 or so years later when a bunch of people (perhaps like yourself?) started to seek a post-modern monolithic identity, morality and cultural expresssions for the world.
Islam for its part allows the diversity of expressions as guided by the Koran and the example of Prophets (peace be upon them) finalising in Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Sorry, if there are too many allusions here.... but I find that is the only way to get people to think deeper about these things.
Sir Toppenhat,
The real point should be made is that Muslims have to travel all the way to Europe to find thier antisemitism.
I wonder what the Quran and the Sunnah mean to these people.
Asma Bin Marwan,
"If your Muhammad hadn't come along the whole Middle East would not be the huge insane asylum it is today."
Compared to the Judeo-Christian Pagan utopia it was before? Read a history book girl. Islam came to establish the truth not to make friends.
Sir Toppenhat,
"Actually this is not a problem just confined to the Christian world. I heard that this behavior is still quite common in the Pathan areas of Afghanistan."
And this is why all Muslims should reject thier jahiliyah. It is jahiliyah for one reason or another.
Brilliant stuff here, the blogosphere can never dissappoint. But then debate never can either.
I'd just like to make a point on the Muslim experience in America. There is an entirely different dynamic at work here than what I've experienced and read about the continent (Britain included).
In America, one must assimilate. It is not due to state pressure or an overwhelming feeling of patriotism in one's adopted country (though that eventually comes).
It is due to cash. Not to be too crass, but here, immigrants look first and foremost to earn a buck. It greatly eases the assimilation process. So, in answer to a commenter, if America were 10% Muslim, it wouldn't matter a lick. Those 29 million Muslims would look to increase their earning power before setting off on a scheme to rule the world.
Do people actually believe that it is a coincidence that the nation most open to immigration in the history of the world is now the greatest power in the history of the world?
Shamil
"Jesus never "romanced" anyone."
So nothing about little Aisha then? Thought so.
In Vino Veritas,
"It is due to cash. Not to be too crass, but here, immigrants look first and foremost to earn a buck."
This isnt a good thing, in fact it is a horrible thing but you are so right. Muslims in America are dunyah chasers. There is something in the air in America. But I believe if the Muslim is going to migrate to any place in Darul Kufr it should be America. We have alot of freedom here to be Muslim, we can earn money to establish our own public space, and for traditionally American reasons the government doesnt bug us.
Sir Toppenhat - all this talk from anti-Islam people about Muhammad's "paedophilia" is getting old!
If I was going to attack Islam, it would be by branding it a "roach motel", not by repeating the same old claptrap about the Prophet, over and over again...
Sir Toppenhart,
Would the marriage of 12 year old Mary (peace be upon her) "Mother of god" to 90 year old Joseph be acceptable to your monolithic post-modern morality and cultural references?
I believe this attack on the Prophet (SAW) is actually also a reflection of current day anxieties in the west about paedophilia.
Rousseau I think wrote a book where he mentions the marriage as evidence of the faster development of girls in hot climates. He also claims that hot climates lead to greater sexual desire. No mention of paedophilia. Guess it wasn't abig concern back then.
Shamil,
Well done for your brilliant pointers to Toppenhat. The scenario we have here is that you get people who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, i.e. zilch about Islam posing as intellectual analysts and even sometimes Koranic exegetes and scholars.
The Koran tells us to say "Peace" when they open their mouths, but it's difficult to do that here lest other people reading gets the wrong impression that they are talking about the same religion as that which 1 billion muslims or so practice on a daily basis
They may well be talking about the religion that helps media corporations to hike their share prices and sell newspapers.
But how further can the North be from the South? They tell me in school that the distance is undefined.
come out of his capsule. learnt anything from your posts, but you did brilliant in pointing him in the right direction.
wa salam bro!
Shamil,
oops.... typos alert!
Ignore the last paragraph.
wa salam
"Well done for your brilliant pointers to Toppenhat. The scenario we have here is that you get people who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, i.e. zilch about Islam posing as intellectual analysts and even sometimes Koranic exegetes and scholars."
Well it isn't a matter of how much he does or doesn't know about Islam.
His phoney conservatism deserves to be exposed.
His phoney-ness I find tho is a consequence of lack of awareness, or in the worst case a pretention to educated awareness. Or, some kind of naive assent to superficial and propangandrous facts.
It would be nice to see the likes of Toppenhat enter the debate in a discursive spirit; but rather what you find is some sudo-liberal-intellectual standing on cultural and even moral high ground.... telling us everything and anything that is irrefutably wrong with Islam.
And as soon as you take them on, you find that their ignorance is actually multi-dimensional, not just about Islam, but about a lot of other things including Christianity, Judaism, etc.
Would the marriage of 12 year old Mary (peace be upon her) "Mother of god" to 90 year old Joseph be acceptable to your monolithic post-modern morality and cultural references?
What?
"His phoney conservatism deserves to be exposed."
Shamil what are you going on about?
"Sir Toppenhat - all this talk from anti-Islam people about Muhammad's "paedophilia" is getting old!"
"If I was going to attack Islam, it would be by branding it a "roach motel", not by repeating the same old claptrap about the Prophet, over and over again..."
Ok Islam is a roach motel founded by a pedophile. George, perhaps the reason we are anti-Islam is that we think Muhammad was such an unscrupulous bastard.
I believe this attack on the Prophet (SAW) is actually also a reflection of current day anxieties in the west about paedophilia.
Rousseau I think wrote a book where he mentions the marriage as evidence of the faster development of girls in hot climates. He also claims that hot climates lead to greater sexual desire. No mention of paedophilia. Guess it wasn't abig concern back then.
No, I think as Sir Toppenhat has pointed out earlier if anyone had criticized the big man back then they would have lost their necks. And to argue that warmer climates causes and excuses men to want to have sexual relations with little girls(Aisha was still playing with dolls) is just sick sick.
Asma,
What about your "Mother of god" Mary (peace be upon her), is 12 years old just about perfect for her to get married to 90 year old Joseph.
Your rationale is inconsistent, isn't it. You don't really know why and what you want to attack about Islam; you've only been propped up by media fed information.
Asma,
habibi, when you say "sick, sick", how did you work that out?
Now, let's get philosophical, and revisit our epistemology!
"What about your "Mother of god" Mary (peace be upon her), is 12 years old just about perfect for her to get married to 90 year old Joseph."
According to who? Muslims?
"Your rationale is inconsistent, isn't it. You don't really know why and what you want to attack about Islam; you've only been propped up by media fed information."
Please point out where my rationale is inconsistent. Your not making any sense. I'm Arab Christian so please forgive me for not having a glowing view of your religion.
Sir Toppenhat,
You will have to forgive the ropey logic of some of the Muslims on this blog. Many I suspect are the result of first cousin marriages.
"And to argue that warmer climates causes and excuses men to want to have sexual relations with little girls(Aisha was still playing with dolls) is just sick sick."
It's not my theory.
"You will have to forgive the ropey logic of some of the Muslims on this blog. Many I suspect are the result of first cousin marriages."
Wow. Such profound philosophy.
Perhaps you should be lecturing Sir whatever on logic since he seems to think that only jews fought in world war one.
Shamil
"Rousseau I think wrote a book where he mentions the marriage as evidence of the faster development of girls in hot climates. He also claims that hot climates lead to greater sexual desire. No mention of paedophilia. Guess it wasn't abig concern back then."
Shamil did you maintain a straight face when you wrote that one.
According to your tortured logic I as a women of Middle Eastern descent should have been bursting with sexual desire and craving (much) older men, when I was nine, and still playing with my Barbie dolls.
Please point out where my rationale is inconsistent.
Asma,
You inconsistency is in the fact that you do not find 12 year old Mary (peace be upon her) marrying 90 year old Joseph as contained in your Christian tradition to be "sick" - just as you found Aisha's (May Allah be pleased with her) engagement to Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'aleihi wa salam).
Hence, you are inconsistent.
Your principles are not founded on a thing.
"Shamil did you maintain a straight face when you wrote that one."
Yes. Why.
"According to your tortured logic I as a women of Middle Eastern descent should have been bursting with sexual desire and craving (much) older men, when I was nine, and still playing with my Barbie dolls."
I don't think that's what he's saying. He said that men have a greater sexual desire in hotter climates and women develop faster. Again it's not my theory. In rural Africa girls still get married at nine.
Shamil,
By now, you should have worked out the conclusions of their logic: they will tell you those people in Africa are barbaric and uncivilised anyway, that's why their culture is different from ours.
And the age of sexual consent I believe in Japan, Korea, etc is still 13 or even below.
Asma, your monolithic mindset is something to marvel about...particularly being an Arab woman.
"Shamil,
By now, you should have worked out the conclusions of their logic: they will tell you those people in Africa are barbaric and uncivilised anyway, that's why their culture is different from ours."
Probaby but in doing they're actually going against western philosophy.
People living closer to the state of nature are rationally better people than us (ie those who live in civilization). To describe them as barbaric is irrational because they are more controlled by their instincts. If human instinct is barbaric then why bother having morality at all?
That's Rousseau's philosophy by the way not mine.
Toppenhat & Asma,
Sounds like you are a couple!
You see the Prophet Muhammad (saw) didn't have to marry Aisha, neither did he have to marry many widows, or the wife of his adopted son, nor and all the other "hotly" debated actions he carried out...
But how would the desert Arabs and people like yourself rise from your ignorance to be able to see the diversity and richness of human experience.
How would they, like yourselves, be able to appreciate that there are mult-various circumstances around the globe that are not necessarily synonymous with your cultural entrapments - and these circumstances necessitates different approach and measures to life.
How would the veil have fallen off your eyes? How? Especially where you lack the proper epistemological approach to moral and philosophical questions?
The Prophet Muhammad (saw) was the only one bold enough to shatter all of these illusions. How come? Because he wasn't afraid of anyone, and his only mission was to offer guidance that transcends cultural entrapments. The same can be said for all Prophets.
Now, move on to your next attacks.
Shamil,
I am not sure they will agree with you on your definition of western philosophy. Western philosophy for the likes of Asma is particular is something quite emotionally different, often shaped by romantic TV serials.
In reality, the traditional of philosphy of the west or the east is all goodness... but things have moved on and we can't pretend that hard re-definition have taken place.