Posted on 07/25/2003 5:57:35 AM PDT by dennisw
Interesting point you make about Islam's concern with being "dissed" (disrespected) -- a symptom of powerlessness, I think. Consider that those most concerned wtih not being "dissed" are the Ghetto blacks, the lumpenproletatriat underclass who have nothing but an exaggerated sense of self-importance. One thinks of the Arabs rather that way: they know no one would take Arabs or Islam seriously at all if it weren't for oil, and that even at best, only the ones who control the oil are at all regarded. They know they have no power, so they demand a respect they cannot earn.
The Lucifer Principle
Book excerpt by Howard Bloom
Some readers will be outraged by my presumption. How dare I regard any group as barbaric? What appalling ethnocentrism! there are no barbarians. There are simply cultures we haven't taken the time to understand. Cultures to whom we haven't given sufficient aid.
Cultures in need of development. Beneath the skin, all men and women are the same. They have the same needs, the same emotions, and the same ideals. If you simply took those folks you speak of so contemptuously out for a cup of coffee, you would discover that they are just like you and me.
But there are barbarians--people whose cultures glorify the act of murder and elevate violence to a holy deed. These cultures portray the extinction of other human beings as a validation of manliness, a heroic gesture in the name of truth, or simply a good way to get ahead in the world. Islamic societies tend to be high on this list.
Holiness, righteousness, and even day-to-day propriety in Islamic cultures are based on the example of Mohammed. Though Islamic literature praises Mohammed as a man of peace, he was anything but. In A.D. 624, the Prophet announced the concept of the jihad-the holy war. He said in the blessed book the Koran, "Kill those who join other gods with God (e.g., Christians) wherever you shall find them, and seize them and slay them, and lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush." In the next nine years, the man of peace ordered at least 27 military campaigns, personally leading nine of them.
It is not surprising that Moslem jurists would later declare that there are two worlds; the world of Islam, Dar al-Islam, and the non-Islamic World, Dar al-Harb. These two territorial spheres, explained the Moslem scholars, are in a state of perpetual war. According to the Koran, any leader who fails to "make wide slaughter" in the land of the infidel is committing a sin. A statesman is only allowed the temporary expedient of peace if his forces are not yet strong enough to win. This may explain why Elias Canetti, in his Nobel Prize-winning book "Crowds and Power," calls Islam a killer religion, literally a religion of war.
In the West, we think of scholars as meek little men with glasses, leading peace marches. In the lands of Islam, famous scholars often spent years studying every nuance of their Koran, then rounded up an army, and went out to make war in the name of Allah.
In the thirties, one of them labored diligently to become an Islamic scholar. He poured over the Koran for years. As he demonstrated his superior knowledge of Allah’s pronouncements, he rose in the ranks of Iranian holy men. Finally, he achieved the penultimate title - ayotollah (roughly equivalent of a Catholic cardinal). His name was Ruhollah Khomeini, and he wrote books, pamphlets, and even taped and distributed his speeches to inspire the citizens of Iran with sacred virtue. The ayotollah’s words roused Iranians to overthrow the shah and usher in a government based on strict Islamic doctrine.
What did the ayatollah’s pronouncement say? Among other things, that infidels are like dogs. Their existence is an affront to Allah. Here’s how the ayatollah himself put it:
"Moslems have no alternative...to an armed holy war against profane governments...Holy war means the conquest of all non-Moslem territories...It will...be the duty of every able bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put the Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other.
"The leaders of the USSR and of England and the president of the United States are ... infidels ... Every part of the body of a non-Moslem individual is impure, even the hair on his head and his body, his nails, and all the secretion of his body. Any man or woman who denies the existence of God, or believes in His partners (the Christian Trinity), or else does not believe in His Prophet Mohammed, is impure (in the same way as are excrement, urine, dog, and wine).
Concluded the ayatollah (Ruhollah Khomeini), "Islam does not allow peace between...a Moslem and an infidel."
(From here, only excerpts are posted because of its length)
For six hundred years after the fall of the Crusader states, Islamic forces returned to the attack, capturing Greece and chunks of eastern Europe, raiding towns in Sicily and the Italian coasts for goods and slaves, preying on Mediterranean shipping, chaining Europeans like Miguel Cervantes to the oars of their galleys, and until 1826 forcing the Christian citizens of Yugoslavia and Albanian to give up their children to Moslem overlords (who brought up the males on the Koran, then turned them into soldiers known as Janissaries).
. . . The ground is ripe for worldwide Islamic fundamentalist expansion. Mohammedanism is currently the fastest-growing religion on the planet. There are a billion Moslems and that number is increasing daily.
. . . Allah is rapidly equipping Khomeini’s followers with a sword to carry out their master’s wishes. He has offered Islam the fire in which the Koran says those who follow false faiths are destined to burn: nuclear weaponry. He has also provided the long-range missiles needed to use it. According to the late imam’s logic, there may be only one just and righteous thing to do; employ this technology to wipe out recalcitrant heathens like you and me.
During the siege in Bethlehem, the Muslim terrorists who took refuge in the Church of the Naivity, had devoured all the food in two to three weeks that had been intended to last for three months. They left the holy site with debris, urine and feces and the entire church was filled with a sickening odor.
Within a few years there will be no Christians left because the Christian West, that doesn't care a fig about the Christians of the East, is remaining silent just as it remained silent after the desecration of the Church of the Nativity.
I should add about dhimmitude that it is deliberately nastier than apartheid. This fact surprises many people, but it's true. Under the old South African regime, apartheid was purportedly intended to promote separate but equal societies, and, despite spectacular acts of racism, the Bantu did have their own colleges and some political rights, and were able to rise in rank in business and civil service employment.
On the other hand, dhimmitude is openly intended to make sure that the dhimmi never have anything approaching equality; they are never allowed to go to college, nor have any but the lowest jobs, nor have any say in the government, etc. In fact, a few years ago, in response to some gentle Western inquiries about easing back some of the restrictions of dhimmitude, the mullahs (in, I think, Saudi Arabia) made it very clear that EVERY indignity and injustice inflicted by dhimmitude was decreed in the Koran and therefore devout Moslems will never be permitted to compromise on even one of the forms of nastiness.
And we are helping sustain and protect this system.
Isn't this also very similar to the thinking of communist idealogy?
Thanks.
In addition to Bat Yeor, Joan Peters writes about Dhimmitude in "From Time Immemorial." She tears apart the myth that the Arabs always treated the Jews well prior to the existence of the State of Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.