Amillennialist

Fitzgerald on fun, and indispensable, learning

In Constantinople, Giles Milton, Hugh Fitzgerald, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Ottoman Empire, Slavery, The truth about Islam, Thomas Pellow on June 13, 2008 at 6:21 PM

The good news is, more and more of us know and continue to learn about the Religion of Gratuitous Decapitation.

Reflections on knowing Islam the way Allah and the prophet from hell define it, by Hugh Fitzgerald:

Up and down the coasts of Europe one can find ruins, the remnants of ancient watchtowers and fortifications. One is seldom provided with any explanation; when something is written very occasionally in a guidebook, there is mention of “invaders.” Who were these “invaders”? The history of Muslim raiders, up and down those European coasts, the pillaging and razing of villages and towns, the murders, the vandalism, the seizure and enslavement of, over time, at least a million people from Western Europe, with the raiders even getting as far as Ireland and, in one celebrated case, Iceland, is hardly known to the Western world.

Giles Milton’s book White Gold focuses on one Cornishman, Thomas Pellow, who was seized and brought back to Morocco in the mid-18th century. There the vast palace complex of Moulay Ismail, which Western tourists come to admire, was built on the sites of, and making use of the stone taken from, the prior non-Muslim structures. So many of the so-called “wonders of Muslim architecture” were built in this way, including the celebrated Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, which is on the site of, and makes use of, the St. John the Baptist Church that was previously on the same site. And who do you think built the Taj Mahal? Muslim soldiers, or enslaved Hindus?

When you begin, as many Infidels have, to study Islam, and then extend your study beyond the texts, and then add the behavior of Muslims today, and then go still further and begin to study the history of Islamic conquest, and the Islamic exaggerated claims to achievement, and the Islamic treatment of all non-Muslims subjugated by Muslims and Muslim rule, all sorts of the dark past become necessarily illuminated. How many of us, a few years ago, had any idea about when the Turks arrived in Byzantium, or why Constantinople fell, or when? Who knew about the Seljuk Turks, or the Ottomans? Who was aware of where Aramaic was spoken, or that the Maronites were a non-Arab people living in present-day Lebanon long before the Arab Muslims arrived? Who knew, even — why Tom Friedman has just in the last week or two discovered — that there are Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, and that the difference is not a minor one, and did not originate with the Americans clumsily undoing all that splendid harmony that naturally reigned in Iraq just a few pre-Saddam years ago? This is all nonsense, of course, but it is predictable nonsense.

It is wonderful, isn’t it, to begin to study the history of the Middle East, and the history of Byzantium, and the history of Europe, all because it now has an immediacy and a significance that we who were not history-haunted did not previously ascribe to it all. But now that we are menaced by those who are haunted not so much by history as their own crazed version of history, we are forced to study — and we are forced to be quick studies.

. . . studying that history is now essential. It is necessary to learn what taqiyya is, and what constitutes an acceptable isnad-chain, and the details of Muhammad’s life (as Muslims accept it). It is essential to find out that Muslims do not accept the principle of Pacta sunt servanda, but follow instead the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. All this is all the more essential seeing how even the most reasonable westernized semi-truth-telling Muslim will continue to skitter around the central question . . . .

Advertisements
  1. Hi there

    I know how it is to be angry and shocked at the ostrich posture many people take towards history, and towards causes. Has no one ever read the Koran, I ask myself, or the Sirat Rasul Allah? I remember the shocked outrage I felt when I discovered that Mohammed was not, after all, a peaceable fellow whose teachings had to be twisted to justify killing people who disagreed with him, that those who had said otherwise were not, after all, ignorant of history inventing and distorting facts out of sheer bigotry; instead I discovered that I had been an ignorant bigot who out of a sense of benevolence and fairplay had been overly complacent and negligent in checking the facts.

    The question becomes: what job falls to us as followers of Christ?

    Take care & God bless
    Anne / WF

  2. Hi there

    I know how it is to be angry and shocked at the ostrich posture many people take towards history, and towards causes. Has no one ever read the Koran, I ask myself, or the Sirat Rasul Allah? I remember the shocked outrage I felt when I discovered that Mohammed was not, after all, a peaceable fellow whose teachings had to be twisted to justify killing people who disagreed with him, that those who had said otherwise were not, after all, ignorant of history inventing and distorting facts out of sheer bigotry; instead I discovered that I had been an ignorant bigot who out of a sense of benevolence and fairplay had been overly complacent and negligent in checking the facts.

    The question becomes: what job falls to us as followers of Christ?

    Take care & God bless
    Anne / WF

  3. We must warn others, which will also give us an opportunity to highlight the goodness of Christ.

  4. We must warn others, which will also give us an opportunity to highlight the goodness of Christ.

  5. I definitely agree with the need to warn others. But I also think evangelizing the Muslim world is the only option that does not end in dhimmitude.

    Are you a Lord of the Rings fan at all? Tolkien served in WWI, which had a significant Muslim involvement that has largely not made the history books, at least not the ones in our public schools. I’m trying to make a complicated point in a quick way here, by showing how Tolkien saw it: Gondor faught Mordor and became a little too much like Mordor, & besides Gondor could not use Mordor’s best weapon without replacing them and itself becoming the New Mordor. (Consider what happened when Spain, after yea-many centuries of Muslim occupation, broke free of jihadist occupation: they tried to use the same game and went on a jihadist rampage against the infidels that is still a shame on the Christian world’s record some 5 centuries later.) The more evil side will always have the edge in conventional warfare, and the more dishonest side will always have the edge in propaganda. So back to the Tolkien analogy: where Gondor could not beat Mordor, the Shire could — not by beating them at their own game (remember, that game goes to the more evil and more dishonest); but by an entirely different game.

    Which is a circuitous way of saying: unless we show the Muslim world Christ, nothing changes.

    Take care & God bless
    Anne / WF

  6. I definitely agree with the need to warn others. But I also think evangelizing the Muslim world is the only option that does not end in dhimmitude.

    Are you a Lord of the Rings fan at all? Tolkien served in WWI, which had a significant Muslim involvement that has largely not made the history books, at least not the ones in our public schools. I’m trying to make a complicated point in a quick way here, by showing how Tolkien saw it: Gondor faught Mordor and became a little too much like Mordor, & besides Gondor could not use Mordor’s best weapon without replacing them and itself becoming the New Mordor. (Consider what happened when Spain, after yea-many centuries of Muslim occupation, broke free of jihadist occupation: they tried to use the same game and went on a jihadist rampage against the infidels that is still a shame on the Christian world’s record some 5 centuries later.) The more evil side will always have the edge in conventional warfare, and the more dishonest side will always have the edge in propaganda. So back to the Tolkien analogy: where Gondor could not beat Mordor, the Shire could — not by beating them at their own game (remember, that game goes to the more evil and more dishonest); but by an entirely different game.

    Which is a circuitous way of saying: unless we show the Muslim world Christ, nothing changes.

    Take care & God bless
    Anne / WF

  7. A number of elements of the story cause me to wonder whether or not Tolkien had in mind Islam when creating The Lord of the Rings.

    For example, the warning that the “black speech of Mordor” may yet be heard throughout the West fits well our current situation. It reflects also the fate of Christian and other non-Muslim lands before us which fell to Allah’s hordes.

    Tolkien did write that The Lord of the Rings was not an allegory of WWII but was fiction, so I don’t know that he would have been representing any other specific conflict. Perhaps it is just his skill as a writer and Islam’s being the ne plus ultra of genocidal tyranny that we naturally make the connection.

    Your points about war and the spiritual peril Christians face in waging it are valid.

    I’ve never heard anyone else suggest that Islam warped Christian Spain.

    It’s just like Nathaniel’s argument to the great Sachem in The Last of the Mohicans: Magua’s heart is twisted. He would make himself into what twisted it.

    If you add to the terrible humiliation and barbarism endured at the hands of Islam a lack of access to the Scriptures, you’re going to get bad theology. Perhaps it is a wonder that Spain and other Christian peoples who endured centuries of Islamic depredations weren’t more perverse.

    I don’t think it is possible to evangelize Islam except from a position of dhimmitude, unless the West were to use its superior might to suppress Islam’s public expression as Ataturk did in Turkey (which is now unraveling) or as the Allies did with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany after WWII.

    If we do not defend ourselves effectively, we will suffer the same fate as those Christians before us who were unwilling or unable to resist Islam.

    Peace,

    Amillennialist

  8. A number of elements of the story cause me to wonder whether or not Tolkien had in mind Islam when creating The Lord of the Rings.

    For example, the warning that the “black speech of Mordor” may yet be heard throughout the West fits well our current situation. It reflects also the fate of Christian and other non-Muslim lands before us which fell to Allah’s hordes.

    Tolkien did write that The Lord of the Rings was not an allegory of WWII but was fiction, so I don’t know that he would have been representing any other specific conflict. Perhaps it is just his skill as a writer and Islam’s being the ne plus ultra of genocidal tyranny that we naturally make the connection.

    Your points about war and the spiritual peril Christians face in waging it are valid.

    I’ve never heard anyone else suggest that Islam warped Christian Spain.

    It’s just like Nathaniel’s argument to the great Sachem in The Last of the Mohicans: Magua’s heart is twisted. He would make himself into what twisted it.

    If you add to the terrible humiliation and barbarism endured at the hands of Islam a lack of access to the Scriptures, you’re going to get bad theology. Perhaps it is a wonder that Spain and other Christian peoples who endured centuries of Islamic depredations weren’t more perverse.

    I don’t think it is possible to evangelize Islam except from a position of dhimmitude, unless the West were to use its superior might to suppress Islam’s public expression as Ataturk did in Turkey (which is now unraveling) or as the Allies did with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany after WWII.

    If we do not defend ourselves effectively, we will suffer the same fate as those Christians before us who were unwilling or unable to resist Islam.

    Peace,

    Amillennialist

  9. I’m curious, why do you think it’s not possible to evangelize Islam except from a position of dhimmitude? Granted, the other position is the martyr position — but historically it’s been more effective. Look at Rome … And the cultures that decided dhimmitude was the was to evangelize actually ended up proving they loved their lives too much to evangelize; it’s why they settled for dhimmitude in the first place.

    I guess it’s which direction we will spill our blood: if we are proactive we’ll likely be martyrs. If we’re not proactive we’ll likely end up with the Hobson’s choice between dhimmitude and war.

    Take care & God bless
    Anne / WF

    Take care & God bless
    Anne / WF

  10. I’m curious, why do you think it’s not possible to evangelize Islam except from a position of dhimmitude? Granted, the other position is the martyr position — but historically it’s been more effective. Look at Rome … And the cultures that decided dhimmitude was the was to evangelize actually ended up proving they loved their lives too much to evangelize; it’s why they settled for dhimmitude in the first place.

    I guess it’s which direction we will spill our blood: if we are proactive we’ll likely be martyrs. If we’re not proactive we’ll likely end up with the Hobson’s choice between dhimmitude and war.

    Take care & God bless
    Anne / WF

    Take care & God bless
    Anne / WF

  11. The reason that evangelism can only be carried out under dhimma (barring military suppression of Islam) is that Islam kills the competition.

    If former Christians were faced with the choices Mohammed required for non-Muslims: invitation to Islam, dhimmitude, or war, then those who chose dhimmitude rejected conversion to Islam, which is itself a courageous and faithful act. They also rejected war for whatever reason.

    Was dhimmitude an option under Caesar?

    If the civil government does its job, we can war and win without much cost; if it continues actively or passively aiding jihad, then we’ll be faced with the choice lamented by Churchill: Resisting when there is no hope of victory because it is better to perish than live as slaves.

    (By the way, I meant earlier that I had never heard anyone else besides me speculate about Islam’s disfiguring influence on Spain and other lands it terrorized.)

    Regards,

    Amillennialist

    Originally posted June 17th

  12. The reason that evangelism can only be carried out under dhimma (barring military suppression of Islam) is that Islam kills the competition.

    If former Christians were faced with the choices Mohammed required for non-Muslims: invitation to Islam, dhimmitude, or war, then those who chose dhimmitude rejected conversion to Islam, which is itself a courageous and faithful act. They also rejected war for whatever reason.

    Was dhimmitude an option under Caesar?

    If the civil government does its job, we can war and win without much cost; if it continues actively or passively aiding jihad, then we’ll be faced with the choice lamented by Churchill: Resisting when there is no hope of victory because it is better to perish than live as slaves.

    (By the way, I meant earlier that I had never heard anyone else besides me speculate about Islam’s disfiguring influence on Spain and other lands it terrorized.)

    Regards,

    Amillennialist

    Originally posted June 17th

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: