Islam is not a new problem: 'Primer on Islamic imperialism'
Michael Laudahn eOpposition
One of the alleged sins held against the West by Islamic radicalism - which
has declared war on us through Osama bin Laden's fatwa issued in 1998 in
London - is imperialism: the imperialism of the Dutch, the British and the
French from the 17th to the 20th centuries. (For some reason, Russian
imperialism in Central Asia gets a pass - so far.) Israel is allegedly an
outpost of European imperialism.
The original western imperial enterprise in the radical Islamic narrative
was the Crusades. The First Crusade began in 1095. The Crusades were
undertaken to reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom. Reclaim it from whom?
From the Muslims.
But Mohammed died in Medina in 632 as ruler of the Hijaz, the northwest
section of Arabia along the Red Sea which includes the holy cities of Mecca
and Medina. But if they controlled the Hijaz in 632, what were the Muslims
doing in Jerusalem in 1100?
Of course, they were there by conquest! They were they by virtue of Islamic
imperialism - the extension of the Land of Islam (Dar al-Islam) by holy war:
jihad (notwithstanding the other meanings of this term).
Let's review. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was a warrior and ruler who
conquered Mecca and the Hijaz from his base in Medina. Following The
Prophet's death in 632, Islam was spread by Arab and Muslim conquest. There
are Muslims who are not Arabs, but the first phase of expansion was Arab
expansion. The ruler of the Muslim world, the successor to Muhammad, was
the Caliph - "the shadow of God on earth."
The Caliph was both the religious and political head of the Muslim world
which, unlike the Christian world, draws no distinction between the two. In
North Africa and the Middle East, the lands that the Arab Muslim world
expanded into were controlled by the Byzantine Empire, the successor to the
Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople. These were Christian
lands. To the East, between the Middle East and India, was the Persian
Empire with a different religious tradition.
At the death of Muhammad in 632, the realm of Islam consisted of northwest
Arabia. To the north and west is Christian Byzantium, to the east is
Persia. Neither of these are Arab; neither of them are Muslim. But within
100 years, the territory from Persia to Spain is controlled by Muslim Arabs.
How did this happen? Egypt, for instance, was not in 632 an Arab country.
It was of a different ethnic stock and had been in existence for 3600 years!
What happened was conquest, one of the most impressive in history. Here is
a very brief timeline:
1. 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca from his base in Medina.
2. 632 - Muhammad dies in Medina. Islam controls the Hijaz.
3. 636 - conquest of Syria. Victory in battle over the Byzantines gives
Syria and the surrounding lands, all Christian - including Palestine and
Iraq - to the Caliph.
4. 636 - 642 Persia conquered by the Muslims.
5. 642 - conquest of Egypt. The Arab/Muslim conquest moves west along
North Africa into hitherto non-Arab/non-Muslim lands.
1st Muslim invasion of Europe: from the West
1. 711 - Tariq (after whom Gibraltar is named: the Rock of Tariq - Gib
al-Tariq) invades Spain. The Muslim conquest moves into Europe.
2. 718 - conquest of Spain complete.
3. 732 - Muslim invasion of France is stopped at the Battle of Poitiers
(also called the Battle of Tours). This is regarded as one of the turning
points in world history. The Franks, under their leader Charles Martel (the
grandfather of Charlemagne), defeat the Muslims and turn them back out of
France.
Thus, in exactly 100 years, from the death of The Prophet in 632, to 732,
the Arab/Muslim realm has extended from the Hijaz, a province in Arabia, to
encompass Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Persia, Egypt, the North African littoral,
Spain and, temporarily, part of France. The first European interaction with
Islam is with Islam in the role of a conquering army, and, in the case of
Spain, one that comes to stay. Spain becomes a Muslim colony. Over several
hundred years, Spain is reconquered - the reconquista - for Christendom.
The last Moors are expelled in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella.
In the 1300's, the Turks take over leadership of the Muslim world from the
Arabs. They establish the Ottoman Empire with its capital at Christian
Constantinople after conquering it in 1453. The Muslim world under Ottoman
leadership begins incursions into Europe from the East.
2nd Muslim invasion of Europe: from the East
1. 1453 - Muslim Turks conquer Christian Constantinople and make it the
seat of the Caliphate
2. 1456 - Muslims conquer Athens
3. 1478 - Serbia, Bosnia, Crimea come under Ottoman control
4. 1480 - Otranto in Italy taken by the Ottomans
5. 1529 - Vienna besieged by the Ottomans
6. 1683 - Battle of Vienna. The Turks are defeated by the Polish king
Jan Sobieski leading a combined Polish-Lithuanian army. This is the
high-water-mark of Turkish/Muslim conquest of Europe from the East.
1683 is an important year because after that the Muslim Empire had no
further military successes over the West. Thus, while this date seems lost
in the mists of time to most Westerners, it remains a vivid memory in
Islamic history because it marks the beginning of a downward slide in
military fortunes that ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the
British and French in World War I, the occupation of Muslim lands by the
European states, and finally the abolition of the Caliphate itself by
Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) in 1924.
But in the 1980's, something important happened. When the Russians invaded
Afghanistan in 1979, the U.S. decided that it would support the native
Afghan resistance, the mujahedeen. This resulted in a massive arms support
operation by the CIA funneled through the Pakistani intelligence service the
ISI. Thus, the American hand was concealed from the mujahedeen. When,
particularly with the help of the Stinger missile, the Russians were
defeated by the mujahedeen, this represented in their own eyes a victory of
Islamic forces over those of a modern state - indeed, a superpower -
something not seen since the 17th century in the Muslim world. Here was a
model to be built on.
1. 1979 - Soviet Union invades Afghanistan
2. 1988 - Soviet Union leaves Afghanistan, defeated by the Muslim
mujahedeen. A victory for Islam over the "West."
3. 1991 - Soviet Union disintegrates. Who can say that its defeat by the
Muslims was not its mortal blow?
3rd Muslim invasion of Europe: from the South
And now we find ourselves confronted by a third Muslim attack on the West -
a third "invasion of Europe" (if "Europe" is expanded to include North
America) by an expansionary Muslim philosophy - by Islamic radicalism. The
first Muslim attack was from the West in the 700's; the second was from the
East in the 1400's - 1600's; the third began with the defeat of the Soviet
Union in 1988 in Afghanistan and its subsequent collapse and is in the form
of mass immigration.
The philosopher and economist Thomas Sowell instructs us to ask "as compared
to what?" when evaluating and criticizing human enterprise. It is pointless
to compare human enterprise to some abstract ideal that has never existed.
As Sowell points out, if the standard is set high enough, anything will
fail.
Was the British Empire - the archetype of Western imperialism - a bad thing?
As compared to what? As compared to the Muslim Empires? As compared to
them, the British Empire was a model of enlightenment. The Muslims pride
themselves on their tolerance of minorities. But that tolerance came at the
cost of dhimmitude - second-class citizenship and payment of tributes. The
British Empire was, yes, established by force, but it was not sustained only
by force. It was also sustained by consent. And it left behind a number of
the freest, richest, most liberal countries on earth. As compared to the
Muslims, the British look pretty good.
But it is not the point of this paper that Arab/Muslim imperialism was an
evil, or at least was not a unique evil. It was a human enterprise with its
strengths and weaknesses. Muslim culture at its highest was high indeed.
The Muslims preserved and passed on the Greeks. The Arabs developed Arabic
numerals, and invented the number zero (or the next best thing, recognized
the significance of the Indians having done so), the basis of modern
mathematics. Algebra is an Arabic word: al-gebera. Muslim letters,
science, medicine and architecture were at the highest level of achievement.
But so are our own. We can't have a double standard here - being impressed
by the achievements and conquests of Arab/Muslim civilization but at the
same time embarrassed by the even more impressive achievements and conquests
of the West. If conquest is something to be embarrassed by, if it is a
moral disqualification, then the Arab/Muslims are at the head of the line;
Europe is well back on the list! And whatever the achievements of medieval
Muslim culture, and they were many, they are in the past. There are few
achievements today, and none to compare with those of the West.
Yes, one can certainly ask about spiritual achievement. If the Muslims wish
to live in the 8th century, nobody is stopping them. Just as nobody stops
the Amish from living in the 18th century. But if the standard is living in
the 21st century, then it is clear that the West is a superior culture in
all respects for that - in comfort of living, in science, in medicine, in
human rights, in the rights of women to name just a few.
We are in a fight for our lives against Islamic radicalism. We cannot
unilaterally disarm ourselves morally because of some imagined slights
offered to Muslim culture by the West. Yes, we are the stronger, but that
was not always so. When Muslims were the stronger, they prided themselves
on their conquests and their cultural and political dominance, which still
shape the world we live in.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/primer_on_islamic_imperialism.html
--
Give us back our countries: Stop the criminal multiculturalism ideology
enforced upon the white world against the will of its peoples, leading to
mass immigration from the third-world: Mul-cul + pol-corr = lethal mixture
for the white world. And give us back our freedom: Dismantle all
surveillance technology.
B J Foster
A: Because it said "Concentrate"
üDoug±Ç
first language was it Ahmed?
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48713e6c$0$30460$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Viejo Vizcacha
> "Blonde 'starring' at 'Orange Juice'"? I guess English wasn't your
> first language was it Ahmed?
>
English not being my first language I always hesitate to point out to
anyone any grammatical mistakes. But when the asshole making the mistake
does so while attempting to laugh at what he perceived to be a mistake,
that actually was not, I cannot help but pointing it out.
It is you, asshole, who does not know the difference between "stare" and
"star." And to make matters worse, apparently English IS your first
language. Where did you attend school? Notice that I do not ask where
you received your education since it is clear you never got one.
V.V.
Sir John Howard
> �Doug�� wrote:
> > "Blonde 'starring' at 'Orange Juice'"? I guess English wasn't your
> > first language was it Ahmed?
>
> English not being my first language I always hesitate to point out to
> anyone any grammatical mistakes. But when the asshole making the mistake
> does so while attempting to laugh at what he perceived to be a mistake,
> that actually was not, I cannot help but pointing it out.
Nice PKB you've got there, fuckwit. Too bad you fucked up big time.
> It is you, asshole, who does not know the difference between "stare" and
> "star." And to make matters worse, apparently English IS your first
> language. Where did you attend school? Notice that I do not ask where
> you received your education since it is clear you never got one.
He knows enough English to know that "to stare" becomes "staring" and
"to star" becomes "starring". So next time you post, pull your foot
out of your mouth first.
B J Foster
> "Blonde 'starring' at 'Orange Juice'"? I guess English wasn't your
> first language was it Ahmed?
Nope, it was my fifth.
Moron
torresD
üDoug±Ç
news:99fba$488147f5$cf705d5f$14...@PRIMUS.CA...
> üDougąĮ wrote:
>> "Blonde 'starring' at 'Orange Juice'"? I guess English wasn't your
>> first language was it Ahmed?
>>
>
>
> English not being my first language I always hesitate to point out to
> anyone any grammatical mistakes. But when the asshole making the mistake
> does so while attempting to laugh at what he perceived to be a mistake,
> that actually was not, I cannot help but pointing it out.
>
Ah, it was humor. Of course retards are easily amused. But you already
knew that didn't you?
> It is you, asshole, who does not know the difference between "stare" and
> "star." And to make matters worse, apparently English IS your first
> language. Where did you attend school? Notice that I do not ask where you
> received your education since it is clear you never got one.
>
> V.V.
>
Dame cabeza, mariposa puta.