Yo! Muslims! You Had Best Read History--Yours And Ours

Islamic societies have never been big on history.  They tend to be worse in consulting the past than even Americans.  Islam qua Islam argues against the study of history alleging that there was nothing worth knowing of the past before the arrival of the Prophet and that, since the revelations, nothing is worth knowing other than the lives of exemplary Muslims who merit study due to their living lives of faith, virtue, and conquest.

In a major way this absence of any pervasive understanding of the past, the history of Muslim societies and polities as well as that of the West, is pivotal in the rise of fear driven violent political Islam.  Muslims have felt with great accuracy for many years that people in the West have mocked and derided them and their faith, have presented one dimensional stereotypes, have trivialized, marginalized, and patronized Muslims generally and Arab Muslims in particular.

The pervasive feeling of deprecation and the sense the West has ridden roughshod over the desires, needs, aspirations, and, most importantly, dignity of Muslims and Muslim majority states has fueled the fear which has propelled violent political Islam to its status today--the greatest single threat confronting not only the West but the globe.  Even though most of the insults have been both unintended and inadvertent--such as the portrayal of Arabs as lascivious sheiks on horseback carrying off beautiful (presumably) Christian maidens to their harems--or the more recent all Arabs are dark, sinister terrorists--the effect upon even Westernized, multilingual European and American educated Muslims has been hurtful.  Hurt breeds fear.

Fear inevitably expresses itself in attempts to coerce respect from the disrespectful, acceptance from those who have been disdainful, or at least anxiety on the part of the contemptuous.  None of this, none of the dynamic which has resulted in the current global insurgency mounted by those whose antidote to fear is the espousal of violent political Islam would have been necessary had only Muslims understood their own history and possessed some knowledge of that of the West including the Great Satan, the US.

There is an old cliche to the effect that those who do not learn from history are condemned to relearn the lessons of history from their own mistakes.  Like all cliches this one contains a sizable grain of truth.  Had Muslims taken a look at the sorry blood soaked record of the Christian West in which the people of the word took recurrent counsel of their fears with the result that war became the normative condition of life for centuries, they might have concluded that regardless of the positive effects ultimately created from the windrows of corpses, there was no need for Muslims to repeat the process.

Had Muslims coupled the study of the European record with an examination of the long years of the Ottoman Empire, they might well have concluded, with accuracy it should be added, that their religion had given a base for a period of remarkable peace, noteworthy internal tolerance, and an environment of tranquility which may not have resulted in the technological and organizational advances of Europe and the US during the same time but did provide an acceptable quality of life for the vast majority of Muslims living under Ottoman sway.  The history of the Ottoman Empire as well as the lands and people on its periphery provide a powerful argument in favor of the contention that Islam was superior to Christianity as practiced in the West.

As the flames of Muslim conquest faded to cool ashes and stability under an admittedly ramshackle empire, the main feature of life that ensued was the preeminence of the mystical,  inward looking, liturgy rich Sufi school with its emphasis on inner peace being reflected in interpersonal harmony, charity, compassion, and empathy.  The "wordless" approach of the Sufis brought interpersonal peace quite unlike the "wordy" Christian understanding with recurrent wars over the precise words, doctrine, and dogma which defined a particular group.

If the primary goal of any religion is the assurance of a better state of inner and outer peace, a community exhibiting compassion, empathy, and charity as well as the feeling on the part of the believer that the will of the deity is being followed, the Islam of the long centuries between the end of the Western crusades and the encroachment of the West less than two centuries ago passes the test by any standard.  If the same standards are applied to the Christian West, the assessment must be that Christianity failed.

It is true that the West drove technological development, mastered new forms of governmental process, invented the essentials of modern economics, created entirely new forms of social, political, and economic organization while the Muslims were static in all these areas.  But, it deserves noting that stasis or a very slow pace of change are normative across the entire sweep of human history to the extent that the Western explosion following the Seventeenth Century is without precedent or equal.

It is true that wherever and whenever the West has placed its heavy foot on a traditional society, the results have been severely disruptive particularly so when the traditional society reacts by attempting a forced draft emulation of the West.  On occasion--think Japan and China--the arrival of the West and the response to that arrival has been bloody and destructive.

The wise Muslim might benefit from examining the history of the consequences of the encounters with the West experienced by both Japan and China as well as the immediate aftermath of the encounters.  Then this hypothetical wise Muslim might ask if he wanted his people, his society, to go the same route or is there a better way, a way which takes the best from Muslim history in a way which allows features of Western origin to be absorbed and employed with greatest benefit.

In considering the history of the relations between Japan and the West following the mid-Nineteenth Century, it is important for our hypothetical Muslim student to consider the history of the US, in particular how the US embodies in concentrated form the predominant feature of the Christian West, a feature which was the necessary product of centuries of war, wars of religion and nation.  That feature is simply a capacity for what can be best called "absolutism."

In the real world of history, the term "absolutism" means that the US, to an extent which may surpass the standard set in Europe, pursues victory in war with an intensity which almost surpasses description.  As the war in the Pacific demonstrates clearly, the American people once roused, will fight with a degree of ferocity and resolve which is either most admirable or most despicable depending on one's point of view.  We showed in the Pacific war a willingness to dehumanize the enemy of the highest sort.  This tendency to absolutism not only rests close to the surface of the American public, it is what gave US troops the capacity to win against what normally would be considered unbeatable odds.

When the absolutist button is pushed, the Americans and Europeans (particularly the British) have demonstrated time after time a willingness to use virtually all means necessary to win.  Our hypothetical Muslim student might wonder at what point the button marked "absolutism" will be pushed in today's conflict with the practitioners of armed political Islam.  He might wonder if the redress of fear will be worth the ultimate butchers' bill if the Americans are pushed too far.

History also shows that the American public is slow to reach the absolutist point, but it always gets there, if pushed long and hard enough, particularly by people whose behavior is inexplicable to most Americans.  This was evident in the war with Japan.  Before that it was part and parcel of the centuries of war against the Native Americans.  A close reading of the record of these wars should convince any observer that the Americans have a limit which cannot be crossed without great and negative consequences.

The historically literate Muslim would have a unique vantage point.  From this point he can easily see the greatness of his own faith over a long sweep of time.  He can see as well the potentials of seeking to out do the West using only the tools of the West.  He can understand the risks being taken by the adherents of violent political Islam, risks which will be widely distributed on Muslims generally.  He can (or should be) see the potential benefits of combining the inner directed faith of the Sufi understanding with desirable features of Western provenance such as democracy, an independent judiciary, the concept of the King's Peace, an open press and so forth.

In short, the historically aware Muslim would be in a perfect position to meld the best of his faith tradition with the most worthy of Western products for the good of all both Muslim and non-Muslim.  But none of this is  possible for those Muslims whose awareness of the past is limited to fear producing Western insults and slights no matter how unintended.  The historically blind are condemned to undercut the interests of their own people and empower the most implacable enemies of Islam in the West.

It is far better to hit the books and get smart than it is to build a bomb and get dead.  Words to the wise.

When Will Obama Admit, "It Is The Religion, Stupid!"

With the savagely lethal attack on the Chaldean Catholic church in Baghdad, the war being waged against Christians in Muslim majority states from Nigeria to Indonesia has exploded out of the media shadows where it has been concealed for several years now.  The statement issued by the Muslim entity behind the attack specifically called the worshipers and their church a "foul den of idolaters."  A pathetic lie was proffered in justification of the slaughter when the Mighty Warriors Of Allah alleged the Christians used the church as a place from which to wage war against Muslims.

The accusation was not only pathetic in its poverty, it was a lie of a magnitude which would have made even Joe Stalin or Dr Goebbels blush.

The totally expectable and quite pro forma denunciation issued by Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani in no way mitigates the ground truth that the attack was simply the latest in a long series of outrages committed against the once vibrant Christian community in Iraq.  The extent of the butchery and resultant fear suffered by Christians merely because of their faith is shown in one cold number: There are only 500,000 left from a total of nearly 1,500,000 when the Americans invaded seven years ago.  The rest, at least those who were not killed, left for distant and hopefully safer places.

Nor is the situation in Iraq unique.  In Egypt, the Coptic Christians, a faith community which dates back to the very beginnings of Christianity, has been under daily attack.  Copts have been killed.  They have been kidnapped.  Assaulted.  Raped.  Their churches have been vandalized.  Burned.  Blown up.  As in Iraq, there have been numerous reports of police and other security forces standing by, hands in their pockets, quite indifferent to the brutalization of their fellow citizens.

The brutality of Muslims against Christians has continued these past few years throughout the Muslim majority world.  Palestinian Christians have become an endangered species.  So have those in Syria.  Life is not better for people of the Cross in Jordan or across North Africa, just a tad less lethal.

In Pakistan violence against Christians--again often with security forces inactively present--is rampant.  The assaults, even the killings, barely merit notice in the public press.  Those who attack are rarely arrested, let alone prosecuted.

At the antipodes of the Muslim world, Nigeria and Indonesia, pogroms directed at Christians are commonplace.  In both countries as well as many in between these two pillars, churches are pillaged, burned, destroyed.  The authorities always seem baffled, at least to the extent that arrests are as infrequent as hot weather at the South Pole.

Throughout the lands dominated by Muslims, the ancient choice of convert or die echoes on the lips of the mob and the clerics behind them.  In a twist on this old theme, one of the gunmen in the Baghdad church told one of his priestly victims that he could convert but he was going to die nonetheless.

While it is self-evident that not each and every Muslim among the reputed one and a half billion is directly involved.  Still, those who do not personally hold the gun, wield the knife, hurl the bomb, or pound Christian flesh do not rally publicly and loudly against those of their brethren who do the dirty work.  In this case of Muslim excess as in so many others, silence equals agreement, equals support, equals empowerment.

Where is the presumed Muslim majority?  Why is this purported enormous percentage of Muslims not demanding that their governments take swift and decisive action against those who slaughter and terrorize in the name of the Prophet?

Is the deafening silence of the Muslim majority due to basic sympathy with the objectives of the perpetrators of violence?  This is not out of the realm of probability.  The history of Muslim dominated Spain is replete with examples of persecution onto death directed against both Christians and Jews.  Nor is the history of the Ottoman Empire devoid of similar examples.

Pogroms, persecutions, mass murders, all on the basis of faith.  And, it must be pointed out, regardless of the fact that the victims were protected peoples of the Book, members of Abrahamic faiths who paid their protection taxes, wore distinguishing clothing, and were otherwise living according to the humiliating requirements of Muslim law as provided in the Koran and Shariah.

History has powerful inertia.  As a result, the examination of the past, the real past and not the artifacts of apologists and other makers of myth, gives an excellent indication of present and future behavior by members of the same culture, society, or religion.  In the case of the contemporary persecution of Christians as in the DNA predicated hatred of Jews, the past is prologue.  That is the ground truth.

Then there is the problem of those in the US and the larger West who steadfastly and quite without a basis in reality refuse to connect the dot marked "Islam" with those unpleasant blotches of blood red marking acts of terror and murder.  The event at the Baghdad church due to the blunt honesty of the killers demands that we in the West without exception recognize the identity of those who seek to prevail, those who seek to cleanse not just Iraq but the world generally of people who do not share their unique dedication to the strictures and imperatives of Islam.

The bloody gauntlet has once more been slapped in our collective face.  Turning the other cheek may be an admirable goal expressed by those of the Christian faith but there is no requirement in that faith or any other to submit to terrorists and murderers.  There is no requirement that we refuse to both know and name the truth.

Quite the opposite.  There is a positive obligation that we not give in to the fear of offending those who tacitly wish us harm.  We have no choice on this world, in this life, other than calling out the killers for what and who they are--Muslims who take their faith too seriously, who invest too much of their human identity in it, who cover and conceal a base quest for power in the garb of belief.

Truth in blogging statement.  The Geek is not a member of any denomination of any faith tradition.

We must make no mistake about the dynamic expressed by the Prophet's Butchers.  They will not stop and we will know no peace until those who desire to shed innocent blood in the greater glory of Allah are themselves stopped.  Period.

Turkey Must Be Christian Again!

And, while we're at it so should Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Similarly Iran (nee Persia) should be reclaimed by Zoroastrians.

These sectarian alterations are only in line with the oft repeated trope by various and sundry exponents of Islam to the effect that Jews are recent interlopers on "historic Muslim territory." This superficial plaint overlooks a basic reality of history which applies not only in the disputed territories but throughout the Mideast.

Christianity, for the benefit of those who are historically challenged, emerged in the land now known as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and, most importantly, Turkey. The great traveling salesman of Christianity, the Apostle Paul, worked with effective assiduousness to plant the new faith in gentile communities throughout the region. He did so with words, spoken and written, and not the sword.

The history of early Christianity is the history of the area which became the Eastern Roman Empire with its capital in the new city of Constantinople. For centuries before as well as after the moment when Constantine pronounced Christianity to be the state religion, the cities of the East, the bishops of the East, the Emperor of the Eastern Empire (and the Empresses ) created Christianity. The creation of the Church conferences--which occurred without major exception in cities now in Turkey--included the Great Schism which resulted in the split between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic confessions.

The Eastern Roman Empire was Christian. So also was the North African littoral during the period of Visigoth domination. Constantinople outranked Rome as the center of Christianity. For centuries the same can be said of Alexandria, the center of the ancient Coptic church. Other cities of the (now) Arab Mideast were rivals of both Rome and Constantinople. While there was fighting between the Christians of differing perspectives on such key issues as the nature of the Trinity, the nature of the Christ, it is important to note that expansion of Christianity did not rely exclusively or even primarily on the use of armed force.

The most critical result of the internecine warfare which blotted so much of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh centuries was the weakening of the vibrant Christian communities of the Mideast so that no organized resistance could be mounted when the sword waving Muslims exploded out of the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. So demoralized were the Christians of the region following the generations of internal fighting that the Muslims were initially welcomed as the bearers of peace and tranquility. (That view would change.)

Constantinople, however, held out. The wars between the Byzantines and the Muslims saw Christian fortunes wax and wane. Still, the ancient capital of the Eastern Empire held out--even after it was sacked by Crusaders of Catholic adherence. Not until 1453 and then only because two renegade Christians, one British and the other Hungarian, built and operated the giant artillery pieces capable of demolishing the city's walls were the Muslims--Seljuk Turks--successful in militarily obliterating Christianity there, replacing it with an Islam of forced conversion.

Turkey has been Muslim for only 557 years. Before that it had been Christian for more than ten centuries. By the reasoning employed Muslims as regards Israel and Palestine, the followers of Islam are recent interlopers not entitled to a right of peaceful enjoyment of the conquered Christian land.

The same analogy applies to other one time Christian centers of the Mideast. Sure, the Muslims have been squatting in these historically Christian areas for longer, but they established their presence by force of arms, by conquest, by subjugation of the indigenous population and culture--including religion. From Iraq to the Atlantic coast of Morocco, Christians whether Arian or Orthodox, Coptic or Roman Catholic were suppressed, robustly.

Following the Muslim line of logic--that "recent" arrival and the use of force equals illegitimacy, it is only right that Egypt be returned to the Copts, Morocco to the Arians (if any have survived their repression by Rome for "heresy.") Turkey must be given back to the Eastern Orthodox Church (and the great church of Hagia Sophia be restored to its pre-Muslim grandeur.) The bloody success of the Shia of Iran must be rectified by a bringing back of Zoroastrian beliefs.

Of course these reversions are as realistic as Obama's vision of a world free of the nuclear djinn. However, as a thought experiment the exercise does underscore the absurdity of the Muslim argument that Israel is a foreign implant in the authentic eternal body of Islam. It also shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the Muslim notion holding that the Iberian Peninsula having once been conquered and subjugated by force now belongs forevermore to the Sons of the Prophet.

Listen up, Muslims and apologists, history has no independent existence. It is not some sort of force standing apart from the actions of humanity. Rather it is a record, a record of, in part, winners and losers. The Christians lost in their own historic heartland--and they got over it. Muslims "lost" in Israel. They can't get over it.

The choice for the Muslims is simple: Accept the fact that your wars and terrorism have failed; or, accept more misery and death in the years to come. In either event your choices will not be an invocation of "history" but rather making more entries on the record of human actions, both the wise and the stupid.