Jill Carroll was freed today in Baghdad! She’s reported to be in good shape. Fabulous news!
Now let’s all work for the reease of everyone else illegally deprived of their liberty in the sad, sad country that Iraq has become.
83 thoughts on “Jill, freed!”
Comments are closed.
Viva Jill Carroll, Viva!
Kudos to Jill, and to you, too, Helena.
Kudos to Jill, and to you, too, Helena.
Huh? Helena never risked reporting from Iraq.
Good for her!
Isn’t strange for here when she interview that she wearing not as western woman, despite she said she was treated very humanly and good we expected here dress should be kept for here.
One thing about Jill Carroll that she went to Jordan 6 months prior to invasion of Iraq to learn Arabic!!! And CSM and most of the US papers kept silent about what’s really she doing in clams for here safety!
Also there is a believe that here captures are Sha’at group also same for CPT group rather than Sunni this is bring a questions what the Zalimy discussions with Iranians involved?
The other interesting question she said she fed good she get showered and she get cloths…., all we know the water and Power in Iraq is so miserable that the normal Iraqis or most of them suffer severely from power cut and drinking water cuts and supply also cocking Gas, Gasoline and petrol!!! So she never had that, is she were in “Green Zone” where the US got swimming poles, enjoying all the flashy life in Saddam Castles?
Yes Salah, and maybe she had a Jewish grandmother!
Jonathan,
I know this is off topic, but just wanted to let you know that the High Court of Justice finally ruled yesterday that it is no legal to bind a foreign worker to an employer and violate the right of freedom of employment.
JES,
So childish response from some one bathetic
Exactly, bathos.
The descent from the sublime to the vulgar.
JES and Davis, wash your mouths out.
So Dominic, you agree with Salah’s consbiracy theory re. Jill Carrol , and I’m the one who’s bathetic?
High Court of Justice finally ruled yesterday that it is no legal to bind a foreign worker to an employer
Thanks, I wrote something about that yesterday at my place.
Dominic, that wasn’t polite.
Considering her translator was killed and the criminals were not caught nor identified your threshold for celebration seems pretty low.
From his interview I read nothing from what’s he clams, and I never see any of all of these CPT members what really they need to achieve from their mission.
Only thing I can see is Tim Fox Blog and nice talking what’s he tried to do I can’t find its worth rescue their lives for.
We are 20millons Iraqis (or 26mill Iraqi as some like to right) all we talking and we saying the war horrible and we are under human made disaster our country destroyed our state destroyed our familles killed the criminals from inside and outside free playing their games freely.
Is this not enough or hard for you to understand, this the reality its not fake?
Do you need four or one reporter to let you believe there is human disaster there or what?
Its unlawful war there are crimes done every day there under the name of freedom and democracy open your eyes your minds enough its enough
http://www.natashatynes.com./
Full details and update about Jill Carroll release
Donald,
Considering her translator was killed.
Jill Carroll worked at The Jordan Times for one year and she certainly … She was learning Arabic, liked the food, and moved about with minimal protection.
This seems to be a pretty silly argument. A reporter was taken captive but, for whatever reason, released. We should rejoice for her at her release. That is the be all and end all of the matter.
[An aside to Salah: I also thought it somewhat strange that Ms. Carroll did a post-captivity interview wearing non-Western clothing. My gut reaction is: When in Rome, do like the Romans. Which is to say, it was strange but not entirely unreasonable.]
Neal
[An aside to Salah: I also thought it somewhat strange that Ms. Carroll did a post-captivity interview wearing non-Western clothing. My gut reaction is: When in Rome, do like the Romans. Which is to say, it was strange but not entirely unreasonable.]
I think you did not got my point, and I think your familiarity about Iraq ZERO, if you know Iraq and Iraqis well you should know and noticed that the Iraqi society its open and the women dressed whatever they like, the main them is more western style than whatever style Jill ware. Opposites what you see in the Arabia Saudi and other Gulf courtiers as presume most of you worked/Visit them.
In regards to “When in Rome, do like the Romans. Which is to say” don’t tell me, tell yourself and your ancient invaders when Miss Bill was in Iraq early 1900 she was wearing and travelling with western styles dress when the Iraqi women dressed in Black, and most of the invaders at that time in other Arab courtiers performing their life style which looking very odd at that time with culture of the land they invaded.
Go and do you home work before stating some thing you don’t know or you don’t experienced.
It’s obvious this part of propaganda she/Median need to promotes this.
I regard of “We should rejoice for her at her release. That is the be all and end all of the matter.” I think this not such thing make us joyful when there are 20Millions Iraqi kept hostages and Kidnapped by Occupation forces on their land not on other land.
When they feel freed that the joyful thing that makes us celebrated, Isn’t Neal?
Salah,
Really, sometimes your comments don’t make sense to me. Are you living in Iraq now? If so, what part?
I was living in the Karrada district during October and November of last year, and I visited many homes in many different neighborhoods in Baghdad, Abu Ghraib and the Agricultural College, Yarmouk, Adel, Ghazaliyah, Mansur, Adhamiyah, the area around the Mustansariyah College, Baladiyat Refugee Camp, etc.
Many of these places do in fact have running water. Also, as has been clarified in many mainstream press sources, Jill Carroll was interviewed in the headscarf on Baghdad Television, almost immediately after she was freed, clearly this is the reason she is still in the arabic dress.
Also, what are you trying to say about the CPT, that they shouldn’t be there, that they are not doing good work there? I know the CPT members and I have been to Baghdad just a few months back, as I said, and they are good people doing good work, they are risking their lives to help the Palestinian refugees living in Baghdad and before that assisting those IRaqis who have been detained and tortured by the Americans.
These people, Jill included, are all doing good work to bring the stories of the Iraqi people to the outside world.
Brian,
Don’t put your word in my mouth I did not said they are bad people.
I do not have time now; I will come back to your comment when time let me
The chickenhawks are down to their last defense of the war – good intentions.
Condi says: “Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them,” but “I believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision.”
Imagine hearing this from your heart surgeon: “I made thousands of errors during your operation, but I strongly believe the transplant was the right medical decision.”
How many seconds would you wait before calling an attorney?
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-31T144608Z_01_L30705478_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRITAIN-USA-RICE.xml
JES
You need a good man behind you.
salah,
You read more into my comment than was there. In fact, modesty in dress has come to play a greater role now in Iraq than in the recent past. That was as much as I meant.
Well, you seem to think that I favored an invasion of Iraq. I did not. My theory of your region is inconsistent with the theory of those who supported the invasion. While it is certainly good that Saddam is gone, the notion of humanitarian intervention has, with respect to your part of the world, been a history of one mistake after the next. And, frankly, the US was not the first to intervene in the Muslim regions for humanitarian purposes and was not the first to be met with the bewildering discovery that what we think is desireable is not thought by Muslims to be desireable.
“While it is certainly good that Saddam is gone, the notion of humanitarian intervention has, with respect to your part of the world, been a history of one mistake after the next”
There never was a “notion of humanitarian intervention”; that notion belongs to the realm of propaganda, like the notion that the Americans are in Iraq and elsewhere to ‘spread freedom and democracy’. The same is true for a word like ‘mistake’, a word that suggests that though the intentions of Bush and Rumsfeld were noble enough, the execution of their project was somewhat faulty. In reality it’s not “a history of one mistake after the next”, but a history of one crime after the next. Bush and Rumsfeld are no humanitarians, but criminals.
menno hert,
With due respect, “humanitarian intervention” was the name of the policy adopted by Europe’s powers during the 19th Century with respect to helping the oppressed non-Christians who lived in the Muslim regions under Ottoman rule. The policy was both one of sincerity and opportunism – in part imperialism – at the same time.
Consider: in the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire ruled very, very large numbers of Christians whose wellbeing, in fact, was of sincere concern to much of Europe. At the same time, governments mixed both humanitarian interest – real interest although the amount of sincerity varied from government to government – with a desire to carve up, without totally destroying the Ottoman Empire.
There, in fact, was rather real reason why Europeans might be concerned for their fellow Christians. Under Ottoman rule – in which Shari’a was the law -, Muslims played the role, politically and socially speaking, of overlord to non-Muslims. Such was a matter of religious law and conviction which had (and still has) deep roots in Islamic theology.
As the Ottoman Empire was slowly disintegrating, the interest of the captured non-Muslim nations (e.g. non-Muslims in the Balkans and in Armenia) for freedom or equality became more and more vocal – in part spurred on by their own oppression but also due to Europeans making known European principles of equality. The Europeans, in particular, pushed the Tanzimet reforms which were vehemently resisted by much of the Ottoman Empire. [Note: The reforms would have allowed non-Muslims to serve in the military, would have required courts to accept the testimony of a non-Muslim against a Muslim, would have allowed non-Muslims to dress similar to how Muslims dress and no longer to have to move to the side of the road when a Muslim appeared, etc., etc.] The reforms were bitterly resisted because they were contradicted by Islamic theology and holy law, not to mention the orthodox understanding of Islam by average Muslims and because they meant an end to social and political privileges.
Now, another outgrowth of the reforms was resistance by Muslims – ordinary Muslims – and such people, particularly in greater Syria, took revenge, for exampl,e upon the Maronites, killing upwards of 35,000 to 40,000 Maronites in terrible massacres which were only stopped when France intervened as protector of the Maronite Christiandom. Similarly, revenge was taken out against the Armenians in a terrible orgy of massacres between 1894 and 1896 (and this is not to be confused with the genocide during WWI).
Roughly 250,000 Armenians were killed in those years, in this case at the direct instigation of the Sultan/Khalif, Abdul Hamet, who, through his minions, employed unspeakable horrors, often by means of firing up Muslim congregants during Friday prayers, the congregants then running rampages through Armenian towns, killing people to cries of Allahu Akbar and the like.
Such was the fruit, at least in part, of humanitarian intervention as the policy was perceived to be an attack on Islam itself. But, it was also the work of religious government – a theocracy – at its very worst, using religion to maintain privileges by any and all means including attempted genocide.
Today, as back then, the real issue is the effort by Muslims to restore the very privileges – i.e. privileges over non-Muslims – lost to history. That, in considerable part, is what the demand for Shari’a law is about. And that, in part, is what the Jihad against the West is about.
And the reaction to the restoration of Shari’a and traditional Islamic orthodoxy in the Muslim regions (as well as the return of Jihad as a force to be counted) are perceived by Westerners with horror – witness how Shari’a actually treats an individual hoping to switch religions and witness the return of the Jihad ideology and violence which it entails as a world historical movement to restore the dominant position of Muslims -. The reaction is the same foolish policy by the West of humanitarian intervention. We never learn.
-“With due respect, “humanitarian intervention” was the name of the policy adopted by Europe’s powers during the 19th Century with respect to helping the oppressed non-Christians who lived in the Muslim regions under Ottoman rule.”
Humanitarian intervention might have been the name of the policy, but a name is just that: a name. After all, policies have to be sold to the public, like automobiles. The policies of the European powers were not inspired by the wish to help “the oppressed non-Christians who lived in the Muslim regions under Ottoman rule”, but by the wish to help themselves.
-“Today, as back then, the real issue is the effort by Muslims to restore the very privileges – i.e. privileges over non-Muslims – lost to history. That, in considerable part, is what the demand for Shari’a law is about. And that, in part, is what the Jihad against the West is about.”
You confuse the modern world with the world of the Crusades, with the roles of the two antagonists reversed; the Muslims in this worldview play the role of the barbaric crusaders, the West that of the enlightened civilisation under attack. I don’t see any connection with the world as it is.
Humanitarian intervention might have been the name of the policy, but a name is just that: a name. After all, policies have to be sold to the public, like automobiles. The policies of the European powers were not inspired by the wish to help “the oppressed non-Christians who lived in the Muslim regions under Ottoman rule”, but by the wish to help themselves.
But then, again, how do you separate these two. There is no doubt that both elements were at play, and I think that Neal very explicitly states this. This is just as true with the jihadis today, who also need to “sell” their agenda to the public.
This does not, however, change that fact that what the jihadi spinmeisters are trying to push is essentially reactionary, with the goal of achieving supremacy for Islam and sugjugating those who do not accept Islam. They spell this out very clearly in documents such as the Hamas Convenant.
You confuse the modern world with the world of the Crusades, with the roles of the two antagonists reversed; the Muslims in this worldview play the role of the barbaric crusaders, the West that of the enlightened civilisation under attack.
I don’t think that it is Neal or, indeed the West, that is trying to replay the Crusades. It is the fanatical Muslims who, despite the fact that they won the Crusades ultimately lost their empire. This attempt to go back and recover the victory (that which makes today’s jihadi movements essentially reactionary) is deeply ingrained in traditional Muslim historiography, as set out by Abdallah Laroui over 30 years ago.
Condi says
I hate the big decisions
That cause endless revisions
in my mind
(paraphrasing The Velvet Underground – “Candy Says”)
menno hert
You write: “The policies of the European powers were not inspired by the wish to help ‘the oppressed non-Christians who lived in the Muslim regions under Ottoman rule’, but by the wish to help themselves.”
I am not sure you read my point all that carefully. I said that the sincerity of the policy varied from government to government in Europe and, in any event, was not the only element of the policy – which also included an effort to carve up, while, at the same time, preserving, the Ottoman Empire.
Do not, however, underestimate the role for Europeans of supporting suffering Christians who lived rather dreadful lives under Islamic rule. As the facts spread through Europe about how dreadfully Christians lived under Islamic rule, public interest in intervening for their benefit increased – as did pressure by people on their governments in order to force them to intervene-.
There was, however, at the same time substantial propaganda, particularly from Germany, about the alleged great tolerance of Islamic rule – something which nominally existed but which, in reality, was not all that tolerant and, for non-Muslims, was downright unpleasant -. German policy was prepared to ignore, as a matter of real politik, the horror of Ottoman rule as supporting the Ottoman Empire (while publicly siding with the other European powers and, at the same time, secretly supporting the Sultan) was thought very useful.
Hence, the propaganda mill in Germany had to work overtime explaining away seemingly endless numbers of massacres against peoples all over the Ottoman Empire, from the beginning to the end of the 19th Century. We have the very same thing today with every outrage coming from that part of the world blamed on the US or Israel or Imperialism when, in fact, quite of bit of is just plain homegrown (e.g. killing people for apostasy, stoning people to death, amputating hands and killing non-Muslims merely for being infidels – all of which has occurred continuously since the time the Muslims first became a force in world history).
Also consider, the assumption of your comments is that humanitarian intervention was always a bad thing for those affected. Frankly, for the non-Muslims of the Empire, it was a decidedly good thing – a form of liberation for them – as the Europeans enforced their notions of equality for Christians and, also, Jews, allowing these non-Muslims to play a far more equal role in society than the Muslims would, in view of their then (and now) theological inclinations, ever have permitted. And, frankly, the Muslim populations hated all of this, believing equality to be against Allah’s law. But, Christians and Jews benefitted substantially.
So, this is not to say that imperialism was a good thing. It is to say that good can come out of a thing which is not entirely so good or even meant – if we follow your one dimensional logic – to be so good. And so can bad things come out of refraining to intervene – as was the fate of the Armenians from 1894 – 1896 when the European powers sat back and watched horrors on a grand scale by the Ottoman Turks, the Kurds and other Muslim people against the Armenians. In that case, humanitarian intervention might have been a rather good thing but it ran into political reality due, in large part, to Germany and Russia.
As for the propaganda, today’s time is as propaganda filled as before. However, the push of the propaganda comes largely from people who claim great tolerance from Islamic society in order to advance business interests – i.e. OIL as well as lucrative contracts in the Arab regions -. Largely because of oil interests, the genocide in Sudan from 1983 to 2000 went essentially unreported – 2 million non-Muslims (i.e. Christians and animists) butchered by the Jihadists, with substantial support from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with the reintroduction of slavery (i.e. people sold at auction) within Sudan and from Sudan into the Gulf states. Moreover, people were forced to convert to Islam by means of depriving them of food. Children were taken from their parents and forced converted to Islam as well. And, all of this on a rather grand scale, out in the open, proclaimed by Fatwa so that the killings and slavery and forced conversions all occurred by people acting with a seemingly good conscience – no sleep lost -.
Now, I think that, over all, the policy of humanitarian intervention is a mistake. However, I am not doctrinaire about it. But, I certainly understand the impulse, given the moral disaster which is modern Muslim Arab rule.
Neal, I agree that there have been numerous crimes committed by Muslims –I was familiar with the fact, for instance, that there was a mass slaughter of Armenians back in the 1890’s as well as the genocide that happened in WWI, but I think the problem with your remarks is that they are one-sided. You pay lip service to the notion that imperialism wasn’t necessarily a good thing, but you list the crimes of the Muslims and say nothing specific about the crimes of imperialists in the same period and whether you intend this or not, it comes off as propagandistic. The same would hold true, of course, if some anti-imperialist summarized the same period of time by mentioning the atrocities committed by European imperialists and said nothing about non-Western brutality.
Your last paragraph suggests that you mean to be one-sided. Yes, the Muslim world is brutal. On a smaller geographical scale, Israel has been brutal. American foreign policy is often extremely brutal. So why limit one’s sympathy for “humanitarian” intervention to the cases where Muslims are the villains?
“While it is certainly good that Saddam is gone…”
It is only good if he is replaced by something better. Given the horrors the Americans have replaced him with, I would say it is not good at all.
“…the notion of humanitarian intervention has, with respect to your part of the world, been a history of one mistake after the next.”
Pardon me for not being more diplomatic, but come on! Only the most hopelessly childishly naive person can possibly believe that any “intervention” in the Middle East has ever been motivated to any degree whatsoever by humanitarian concerns.
“…the US was not the first to intervene in the Muslim regions for humanitarian purposes…”
Now this intelligence-insulting statement just plain makes me angry. Leave aside the completely anti-humanitarian nature, manner, and effect of it (shock and awe, thousands of bombs and missiles dropped on just one city over a matter of days, virtual complete destruction of entire neighborhoods, towns, and cities, collective punishment, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, death, maiming, massive destruction of infrastructure, depleted uranium, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, hostage taking, etc. are done for humanitarian purposes?!) If you actually believe that there was anything at all humanitarian about what you euphemistically call “intervention” in Iraq, then I have a lovely ocean front villa in Baghdad that I know you will love to buy. If you are not fool enough to pay big bucks for my Baghdad ocean front villa, then you are a shameless propagandist, and ought to slink out of here quietly and rapidly with your head lowered.
“and was not the first to be met with the bewildering discovery that what we think is desireable is not thought by Muslims to be desireable.”
Oh God! And now we get the well-known “Muslims are a bewilderingly different kind of human being than us with completely different and very strange customs, desires, wants, and needs from the rest of humanity” clash of cultures bull****. Please! This is not a Muslims vs the rest of humanity thing. This is a universal human thing in which human beings do not like having their countries invaded and bombed to smithereens by arrogant foreigners who bring nothing but death, destruction, misery, chaos, and false promises. No American, no Christian, no human being would accept for one moment what Iraqis have been expected to greet with gratitude, yet even you, who claim to be opposed to the invasion of Iraq, think it is just a Muslim peculiarity? Give me a break!
Shirin,
No offense but you have no idea what you are talking about. The creation of equality for non-Muslims in places like Egypt was a great accomplishment for the policy of humanitarian intervention. So was the protection of the Maronites from a terrible Jihad aganst them during the mid-19th Century. Not to recognize how terrible the situation was for non-Muslims of the time under Muslim rule is, to me, plain ignorant.
As for motivations for intervention, the record is replete with the reasons – noted in diplomatic records and government records – and you are simply incorrect. There were a mixture of motives, exactly as I said.
If you would like to read a rather detailed account of the diplomacy of the time, read Vahakn Dadrian’s stellar book History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus. What he shows is different than what you believe to be the case. Humanitarian Intervention was not simply a method for imperial activity although that was part of it.
Donald Johnson,
I was not excusing the Europeans. They have much to answer for, perhaps more so (or not) than the Muslims. I was, instead, making sure that it is understood that the simplistic theory that all can be blamed on Imperialism is propaganda, which it is.
The reality was ever more complicated and awful on the Muslim side, with peoples seeking their independence from and/or equality in order to end terrible oppression and receiving support from Europeans, which they did for a variety of reasons, including but not only imperialism.
Neil, has no one told you that you should update your ideology? Orientalism is so 19th century. It is not only out of date, it is based on racism and bigotry, neither of which is considered acceptable in the 21st century.
Shirin,
This is my field of expertise. I shall take the view which, in my view, fits the events. No serious scholar doubts that Muslim rule was a disaster for non-Muslims during the 19th Century and that the Europeans had mixed motives.
Shirin,
Quote me something I said which is racist. Otherwise, withdraw the libel.
Neal,
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“Do not, however, underestimate the role for Europeans of supporting suffering Christians who lived rather dreadful lives under Islamic rule.”
Before complaining about Ottoman treatment of Christian communities (and later on about the Christians in Sudan), you should have noted that at least Islam allowed these communities to survive. In pre-modern Christian Europe, conquered Muslim communities were forced to convert or emigrate, and a complete ethnic cleansing took place. The cases are Spain and Sicily. If Islamic states had behaved in the same way as the Spanish and the Italians, there would have been no Christian communities to discuss today.
Islamic law tolerates the existence of non-Muslim communities, though not the conversion of Muslims to another religion (e.g. the Christian convert in Afghanistan). In practice, tolerance depended on popular feeling, but the kind of complete extermination practised in Europe was not legally possible, and did not take place.
Sorry if this is a little far from the subject of the post, but I am not happy to let pass such remarks. Islam would in fact be in a better position today, if they had been intolerant in the past, and simply eliminated non-Muslim communities.
Shirin,
The inability to engage in debate pretty much always includes slurring the character of the other party. Clearly, you found nothing racist in what I said as there was no such thing.
What you prefer, evidently, is to attack without evidence.
Alastair,
Not so simple. Islamic law is nominally tolerant but, in fact, whole peoples were wiped out. There is some tolerance for Christianity yet, the very home of Christianity has almost no Christians. The same for modern day Turkey – by agreement in this case but after terrible massacres – and North Africa and Iran and Iraq, etc., etc. That near extinction bears examination as it is not supported by your theory.
The reality was nominal tolerance but, in practice, terrible pressure to convert in order to escape oppression. At other times, there was no even nominal tolerance.
asdasd
Neal, if this is your field of ‘expertise’, that doesn’t say much for your general intellectual level, I’m afraid. For example, what 19th-century ‘jihad’ against the Maronites are you referring to? There was a vicious conflict between Maronites and Druze in Lebanon, certainly… But it had no recognizable characteristics of a ‘jihad’, and many more of the characteristics of a Maronite peasant/ petit bouregois uprising against Druze overlords. (This is just one of numerous points where I’d take issue with your command of history… )
Neal, you write:
“the very home of Christianity has almost no Christians.” (because of Muslim intolerance)
How off-base can you be; the reason Christian Palestinians are vanishing is because of Israel. Just ask them! Are you now speaking for Christian Palestinians? Incidently many indigenous Christians were wiped out by crusaders during the crusades.
You also write:
“This is my field of expertise.”
Is this true? Are you a Middle East expert?
edq,
That is not what Christians from the region are saying. Christians are vanishing all over the Arab regions, by the millions in what amounts to as massive a flight as was the Jewish flight from the USSR.
Helena,
Not so. There was a terrible massacre against the Maronites in an effort to prevent the implimentation of the Tanzimet reforms. The battle cry was, as in many other Jihads, Allahu Akbar.
Christians, Jews and Muslims:
How would you behave if there were no God, no heaven, no hell, no life but this one, and no judgement but that of the other people your actions have affected?
A. I’d behave the same as I do now.
B. I’d quit trying to be good and just look out for myself.
C. I’d give more thought to how my actions affect others.
D. I can’t even imagine that.
E. [your answer here]
It is, of course, a fallacy – and a dangerous one at that – to insist that crimes and atrocities associated with essentially political conflicts are “Muslim” crimes, or “Christian” crimes or (fillintheblank) crimes. It is, however, a very convenient device for those who wish to demonize Muslims or Christians or (fillinthe blank).
Neal,
Those who claim expertise without having it are better off saying less rather than more about the subject they claim to have expertise on.
The use of Allahu akbar as a battle cry does not a “Jihad” make any more than using expressions like bismillah, al hamdulillah, or inshallah makes a person a Muslim.
Neal, please! Spare me your righteous indignation. You reveal with absolute clarity your orientalist views with nearly every word you write. Orientalism is an outmoded, 19th century way of viewing the “East” and its people. It depends on a belief that the Arab/Muslim/fillintheblank does not share common human traits with the superior westerner, the “great white father” who has the right – no, the humanitarian responsibility – to to cvilize by any means necessary the inferior Arab/Muslim/fillintheblank. It is based on a racist, bigotted, colonialist view of the “primitive, exotic, Eastern other”. If you consider pointing out these facts to be “slurring your character”, then perhaps you should, as I suggested, reconsider your orientalist ideology, and come into the 21st century.
Neal –
My opinion is not a theory. “whole peoples were wiped out”. Which?
There was certainly a degradation of non-Muslim communities over the centuries. There are all sorts of reasons why this happened. Genuine conversion. Financial advantages in being Muslim over being Christian. Social pressure.
The only famous case of forced conversion was the case of the pagan Nuristanis in Afghanistan in 1895, where each man had his head put through a hole in a rock, and he was asked to convert or chop.
That this type of practice was rare, is shown by the continued existence of the Copts in Egypt, the Christian Palestinians, the Chaldaeans, the Assyrian Christians, the Maronites and other Christians of Lebanon, the Syrian Christians, even the Zoroastrians of Iran, though I admit they are few after the events of the Safavid period in the 17th century. As for Anatolia, considerable Christian communities survived until the time of Ataturk in the 1920s. If you remember, the Greeks invaded Anatolia, without justification, and nearly took Ankara. It is not suprising that, under threat, a certain degree of ethnic cleansing took place.
Wow, a lot of activity here since I wrote and took my time posting this:
I agree Donald. Neal’s remarks are rather obviously quite very biased. For example:
“killing people for apostasy, stoning people to death, amputating hands and killing non-Muslims merely for being infidels – all of which has occurred continuously since the time the Muslims first became a force in world history”
seems to imply that these are Muslim inventions. Of course they aren’t. Nobody reading him would realize that the accepted historical judgment is that from “the time the Muslims first became a force in world history” to rather recently, Islamic cultures had a notably good record of tolerance for minorities in comparison with their contemporaries, especially European Christendom.
Judging from Neal’s extremely biased – swallowing the most extreme propaganda – picture of more recent events (the 6 day war, international law, current Palestinian and Israeli positions, etc) I would take his comments on more obscure matters – that he is not doing very much to enlighten us on – dates? places? – with a very large grain of salt.
As for Christians in the region, take for example (Israeli Arab) Anglican Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal, recently successful in helping spur a campaign to boycott Caterpillar; from his memoirs it is clear that his opinion is that the Christians’ problems are coming from Israeli policies. Christian flight also has pull rather than push factors – it is easier for them to fit in the USA say, they are more likely to have relatives abroad, they are wealthier, etc.
As for Alastair’s last point, one should also recall that “ethnic cleansing” (mutual in this case) was actually undergoing a fashion revival at that time, and was part of the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne. It took Herr Schickelgruber to decisively make it “not done.”
Alastair,
Pagans were wiped out wherever they were found. Although some did convert.
Shirin,
I would watch my mouth if I were you. You are heading in a libelous direction. Frankly, it is unbecoming of you.
John R,
Riah Abu El-Assal is a believer, so far as I know, in replacement theology. In simple terms, that is the Marcion heresy in modern clothes. In that theology, Jesus was born among Palestinians. Marcionites are, by definition, Antisemitic. Such people basically believe that Jews must wander the Earth forever. I am so glad that you have chosen him as your example of Christian opinion. I suggest, by contrast, you read the views of more traditional Christians.
Here is an interesting article on the phenomena. http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000765.html
Neal,
Oh, now you have me really, really, really frightened.
“Pagans were wiped out wherever they were found.”
Where on earth do you get your information, Neal? From which anti-Islam websites, I should ask. No serious scholar, even an anti-Islam one, would make such a silly claim.
Neal, there are two problems with your posts. First, most nationalities/religious groups have committed acts that aren’t pretty. Why do you focus completely on Muslims? Second, you make many claims and provide no evidence. Can you provide links to back up your claims?
For instance, for the reason why there are relatively few Christians in the Middle East, you say:
The reality was nominal tolerance but, in practice, terrible pressure to convert in order to escape oppression. At other times, there was no even nominal tolerance.
Can you substantiate it?
No Preference,
I do not claim unique monstrosity of Muslims. I merely believe that they have done their share of bad stuff. Or, in simple terms, I do not think they are, as most of the posters on this site seem to think, noble savages. I think they are people.
Shirin,
Regarding the wiping out of pagans, try Patricia Crone. Or Ibn Warraq. Or, MJ Akbar.
Neal: Riah Abu El-Assal, as far as I know, is an Anglican bishop. If he is a heretic, perhaps you should bring it to the attention of the Queen and the Anglican hierarchy? Hasn’t been a good auto da fe in merrie olde England for a long time. His antisemitism also seems to be under control – enough for him to dine with the President of Israel, even while he was proscribed from travelling abroad for made-up obscure connection to terrorism charges.
“I do not claim unique monstrosity of Muslims. I merely believe that they have done their share of bad stuff.”
And yet you focus exclusively on real and imaginary “Muslim crimes”, express very patronizing views, and find western “humanitarian intervention” in the Muslim world to be quite appropriate. How interesting.
“Or, in simple terms, I do not think they are, as most of the posters on this site seem to think, noble savages. I think they are people.”
Somehow that does not quite come through in your postings, Neal. What comes through in your postings is a sense that you consider Muslims to be ignoble savages desperately in need of westerh “intervention”. And though I try to read most of the posts here, I have not noticed anyone with the attitude you attribute to most of the posters here – something I am sure I would not miss easily since I am very sensitive to anything that suggests Arabs or Muslims do not possess the same human traits as westerners. By the way, Neal, maybe you did not know that some of the posters on this site actually ARE Muslims. Others are non-Muslims inhabitants of predominantly Muslim areas.
“Regarding the wiping out of pagans, try Patricia Crone. Or Ibn Warraq. Or, MJ Akbar”
LOL! No thanks, Neal. When it comes to Islamic history I prefer actual reputable historians over anti-Islam polemicists and disaffected former Muslims. But thanks – now I know the sources of your self-proclaimed “expertise”. Next you will be recommending Irshan Manji as a credible source of scholarly information on Islam!
Salah
Your comments don’t make sense to me. Are you living in Iraq now? If so, what part?
I was living in the Karrada district during October and November of last year, and I visited many homes in many different neighborhoods in Baghdad, Abu Ghraib and the Agricultural College, Yarmouk, Adel, Ghazaliyah, Mansur, Adhamiyah, the area around the Mustansariyah College, Baladiyat Refugee Camp, etc.
Hummmmm Brian welcome here you and your post are so precious for us to hear from one of brave Americans…..
Well Well Brian you should had a lot of stores to tell us from your experience and tell our friends here the real stores direct from the land of Two Rivers….
Brian pleas, Tell us your stores did the Iraqi through the flowers on you every where you went moving from West to East and South of Baghdad?
Did you use Taxi? Or you overwhelm with the generosity of Iraqis that’s make you fell like at home? Please tell us I waiting for you tell me more interesting stores from the Land of Two Rivers….
Did you Used Humvees to travel around Baghdad Brian? How ‘s come you felt save and loved their so you jump from Karrada (Centre Baghdad) to Abu Ghraib and the Agricultural College (west Baghdad)Wow, and then Yarmouk (mostly Iraqi Military retired Military residential areas) very nice Brian is not? Boohoo Ghazaliyah a new Iraqi Military commanders residential area Wow Brian did you see how bad the streets there and how much dust around, but nice houses there is not Brian? Mustansariyah College, did you see Saddam photo on the ground? Did you past and walked over it? Tell us Brian your stores we waiting eagerly for you to tell us.
Wow also you visit Baladiyat Refugee Camp did you see those poor Palestinians live their? Oh my God how they live in the freedom and save they really appreciate those Brave American for the love their kindness they felt!!!!
Many of these places do in fact have running water. Also, as has been clarified in many mainstream press sources,
Tell us Brian did those Iraqi tell you how much they pay for the Water to purchase from those Water Tankers who made agreement with water suppler officials?
Tell us come on be brave and tell us, also we would like to tell us how cheap the petrol to fill the car? Tell us its takes few second in petrol station to fill full tank of petrol and its cost you I think US$1.0 more or les than that? Is cheep Brian tells us please?
Or tell us the cooking Gas its so cheep it’s disturbed to house free without hassle those Iraqi families enjoying the freedom and the brave American who mad getting Drinking Water Gas and Petrol peace of mind for Iraqis…..
We all waiting for your real stories , we waiting so long to get one Brave American, one from those 161,000 military personal, 22,000 contractors and I don’t know how may US tourist enjoying their time their on the land of Two Rivers.
I think Helena will be delighted to have you her to hear from you telling us the real live of Iraqi Brian.
Jill Carroll’s statement should answer most of Salah’s concerns:
http://www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/early_world040106.htm
Orientalism is so 19th century.
Actually it’s so 1978…like 8-track audio.
http://www.reason.com/0112/cr.cf.2001.shtml
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/17/jan99/said.htm
shirin’s nephew likely won’t find the bernard lewis ‘orientalism’ piece on google. it’s behind a subscriber firewall at NYRB.
Shirin,
Regarding reputable historians, here is the background on Patricia Crone – who is a chaired professor at Princeton -:
Ph.D., School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1974; Senior Research Fellow, Warburg Institute, University of London, 1974-77; University of Oxford, University Lecturer in Islamic History, Fellow of Jesus College, 1977-90; University of Cambridge, Assistant University Lecturer, Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, 1990-92, University Lecturer in Islamic Studies, 1992-94, University Reader in Islamic History, 1994-97; Institute for Advanced Study, Andrew W. Mellon Professor, 1997-.
I gather it is you who are out of date, Shirin.
Now, the school of thought I follow exams the Muslim regions more from the point of view of its main victims, historically speaking, namely, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Budhists and the like. If you want to call it Orientalism, that is fine by me although it is the wrong term.
Now, if you wish to read about genocide committed against pagans – or, at least what the Muslims thought to be paganism – read Will Durant. According to his book The Story of Civilization (page 459):
The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.
I drew the above quote from an online source. The book itself gives some of the detail. As do a host of other fine books. What occurred is rather awful. Do you know why Durant and others believed that the conquest of India was such a bloody affair? Here is a hint. Tens of millions of people were killed, up close and personal.
Now, there are many other examples of what occurred to pagans. But consider: under Shari’a, a pagan conquered in war has the choice to convert or be put to the sword. And that command has been followed a great many times.
Salah,
You have not answered my one, most important question, when was the last time you were in Iraq?
And please don’t insult me by comparing me to the sick mainstream press. I walked on the streets of Baghdad everday and I saw the hell that is Baghdad now.
I am constantly speaking to people about the difficult situations in Baghdad and the role of the American occupation causing these problems.
For sure you are just throwing hate and ignorance at me, rather than reading anything I have written about Iraq, because then for sure you could not say these things, unless you are just an idiot, and from most of your posts here on Helena’s blog, I think you are a fairly smart person.
Please don’t put these insults on me. I have spoken to hundreds of people about the warcrimes in Iraq, and more important than that, I am showing the interviews I taped with Iraqi people themselves, because the voices of Iraqis to condemn the war are more important than my own voice for certain.
And you know, I didn’t use any security in Baghdad, and it was so dangerous of course, but I am a real journalist and so I want to work with the Iraqi people themselves and to speak to them directly, not only to the politicians and hide behind heavy gates and barricades.
My point was simply this, there IS running water in Baghdad now, even in the Baladiyat camp. There were some days when the water was not running, but these were very few days, most often there was water.
And also, lastly salah, I never accused you of anything, I only asked you questions. However, just like Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, you never answer questions you only attack me, as though you know something about me. You know nothing about me. When you read some of my website and you learn about how my entire life right now is dedicated to providing some insight from Iraqis to the people outside Iraq, then you can come back and talk to me.
When you recognize how many Iraqi people I know who are my friends and I worry about everyday, and how much I am opposed to the occupation, then come back here and say insults and lies about me.
in solidarity
Brian
When it comes to Islamic history I prefer actual reputable historians over anti-Islam polemicists and disaffected former Muslims…
It seems as if Patricia Crone is a respected and accomplished scholar. Institute for Advanced Studies, Oxbridge lecturer, Princeton faculty, 19 titles on Amazon (& none -wouldnt you know- for ‘Shirin, JWN commentator’) . I think those deserving the ‘disreputable’ slur are owed an explanation.
vadim,
Read Shirin’s various posts. He or she has spent his or her time slurring me – calling my views racist but failing to site anything I said that is remotely racist (because I am not) – and others. What he or she does not like are the facts which show the Muslim conquests and governance to be rather typical of what occurs in human history. That, to him or her, is “Orientalism” – as if that were a bad thing -.
The fact is that the orientalists have, depending on the scholar, produced some rather first rate scholarship. They hold a wide variety of views. Some are rather enamored of the Islamic regions (e.g. Bernard Lewis and his love of Turkey – where he, in turn, is rather well liked) while some have rather critical things to say.
Others, not remotely orientalists – such as Ibn Warraq or Bat Ye’or or Walid Phares (all from the Islamic regions), have rather critical things to say.
Then, there is an entire class of non-regional originating and non-orientalist and non-Islamicist scholars who follow non-specialist (apart from English literature) Edward Said’s theories. Such people hold to views such as Jihad is not really about conquest. Walid Phares, who grew up in Lebanon, says that he never knew, until he came to the West, that Jihad had the meanings it is said to have in the West as such meaning for the word is not used. As he says, such meanings are basically unknown in Muslim dominated regions because such meanings are in the minds only of Western writers. Or, in simple terms, these followers of Said basically have imposed their views onto Muslims.
Brian,
Did I say any lies about you?!!!!!
My apology if you offended by my words which reflected the real live the country you toured last November and December, but we still waiting your real stories Brian not general comment about Iraqi Friends, this not can help our site and enrich our discussion here Brian.
Helena, I think she kept quite she might busy with some thing, but I believe she will appreciated you so much to put forward your stories as you saw it on the ground of Two Rivers.
Note:
Brian Just read the previous post buy Helena; it does tell you who is lying.
Salah,
I think that in your tone, you appear to be very sarcastic towards me, which makes it seem as though you are trying to insult me, or that you do not believe what I saw in Iraq.
If you want to read the stories I write about the situation in Iraq you should go here:
http://www.aliveinbaghdad.org/?page_id=3014
I have already written many stories for Inter Press Service and for Toward Freedom about the situation in Iraq. Also if you read my blog you will see my thoughts about the situation, which as you will see are much less restrained than what I have to write for publication!
Also I will comment to the top post now on JWN with a post from my own blog, with the 5 demands one Iraqi friend of mine put forth as a good plan for withdrawal and ending the occupation.
Also, if you wish to see some of the interviews I have made with Iraqis, you can look at http://aliveinbaghdad.blip.tv
Right now there is only a few interviews done in Arabic, but I am trying to be sure to have the proper translations, because my Arabic is not so good, but soon there should be some more, and also there are transcripts of rough translations of some interviews that are in Arabic.
Well anyway, I hope this misunderstanding is behind us and that we can work together. Also, perhaps we will meet if you are in Iraq. I am going back to Jordan at the end of this month, and I may return to Iraq, depending on some things to be worked out.
Brian
Neal,
CC: Vadim
I will grant you Patricia Crone’s credentials – PhD, wa fulan wa fulan…. At least one of the three people you mentioned has some credibility. However, your argument is still fatally flawed for the following reason:
1) You have not shown anything Patricia Crone has written or said that substantiates your claim that “Pagans were wiped out wherever they were found.” You would help your argument considerably if you could come up with an actual citation from Patrician Crone that substantiates your claim.
2) Even if Patricia Crone did make such an assertion, that does not make it so, despite her credentials. To claim that it does constitutes a logical fallacy.
3) This is for Vadim: Citing 19 titles on Amazon.com is utterly meaningless. It proves exactly nothing except that the person is a prolific writer who gets published a lot. That can be said of literally thousands of complete hacks who write nothing but utter, useless rubbish.
هواجس يومية للعراقيين… وتفاؤل بالمقاومة
ديالا شحادة
العراق من الداخل: عالم مجاور ولكنه بعيد، مغلق على كل الاحتمالات، مشوَّه بالقتل والدمار ومحاصَر باحتلال متعدد الوجوه. بلد يراد له ألا يكون سوى سني وشيعي وكردي. لم يسأل العون من أحد. لم يحمّل اللوم لأحد، بل لا يزال يُطل على الخارج بوجوه أهله البشوشة رغم خطوط الجنازات الطويلة.
حضر عدد من هؤلاء العراقيين إلى بيروت. مثقفون وأطباء ومهندسون وأكاديميون ورجال دين… جاؤوا لدعم المقاومة العربية في >. يضحكون، يتصافحون، يتكلمون على أشياء كثيرة كلها تبدأ بالعراق، وتنتهي به؛ وعن يوميات الانسان العراقي. رصدت > هواجس وشهادات من طبيب، ومن عميد جامعي سابق، وصحافي ورجل دين.
http://www.assafir.com/iso/today/world/120.html
Brian,
Read this (I presume you learned Arabic) before went to Iraq last November and December, see what real Iraqi saying for more than three years no one like their talk for some reason and they like western journalists, Aid Worker, Peace Activists, Anti-War supporter goes their and report from inside Iraq why? Ask yourself and give us “the Iraqis” real answers…….
Shirin,
Islamic holy law so provides. Pagans were killed in very large numbers. Note that I also said that many converted.
Actually, all of the people I mentioned are very well credentialed. It is you who (a) has many opinions – but gives no proof – and (b) insults other people for no reason other than they have knowledge you do not have and/or opinions you do not share.
Brian, more
Baghdad: The Besieged Press
WE ALL WAITING FOR YOUR STORIES BRAVE AMARICAN
Shirin,
You asked for some of what Patricia Crone says about killing in Islam as it relates to infidel. I do not intend to print from books, only what I can find online with an easy search. Here is something for you to chew upon as it contradicts your view.
Patricia Crone. God’s Rule. Government and Islam, pp. 371-722. By the way, it is a very, very good book. You should read it as it rather contradicts everything you claim.
Note what she is stating, relevant to our topic: (1) that absent entering in a pact of concession (i.e. a dhimma), any infidel – and that would mean pagan, Christian, Jew, etc. – may be killed; (2) that people of the book may enter into a dhimma and avoid death; (3) that there was tremendous pressure even for people of the book (i.e. Christians and Jews and others who were at some point deemed monotheistic) to convert.
I again note that the Shari’a law for pagans was rather severe. Conversion or death.
To claim that it does constitutes a logical fallacy.
Wow, coming from someone who constantly makes arguments from authority this is refreshing. Unfortunately Shirin, ad verecundiam isn’t always a fallacy. As Helena often reminds us, an expert’s opinion on matters within her direct expertise SHOULD carry more weight than that of an anonymous web-board dilettante whose credentials are completely unknown. Still your newly found skepticism is welcome. Back to your essentialist duel with neal.
I guess I wish we could have kept this discussion to be one about Jill Carroll and directly related issues. At least let’s try to keep it friendly and respectful, otherwise we just perpetuate the hate and distrust…
Re conquering religions in general I would say numbers-wise “Christianity” (in its imperial mutation) probably wiped out and blighted the lives of many millions more people than Islam… I’m thinking of entire nations genocided by the Conquistadors and the Manifest Destinators, etc., in North and South America; Australia; and the various massive depradations undertaken (in the name of “Christianity”) in sub-Saharan Africa, as well. This, down to the 1950s in the case of the use of “Christian” doctrne in the anti-Mau Mau campaign in Kenya.
I don’t think this is necessarily because Christianity is a bloodier or worse religion than Islam, but because the European-origined empires had so much more coercive power at their disposal than the Islamic empires. I happen to adhere to what I understand is the authentic, pre-Augustinian (and therefore, pre- war-justifying) version of Christianity. If you read my recent JAAR paper, you can see a bit more of what I’ve written about religion and violence.
Basically, religion is a potent force, and any religion can be used for good or bad ends… So let’s think about using religion and all our interactions to the end of healing human society rather than judging, blaming, and seeking to punish others with whom we happen to disagree.
vadim,
I do not believe that the substance of what I argued was “essentialist.” I made reference to events, not to essence of historical forces. I also made reference to some rather well known theological principles and Shari’a law in Classical Islam. In particular, I spoke about the treatment of pagans according to the Shari’a law – something that is rather well defined and in all of the major legal schools. If you call doing so “essentialist,” that would cut off all discussion of theology and law. Or, would you have it that the divinity of Jesus in Christian theology is a point outside of discussion? Or, would you have it in a discussion of Judaism that Kashrut laws regarding the prohibition of mixing of milk and meat is an essentialist discussion?
Now, a partial apology is due by me to Helena. In speaking about the massacre of the Maronites – which did relate rather centrally to the Tanzimat reforms -, she is correct that the Druze were the main party which actually committed the massacres. However, Muslims participated as well and in substantial ways. Not only were soldiers of the Ottoman Empire involved in the massacres but so were local Muslims. And the Turkish forces also stood ground where massacres were being committed in order to prevent the Maronites from escaping from their massacre. So, while she is due an apology in that Druze were certainly centrally involved, her position is misleading since the Druze were, in large measure, doing the bidding of the Empire and with the active support of the Muslim population.
In particular, I spoke about the treatment of pagans according to the Shari’a law – something that is rather well defined
We may disagree over ‘well-defined’. Since your history’s better than mine: didn’t Maimonides thrive under Saladin after fleeing the Almohads?? In any case I worry about applying 500 year-old standards of religious tolerance to 21st century political topics (recognizing there are violent minorities who aren’t so squeamish, I’m just not convinced they represent most or all Muslims, nor their conception of Islamic law.) By essentialism, I mean drawing unnecessarily broad and unconstructive conclusions from a medieval, radical minority (we see its ‘occidentalist’ mirror image here via pervasive anti-Zionism & anti-yankeeism…)
vadim,
I did not draw conclusions from how people were treated in the Middle Ages. I drew a parallel to what is occuring now in the Muslim regions with what occurred in the 19th Century. And I noted the religious issues – but not only religious issues – from which I hoped to shed at least some light on some – but not all – of what occurred. I certainly drew no racist conclusions.
I note – considering an issue with Judaism – that it would not be unreasonable to draw a parallel, regarding Kashrut, between those who keep Kosher today and those who kept Kosher in the 19th Century. That, frankly, is all that I have done in discussing Islam and its various laws and theological prescriptions with reference to how, in some instances, Muslims behaved.
In the case of Islam, it is rather nutty to speak about the history of Muslims without considering the cultural factors which colored how people think. Again, drawing a parallel to Jewish history, Jews – in some eras – lived separately in Europe as they were not accepted by Christians into society. It is certainly fair to note the cultural/religious undercurrents – both Jewish and Christian – that help explain the matter. That, frankly, is all that I have done. And, I might add, I do not see how the noted parallel to Jewish history could be adequately understood without reference to Judaism and Christianity. Do you?
Now, pointing out that the Shari’a calls for the killing of pagans is not racist. It is a fact. That does not mean – and, was not always the case – that Muslims did what Shari’a called for (although such did, in fact, occur rather frequently). In this regard, note that Kashrut laws preclude the mixing of milk and meat. Not all Jews have followed that law but, frankly, there is nothing wrong in pointing out what the law requires and that, historically, it is most likely that Jews, until recently, tended often to follow the law in that respect.
In my estimation, there is an effort at historical negation by those who say that any discussion of (a) what Muslims actually did or (b) what Shari’a or Classical Islamic theology (which still, to this day, dominates in much of the Muslim regions) requires. Would you have me discuss the unfortunate history of Jews in Christian countries without noting that Christian theology places Jews in a very bad light, calling for Jews to wander the Earth forever? Or, is that a racist thing to assert? You tell me.
“Islamic holy law so provides.”
So far you have failed to provide a single citation for any of your claims. What “Islamic law” so provides? According to whom? By whose interpretation of “Islamic law”?
“Pagans were killed in very large numbers.”
Your original claim was that “Pagans were wiped out wherever they were found”. Now you are backing down to “Pagans were killed in very large numbers”, which is a very different statement. It really doesn’t matter, however, because you have so far failed to substantiate any of your claims with actual citations. (Hint: Listing a few names of people does not constitute substantiation.)
“Actually, all of the people I mentioned are very well credentialed.”
1) Merely mentioning people, no matter how “well credentialed”, substantiates nothing whatsoever. It barely even rises to the level of the appeal to authority fallacy, since you have not provided a single statement, sourced or unsourced, from any of those people you mentioned.
2) The fact that your list includes well-known anti-Islam polemicist and disaffected ex-Muslim (proudly self-proclaimed “apostate”) Ibn Warraq doesn’t help your case. As for MJ Akbar, Islamic scholarship is not, as far as I know, one of his main claims to fame, though he did write a book about Islam. I am not sufficiently familiar with Patricia Crone’s work to know whether it contains any bias one way or the other, and since you have provided no actual citations from her work, there is no way to know whether there is even anything there to substantiate your claims.
Neal,
1) The quote you provided fron Patricia Crone does not in any way substantiate your claim that “Pagans were wiped out wherever they were found”. So far you have failed utterly to provide any substantiation for that, although now that you have backed away from it to a more realistic claim, perhaps that does not matter.
2) What Patricia Crone describes in the paragraph you quoted is pretty much every victor’s standard operating procedure during the time period in question, and for some milennia/centuries before and after. So what? So all you have shown so far is that as conquerors Muslims were, at least at times, pretty much like everyone else.
3) You conveniently do not indicate the time period or place in which the behaviour Crone describes took place. In fact, how Muslims treated non-Muslims in the lands they conquered varied enormously depending on the period, the location, and the rulers involved.
4) Forced conversions were and are contrary to the Qur’an and the Hadith, as were/are many practices found in Islam historically and today, and in Judaism, and in Christianity, and in every other religion, particularly those that engaged in conquests. Unfortunately, as in every religion, there will always be powerful people (mostly men) who will ignore or distort the religion in order to justify their own desires and actions. In this regard Islam has been better than some, and no worse than any other.
There appear to be a great many gaps in your knowledge and understanding of Islam and its history, probably due to your highly selective “expertise”. You appear to choose only the sources and information that confirm the uniformly negative image you want to hold and convey to others.
Shirin,
First, Crone supported my position rather explicitly.
Second, I did not claim that pagans were in all cases slaughtered. I qualified my statement. You, by contrast, removed the qualifications and, moreover, addressed my second, not my first, comment on the topic.
Third, clearly, you have your own facts. What I said about the Shari’a is not remotely contraversial. If you do not believe it, do your own research.
Fourth, you again confuse my position. I do not claim that Islam is worse than other faiths or that Muslims have behaved worse, historically speaking, than people of other faiths. Clearly, such varied from place to place and from time to time. Your position, which you ascribe to me – but which I do not hold -, is a view which had not occurred to me and was not implicit or explicit in what I wrote. In other words, you made it up.
Now, when you comment regarding what Professor Crone writes – saying that it is not something unique to Islam -, I agree with you to some extent. Which is to say, the victor chooses the rules. To that extent, you are correct.
It is, however, at the level of detail that Islam differs in how it treats this or that situation or this or that group of conquered people. And, it is worth our effort to investigate how Islam treats such situations as, in fact, a considerable amount of war related rules are spelled out in substantial detail in the Shari’a. Among the rules spelled out in detail are the treatment of infidels including pagans. And pagans have an unenviable choice of conversion or the sword. That, of course, does not mean that such was always the result.
Now, you go find me proof from someone the level of Patricia Crone that I am wrong and I shall think about what you have to say.
To reiterate: what I object to – and which you basically assert – is the position that Islam is above criticism and that Islamic society is above criticism. I think it bears consideration since there is much to criticize, just as there is much to criticise in Western society and in Christianity.
It is, in my view, no answer to an issue in Islam or Muslim history to say that there are similar problems in Western society or Christianity. When, by contrast, you read about the horrors committed by Christians – and there are no shortage of such horrors -, it is no answer to those horrors to say that Hindus also committed horrors. But, that is exactly your position and it is an invalid argument, logically speaking. And that, to me, is amounts to negation of history and fact.
Helena,
in North and South America; Australia; and the various massive depradations undertaken (in the name of “Christianity”) in sub-Saharan Africa, as well. This, down to the 1950s in the case of the use of “Christian” doctrne in the anti-Mau Mau campaign in Kenya.
Its quite suppressing for me that you did not mentioned ME, this region presumably you most of the commutators keep saying they are “Expertise” in it.
The reality lead us that all the reports and the history of the invasion of the ME countries done by western historians, of accurately list the heroics western figures and their stand for defeated the “Enemy” the Arab, but they did not gave us the real cost of live.
-Iraq No count of people lost, but we read recently they used chemicals weapons and Poisons gases under Churchill command especially in north Iraq “Tel La’afer”
2- Egypt, when they use one millions slavery to cut the Seesaws Canal due Napoleons dream of it.
3- Algeria one million killed to get back the independence for the country back from France.
4-Libya 100,000 just killed with Omar Almukhtar to fight the Italians.
In all we do not have any independent and accurate count what the west done to this region recently.
Don’t forget the crusader for years fighting the Arab.