Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/26/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/26/2010Lavinia Olmazu, a gypsy activist in England, was once a prominent champion of gypsy rights. Then she was caught defrauding the state of almost three million pounds in welfare benefits. Yesterday she was convicted of masterminding the scam, along with a gang of six Roma criminals. She will be sentenced in September.

In other news, Burma is reportedly working on a nuclear weapons program, with the help of North Korea. Meanwhile, the collapse of real estate prices has caused grievous damage to the revenue of municipal governments in Spain, and 8,000 of them are reported to be on the verge of bankruptcy.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to CB2, CSP, Fjordman, Gaia, JD, JP, KGS, Kitman, Lurker from Tulsa, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

Accommodating Sharia

OIC 40th anniversary logo


On May 18-20, 2010, the 37th Council of Foreign Ministers for the Organization of the Islamic Conference met in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

One of the most important items on the ministers’ agenda was the creation of the Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia (download the pdf here). As you may recall, the OIC launched the Islamophobia Observatory back in 2007, and my, how time flies! We’re already up to the third report.

The document is 74 pages long, and not all that easy to wade through. I’ll undertake a more thorough analysis when I have time, and just touch on a few highlights here.

I would have been mortified if we had been left out this important survey of Islamophobia, and, sure enough, there we are on page 50, in the illustrious company of Pamela Geller and Paul Belien. Regular readers of LGF will remember when Charles Johnson pounced all over this one:

xiii) Belgium: Fascist Summit Meeting Held — on February 24 some European far right groups met in a VB-sponsored event in the Belgian city of Ghent featuring Frank Vanhecke of the Vlaams Belang (a European party promoted by “anti-jihad” bloggers such as Pamela Geller, Gates of Vienna, and Brussels Journal), Nick Griffin of the BNP (British National Party), Bruno Gollnisch of the National Front, and Andreas Molzer of the Austrian FPO.

And, in fact, the OIC has once again cited Charles Johnson as a resource for this item.

Many other “Islamophobes” are highlighted in the report. As one would expect, Geert Wilders features prominently, and is mentioned no fewer than fifteen times in its pages:

The anti Muslim campaign of Geert Wilders was emulated by other right wing extremist politicians in Europe to gain political support. Incidents under the following categories increased:

a) Incidents related to mosques by 100%. b) Desecration of Muslim graves by75%. c) Incidents related to hijab and burqah by 500%. d) Political and social campaigns against Islam and Muslims by five times. e) Intolerance against Islamic sacred symbols by more than 100%. f) Discrimination against Muslims in education, workplace, airports, etc. by100%. [Page 2; wacky italicization in the original]

The Swiss minaret ban also earns some serious attention, as do Islamophobic churches and citizens’ groups all over the USA.

However, there is not a single reference to the English Defence League in the entire document. This is surprising, since the EDL had already become quite prominent by the time the report was put together, with several well-publicized demonstrations to its credit. Perhaps there was a lag time in the preparation of the material. Or was the EDL simply not Islamophobic enough to earn the OIC’s attention?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


The most interesting part of the report is at the end of the main report (pp. 30-32), when the authors draw their conclusions and make their recommendations. I’ll list the eighteen conclusions below, mark the interesting clauses, and add a few observations of my own:

a)   It is of foremost importance to recognize and acknowledge the problem of Islamophobia as well as discrimination and intolerance in terms of its historical, cultural and psychological depth and develop the essential willingness to adopt a multifaceted approach towards finding solutions.

The most important task for the OIC is to continue repeating the spurious equivalence between “Islamophobia” and “discrimination and intolerance”. They keep pounding away at this theme until non-Muslims have heard it so many times that it becomes one of the premises of the argument, rather than a false conclusion.

In this regard, a “multifaceted approach” means all the different tactics that Islam customarily employs to cow and intimidate the infidel. Examples include:
– – – – – – – –

  • Accusations of “racism”
  • Abuse of social welfare programs
  • The teaching of Islamic history and culture in schools using Saudi-approved textbooks
  • Endowment of more schools of Middle Eastern Studies in major Western Universities
  • Repeated public initiatives to force the media to provide “balance” when reporting Muslim issues
  • Attempts to restrict the lexicon used in public discourse about Islam, forcing the omission of words like “jihad”, “terrorist”, “Wahhabism”, “dhimmi”, etc.
  • Carefully staged public demonstrations (often with the explicit or implicit threat of violence)
  • Occasional outbreaks of violent mayhem to underline the above point
  • Lawfare — the abuse of the legal system through the filing of expensive civil suits against those who criticize Islam
  • Hate speech prosecutions, carried out with the co-operation and assistance of useful idiots on the Left
  • The building of more mosques and community centers in as many places as possible
  • Agitation for special rights for Muslims — halal food, footbaths, separate swimming for men and women, prayer breaks at work, toilets that face Mecca, no public eating during Ramadan, etc., etc.
  • Introduction of legislation to codify various (apparently innocuous) aspects of sharia in local or national law
  • Resistance to and sabotage of any efforts to reduce or restrict immigration

Expect to see more of the above tactics employed with increasing frequency between now and the fourth report on Islamophobia.

b)   There is also a need for an intellectual and ethical strategy to avoid political exploitation of the issues related to discrimination and intolerance.

In other words: “We must subvert any attempts by non-Muslims to resist the implementation of any portion of our agenda.”

c)   Discrimination and intolerance against Muslims is not only a matter of discrimination against a specific religious group, but it also deeply affects international relations as well as the internal stability of Western societies. As such, it is a multifaceted question and must be addressed through a holistic approach.

Once again, this is the implicit threat of violence, which is always present when any Muslim organization discusses the rights of Muslims in non-Muslim societies. “Give in to our demands, or you will have trouble with OPEC, face more terrorism originating from the Muslim world, and experience rioting, rape, arson, and looting in your own countries.”

d)   Various forms of intolerance and discrimination need not be subject to an artificial hierarchy. Within this framework, there should be complementarity between efforts dealing with different forms of discrimination.
 
e)   The quality of life of Muslim minorities — particularly those living in Western societies — must be improved. This will lead to better understanding and integration leading to a lessening of mutual mistrust.

“We need more jizyah payments. If you meet our demands, we will not riot and burn things.”

f)   Muslim minorities should not be seen as second class citizens, must not be demonized, marginalized, feared or despised.

“Muslims must be seen as the superior class, with special privileges. Infidels should be rightfully recognized as their inferiors, as specified in the holy Qur’an.”

g)   The war on terror must not become a war on Muslims.

In other words, the OIC insists that we must never, ever look who is committing terrorist acts, nor what their motivations are. Terrorist acts are either the result of poverty, or misunderstanding, or racism; or they are simply inexplicable random tragedies, like tornadoes and earthquakes.

h)   It should be recognized that Muslims have the same basic needs and desires as others, which are material well-being, cultural acceptance and religious freedom, without political or social intimidation. In that vein, Muslim should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated. Accommodation is the best strategy for integration.

This is the core of the matter. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made it quite clear: there will be no assimilation of Muslims in Western societies. The demand for assimilation is a form of racism.

Notice that even the weak-dishwater second line of European multicultural defense — integration — is not included here. “Integration” is multi-speak for accepting foreigners into our countries without requiring them to learn our language, adopt our cultural practices, or abide by most of our laws. “Integration” has created Little Peshawars and Turktowns and Little Somalias all over Western Europe.

But even integration is not good enough. Only “accommodation” will do, and accommodation requires infidels to change their own practices to accord with Muslim restrictions, and adjust their law and official policy accordingly.

In a word: “accommodation” means submission.

i)   Everybody and especially policy makers and opinion leaders must speak out swiftly, clearly and forcefully against Islamophobia, intolerance, discrimination and any manifestation of racism against Muslims. By doing so, they will be helping to protect their fellow citizens from hate-filled segments of society. They must also condemn those who discriminate in word or in action. Authorities in this respect have a special OIC-CS-3rd OBS-REP-Final-April, 2010 — 31 — responsibility to protect their citizens. They must see to it that tolerance and nondiscrimination are not in short supply.

In other words, infidels must adhere to sharia definition of “slander against Islam”, as outlined in the Koran and the hadith and implemented in the fiqh.

It will be impossible for Western governments to comply with this demand without instituting at least a partial version of sharia in their countries. Nevertheless, many Western leaders are all too eager to accommodate their restive Muslim citizens on this issue, and some countries (and the EU itself) have already implemented a version of it.

j)   Declaratory statements are needed and are welcome, but are not enough. All concerned must put into practice what they preach. In other words, they must not only share the same basic values, they must also act in line with this conviction.
 
k)   In this context, it has to be recognized that ethnic and religious identity is but only one element of societal structures and political cultures. On the other hand, the concept of identity is not static, but is changeable according to circumstances, as their content or the meaning attributed to them is subject to constant new evaluation and evolution.

“We get to change the rules whenever we want, and you still must do as we say.”

l)   Uttering of matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion and likely to cause outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion should be prohibited by law.
 
m)   Legal prohibitions must be enacted on publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with a view to protecting their fundamental human rights.
 
n)   Public insults and defamation of religions, public incitement to violence, threat against a person or a grouping of persons on the ground of their race, colour, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin should be legally prohibited.

“Forget free speech. Forget the First Amendment. You now live under the strictures of sharia — get used to it.”

o)   Adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religious, and incitement to religious hatred in general, should be provide in the national legal and constitutional systems in addition to taking all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.

The above sounds as if the OIC is willing to accord the same respect towards other religions that it demands for Islam, but don’t be fooled: this is a smokescreen.

The fixed and unchangeable rules laid down in Islamic scripture and codified in sharia law require discrimination and intolerance towards the practice of any religion but Islam.

Therefore, in this context “respect for the religious beliefs” of Muslims can only mean that Muslims must be allowed to oppress, intimidate, harass, subjugate, and, yes, discriminate against all other religions.

It’s in the Koran. Interfering with their right to do this is an intolerable restriction on their freedom of religion.

p)   All forms of discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, and religion should be condemned, combated and prohibit by law, at both the national as well as the international levels.

“We will be pushing for sharia in your national legislatures as well as the UN.”

q)   A more accurate assessment of Muslims-particularly in the West-should abandon the false precept of a monolithic Islam. Instead it should focus on the multiplicity of cultures belonging to Muslims around the world, and highlight results from surveys which regularly point to the important role played in an individual’s relationship to Islam by acculturation, secularization, and individualization.

“Once again, Islam means whatever we say it means. We get to change the rules whenever we want.”

r)   To more effectively address critical issues of religious [discrimination], a more ad hoc, a rapid response mechanism must be initiated. Modern technology and communications can be used as a more powerful tool for major religious leaders and organizations of all faiths. They need more initiatives to join together, condemning all forms of discrimination, intolerance and oppression against ethnic and religious minorities. Together they can speak out whenever and wherever abuses occur, whether it be their own religion or government or someone else’s that is the oppressor or the victim.

“You must crack down on Islamophobia on the internet and talk radio.”

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


After its conclusions, the report adds this:

The Observatory would also like to draw attention to some important recommendations contained in reports from European Institute for Fundamental Rights Agency (EFRA) and Open Society Institute (OSI) that form annexes to this report.

It is also essential to underline the importance of the following aspects in the context of public discourse related to Muslims and Islam:

a)   Political rhetoric: Responsible politicians, both of the government and of the opposition, must underline the importance of correct and unbiased discourse and should also refrain from hate speech and other manifestations of extremism and discrimination. A message of encouraging tolerance, non-discrimination, understanding and respect for all must be voiced.
 
b)   The media: The media can play a very positive role in promoting inter-cultural and interreligious dialogue, understanding and harmony. This is what is expected from responsible journalism. On the other hand, the media may also play a very negative and divisive role in projecting wrong and inaccurate messages. Therefore, with due respect to the freedom of expression, governments can assist or encourage creation of selfregulatory media bodies to deal with manifestations of discrimination and racism. The media, on the other hand, should conduct its functions in a responsible manner.

This makes it clear that the OIC will accept nothing short of full accommodation. Politicians and statesmen must censor themselves so that they display not the slightest hint of intolerance or disrespect for Islam.

Geert Wilders, are you listening?

And the media must censor themselves, or else expect government bodies to censor them if they do not. There is only the briefest nod towards freedom of expression, because freedom of expression has an entirely different meaning in Islam: You can say whatever you want, provided that your words accord completely with the tenets of Islamic law, as handed down to Allah through his prophet and written in the Koran.

Any speech which violates these rules is blasphemous, and must be punished accordingly.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


FrothingIf you think all this blather represents nothing more than the orotund bloviations of Islamic functionaries, and can be safely ignored, think again: the OIC is an official body that claims to represent the entire Ummah, and the fifty-seven nations which make up its membership have recognized this relationship via international treaty. The OIC speaks officially for the heads of state of the countries it represents.

Furthermore, the OIC is officially recognized by the United Nations as an international body that represents Islam, and its member states exert an overwhelming influence on the deliberations of the General Assembly.

This means that the OIC will push harder and harder at the UN to get its agenda implemented. The UN has already passed many odious resolutions against “Islamophobia” that mandate “respect for all religions, especially Islam”. The administration of Barack Hussein Obama allowed one of the most recent examples to pass without a murmur of objection.

If you’re a European, remember the reverence with which UN is regarded by your functionaries in Brussels. UN resolutions routinely form the framework for laws and regulations laid down by the bureaucrats of the EU and forced upon individual European countries.

In other words, this report and all the other official pronouncements of the OIC matter very much to all of us infidels. They will eventually trickle down through the maze of NGOs and international bureaucracies and be implemented in our own countries.

No one can say we weren’t warned: the plans are all out there in the public record where everyone can read them.

We disregard them at our peril.



Previous posts about Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC:

2007   Aug   31   The OIC is Barking Now
    Sep   7   OIC: Insulting Islam is an Illness
        12   Sweden Apologizes Again… Or Not
    Dec   10   Countering Islamophobia
2008   Feb   17   Nice Little Civilization You Have Here…
    Mar   6   Our Man in the OIC
        13   An American Dhimmi in Dakar
    Apr   30   Is Europe a “Christian-Muslim” Continent?
    Jun   10   OIC: Time to Crack Down on Provocative Speech
        17   The OIC’s Plan for Fighting Islamophobia
        22   The OIC’s Crusade Against Islamophobia
    Aug   3   The Islam-Aligned Movement
    Sep   25   The OIC Fights Islamophobia at Columbia University
    Oct   11   Confronting Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
    Nov   1   Fisking Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
2009   Mar   5   Mandating International Respect for Islam
        20   What is Eurabian Culture?
2010   Jan   25   The Caliphate-in-Waiting

Too Early in the Day for This Sort of Thing

Cultural Enrichment News


Another day, another culturally enriched knife attack in East London.

So “Asians” jumped a man and nearly killed him — what’s the big deal?

It happens all the time these days, but this assault stands out because of its apparently random nature, its brutality, and the fact that it happened at 8:20 in the morning.

According to This Is London:

UK: ‘They Had Knives, They Jumped Me’ — London Teacher Tells of Attack by Gang

A teacher who was almost killed in a gang knife attack near his east London school vowed today to be back in his classroom in September despite suffering horrific injuries.

Gary Smith’s face was slashed from his mouth to his neck and he was stabbed and beaten repeatedly by a group of five Asian youths — all wearing black bandanas — as he walked to work in Mile End. The 37-year-old, a religious studies teacher at Central Foundation School for Girls in Bow, told the Standard he was lucky to be alive after being ambushed at 8.20am on July 12.

At this point you think, “Aha! The poor bloke was targeted because he teaches a blasphemous religion — and to girls!”

But that does not seem to be the case. As far as police can tell, Mr. Smith was chosen because he was an undefended white man walking along the pavement:

Police first treated the attack as a robbery but upgraded the investigation to attempted murder because Mr Smith was so seriously injured. He needed three operations to repair his face and was not discharged from hospital until last night.

Speaking for the first time about the savage attack, he said: “They were all armed with knives. I tried to defend myself and run away but they all jumped me and that’s the last thing I remember. I’m not sure how many times they stabbed me — I’ve got several wounds on my head, and bruises all over my face and body. I wouldn’t want anybody else to suffer what I went through. I survived but somebody else might not. If this is the kind of thing they’re doing, I hope they will be caught soon to keep people safe.”

– – – – – – – –

Mr Smith, who also runs a martial arts club, said that he did not believe the youths recognised him or targeted him for any reason. He said from his home in Chingford: “I’ve absolutely no idea what the motive could be. I was just walking to work and it seems entirely random. They were probably just looking for someone to hurt and I happened to be there. I’m very pleased to be home so I can start to recover fully. I’ve had a lot of support from my family and my friends and colleagues at school. They’ve all been fantastic. Now I’ve got the summer holidays to get well before the start of school in September, when I’m determined to be back at work.”

Mr Smith’s mother Heather, who was at his hospital bedside every day, said: “His injuries were so bad I didn’t recognise him.

“It was a horrific and evil attack and we need the public’s help so police can catch whoever did it.”

The final paragraph of the article is what stands out:

Detective Inspector Des McHugh, who is leading the hunt for the five attackers, said: “This was an extremely violent incident and unusual at this time of day.” [emphasis added]

The implications of this statement are astonishing: the Metropolitan Police, the guarantors of public safety in Greater London, apparently consider that there is a time of day when a murderous knife attack that leaves a randomly chosen victim disfigured would be normal.

In other words, if it had happened at, say, 1:00 am, it would be no big deal. Just business as usual on the mean streets of East London. Nothing to see here, people — move along.

Then, when Mr. Smith came out from under the anesthesia, the plods would have advised him to stay close to home between dusk and dawn if he wanted to remain safe.

When mayhem occurs at 8:20 am, however, it’s a bit harder to mince your multicultural way around it.

The local council in Hackney spent £440,000 last year to carry children who live in “sensitive urban zones” to and from school in taxis, because it was too dangerous for them to walk.

Perhaps the authorities in Mile End can do the same for Gary Smith.



For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

Hat tip: JP.

Pundita on Wikigate

Pundita is hot on the big news story of the day, the release of 91,000 (or 92,000, depending on which article you read) classified intelligence reports about Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. The Guardian and The New York Times — the twin transatlantic custodians of the current wisdom among the global media elite — are the primary purveyors of the leaked reports.

What’s the deal with the Times? Doesn’t the Gray Slattern know that you’re only supposed to do this sort of thing during a Republican administration?

Here the Messiah thought he had all your love, and now he has been spurned — what a grim and tear-stained day it must be in the West Wing.

Here’s what Pundita has to say:

WikiLeak Afghan War Papers: Pity the White House spin machine

Well, here it is 3:30 AM in Washington, DC. Nobody in this town who has to render an opinion for a living is getting any sleep. Me, I’m awake only because I’m suffering from irrational exuberance since seeing the New York Times headline last night about the leaked papers: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert. Finally a report about the White House mollycoddling of Pakistan that the TV and cable networks can’t bury.

But consider the plight of the White House. They’re already dizzy trying to strike just the right tone about the papers, and it’s not even been eight hours since the story broke. At this rate they’ll need to mainline Dramamine by noon.

Obama is “furious” the papers were leaked. However it’s good thing all this is coming to public light and it shows why he took so long to decide about the troop surge. But then there is Pakistan’s regime to consider:

– – – – – – – –

White House National Security Advisor James Jones issued a statement to reporters shortly before the documents were posted online, saying the leaks were “irresponsible” but would not impact US strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security,” Jones said in his statement.

“These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people.”

Jeepers, has Jones read some of the stuff in those papers? And reporters are just getting started on plowing through the 90,000 or so pages of the logs.

Senator John Kerry — a dyed in the wool Democrat and Obama supporter — took one look at a few of the revelations in the papers and came out with his own statement

Read the rest at Pundita’s.

There’s one place where I disagree with her, however: I think George W. Bush will get the blame. It’s true that the liberal media are upset with Obama for Guantanamo, Afghanistan, the absence of a public option in Obamacare, etc., but there is no way they will turn on him completely.

Blaming Bush is their story, and they’re sticking to it. It will continue until the call of the muezzin resounds from the top of the Washington Monument — and will keep going after that.

No, the job of the MSM is to be a gentle corrective. They intend to show Hussein the error of his ways, and nudge him back to the Left where he belongs.

Wait and see.

Erdogan Assaulted by Mossad Agent

Steen sent this amusing video (amusing to those of us who are less than fond of Turkey and its Prime Minister), and after a bit of research we found some previous releases of the story.



Aussie Dave, the poster who put this video up on IsraellyCool, noted rumors that Erdogan accused the horse of being an Israeli naval commando.

If you watch the video, though, you can tell from the get-go this is one nervous horse. He definitely wasn’t the gentle type nor was he particularly well-trained. So the question is, what poor sod got blamed for picking this high-strung bucking bronco as the PM’s ride? And where is that unfortunate soul now?

I’ll bet Erdogan was right testy for a few days…

[Post ends here]

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/25/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/25/201091,000 intelligence reports concerning events in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the last six years have been leaked to the WikiLeaks site. Digests of them will appear in The New York Times and other newspapers tomorrow (Sunday).

In other news, an Australian paper is reporting that the Obama administration intervened with the British government last year to make sure that the Lockerbie bomber was released.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to 4symbols, Barry Rubin, C. Cantoni, Fjordman, Gaia, JD, Steen, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

The West’s Expensive Albatross in the Balkans

Last Thursday the International Court of Justice ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence — its secession from Serbia in February 2008 — was legal. This purports to justify the gross violation of Serbian sovereignty engineered by the United States and Germany, which served to create another Islamic gangster state in the Balkans. The ex post facto ICJ ruling clears the way for the recognition of Kosovo by those Western governments who up to now have proved reluctant to sign on.

The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies has published an analysis by Srdja Trifkovic of this latest farrago. Some excerpts are below:

ICJ Ruling: Blow to Serbia, Boon to Tadić

By Srdja Trifkovic

Ever since the U.S. intervened in Serbia’s domestic politics two years ago and helped the current coalition take power in Belgrade, Boris Tadić and his cohorts have been looking for a way to capitulate on Kosovo while pretending not to. The formula was simple: place all diplomatic eggs in one basket — that of the International Court of Justice — and refrain from using any other political or economic (let alone military) tools at Serbia’s disposal. On July 22 the ICJ performed on cue, declaring that Kosovo’s UDI was not illegal.

It should be noted that the ICJ has only assessed Kosovo’s declaration of independence; it has not considered more widely Kosovo’s right to unilateral secession from Serbia. Furthermore, the ICJ has not assessed either the consequences of the adoption of the UDI, namely whether Kosovo is a state, or the legitimacy of its recognition by a number of countries. The ICJ decision was unsurprising in view of the self-defeating which the UN General Assembly posed at Serbia’s request: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?” As a former British diplomat who knows the Balkans well has noted, international law takes no notice of declarations of independence, unilateral or otherwise; they are irrelevant:

[I]f the town council down the road here in the UK makes a solemn unilateral declaration of the town’s independence from the UK, the rest of us will make a wry smile and go back to blogging or working. The declaration is ‘in accordance’ with UK law — free speech and all that. [… ] If citizens of our town en masse support the declaration of independence, put up road-blocks, stop paying taxes to Westminster and proclaim Vladimir Putin their new king with his consent, things begin to get more interesting. Norms are being created and broken in all directions.

The ICJ has done more than its share of norm-creation. Its advisory opinion is deeply flawed and non-binding, but the government in Belgrade now has a perfect alibi for doing what it had intended to do all along.

– – – – – – – –

Following the appointment of Vuk Jeremic as Serbia’s foreign minister in 2007, this outcome could be predicted with near-certainty. As President Boris Tadić’s chief foreign policy advisor, Jeremic came to Washington on 18 May 2005 to testify in Congress on why Kosovo should stay within Serbia. In his subsequent off-the-record conversations, however, he assured his hosts that the task was really to sugar-coat the bitter Kosovo pill that Serbia would have to swallow anyway.

[…]

Kosovo is now an expensive albatross costing American and European taxpayers a few billion a year. It will continue developing, not as a functional economy but as a black hole of criminality and terrorism. The ever-rising and constantly unfulfilled expectations of its unemployable multitudes will eventually turn — Frankenstein’s monster-like — against the entity’s creator. There will be many Ft. Dixes to come, over there and here at home.

Read the rest at the Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies.

Camel Corps Gallimaufry

One of the common stereotypes of the British Foreign Service is that it is relentlessly pro-Arab, and has been since at least the time of Lawrence of Arabia.

The British diplomat who “goes native” when posted to an Arab country is a stock character in fiction and film. A cynical observer might blame this tendency on the cultural preoccupation shared by both Arab sheikhs and old boys of the British boarding school system: pederasty.

In the following guest-essay, our British correspondent JP takes a closer look at the Arabophiles of the Foreign Office, whom he dubs the “Camel Corps”.

Camel Corps #1


Camel Corps Gallimaufry
by JP

del cul fatto trombetta1

If the early Arabic panegyrical ode has its camel-section, then Middle East diplomacy for the past hundred years or so has had its Camel Corps — both camel-section and Camel Corps enduring symbols of the endurance of the camel.

Here is Renate Jacobi on the camel-theme in the panegyrical ode:

Thus whatever the function of the camel-section maybe as part of the panegyrical ode, it certainly belonged originally to the poet’s self-praise, where the description of the camel and the perilous desert-journey hold a prominent place…. It further appears that the poet’s pride in his camel and his display of courage in crossing the desert form two separate motifs although they are closely related and often linked together in such a way that the travel-theme is introducing the description of the camel.2

The precise locus of the Camel Corps is the British Foreign Office’s Middle East Centre for Arab Studies (MECAS), initially housed in an Austrian hospice in Jerusalem, found a home in Shemlan, Lebanon, between 1947 and 1978, when it was forced to leave on account of the civil war. Here numerous diplomats as well as applicants from the private sector were taught the Arabic language and Arab culture.

Lord Hurd of Westwell provides a description of MECAS in his foreword to its history by Sir James Craig (former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia):

Legends clustered around this school (MECAS) throughout its life, forming one of the minor myths of Middle-Eastern politics. To the Israelis MECAS was the place where Britain trained its bright young men to be sentimental about the Arabs and hostile to Zionism. To many Arabs it was simply the ‘School for Spies’, the heart of Britain’s postwar strategy of dominating the Middle East through its intelligence agencies.3

Craig is dismissive about claims by the detractors of MECAS:

The Israelis, and even some of the British, hold the. fanciful belief that MECAS was where British diplomatists were indoctrinated with anti-Zionism. There was indeed for a long time a perverse conviction, held all over the world except (and what an irritating exception) among the Arabs, that the British Foreign Office was pro-Arab and anti-Israel. This thesis usually went on to argue that the generator of the prejudice was a clique of Middle Eastern specialists, trained speakers of Arabic, in the Diplomatic Service, a kind of Arabist mafia (the sinister word is often used) which controlled Foreign Office policy on the Middle East; and that these specialists were in love with the notion of Araby, with the tent, the camel, and the lonely desert sands:

– – – – – – – –

He is crazed with spell of far Arabia,
They have stolen his wits away.
4

Yet in his preface Carig boasts that in 1996, in addition to three senior officers of the British Foreign Office (the Permanent Under-Secretary, the Political Director, and the Chief Clerk), the head of MI6 and the Director General of the British Council were all graduates of MECAS. A powerful group of people one might imagine whose worldview may have been shaped by their MECAS experience, and whose subsequent policy advice may have tended to favour the Arab side.

Recent blog entries by British ambassadors to the Lebanon (Guy) and Jordan (Watt) indicate that Lord Hurd may have been incorrect in his assessment, and that Craig himself is fanciful in his belief that the British Foreign Office is not pro-Arab and anti-Israel. With forensic skill Robin Shepherd registers his dismay at the underlying thinking of the British Foreign Office on Islamist terrorism: “this isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.”5

Returning to odes, camel or otherwise, here is Craig displaying a hint of pathos on being presented with an ode on leaving MECAS:

It is fair to add — it is necessary to add — that among the speeches that night was an ode in my honour composed and recited by Mr Theodry and that a houseguest of mine, himself an Arab scholar and poet, who had with characteristic Arab hospitality been included in the party, found the ode skilful and touching. I have kept it among my souvenirs.6

Camel icon


A clue to the pusillanimous attitudes of Britain’s diplomatists may be found in Craig’s discussion of the Israel Factor and the dilemma of how to deal with MECAS applicants with a Jewish background:

Later in that same year, 1973, Carden’s successor, Moberly, wrote to say that he had had an enquiry from a man in America with a Jewish name. He had written back, hoping to put the man off by telling him that the fees had recently been increased to £250 a month and that the Arab University of Beirut (name and address supplied) offered an Arabic course for foreigners free of charge. He had added: ‘No doubt you realise it is not in the interests of the student or the Centre for a student of Jewish faith or background to come here at present. If you wish to pursue your enquiry please confirm this is not a problem.’ The student did not pursue; whether it was the fees or the warning that put him off is not clear.7

And what do we find in 2009? Craig giving his thoughts on the Middle East in a further, two-volume work dedicated to the history and influence of MECAS:

People went to MECAS primarily to learn Arabic. It is a highly ingenious, subtle and complex language which excites passion in the linguist. But not every diplomat or banker is entranced by the adverbial accusative and the forty types of broken plural. The students learnt other things besides: that the Arabs are a warm and generous society, that they all, westernized liberals and Muslim fundamentalists alike, burn with a fierce resentment at the loss of Palestine, that they remember the past when they led the world in all the arts of civilisation, that they founded one of the world’s great religions and that they are now enjoying an economic revival. Empires come and go. The Middle East today is at centre of the world and crucial to the peace and prosperity of mankind. It is necessary that the rest of us try to understand it. That, on a small scale, was the purpose of MECAS.8

It is to be doubted that even on a small scale MECAS was conducive to peace in the region, or that it even understood it, rather the opposite.

The inclusion in the same volume of an entry by another MECAS student, Wing Commander John Deverill, who worked for the Arab Legion Air Force, provides further evidence of the Centre’s enduring pro-Arab sympathies:

[1950] I was responsible directly to Glubb Pasha (and his deputy Lash Pasha) for my work in developing the Air Force…. As we needed more aircraft, I immediately cast my eye on another Rapide parked on the tarmac near the aircraft operated by Arab Airways, which operated feeder services in Rapides to Cairo and Beirut and a few other destinations. The ‘spare’ Rapide had been parked in the same place for six months or more; nobody seemed to know exactly why. It emerged that this Rapide had landed at Amman on its way from South Africa to Lydda (now Israel’s international airport). It was being sent from South African Jewry to their brethren in Israel as an air ambulance. Why it landed in Amman, I never found out, but the pilot had disappeared shortly after his arrival, possibly discovering that Jordan was hostile to Israel. The aircraft was in good condition and rather than let it slowly deteriorate I suggested that we take it in hand, register it in Jordan and incorporate it in the Arab Legion Air Force. Thus we soon had two Rapides.9

Camel icon


The work also includes, in contrast to the note by the pragmatic if sinister Deverill, the account of a circus troupe brought to Cairo by the British Embassy in 1973 — “an historic occasion”:

I had brought out to Egypt in the Spring of 1973, three performers from a small tenting circus (a ‘Count of Bulgarian descent’ a boy, Carlos Michelli, aged fifteen, and ‘Princess Sakina’, aged nine). The party stayed with me in my rambling house by the Pyramids. They were invited to perform jointly with the Egyptian State Circus for a week…. My party, under the banner ‘Circus Britannia’, presented three separate acts: stilt walking, which included a traditional belly dance, a high-wire act, which included Carlos Michelli, blindfolded, throwing knives around Princess Sakina, billed as his betrothed, and a snake act. For the latter we visited Cairo Zoo where we chose a ten-foot python which lived for the duration in a laundry basket in my bathroom with a large brick on top. The opening night saw the Union Jack and the Egyptian flag flying side by side above the Big Top, perhaps the first time such juxtapositioning had been exhibited since pre-Suez days. At the start of the show the youngest performers from the British and Egyptian sides exchanged flags as the National Anthems of both countries were played. On the opening night, the Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Culture and representatives from various ministries attended from the host side, and the Ambassador Sir Phillip and Lady Adams, and her mother, the Lady Oaksey, from the British. It was, after all, an historic occasion and perhaps even a useful one diplomatically…. [T]he Egyptian periodical, Roze Al Yussif, couldn’t resist the headline: ‘The British Lion is Back in Egypt — But in a Circus Cage.’10

Camel Corps #2Has the FCO entrapped itself in the Muslim Brotherhood cage? If yes, is this as a result of recrudescent, British anti-Semitism combined with misplaced sentiment as to the good intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood?

As Derek Pasquill pointed out in his interview with Nick Cohen in the November 2009 issue of Standpoint magazine: “I realised that the FCO is Islamotropic: it grows towards Islamic extremism, always searching for reasons to excuse it.”11 The question remains “Who, whom?” and the answer is likely to be less than reassuring.

on chie tous par le même trou

Camel icon


Notes:

1.   Valerie Allen, On Farting: Language and Laughter in the Middle Ages, Palgrave Macmillan, New York and Basingstoke, 2007, p.27. Allen quotes this line from Dante (Inf., XXI, 139), adding that “butt-trumpets are as old Aristophanes, whose character Strepsiades calls a gnat’s rectum [proktos] a bugle [salpigks].”
 
2.   Renate Jacobi, “The Camel-Section of the Panegyrical Ode” Journal of Arabic Literature Vol 13, (1982), pp. 1-22.
 
3.   Sir James Craig, Shemlan: A History of the Middle East Centre for Arab Studies, Macmillan Press Ltd, Basingstoke, 1998 (in association with St Antony’s College, Oxford), p.vii.
 
4.   Ibid.,p.viii.
 
5.   Robin Shepherd, “Britain’s ‘Extremist Mainstream’: Mideast Ambassadors reveal their true colours”, 12 July 2010.
 
6.   Craig, op.cit.,p.33.
 
7.   Craig, op.cit.,pp.116-121.
 
8.   Paul Tempest (editor), Envoys to the Arab World. Volume II: MECAS Memoirs 1944-2009, Stacey International, London, 2009 (on behalf of the MECAS Association), p. 323. See also Volume I: Arabists of Shemlan: MECAS Memoirs, 1944-1978, Stacey International, London, 2006.
 
9.   Ibid.,pp.194-195.
 
10.   Ibid.,pp.244-246.
 
11.   Nick Cohen, “The High Price of Patriotism”, Standpoint, November 2009.

See also Tom Gross’s blog entry for 28 April 2004, “Backlash begins against ex-diplomats ‘poisonous views’ on Iraq, Israel”.

Gross records Andrew Roberts’ remark that the best collective noun for any group of British diplomats is “a cringe” — I think a “pucker of British diplomats” would be more appropriate.

Explosion at the Malmö Synagogue

Early Friday morning a large firework was detonated outside the synagogue in Malmö, Sweden’s most culturally enriched city. The synagogue has been attacked in the past, but not with explosives.

Our Swedish correspondent MS has translated two articles about the incident. The first is from Sydsvenskan:

Explosion at synagogue worries congregation

MALMO. A blast caused by a large firework next to the synagogue on the night before Friday has the Jewish community worried.

Malmö Synagogue“It’s incredibly sad that this should happen again,” said [synagogue] President Fred Kahn.

No one was injured by the powerful blast, but three window panes were shattered. Even worse, however, was the feeling the day after that once again they had been the victim of an attack:

“We thought we were finished with this sort of thing,” says Fred Kahn.

The police investigated the crime scene during the night, and in the near future will strengthen their surveillance in the area of the synagogue.

Bjorn Lagerback, Coordinator of the Dialogue Forum, which works against hate crimes, thinks vandalism is extremely serious.

“We condemn this completely. Such an event is not just directed against the synagogue, but also at other targets that could be described as ethnic or religious.”

– – – – – – – –
A somewhat more detailed account comes from Dagens Nyheter:

No threats of attacks on synagogue

No threat appears to have been issued prior to the explosion during the night before Friday, on the steps of the synagogue at Betaniaplan in Malmö.

A few minutes after two o’clock the police were alerted by several callers who heard a loud bang and saw a glow in the area. Police patrols found a charred black residue at the synagogue, but have determined that a major charge was not detonated.

“Probably some form of fireworks,” said police officer Goran Billberg.

The damage to the building is limited to a few small broken panes of glass.

Following the incident police have tightened their surveillance of the synagogue, and are consulting with the Jewish community. Malmö’s synagogue and its congregation have been subjected to threats and attacks several times in the past, but police said no incidents of this type have been reported in years prior to the night’s blast. The offense is classified as vandalism.



Hat tip: LN.

A Cabinet Post for Geert Wilders?

A few weeks ago the participation of Geert Wilders’ party in a new government was virtually unthinkable. All the mainstream Dutch parties had closed ranks in a steadfast refusal to consider the possibility of any coalition that might include the PVV.

But something has changed in the meantime. The informateur has evidently been unable to cobble together a working coalition of any combination that excludes the PVV, so now the unthinkable has become thinkable.

According to Dutch News:

CDA Agrees to Talks About Talks on a Right-Wing Government

The Christian Democrats have agreed to enter talks about talks on forming a right-wing government with the free market Liberals and anti-Islam PVV.

The party’s 20 MPs met on Saturday and gave their unanimous go ahead to party leader Maxime Verhagen to take part in informal talks with the VVD and PVV.

On Friday, new cabinet negotiator Ruud Lubbers called on the three parties to meet informally to look at the options. Earlier, the CDA refused to join because of the PVV’s extreme stance on Islam.

Principles

– – – – – – – –

‘We have decided to fall in with negotiator Lubber’s request,’ Verhagen said after the meeting. ‘But we will not budge from our principles. Freedom of religion is for everyone…’ he said.

PVV leader Geert Wilders wants the introduction of a tax on Muslim headscarves, a ban on the Koran and ethnic registration. He currently faces charges of inciting religious and ethnic hatred.

The exploratory talks between the three leaders will take place without Lubbers, to emphasis the informality. No date and time as yet been set.

Majority

Verhagen and Liberal leader Mark Rutte had dinner together on Friday night.

If the three parties go on to form a new government, it would control just 76 of the 150 seats in parliament and have no majority in the upper house, or senate.

Now the big question: if the PVV does indeed become part of a coalition government, what ministry will be given to Geert Wilders?



Hat tip: C. Cantoni.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/24/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/24/2010The news feed is inexplicably light tonight. Perhaps most of our tipsters are on holiday along the Côte d’Azur…?

A member of the Liberal Party in Australia (which is conservative by American standards) got himself in trouble with the party for posting “anti-Islamic” sentiments on Facebook. The party responded by removing him as a candidate for a western Sydney parliamentary seat, replacing him with an immigrant from the Philippines. No Islamophobia allowed in Australia, not even in the Libs!

In other news, it has been revealed that the Conservative Party in the UK received major donations from two Palestinian millionaires who have ties with Libya. Go Tories!

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Barry Rubin, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, KGS, LS, Nilk, TB, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

A History of Astrophysics and Cosmology

The Fjordman Report


The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

This essay was originally published in five parts at various sites: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5



The introduction of the telescope in Western Europe in the 1600s revolutionized astronomy, but it did not found it as a discipline. Astronomy had existed in some form for thousands of years prior to this. It is consequently impossible to assign a specific date to its beginning. This is not the case with astrophysics. People in ancient and medieval times might speculate on the material makeup of stars and celestial bodies, but they had no way of verifying their ideas.

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae in the fifth century BC was the first Pre-Socratic philosopher to live in Athens. He championed many controversial theories, including his claim that the stars are fiery stones. He allegedly got this idea when a meteorite fell near Aegospotami. He assumed that it came from the Sun, and since it consisted largely of iron he concluded that the Sun was made of red-hot iron. Not a bad guess for his time, yet he had no way of proving his claims. Neither did Asian or Mesoamerican observers. Some sources indicate that Anaxagoras was charged with impiety, as most ancient Greeks still shared the divine associations with the heavenly bodies, but political considerations may have played a part in this process as well.

As late as in 1835 Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the French philosopher often regarded as the founder of sociology, stated that humans would never be able to understand the composition of stars. He was soon proved wrong by two new techniques — spectroscopy and photography.

The English chemist William Hyde Wollaston (1766-1828) in 1800 formed a partnership with his countryman Smithson Tennant (1761-1815), whom he had befriended at Cambridge. Tennant discovered the elements iridium and osmium, extracted from platinum ores, in 1803. The platinum group metals — platinum, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium and iridium — have similar chemical properties. Osmium (Os, atomic number 76) is the heaviest natural element with a density of more than 22.6 kg/dm3, twice as much as lead at 11.3 kg/dm3.

Platinum (Pt, atomic number 78) and its dense sister metals are very rare in the Earth’s crust. It had been introduced to Europe from South American mines in the 1740s by men such as the Spanish explorer Antonio de Ulloa (1716-1795). Wollaston was the first person to produce pure, malleable platinum and became wealthy from supplying Britain with the precious metal. The Wollaston Medal, granted by the Geological Society of London, is named after him.

The German chemist Martin Klaproth (1743-1817) was born in Wernigerode in Prussian Saxony and worked as an apothecary for years before continuing his career as a professor of chemistry at the newly established University of Berlin. He discovered uranium as well as zirconium (Zr, a.n. 40) in 1789. Uranium (symbol U, atomic number 92) was named for the planet Uranus, which had been discovered just prior to this. Wollaston detected the elements palladium in 1803 and rhodium in 1804. He named palladium (Pd, a.n. 46) after the asteroid Pallas, which had been discovered a year earlier by the German astronomer Olbers and was initially believed to be a planet, until the full extent of the asteroid belt had been grasped.

The birth of spectroscopy, the systematic study of the interaction of light with matter, followed shortly after the creation of scientific chemistry in Europe. William Hyde Wollaston in 1802 noted some dark features in the solar spectrum, but he didn’t follow this insight up. In 1814, the German physicist Joseph von Fraunhofer (1787-1826) independently discovered these dark features (absorption lines) in the optical spectrum of the Sun, which are now known as Fraunhofer lines. He carefully studied them and noted that they exist in the spectra of Venus and the stars, too, which meant that they had to be a property of the light itself.

In the 1780s a Swiss artisan, Pierre-Louis Guinand (1748-1824), began experimenting with the manufacture of flint glass, and in 1805 managed to produce a nearly flawless material. He passed on this secret to Fraunhofer, who worked in the secularized Benedictine monastery of Benediktbeuern. Fraunhofer improved upon Guinand’s techniques and began a more systematic study of the mysterious spectral lines. To the stronger ones he assigned the letters A to Z, a system which is also used today. Yet it was left to two other German scholars to prove the full significance of these unique lines, corresponding to specific chemical elements.

Robert Bunsen (1811-1899) is often associated with the Bunsen burner, a device found in many chemistry laboratories around the word, but the truth is that he made a few alterations to it rather than inventing it. He was born in Göttingen, where his father was a professor of languages. He obtained his doctorate in chemistry at the University of Göttingen and spent years traveling through Western Europe. He eventually settled at the scenic university town of Heidelberg in south-west Germany, where he taught from 1852 until his retirement. In the late 1850s, Bunsen began a new and very fruitful collaboration there with the physicist Kirchhoff.
– – – – – – – –
Gustav Kirchhoff (1824-1887), the son of a lawyer, was born and educated in Königsberg, Prussia, on the Baltic Sea, now the Russian city of Kaliningrad. He graduated from Albertus University there in 1847 and relocated to the rapidly growing city of Berlin. After 1850 he became acquainted with Bunsen, who urged him to follow him to Heidelberg. Kirchhoff in 1859 coined the term blackbody to describe a hypothetical perfect radiator that absorbs all incident light and emits all of that light when maintained at a constant temperature. His findings proved instrumental to Max Planck’s quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation from 1900. He is above all remembered for his collaboration with Bunsen around 1860.

They demonstrated in 1859 that all pure substances display a characteristic spectrum. Together, Bunsen and Kirchhoff assembled the flame, prism, lenses and viewing tubes necessary to produce the world’s first spectrometer. They identified the alkali metals cesium (chemical symbol Cs, atomic number 55) and rubidium (Rb, a.n. 37) in 1860-61, showing in each case that these new elements produced line spectra that were unique for them, a chemical “fingerprint.” The dark lines in the solar spectrum show the selective absorption of light, caused by the transition of an electron between specific energy levels in an atom, in the gases of various elements that exist above the Sun’s surface. In the first qualitative chemical analysis of a celestial body, Kirchoff in the 1860s identified 16 different elements from the Sun’s spectrum and compared these to laboratory spectra from known elements here on Earth.

The great physicist George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) attended school in Dublin, Ireland, but later moved to England and Cambridge University. He theorized a reasonably correct explanation of the Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum, but he did not publish it or develop it further. According to the Molecular Expressions website, “ Throughout his career, George Stokes emphasized the importance of experimentation and problem solving, rather than focusing solely on pure mathematics. His practical approach served him well and he made important advances in several fields, most notably hydrodynamics and optics. Stokes coined the term fluorescence, discovered that fluorescence can be induced in certain substances by stimulation with ultraviolet light, and formulated Stokes Law in 1852. Sometimes referred to as Stokes shift, the law holds that the wavelength of fluorescent light is always greater than the wavelength of the exciting light. An advocate of the wave theory of light, Stokes was one of the prominent nineteenth century scientists that believed in the concept of an ether permeating space, which he supposed was necessary for light waves to travel.”

Fluorescence microscopy has become an important tool in cellular biology. The Polish physicist Alexander Jablonski (1898-1980) at the University of Warsaw was a pioneer in fluorescence spectroscopy. Stokes was a formative influence on subsequent generations of Cambridge men and was one of the great names among nineteenth century mathematical physics, which included Michael Faraday, James Joule, Siméon Poisson, Augustin Cauchy and Joseph Fourier. The English mathematician George Green (1793-1841), known for Green’s Theorem, inspired Lord Kelvin and devised an early theory of electricity and magnetism that formed some of the basis for the work of scientists like James Clerk Maxwell.

Astrophysics as a scientific discipline was born in mid-nineteenth century Europe, and only there; it could not have happened earlier as the crucial combination of chemical and optical knowledge, telescopes and photography did not exist before. In case we forget what a huge step this was, let us recall that as late as the sixteenth century AD in Mesoamerica, the region with the most sophisticated American astronomical traditions, thousands of people had their hearts ripped out every year to please the gods and ensure that the Sun would keep on shining.

Merely three centuries later, European scholars could empirically study the composition of the Sun and verify that it was essentially made of the same stuff as the Earth, only much hotter. Within the next few generations, European and Western scholars would in less than a century proceed to explain how the Sun and the stars generate their energy and why they shine. By any yardstick, this represents one of the greatest triumphs of the human mind in history.

To read the rest of this essay, click here.

Understanding the Islam in Muslim Jew Hatred

Below is a video of a lecture given by Dr. Andrew Bostom on Friday July 16, 2010, at The Chatuaqua Institute. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for preparing it for Vimeo:



For those who prefer to read Dr. Bostom’s lecture, the prepared text is posted in full below the jump. Note: The question and answer section is not in the prepared text, so you may want to watch the lecture. Dr. Bostom’s lucid explanation of the OIC and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is well worth listening to (about 48 minutes in).
– – – – – – – –
Title: “Understanding the Islam in Muslim Jew Hatred”
by Andrew Bostom, M.D.

[Lecture delivered 9:00 AM on Friday July 16, 2010, at The Chatuaqua Institute, Everett Jewish Life Center, 36 Massey Avenue, Chatauqua, NY, 14722]

A very dear Catholic neighbor—well aware of my writings on Islam—was kindly trying to lift my gloomy spirits one day, so he sent me some hackneyed Jewish humor, including,

Short summary of every Jewish holiday [consider Passover]: “They tried to kill us, we won, let’s eat.”

But the next example was more apposite to what I will discuss now:

Jewish telegram: “Begin worrying. Details to follow.”

Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders’ brief, powerful documentary film Fitna simply holds up a mirror to Islamic societies by including examples of how various Koranic verses are used by Muslim clerics and political leaders to incite Muslim populations to violence. And Fitna is entirely faithful to classical, mainstream Islamic exegesis (commentary) on the Koranic verses cited in the film, regardless of what cultural jihadists, and their witting or unwitting apologists and abettors, may claim.

Perhaps more disturbing than the images of jihadist carnage—and their Koranic incitement—portrayed in Fitna, was an example of how even young children are inculcated with these genocidal beliefs, and coached to repeat them for additional public consumption. Fitna included a May 2002 segment broadcast on Iqraa, the Saudi satellite television station, which claims at its website, “to highlight aspects of Arab Islamic culture that inspire admiration … to highlight the true, tolerant image of Islam and refute the accusations directed against it.” Iqraa’s The Muslim Women’s Magazine program featured an interview of a three-and-a-half-year-old “real Muslim girl” about Jews. When the little girl was asked whether she liked Jews; she replied, “No.” Asked why not, she replied that Jews were “apes and pigs.” The moderator then asked. “Who said this?” And the child answered, “Our God.” “Where did He say this?,” asked the moderator. “In the Koran,” this three-and-a-half-year-old girl replied. At the close of the interview, the moderator stated approvingly: “No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she… May Allah bless her and both her father and mother.”

Tragically, this 3-and-a-half-year old girl’s Koranic reference is accurate—Koran 5:60 refers to the Jews as apes and pigs; Koran 2:65 and 7:166, as apes, only. These verses and both their classical and modern exegesis by the most authoritative Muslim Koranic commentators are meant to inspire sacralized Jew hatred.

For over a thousand years, since its founding in 792 C.E., Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, has served as the academic shrine—much as Mecca is the religious shrine—of the global Muslim community. Al Azhar University (and its mosque) represent the pinnacle of Islamic religious education.

A front page New York Times story published Saturday January 10, 2009, included extracts from the Friday sermon (of the day before) at Al Azhar mosque pronounced by Egyptian-government appointed cleric Sheik Eid Abdel Hamid Youssef. Referencing well-established Antisemitic motifs from the Koran (citations provided, below), Sheikh Youssef intoned,

Muslim brothers, God has inflicted the Muslim nation with a people whom God has become angry at [Koran 1:7] and whom he cursed [Koran 5:78] so he made monkeys and pigs [Koran 5:60] out of them. They killed prophets and messengers [Koran 2:61 / 3:112] and sowed corruption on Earth. [Koran 5:33 / 5:64] They are the most evil on Earth. [5:62 / 63]

Indeed the Koran’s overall discussion of the Jews is marked by a litany of their sins and punishments, as if part of a divine indictment, conviction, and punishment process. The Jews’ ultimate sin and punishment are made clear: they are the devil’s minions (4:60) cursed by Allah, their faces will be obliterated (4:47), and if they do not accept the true faith of Islam—the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims (3:113)—they will be made into apes (2:65/ 7:166), or apes and swine (5:60), and burn in the Hellfires (4:55, 5:29, 98:6, and 58:14-19).

The Koranic curse upon the Jews for (primarily) rejecting, even slaying Allah’s prophets (verses 2:61/3:112), including Isa/Jesus (or at least his “body double” 4:157-4:158), is updated with perfect archetypal logic in the canonical hadith: following the Muslims’ initial conquest of the Jewish farming oasis of Khaybar, one of the vanquished Jewesses reportedly served Muhammad poisoned mutton (or goat), which resulted, ultimately, in his protracted, agonizing death. And Ibn Saad’s sira account maintains that Muhammad’s poisoning resulted from a well-coordinated Jewish conspiracy.

It is worth recounting—as depicted in the Muslim sources—the events that antedated Muhammad’s reputed poisoning at Khaybar.

Muhammad’s failures or incomplete successes were consistently recompensed by murderous attacks on the Jews. The Muslim prophet-warrior developed a penchant for assassinating individual Jews, and destroying Jewish communities—by expropriation and expulsion (Banu Quaynuqa and B. Nadir), or massacring their men, and enslaving their women and children (Banu Qurayza). Just before subduing the Medinan Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza and orchestrating the mass execution of their adult males, Muhammad invoked perhaps the most striking Koranic motif for the Jews debasement—he addressed these Jews, with hateful disparagement, as “You brothers of apes.” Subsequently, in the case of the Khaybar Jews, Muhammad had the male leadership killed, and plundered their riches. The terrorized Khaybar survivors—industrious Jewish farmers—became prototype subjugated dhimmis whose productivity was extracted by the Muslims as a form of permanent booty. (And according to the Muslim sources, even this tenuous vassalage was arbitrarily terminated within a decade of Muhammad’s death when Caliph Umar expelled the Jews of Khaybar.)

Thus Maimonides (d. 1203), the renowned Talmudist, philosopher, astronomer, and physician, as noted by historian Salo Baron [from Baron’s essay entitled, “The Historical Outlook of Maimonides,” in Proc of the Amer Acad for Jewish Res, vol. 6, 1934-35, p. 82], emphasizes the bellicose “madness” of Muhammad, and his quest for political control. Muhammad’s mindset, and the actions it engendered, had immediate, and long term tragic consequences for Jews—from his massacring up to 24,000 Jews, to their chronic oppression—as described in the Islamic sources, by Muslims themselves:

Following an apparently prevalent usage [Maimonides] calls the founder of Islam a “madman,” [meshugga] with both religious and political aspirations, who failed to formulate any new religious ideas, but merely re-stated well-known concepts. Nevertheless, he attracted a large following and inflicted many wrongs upon the Jews, being himself responsible for the massacre of 24,000. Following his example the Muslims of the subsequent generations oppressed the Jews and debased them even more harshly than any other nation.

Muhammad’s brutal conquest and subjugation of the Medinan and Khaybar Jews, and their subsequent expulsion by one of his companions, the (second) “Rightly Guided” Caliph Umar, epitomize permanent, archetypal behavior patterns Islamic Law deemed appropriate to Muslim interactions with Jews. George Vajda’s seminal analysis of the anti-Jewish motifs in the hadith remains the definitive work on this subject. Vajda concluded that according to the hadith stubborn malevolence is the Jews defining worldly characteristic: rejecting Muhammad and refusing to convert to Islam out of jealousy, envy and even selfish personal interest, lead them to acts of treachery, in keeping with their inveterate nature: “…sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.” These archetypes sanction Muslim hatred towards the Jews, and the admonition to at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination,” as dhimmis, treated “with contempt,” under certain “humiliating arrangements.” Muslim eschatology, as depicted in the hadith, highlights the Jews’ supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl-the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ-or according to another tradition, the Dajjâl is himself Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions maintain that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered — everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree, as per the canonical hadith invoked by Imam Alzaree. Another hadith variant, which takes place in Jerusalem, has Isa (the Muslim Jesus) leading the Arabs in a rout of the Dajjâl and his company of 70,000 armed Jews. And the notion of jihad “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology — on the day of resurrection the vanquished Jews will be consigned to Hellfire, and this will expiate Muslims who have sinned, sparing them from this fate.

Two particularly humiliating “vocations” that were imposed upon Jews by their Muslim overlords in Yemen, and Morocco—where Jews formed the only substantive non-Muslim dhimmi populations—merit elaboration.

Moroccan Jews were confined to ghettos in the major cities, such as Fez (since the 13th century) called mellah(s) (salty earth) which derives from the fact it was here that they were forced to salt the decapitated heads of executed rebels for public exposition. This brutally imposed humiliating practice—which could be enforced even on the Jewish Sabbath—persisted through the late 19th century, as described by Eliezer Bashan:

In the 1870’s, Jews were forced to salt the decapitated heads of rebels on the Sabbath. For example, Berber tribes frequently revolted against Sultan Muhammad XVIII. In order to force them to accept his authority, he would engage in punitive military campaigns. Among the tribes were the Musa, located south of Marrakesh. In 1872, the Sultan succeeded in quelling their revolt and forty-eight of their captives were condemned to death. In October 1872, on the order of the Sultan, they were dispatched to Rabat for beheading. Their decapitated heads were to be exposed on the gates of the town for three days. Since the heads were to be sent to Fez, Jewish ritual slaughterers [of livestock] were forced to salt them and hang them for exposure on the Sabbath. Despite threats by the governor of Rabat, the Jews refused to do so. He then ordered soldiers to enter the homes of those who refused and drag them outside. After they were flogged, the Jews complied and performed the task and the heads of the rebels were exposed in public.

Yemenite Jews had to remove human feces and other waste matter (urine which failed to evaporate, etc.) from Muslim areas, initially in Sanaa, and later in other communities such as Shibam, Yarim, and Dhamar. Decrees requiring this obligation were issued in the late 18th or early 19th century, and re-introduced in 1913. Yehuda Nini reproduces an 1874 letter written by a Yemenite Jew to the Alliance Israelite in Paris, lamenting the practice:

…it is 86 years since our forefathers suffered the cruel decree and great shame to the nation of Israel from the east to sundown…for in the days of our fathers, 86 years ago, there arose a judge known as Qadi, and said unto the king and his ministers who lived in that time that the Lord, Blessed be He, had only created the Jews out of love of the other nations, to do their work and be enslaved by them at their will, and to do the most contemptible and lowly of tasks. And of them all…the greatest contamination of all, to clear their privies and streets and pathways of the filthy dung and the great filth in that place and to collect all that is left of the dung, may your Honor pardon the expression.

And when the Jews were perceived as having exceeded the rightful bounds of this subjected relationship, as in mythically “tolerant” Muslim Spain, the results were predictably tragic. The Granadan Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela, and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, and in the aftermath, the Jewish population was annihilated by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to four thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the 1066 assassination. This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade. The inciting “rationale” for this Granadan pogrom is made clear in the bitter anti-Jewish ode of Abu Ishaq, a well-known Muslim jurist and poet of the times, who wrote:

Bring them down to their place and return them to the most abject station. They used to roam around us in tatters covered with contempt, humiliation, and scorn. They used to rummage amongst the dung heaps for a bit of a filthy rag to serve as a shroud for a man to be buried in…Do not consider that killing them is treachery. Nay, it would be treachery to leave them scoffing.

Abu Ishaq’s rhetorical incitement to violence also included the line,

Many a pious Muslim is in awe of the vilest infidel ape

Moshe Perlmann, in his analysis of the Muslim anti-Jewish polemic of 11th century Granada, notes,

[Abu Ishaq] Elbiri used the epithet “ape” (qird) profusely when referring to Jews. Such indeed was the parlance.

The Moroccan cleric al-Maghili (d. 1505), referring to the Jews as “brothers of apes” (just as Muhammad, the sacralized prototype, had addressed the Banu Qurayza), who repeatedly blasphemed the Muslim prophet, and whose overall conduct reflected their hatred of Muslims, fomented, and then personally lead, a Muslim pogrom (in ~ 1490) against the Jews of the southern Moroccan oasis of Touat, plundering and killing them en masse, and destroying their synagogue in neighboring Tamantit. An important Muslim theologian whose writings influenced Moroccan religious attitudes towards Jews into the 20th century, al-Maghili also declared in verse, “Love of the Prophet, requires hatred of the Jews.”

Here is but a very incomplete sampling of barely known pogroms and mass murderous violence against Jews living under Islamic rule, across space and time, all resulting from the combined effects of jihadism, general anti-dhimmi, and/or specifically Antisemitic motifs in Islam: 6,000 Jews massacred in Fez in 1033; hundreds of Jews slaughtered in Muslim Cordoba between 1010 and 1015; 4,000 Jews killed in Muslim riots in Grenada in 1066, wiping out the entire community; the Berber Muslim Almohad depredations of Jews (and Christians) in Spain and North Africa between 1130 and 1232, which killed tens of thousands, while forcibly converting thousands more, and subjecting the forced Jewish converts to Islam to a Muslim Inquisition; the 1291 pogroms in Baghdad and its environs, which killed (at least) hundreds of Jews; the 1465 pogrom against the Jews of Fez; the late 15th century pogrom against the Jews of the Southern Moroccan oasis town of Touat; the 1679 pogroms against, and then expulsion of 10,000 Jews from Sanaa, Yemen to the unlivable, hot and dry Plain of Tihama, from which only 1,000 returned alive, in 1680, 90% having died from exposure; recurring Muslim anti-Jewish violence—including pogroms and forced conversions—throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, which rendered areas of Iran (for example, Tabriz) Judenrein; the 1834 pogrom in Safed where raging Muslim mobs killed and grievously wounded hundreds of Jews; the 1888 massacres of Jews in Isfahan and Shiraz, Iran; the 1910 pogrom in Shiraz; the pillage and destruction of the Casablanca, Morocco ghetto in 1907; the pillage of the ghetto of Fez Morocco in 1912; the government sanctioned anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims in Turkish Eastern Thrace during June-July, 1934 which ethnically cleansed at least 3000 Jews; and the series of pogroms, expropriations, and finally mass expulsions of some 900,000 Jews from Arab Muslim nations, beginning in 1941 in Baghdad (the murderous “Farhud,” during which 600 Jews were murdered, and at least 12,000 pillaged)—eventually involving cities and towns in Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Syria, Aden, Bahrain, and culminating in 1967 in Tunisia—that accompanied the planning and creation of a Jewish state, Israel, on a portion of the Jews’ ancestral homeland.

At present, the continual, monotonous invocation by Al Azhar clerics of Antisemitic motifs from the Koran (and other foundational Muslim texts) is entirely consistent with the published writings, and statements of Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi—Grand Imam of this pre-eminent Islamic religious institution since 1996, until his recent death on March. Tantawi’s case illustrates the prevalence and depth of sacralized, “normative” Jew hatred in the contemporary Muslim world. Arguably Islam’s leading mainstream cleric, Grand Imam Sheikh Tantawi, embodies how the living legacy of Muslim anti-Jewish hatred, and violence remains firmly rooted in mainstream, orthodox Islamic teachings, not some aberrant vision of “radical Islam.”

Tantawi’s Ph.D. thesis [Banu Israil fi al-Quran wa-al-Sunnah] Jews in the Koran and the Traditions was published in 1968-69, and re-published in 1986. Two years after earning his Ph.D., Sheikh Tantawi began teaching at Al-Azhar. In 1980 he became the head of the Tafsir [Koranic Commentary] Department of the University of Medina, Saudi Arabia—a position he held until 1984. Sheikh Tantawi became Grand Mufti of Egypt in 1986, a position he was to hold for a decade, before serving as the Grand Imam of Al Azhar beginning in 1996, for the last 14 years of his life.

My book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism includes extensive first time English translations of Tantawi’s academic magnum opus. Tantawi wrote these words in his 700 page treatise, rationalizing Muslim Jew hatred:

[The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah [Koran 2:61 / 3:112], [and see Sheikh Saqr’s Koranic citations, above] corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word…[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims [Koran 3:113], the bad ones do not.

Tantawi was apparently rewarded for this scholarly effort by subsequently being named Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University. These were the expressed, “carefully researched” views on Jews held by the nearest Muslim equivalent to a Pope—a man who for 14 years headed the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam, which represents some 85 to 90% of the world’s Muslims. And Sheikh Tantawi never mollified such hatemongering beliefs after becoming the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar as his statements on “ dialogue “ (January 1998) with Jews, the Jews as “ enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs “ (April 2002), and the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews (April 2002), made clear.

Tantawi’s statements on dialogue, which were issued shortly after he met with the Israel’s Chief Rabbi, Israel Meir Lau, in Cairo, on December 15, 1997, provided him another opportunity to re-affirm his ongoing commitment to the views expressed about Jews in his Ph.D. thesis:

…anyone who avoids meeting with the enemies in order to counter their dubious claims and stick fingers into their eyes, is a coward. My stance stems from Allah’s book [the Koran], more than one-third of which deals with the Jews…[I] wrote a dissertation dealing with them [the Jews], all their false claims and their punishment by Allah. I still believe in everything written in that dissertation. [i.e., Jews in the Koran and the Traditions, cited above]

Unfortunately, Tantawi’s antisemitic formulations are well-grounded in classical, mainstream Islamic theology. However, understanding and acknowledging the Koranic origins of Islamic antisemitism is not a justification for the unreformed, unrepentant modern endorsement of these hateful motifs by Tantawi—with predictably murderous consequences. Within days of the Netanya homicide bombing massacre on a Passover seder night, March 27, 2002, for example, Sheikh Tantawi issued an abhorrent sanction (April 4, 2002) of so-called “martyrdom operations,” even when directed at Israeli civilians.

And during November, 2002 (“Tantawi: No Antisemitism” Associated Press 11/19/2002), consistent with his triumphant denial, Sheikh Tantawi made the following statement in response to criticism over the virulently antisemitic Egyptian television series (“Horseman Without a Horse”), based on the Czarist Russia forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”:

Suppose that the series has some criticism or shows some of the Jews’ traits, this doesn’t necessitate an uproar…The accusation of antisemitism was invented by the Jews as a means to pressure Arabs and Muslims to implement their schemes in the Arab and Muslim countries, so don’t pay attention to them

January 22, 2008, it was reported that Tantawi cancelled what would have been an historic visit to the Rome synagogue by the imam of Rome’s mosque (Ala Eldin Mohammed Ismail al-Ghobash). The putative excuse for this cancellation was Israel’s self-defensive stance—a blockade—in response to acts of jihad terrorism (rocket barrages; attempted armed incursions) emanating from Gaza. The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, commenting aptly about these events, observed that the cancellation proved, “…even so called Muslim moderates share the ideology of hate, violence and death towards the Jewish state.” Al Azhar, Corriere della Sera, further argued, which constituted a “Vatican of Sunni Islam,” had in effect issued “a kind of fatwah.” The paper concluded by noting that “What the Cairo statement really means is that Muslim dialogue with Jews in Italy is only possible once Israel has been eliminated.”

The intellectually honest assessment and understanding of Islamic antisemitism, and the anti-Jewish violence it begets must begin with an unapologetic analysis of the motifs of Jew hatred contained in the foundational texts of Islam (i.e., Koran, hadith, and sira), while identifying those, like Sheikh Tantawi, who, continue to preach and sanction this religious bigotry, regardless of their “stature.”

The Threat to Greece

Constantinople


A Greek-American historian who writes pseudonymously as “The American Patriot” contributes a guest essay on the historical relationship between Turkey and its Greek minority, culminating in the Istanbul Pogrom of 1955.



The threat to Greece: What happens if Turkey is allowed to join the European Union?

By The American Patriot

In 1071 A.D. the Byzantine army, along with its mercenaries, encountered the armed forces of the Seljuk Turkish Sultan Alps Arslen, and suffered a complete military defeat in the battle of Manzikert.

The Anatolian plateau is very similar to the Eurasian steppe where the nomadic Turkic tribes originated. Within only eighty years after 1071 the nomadic Turks immigrated en masse into Byzantine/Roman territory, leaving a path of destruction behind them. At one time Christians were in the majority in what is now Turkey, but today about 99% of the population is Muslim.

While most modern Turks would not resort to those same levels of brutality, the Turkish government has sponsored such violence towards its minorities in the name of nationalism.

Should Turkey be allowed to join the European Union? If Turkey joins the EU, then Muslim immigration into Greece and the rest of Europe, coupled with Europe’s declining birthrate, would greatly increase the Muslim proportion of the population. Eventually the Muslims might well outnumber the natives.

An historical example of the same process may be found in the Coptic Christians of Egypt. As recently as the Crusades Coptic Christians were the majority, and now they are a despised minority. Could this become the fate of the Greek people under the threat of Islamization? The Coptic Christians are the indigenous people of Egypt, and they were conquered by the armies of Islam in the 7th century AD. They were forced to submit to Islamic law (sharia), and many converted to Islam over time.

Under sharia, non-believer who refuses to submit is subject to enslavement or death. The Coptic Christians were by threat of violence forced to submit and pay a tax. By the same token, with the decline of their birth rate, the Greeks could one day be outnumbered by the Muslims and find themselves in the same environment the Coptic Christians experienced centuries before. With the Islamization of Greece, Muslims could quickly take over without firing a shot, needing only their sheer numbers. History will repeat itself, and the Muslims will force the unbelievers to submit to their new masters or face persecution.

Greeks around the world must wake up and, in the words of Michael Savage, fight for their borders, language, and culture. This is not a fate that only Greeks might face, but also the rest of Europe and North America. The Qur’an is clear about the place of the non-believer under Islamic law: “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.” (Qur’an 9:73, Pitckthall)

What they must fear

An historical example of Islamic intolerance, under the guise of nationalism, was the Turkish expulsion of Greeks in Istanbul and on the islands of Imbros and Tenedos in the 1950s. In the mid-1950s a bomb exploded inside the Turkish Consulate in Salonika, Greece. The consulate was located next to the birthplace of Turkey’s national hero Kemal Ataturk, and was a Mount Vernon for most Turks.

Istanbul Pogrom, 1955False rumors, fueled by the Turkish government, blared spurious reports that the birthplace of Ataturk had been destroyed in the blast. The Turkish government brought in thousands of Turks from Asia Minor and Thrace, who assisted in the destruction and mayhem towards the Christian Greek minority.

Turks, who can be very nationalistic, arrived in Istanbul in waves, destroying churches, killing Christians and raping Greek women. Only nine out of eighty Greek churches were left undesecrated; twenty-nine were demolished. The Turks viciously attacked the huge cemetery where the Patriarchs of Constantinople are buried, and tossed the bones onto the streets.
– – – – – – – –
Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, 1955It is believed that about 100,000 Turkish citizens participated in the murder of Greeks and the destruction of their property. Dr. Spero Vyronis, the world’s pre-eminent scholar of Ottoman and Byzantine history, depicts the events that took place on September 6th and 7th 1955 as an event that “destroyed the Greek community in Istanbul.” The material damage to the Greek Community was huge with: 1,000 homes were destroyed, 4000-4500 stores were looted and destroyed, thirty Greek males were murdered, and two hundred Greek women were raped.

The rampant murder and destruction was influenced as much by religion as it was by Turkish nationalism. Throughout most of Turkish history Christians and Jews were allowed the keep their faith, but only if they paid a so-called protection tax, and even then they were treated as second-class citizens. To the kuffar or unbelievers in Muslim lands such as Turkey, the so-called Islamic tolerance has been intolerable. The kuffar (Greeks) in Turkey no longer paid this protection tax, and this alone opened the door for their persecution by Muslim Turks. Besides the Greeks, among the vulnerable minorities were Jews and Armenians.

The intolerance of their tolerance

An example of the so-called tolerance is the status of the unbeliever, who is known as a dhimmi. This dhimmi status applies to the following groups; Christians, Jews, Sabians, and Zoastrians. According to Dr. Andrew Bostom, the author of The Legacy of Jihad, “communities of the people of the book (“book” meaning the Bible, thus referring primarily to Christians and Jews) might remain in the land, but they must be in subjection.”2 Dhimmi status is oppressive, and dhimmis are treated as second class citizens. They have been denied many of the rights taken for granted in the West, especially those enjoyed by women.

Non-Muslims are thus given the chance to convert to Islam. By modern Western standards, life for the kuffar under Islamic law affords no freedom at all. The Christian Greeks, under Islamic law, were set apart from the true followers of Allah by Muhammad and were forced to submit and pay the jizya, the so-called protection tax. The third choice the vanquished face was death.

In “Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State”, Samuel Shahid tells us that an Islamic state is based on ideology which intentionally discriminates based upon one’s religious beliefs. Based upon the writings of Pakistani scholar Mawdudi the basic differences between a Muslim and non Muslims are as follows:

  • People who reside in an Islamic culture are divided into Muslims who believe and non-Muslims who do not believe.
  • Non-Muslims cannot partake in any policy-making because that responsibility lies only on the shoulders of those who embrace Islamic ideology.
  • Islamic law distinguishes between believers and non-believers. Under Sharia law non-Muslims are given specific rights, but they are not allowed to meddle in affairs of state, unless they embrace Islam.

Under Islamic law, those who pay the protection tax are classified as subjects of Dar-us-Salam or the house of peace. Those who are not under Islamic dominance, or who refuse to pay the so-called protection tax are classified as Dar ul-Harb, the or house of war. This was the status of the Greeks during the 1955 riots, and for Islamic extremist this is the current status of the United States, until we submit to Islam. Modern Greece could potentially face this danger because it was once under Islamic domination.

Below is a summary of the legal code that defines a dhimmi according to Islamic jurist.

  • Non-Muslims are not allowed to build new houses of worship, but they are allowed to renovate an old church as long as they do not add any new construction. The building of any synagogues or churches in Saudi Arabia is not allowed because this is the land of the Prophet and only Islam is allowed to dominate there.
  • Dhimmis are denied freedom to pray or read religious books out loud in their homes or churches, because a Muslim might hear them and be offended.
  • Dhimmis are denied the freedom to install crosses on their churches or in private homes, since a cross could offend a Muslim.
  • Dhimmis are not allowed to serve in the military unless there is a real need for them, but they are denied leadership roles. When they are allowed to serve, they are considered mercenaries.

Unless the Greeks fight to block the entry and Turkey into the European Union, they might not only become a minority in their own land, but also come under the tutelage of their Muslim masters. In time they will face the same fate their ancestors faced after the Battle of Manzikert, over nine hundred years ago. It is not too late for Greeks and other Europeans to take a stand and stop the Islamization, but first they must wake up to this clear and present danger. This is not Islamophobia but Islamorealism!

Dr. Vryonis states:

“Although the pogrom of September 6-7, 1955, occurred half a century ago, its legacy is caught up, even today, in a larger web of regional and international interests. This web is, indeed, the key to understanding important parts of this ongoing history. The ‘success’ of the Turkish military behemoth during the last fifty years has, in fact, made the Turkish state a persistent violator, not only of the human and civil rights of its minorities, but also of those of its vast ethnic Turkish majority.”

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


I taught in Turkey, and while I believe most of the Muslims that I met in Istanbul would not go to this extreme, there are some who would. With the new Islamic party in control, history can repeat itself. The Turks I met while I was there were amongst the kindest and most giving people I have known, but this does not mean that the violence described above did not happen.

If Muslim immigration — by both legal and illegal means — increases, then the Greeks may once again find themselves as dhimmis, or refugees fleeing their own ancestral lands. Turkey must not be allowed to join the European Union!


    Notes:
 
1.   Bostom, Andrew. “Jihad Conquests and the Imposition of Dhimmitude — A Survey”, in The Legacy of Jihad, Prometheus Books, New York-2005 (Book source).
2.   Shahid, Samuel. Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State (http://answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm)
 
    Photographs:
 
1.   Constantinople: Agrino.
2.   Instanbul Pogrom 1955,Turkish mob attacking Greek property: Wikipedia.
3.   Instanbul Pogrom 1955, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople inside the ruins of the destroyed Orthodox church of Saint Constantine, Istanbul: Wikipedia.