Islam: The Greatest Colonizer Of All Time

click on title for source

Thank you anonymous from Up Pompeii

Whenever there are terrorist attacks against west, there is a tendency in the Muslim world to interpret that these attacks against western societies as a natural backlash of the colonization of the Islamic world by Europeans for almost two centuries. I was reminded of this argument again, when I recently watched the video of the discussion of the noted secular Muslim activist Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera TV where an Egyptian Muslim cleric presenting this claim asking her, who colonized whom, whether UK colonized Egypt or Egypt colonized UK.

European colonization began with the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in CE 1492 and this was a unique historical event with political, cultural, military and religious aspects that lasted for half a millennium and the consequences of this well discussed and much written chapter of history continues to produce more and more related discussions and of course, will cause more and more related events in the future as well.

European colonization had been in two different ways, one that happened in Americas and in Australia, where the indigenous population was systematically oppressed and were forced to flee from their own land and the Europeans migrating to theses lands. This was the transculturalization of a region wherein the indigenous people of these lands finally lost their existence and the United States and Canada and even the geographically east Australia and New Zealand collectively being known as being part of the western civilization, there was a cultural destruction.

In the first case there were large scale immigration from Europe to Americas and Australia and the ethnicity of the majority changed and that was the reason why these continents are now regarded as being part of the west. But indigenous masses of Latin-American don't claim that they are part of the west, but express their identity whenever possible, even as the evil of colonialism still hunts them. Any way western colonialism could not make the natives a part of its own civilizations or west had no such intention.

Another way was what happened in Africa and Asia where the indigenous people were relatively not forced to flee their lands and there was no large scale immigration from Europe to these two continents but the Europeans just ruled over them so that the cultural and social identify of the people of Africa and Asia were not much affected. These regions continue to be part of the pre colonial civilizations to which they actually belonged. This was the way that the Islamic world too had been colonized by Europeans, there were only political and military effects and the culture and religion of the so called Islamic world were unchanged, there was relatively no cultural destruction.

The spread of Christianity in Europe too had its own cultural impacts, but the people of Europe are not unaware or ashamed of their pre Christian pagan past but they are proud of it. Admittedly, paganism in Europe was heavily struck down by Christianity from the very day that Emperor Constantine the great decriminalized that religion in his portion of the empire in CE 313 and later in the entire Rome that he reunified in CE 324, the empire that had been partitioned by Diocletian, his predecessor.

Pagans were subject to strong persecution, pagan temples were either destroyed or were converted to Christian churches, Pagan books and literature were burned. The destruction of this European or classic Paganism was imminent as the imposition of Christianity over Europe was very rapid given its support from the successive rulers and was finished by the time of Emperor Justinian-I. Historians may go ahead with their debate on the intensity of the influence of paganism on Christianity, as argued by Edward Gibbon, but the destruction of European paganism as a religion and a culture was almost total.

Europe, where Christianity flourished, was the seat of two other prominent civilizations, Greek and Roman. The Greeks embraced Christianity, but only as another religion, they haven't lost their logistic, cultural and civilization identity and they find esteem dignity in the civilization that existed before the introduction of Christianity.

The Roman civilization may no longer be there as it had been known as it has now been divided into different cultures like Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. This was a natural process as Latin as a language began dying and new languages derived from Latin. Modern people of these cultures find no reason to be ashamed of the that much celebrated pre Christian pagan Roman civilization to which they once belonged.

The justification that many Muslim intellectuals find for Islamic terror is that it is a result of the long political oppression of the Islamic world by the west in the colonial period and they allege the west of being egotist ethically, culturally and intellectually. But not only Muslim society was the victim of western colonialism, so were the Hindu (Indian), African and scenic (indo-china) societies. None of these societies have produced terrorism and the contemporary rise of Hindu nationalism in India can not be viewed as a product of western hegemony.

When the term Islamic world is used, one has to be aware of the fact that the so called Islamic world is because of an Islamic colonialism, stronger and powerful than that of the west. A careful analysis will conclude that Islam was the greatest colonizerr of all time and the most egotist ideology ever known to humanity.

This is where we need to look back on the spread of Islam. Islam spread to all the territories that it conquered. Not only did the indigenous population of these conquered countries embrace Islam for one reason or another, but the cultural, social and intellectual aspects of of these lands were subject to a concrete transformation without immigration. Finally these civilizations became extinct and became known as part of the Islamic civilization even while the ethnicity of the people of these lands did not change.

The shores of all the rivers referred to as the cradles of civilization ,except the Huang-He-Yangtze in China which was not subject to Muslim conquest, the Tigris-Euphrates in modern day Iraq, the Nile in Africa, the Indus in the Indian subcontinent have all lost their connection to their profound inheritance. The Muslim masses on the banks of these rivers are either unaware or ashamed of their great pre Islamic heritage.

What happened with Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and Egypt was even worse - that Arabic, the language of Islam, was forced upon them and that these regions lost even their languages, Egyptian in the case of Egypt and Sumerian in the case of Mesopotamia. Even in this case, the Indus valley or the modern Pakistan is only a partial exception, as Urdu which was not the tongue of the land but one that was born out of Islamic conquest is the official language. This was a cultural holocaust.

The most notable point here is that, the invaded masses who embraced Islam are totally in the dark about their pre-Islamic heritage and are ashamed of the same, which did not happen with the people colonized by the west. At least as far as the non Arabs conquered by Islam are concerned, for them Islam was not just a submission to Allah, it was a submission to Arab language, Arab culture and Arab tradition and a submission to fight for the Arab cause, Arab superiority and Arab Imperialism. Whereas communities colonized by westerners defended this conquest later, because of the unique colonial nature of Islam, people conquered by Islam found a cause in being conquered and the conquered joined the conqueror in fighting for this cause, triggering a chain reaction of Muslim conquests.

No colonized people glorify and iconize invaders or alien rulers as their heroes but Muslims do. We can not imagine Native Americans glorifying Columbus or Indians of the subcontinent glorifying the British or Russians or Ukrainians glorifying Genghis Khan. The best example of this peculiar psyche would be that of Invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammed Ghuri who attacked the people of the Indus valley.

Even though they looted their properties, massacred their forefathers, gang raped their foremothers and enslaved them, they are the heroes of Pakistan and its people. Finally, this glorification and iconization turned so ridiculous where Pakistan naming one of its missiles after Muhammed Ghuri and Afghanistan opposing this saying that Pakistan has no claim over Afghan heroes and that only peaceful concerns may be named after them!

That the invaders glorify the invasion is understandable, but here, in the case of Islam, both the invader and the invaded glorify these bloody invasions. Western colonialists did try to brainwash the natives through the education system that they introduced, but even this kind of attempt was not very effective

Islam as an Identity of the invader was so potent that it has been able to brainwash and indoctrinate the indigenous people to that extent that they find pride in being invaded. This indoctrination was clever enough to cleanse out all these people had in their memories about their past, so that for them their history and civilization began only with this invasion.

Along with the western factor, Islam too has been a threat to the social, cultural, linguistic and religious identities of the colonized societies. But the hands and arms of Islam have even been mightier than that of the west, as far as the indigenous people of the lands invaded by Islam, from Morocco to Pakistan to Indonesia are concerned, and they consider themselves to be a part of the Islamic world. The people of the territories ruled by west are not treated, or they don't treat themselves as being a part of the western world.

Islamic colonialism was so horrendous and destructive when compared to the characteristics of western colonialism, as it was not only something political or militarily but something more influential, cultural, religious and psychological too. To be more exact, even the one fifth of the humanity which identifies itself as Muslims is a product of this ultra-colonial nature of Islam.

The ethical, cultural and intellectual egotism of the west may be a fact, but such egotism and hegemony are even deeper for Islam. This has always been apparent in its intolerant nature towards other cultures and religions; the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas is a recent example. This will be apparent again, if Islam becomes more powerful than the west, politically or militarily.

DANIEL PIPES -vs KEN LIVINGSTONE LONDON 20/1/07

Sunday, January 21, 2007

CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS -full post

I have given an overview of the session, darius gives an in depth assessment of Livingstones multiculturalism

The clash of civilizations

I met urban11, anton, derius and Bjorn a Canadian man who had come to witness this event on Saturday morning, none of us knew what to expect.

We made our way to the venue and took our place in the large queue, we eventually got in, I must admit I was annoyed at having to go through security checks to get in but thanks to our Islamic population we all have to go through these procedures now.

The Brief for the Conference was as follows:

“Some argue that the world is going into an era of conflict and war driven by a 'clash of civilisations'. The Mayor of London's policies are based on the exact opposite idea - that the multicultural city is part of creating a new concept of world civilisation that corresponds to a globalised world.”

Gavin Esler, BBC Newsnight presenter, chaired the main debate between Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, and Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum, an American think tank that advises US policymakers on the Middle East, on these contrasting approaches and their implications for Londoners.

Other speakers included :

* * David Aaronovitch, Times columnist and author
* * Tariq Ali, Writer
* * Dr. Abdul Bari, Secretary General, Muslim Council of Britain
* * Martin Bright, Political Editor, New Statesman
* * Alistair Crooke, Director, Conflicts Forum
* * Doudou Diène, UN Special Rapporteur on Racism and Xenophobia
* * Professor Danny Dorling, specialist in Human Geography
* * Gavin Esler, BBC's Newsnight Presenter
* * Jonathan Freedland, Journalist
* * Professor Conor Gearty, Rausing Director, Centre for the Study of Human Rights
* * Kirsten Hearne, REGARD
* * Andrés Izarra, Venezuela's TeleSur TV
* * Doug Jewell, Liberty
* * Oliver Kamm, Times columnist and author
* * Mejindarpal Kaur, Director, United Sikhs
* * Bruce Kent, Peace Campaigner
* * Antony Lerman, Executive Director, Institute for Jewish Policy Research
* * Douglas Murray
* * Susan Nathan, Writer
* * Cristina Odone, Columnist
* * Alasdair Palmer, Telegraph
* * Agnès Poirier, political and cultural commentator
* * Professor Tariq Ramadan, Senior Research fellow at St Antony's College (Oxford)
* * Councillor Salma Yaqoob

Gavin Esler opened the debate by introducing all of the speakers

Professor Daniel Pipes spoke first, I am not going to quote all of what he said in his address but give you what I understood his words to mean.

Dr Pipes challenged the words, clash of civilizations, he did not see any such clash, he saw a battle between the civilized and barbarianism, the “barbarianism clearly referring to Islam.

Dr Pipes went on to say what the hallmarks of being civilized were such as having a democratic process for solving conflicts where ever possible, tolerance of difference and how Islam and its tenets were clearly the opposite of this.

Dr Pipes referred to the tensions between Islam and the west as a war and that he was looking for a victory in that war, victory he said comes when the other side gives up.

He went on to demonstrate this point citing the US defeat in Vietnam, the Americans were not defeated because of lack of personnel or equipment, they gave up.

It is my understanding from this analogy that Dr Pipes will see a victory when Islam gives up.

In short, it is my opinion that Dr Pipes sees this conflict as one between civilized countries and the barbarian, not a clash of civilizations because purely because they are civilized , doctrines such as Islam and its inherent barbarity would not arise.

Dr Pipes commended people such as Hirsi Ali and many others for their stance against Islam and it tenets, this brought the audience to its feet applauding long and loud.

Dr Pipes went on to say how the UK was now the biggest terror threat to the US because of Muslims in the UK he cited Richard Reid and the UK connections in the 9/11 atrocity, this brought a standing ovation from the supporters of Dr Pipes because they recognised the damage that was being done to UK-US relations because of the presence of these people in the UK.

Maybe I have taken a rather simplistic view and in interpretation of what Dr Pipes said, I do not think for one minute that Dr Pipes is suggesting that we all sit back and wait for Islam to give up, Islam has to be made to give up and that, in my opinion is the message that Dr Pipes was giving.

Mr Livingstone was the next speaker.

Mr Livingstone extolled the wonders of London, praised the fact that large percentages of the people who lived in this city were born “outside” of the UK

He praised the “enormous” contribution that the Muslim population has made to the city and how London was a better place for that.

He held London up as a model for a global community

Mr Livingstone went on to say that one of the main reasons London got the 2012 Olympics was because more languages were spoken in London than any other major city in the world.

He held this up as the “success” of multiculturalism,.

Mr Livingstone also referred to the 7/7 bombings and how Londoners did not go on the rampage targeting Muslims, he said, if I remember correctly that there was only one incident where a Muslim was injured in an attack after the 7/7 atrocity.

Mr Livingstone then went on to the subject of America, the UK and the “cold war”

In this part of his address he vilified America and the UK in how they treated the Soviet bloc.

Mr Livingstone wants a multicultural state where all are equal this includes the Barbarism that Dr Pipes spoke of, he wants a multicultural state where people like Dr Qaradawi are allowed full and free reign.

Dr Qaradawi was hailed by MR Livingstone as the “moderate voice of Islam” and that he Mr Livingstone would continue to involve such people in his efforts to achieve a true multicultural state, Dr Qaradawi holds these views amongst many others, he is by no means “moderate”

Salma Yacoob came to the rostrum

I have to say it, the usual victim role of Islam was trailed out, she claimed that 9/11 , 7/7 and others were reprial attacks because of what America and the UK had and still are doing in the muslim world, “ do you expect us not to fight back” she said.

Listing the Palestine conflict and Britains role in that she agreed that all people have to have a country but there was no right to give Arab land away in Palestine, Ms Yacoob could not bring herself to say the word “Israel”, a member of the audience actually challenged her on this point, she would not say the word Israel.

She is a supporter of the introduction of Sharia law.

As for Iraq, she said the Coalition forces are invaders and likened them to the Crusades, and that America only invaded because of Oil.

Dr Pipes corrected her on this point and she did not reply to his statement.

This ladies attitude was venomous and hateful and I am certain that I was not the only one that picked up on that.

Douglas Murray took the rostrum.

He came out all guns blazing, he was not looking for prisoners, he cited many instances of Islamic atrocities and the actions of Islam in Darfur, the way Islam is behaving in the UK.

He directly challenged Salma Yacoob on her assertion that 9/11 an 7/7 were acts of reprisal, reprisal for what, Israel has a right to exist (she did not acknowledge this)

And the Iraq war happened after 9/11 ,( it is at this point that a member of the audience who had lost a member of their family in the7/7 atrocity directly challenged Salma Yacoob on her “reprisal” assertion, Ms Yacoob did not respond)

Douglas Murray came out with many , many, match winning points I cannot remember all of them, he was superb and also got standing ovations . I do not wish to detract anything from his performance by trying to remember and probably misquoting him, suffice it to say:

He took no prisoners and in my humble opinion Dr Pipes and Douglas Murray certainly won the day

derius posted this view of Mr Livingstones idea of multiculturalism, thank you derius

Ken Livingstone and Multiculturalism

It was with some trepidation that I attended the “Clash of Civilisations or Civilisation versus Barbarism conference” in London. One of my main reasons for doing so was that a number of seminars were to discuss multiculturalism, and whether it is working in this country today. My views on the subject seem to be distant from the general opinion of its validity.

Multiculturalism is in essence the ideology that all cultures and all belief systems associated with those cultures are of equal worth, and therefore no cross cultural judgements can be made. It is the child of moral relativism, and has a strong following with the academic elite and politicians in the West today. Ken Livingstone, in particular, seems particularly keen to push forward his vision of a multicultural London, and it was he who had organised the conference I was attending.

As all cultures are considered of equal worth, it makes any positive judgement towards a culture incorrect by definition, as all cultures are equal. Therefore, under multiculturalism, Western Values concerning freedom of speech and religion are apparently no better or worse than Islamic teachings, which state that blasphemy and apostasy (leaving Islam) should be punishable by death. This is why I believe multiculturalism to be morally bankrupt.

Multiculturalism also states that no cross cultural judgements should be made, as all cultures are equal, and yet deciding that all cultures are equal is in itself a cross cultural judgement. Therefore, multiculturalism actually contradicts itself. Multiculturalism is also dangerous as it does not state the belief that all cultures are equal, but instead states that it is a fact that all cultures are equal. Therefore, if you disagree, you are wrong by definition. There is therefore no room for discussion, or to agree to disagree, and so, if you challenge multiculturalism, you are seen as a cultural bigot. This is why I believe multiculturalism to also be intellectually bankrupt.

However, in Ken Livingstone’s own speech at the conference, he specifically stated that multiculturalism did not allow all cultural practices to be practised. Therefore, he was in fact saying that Western values should supersede other values in certain areas, which actually goes against multiculturalism. As much as I was happy with this statement, it then became clear to me that Ken was a little confused, as he was supposed to be defending multiculturalism and not dismissing it. It then occurred to me that perhaps Ken has another definition of “multiculturalism”, so I expected him to go on and define what he considered “multiculturalism” to be. Not surprisingly, he never actually defined it, and nor did any other speaker at the conference, so it was certainly the first conference that I have attended where nobody actually knew what exactly was being discussed.

I therefore had to listen intently to what Ken Livingstone said that would highlight his vision to me. Two statements stood out. The first was words to the effect that “everybody wants the same things in life”, and the other was the idea that we should all base our society on our shared values. I will address these things in turn.

Mohammad Atta, to name one of many examples, wanted to martyr himself in the cause of Allah. Does everybody therefore want to be martyred in the cause of Allah? I certainly don’t, but apparently I do if you believe that everybody wants the same things in life. Does every adult want female children to be circumcised by that particularly unpleasant form of genital mutilation? Some clearly do, otherwise why does this practice occur in the first place? Does that therefore mean that all adults believe in this practice? Of course not. Therefore, Mr Livingstone’s first statement was in fact probably the most ridiculous statement I heard at the conference, with the exception of his assertion that the Cold War was the fault of the West, and nothing to do with Stalin, Communism or the fact that the USSR invaded half of Europe.

As for his statement that we should base our society on our shared values, well what values would they be? What values do I share with those that believe that the Sharia should be installed in this country? And if I do happen to share any values with them, whatever they may be, how could they be enough to decide on all political decisions that need to be made? Whose values should take precedence when there is a conflict? It was simply more half baked ideas that had only been quarter way thought out.

Still Ken at least realises that if an argument is inherently flawed but it is repeated enough times, then people will begin to believe it. Another two hour seminar on multiculturalism at the conference that was put on later in the day had all three panelists speaking in favour of multiculturalism, and none against. Clearly the tactic of indoctrination that Communists have used in the past is deemed acceptable by Communist Ken.

Another seminar I attended at the conference discussed the question “Is there an Islamic Threat?” I was rather expecting the debate to evolve around how serious the threat was rather than a complete denial that there was one in the first place, but even this meagre expectation wasn’t met. Tariq “Taquiyya” Ramadan and Salma Yaqoob were of the opinion that the Islamic threat is non existent, and any attacks that occur are the result of aggressive Western foreign policy. Well, what about the attacks on Buddhists in southern Thailand, the Jihad being waged against Christians in Darfur, the destruction of churches in Indonesia or the attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh, to name a few, all committed by Muslims? How exactly the Hindus in Bangladesh or the other groups I have just mentioned are linked to Western foreign policy was not made in any way clear.

The caption “We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go” was repeatedly flashed on the screen. Whether this was an attempt at subliminal messaging is not clear, but in any case it had the opposite effect on me. I instead began to wonder exactly where we were going, and whether we have actually got a long way to go before we reach it. I then thought of Lebanon, which forty years ago, had a liberal government and a Christian majority, and a society that is similar to our own. I then thought about how Lebanon is now, after forty years of widespread Islamic immigration. How many Christians there now are celebrating their country’s diversity, and do not instead wish that they could turn back the clock and have things as they were back in the 1960’s? I then realised that we were heading towards a situation similar to Lebanon’s, and we don’t have very far to go before we get there.

Ken Livingstone was clearly hoping that the arguments presented at the conference would be enough to make any rational British citizen want to forget our Western cultural heritage, our values and our achievements, and instead embrace his vision of an undefined multicultural nation.