As much as jihad makes the news these days, there is a second (and in many ways more dangerous) element to Islamic expansionism that is almost entirely ignored by the Western media. Bat Ye'or coined the word "dhimmitude" to describe that second element, the use of oppressive legal and social conditions intended to coerce the conversion of Christians and Jews (and later Hindus and others). When the armies of Islam were on the march and came upon a town or fortress, they would offer the inhabitants three options: conversion, execution, or subjugation under shari'a law. From the Islamic point of view, all religions existed in the past to make way for Islam. Islamic tradition holds that the only "true" followers of Christianity and Judaism have already converted to Islam and the rest of us are heretics from our own faiths. After Mohammed spread his message, there was no need for any other religion, but the so-called "People of the Book" would eventually see the truth if given enough time.
The system of dhimmitude was also a great way to fill the coffers for Muslim rulers. During the early years, the economic theory of the Islamic empire was basically, "Kill that guy, take his stuff, and sell his wife and kids into slavery." But when the initial war effort stalled, even for a short time, the caliphs needed to keep the gold a-flowin'. So they imposed an early form of socialism: tax the "rich" (non-Muslims of every economic status) to give to the "poor" (the massive army and bureaucracy of the Caliphate). To retain dhimmi status, the non-Muslim would have to pay a crushing poll tax called the jizya. Often this tax was combined with public humiliation, such as having the dhimmi deliver the money to the tax collector while naked or shackled. The Muslim rulers drew heavily from the most productive elements of society, meaning the non-Muslim merchants, laborers, and craftsman (many of the Muslim converts were granted positions within the army or provincial government).
The word "dhimmitude" comes from the Arabic word dhimmi, which means protected. This "protection" was extortion, pure and simple. But instead of watching a couple of pudgy enforcers smash up a storefront, violators of shari'a would be thrown in jail or executed. The rules themselves were harsh and intended to quell any rebellions or religious movements (outside Islam, of course). Non-Muslims who had either surrendered (without converting) or had been defeated in battle would be offered security and limited religious rights. In exchange, the dhimmi would pay the jizya and would be subject to all Islamic law. Among the restrictions on religion, no new places of worship could be constructed and existing places of worship could not be expanded or repaired for any reason. No religious emblems, such as the cross, could be worn or displayed anywhere. A dhimmi could not expect the same treatment in the courts as a Muslim and were seen as worth less as human beings. They were regularly used as household servants and suffered abuse and scorn throughout their entire lifetimes (or until they folded under the pressure and converted to Islam). All in all, the system of dhimmitude was designed to convince non-Muslims that they were inferior and had no hope of escaping their horrible lives except through conversion. This is the truth behind the much-praised "tolerance" of Islamic society. It was also remarkably effective, practically eliminating Christianity from its strongholds in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia Minor in a relatively short period of time. That should be a solemn reminder for those who do not believe that Islam could become a major power in the West.
While dhimmitude and shari'a may seem like relics of a bygone era, they are actually alive and well throughout the Middle East. In Saudia Arabia, for example, evangelism of any kind is strictly forbidden and Christians are persecuted for their faith. Egyptian Copts are shot, stabbed, bombed, and forced to watch their churches burn to the ground (remember, under shari'a Christians cannot repair or rebuild destroyed churches) and yet the world stands by and blames the problem on "sectarian violence." In Iraq, the Chaldean Christians have suffered heavily after the fall of Saddam Hussein (who used the Christians as political balance against Islamists) and receive no help from American or allied troops in the country. Indonesia has been so racked by violent attacks against non-Muslims that even the U.N. has shaken off enough of its stupor to take notice. In Europe, multi-culturalism has morphed into self-imposed dhimmitude that seeks to punish those who speak the truth about Islam's supremacist nature. Before you think that America is exempt, a recent study by the Center for Security Policy has revealed the use of shari'a in court cases from 23 states, ranging from California to Florida. And who can forget the classic dhimmitude of Comedy Central who, to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities and without a hint of irony, decided to censor an episode of South Park that was specifically written to mock Muslim censorship?
During the Cold War, the saying, "Better dead than Red!" was popular in America. This, of course, was referring to the ideological conflict with the Soviet Union as well as Communist sympathizers at home (collectively known as "Reds") that threatened to turn into a shooting match at any moment. While we were certainly blessed that full-scale war never broke out between the two nations, the generation that matured during World War II and the Korean War knew that death in defense of the American ideal of freedom was better than a long life of cowardice and surrender. So what has happened to us today, under a very different but very real threat? Have we lived so long in peace and prosperity that we refuse to sacrifice our comfort to defend our values? Are courage and honor mere buzzwords, nice to hear as long as they require no real commitment from us? Or can we take a stand for what is right, call evil by its name, and declare to the world that enough is enough?
I say, "Better dead than dhimmi!" And I am not alone.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Pakistan?
Pakistan has long been a centerpiece in American foreign policy, first against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and again in our own invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. More recently Pakistan, particularly the tribal region on the Afghan border, has become a shooting gallery for the CIA's unmanned drones. But among rumors (often spread as purposeful misinformation by radical sympathizers) that the CIA is murdering innocent civilians by firing at anything that moves. While I have some issues with the current "shoot first, ask questions never" attitude, it is undeniable that the drone strikes have been effective at eliminating key Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders. But now that diplomatic efforts with Pakistani Muslims are placed at risk, we may see a dramatic reduction in counter-terrorist activities in order to save face.
Of course, the most obvious example of the breakdown between the United States and Pakistan was the elimination of Osama bin Laden. The terrorist leader's compound was virtually right next door to Pakistan's military academy in Abbottabad and should have been patently obvious to Pakistani intelligence services. It is telling that the assault on the compound by American forces until after the mission was complete. The Guardian newspaper said that there was a tacit agreement to grant the United States the authority to perform such a raid that was struck after bin Laden escaped Afghanistan. However, the spokesman for former Pakistani President Perez Musharraf dismissed the report as "baseless" (1).
Another blow to US-Pakistan relations comes in the form of newly released WikiLeaks cables revealing extensive corruption within the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI (2). These cables paint the picture of a close relationship between powerful elements of the ISI and al-Qaeda. The Pakistani military is also accused of protecting bin Laden in order to continue to rake in billions of dollars in American financial aid to help "fight terrorism." As long as bin Laden's location was not revealed to the world, Pakistan could keep cashing US checks earmarked for his capture.
Meanwhile, riots continue throughout Pakistan over what is perceived by many as an unwarranted attack by the United States on Pakistani sovereignty. India nearly sparked a full-scale war when it was planning to retaliate against the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist group (the ones responsible for the horrors in Mumbai) on Pakistani soil (3). Now Pakistani honor has been offended (see the post "Death Before Dishonor" for more on that topic) and they are screaming for satisfaction. Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani denies that Pakistan was complicit in keeping bin Laden alive. In addition, he made the ominous statement that Pakistan "reserves the right to retaliate with full force" should future unilateral raids by the United States on Pakistani soil take place (4). Already the Pakistani government has been moving away from the United States as an ally while forming closer ties with China and has been pushing the Afghan government to do the same (5).
The waves of anti-Americanism that were sparked by the American drone strikes and fanned into flames with the death of Osama bin Laden have made life increasingly difficult for Pakistan's Christian minority. Pakistani Christians lived a precarious balance for centuries, but the situation is worse than ever (6). Salman Tasseer, the governor of the Punjab region who had been fighting to reform Pakistan's blasphemy laws that target Christians, was murdered by his own bodyguard in January. Then, a few weeks later, the Taliban assassinated Shabaz Batti, the Pakistani minorities minister (and the only highly-placed Christian in the entire government). With less political protection than ever, Pakistani Christians have been crying out to the international community. So far they have received no real response.
Lawmakers in Washington need to take a serious look at our "good friend" Pakistan and determine if the billions of dollars in aid is really worth the trouble. Faced with significant financial problems already, doesn't it make sense to stop paying the Pakistani government to lie to us? And how will these developments affect our relationship with Pakistan's longtime rival India? Let me know what you think in the Comment section.
References-
1. "Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S." Fox News; May 10, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/; accessed May 10, 2011
2. Brown, Stephen. "WikiLeaks Exposes Pakistan's Blatant Betrayal of America." FrontPage Magazine; May 4, 2011. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/04/wikileaks-expose-pakistans-blatant-betrayal-of-america/; accessed May 10, 2011
3. Xenakis, John J. "Pakistan's Schizophrenic Reaction to Bin Laden Killing." Big Peace; May 3, 2011. http://bigpeace.com/jxenakis/2011/05/03/pakistans-schizophrenic-reaction-to-bin-laden-killing/; accessed May 10, 2011
4. Rowland, Kara. "Pakistan leader decries unilateral operations." The Washington Times; May 9, 2011. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/pakistan-leader-decries-unilateral-operations/; accessed May 10, 2011
5. Schweizer, Peter. "With Friends Like These: Pakistan Urges Afghanistan To Abandon America And Join Forces With China." Big Peace; April 27, 2011. http://bigpeace.com/pschweizer/2011/04/27/with-friends-like-these-pakistan-urges-afghanistan-to-abandon-america-and-join-forces-with-china/; accessed May 10, 2011
6. Di-Natale, Dominic. "Pakistan's Deprived Christian Community Say They're Persecuted for U.S. Drone Strikes." Fox News; April 23, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/23/pakistani-deprived-christian-community-say-theyre-persecuted/; accessed May 10, 2011
Of course, the most obvious example of the breakdown between the United States and Pakistan was the elimination of Osama bin Laden. The terrorist leader's compound was virtually right next door to Pakistan's military academy in Abbottabad and should have been patently obvious to Pakistani intelligence services. It is telling that the assault on the compound by American forces until after the mission was complete. The Guardian newspaper said that there was a tacit agreement to grant the United States the authority to perform such a raid that was struck after bin Laden escaped Afghanistan. However, the spokesman for former Pakistani President Perez Musharraf dismissed the report as "baseless" (1).
Another blow to US-Pakistan relations comes in the form of newly released WikiLeaks cables revealing extensive corruption within the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI (2). These cables paint the picture of a close relationship between powerful elements of the ISI and al-Qaeda. The Pakistani military is also accused of protecting bin Laden in order to continue to rake in billions of dollars in American financial aid to help "fight terrorism." As long as bin Laden's location was not revealed to the world, Pakistan could keep cashing US checks earmarked for his capture.
Meanwhile, riots continue throughout Pakistan over what is perceived by many as an unwarranted attack by the United States on Pakistani sovereignty. India nearly sparked a full-scale war when it was planning to retaliate against the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist group (the ones responsible for the horrors in Mumbai) on Pakistani soil (3). Now Pakistani honor has been offended (see the post "Death Before Dishonor" for more on that topic) and they are screaming for satisfaction. Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani denies that Pakistan was complicit in keeping bin Laden alive. In addition, he made the ominous statement that Pakistan "reserves the right to retaliate with full force" should future unilateral raids by the United States on Pakistani soil take place (4). Already the Pakistani government has been moving away from the United States as an ally while forming closer ties with China and has been pushing the Afghan government to do the same (5).
The waves of anti-Americanism that were sparked by the American drone strikes and fanned into flames with the death of Osama bin Laden have made life increasingly difficult for Pakistan's Christian minority. Pakistani Christians lived a precarious balance for centuries, but the situation is worse than ever (6). Salman Tasseer, the governor of the Punjab region who had been fighting to reform Pakistan's blasphemy laws that target Christians, was murdered by his own bodyguard in January. Then, a few weeks later, the Taliban assassinated Shabaz Batti, the Pakistani minorities minister (and the only highly-placed Christian in the entire government). With less political protection than ever, Pakistani Christians have been crying out to the international community. So far they have received no real response.
Lawmakers in Washington need to take a serious look at our "good friend" Pakistan and determine if the billions of dollars in aid is really worth the trouble. Faced with significant financial problems already, doesn't it make sense to stop paying the Pakistani government to lie to us? And how will these developments affect our relationship with Pakistan's longtime rival India? Let me know what you think in the Comment section.
References-
1. "Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S." Fox News; May 10, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/; accessed May 10, 2011
2. Brown, Stephen. "WikiLeaks Exposes Pakistan's Blatant Betrayal of America." FrontPage Magazine; May 4, 2011. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/04/wikileaks-expose-pakistans-blatant-betrayal-of-america/; accessed May 10, 2011
3. Xenakis, John J. "Pakistan's Schizophrenic Reaction to Bin Laden Killing." Big Peace; May 3, 2011. http://bigpeace.com/jxenakis/2011/05/03/pakistans-schizophrenic-reaction-to-bin-laden-killing/; accessed May 10, 2011
4. Rowland, Kara. "Pakistan leader decries unilateral operations." The Washington Times; May 9, 2011. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/pakistan-leader-decries-unilateral-operations/; accessed May 10, 2011
5. Schweizer, Peter. "With Friends Like These: Pakistan Urges Afghanistan To Abandon America And Join Forces With China." Big Peace; April 27, 2011. http://bigpeace.com/pschweizer/2011/04/27/with-friends-like-these-pakistan-urges-afghanistan-to-abandon-america-and-join-forces-with-china/; accessed May 10, 2011
6. Di-Natale, Dominic. "Pakistan's Deprived Christian Community Say They're Persecuted for U.S. Drone Strikes." Fox News; April 23, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/23/pakistani-deprived-christian-community-say-theyre-persecuted/; accessed May 10, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
The Death of Osama bin Laden
According to the Obama administration, al-Qaeda leader and financier Osama bin Laden has finally gone to a well-deserved grave. Fox News has initial reports that bin Laden was killed by a bomb dropped by U.S. forces approximately a week ago (1). The CNN website is running a banner stating that bin Laden "was reportedly killed in Afghanistan". However, in his address to the nation, President Obama stated that bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces in a raid on a secret compound in Pakistan. Apparently the government was awaiting DNA confirmation that it was in fact the terrorist mastermind who perished in the explosion. Details are extremely scetchy at this point, with many news agencies having little more than a small blurb announcing bin Laden's reported death. There is sure to be a flurry of activity surrounding this event (and probably more than a few who don't believe that it really happened), but I wanted to address the heart of the issue. Hang on to your hats, folks, because here it comes:
It doesn't really matter.
Now, when I say that, of course it matters in terms of morale for our troops as well as the short-term implications of bin Laden's followers' attempts at retribution. But the death of Osama bin Laden does very little to slow the advance of worldwide Islamism. Osama bin Laden was one of the greatest threats to the world... ten years ago. Now, thanks entirely to the sacrifice and bravery of the intelligence and military services of America and our allies, al-Qaeda has been reduced to inducing individual Muslims to go on random shooting sprees. Terrifying, to be sure, but not the way to win any sort of strategic goals. As dangerous as non-state actors like al-Qaeda can be, it is Islamic nations (and the traitorous actions some of our own politicians and media figures) that pose the truer threat to Western civilization. Iran, Turkey, and now Egypt are posed to do more damage than bin Laden's organization could have ever dreamed of achieving on their own. Indeed, that is why al-Qaeda and its ilk are so intent on gaining significant political power in the revolutions spreading across the Middle East.
The true threat of an organization such as al-Qaeda (which will still continue the jihad after the passing of their leader) is the number of concessions that we in the West are willing to provide in the name of "peace." Put another way, al-Qaeda is the stupid school bully who keeps poking you on the playground until you are willing to do anything to get him to leave. al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, along with all of their cohorts, cannot truly force us to do anything. What they can do is pester us until we are willing to give up ourselves. This is not full-scale warfare as much as it is Mafia-style extortion. When watching the old tapes of Osama bin Laden giving speeches that are bound to flood the Internet once more with news of his death, imagine him saying in an Italian accent, "I'm making you an offer you can't refuse." That is the essence of every speech and interview that was ever released.
What matters now is the big picture. Where do we go from here? Now that bin Laden is dead, does Obama claim victory in the War That Shall Not Be Named? In his address to America, President Obama made sure to distance bin Laden from any connection to Islam whatsoever. "Osama bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. He was a mass murderer," Obama said (2). So, will the President or his administration be asked to explain why bin Laden could point to the Koran as the explanation for his actions? Probably not. But we, as free and informed citizens, know the truth.
This was a tremendous victory for the United States as well as every freedom-loving man or woman on the planet. bin Laden was scum, but he was not alone in his convictions. We must address why he chose to abandon his life of luxury for a life of fear and poverty. So enjoy the good feeling while it lasts, because the fight is far from over.
References:
1. "Usama Bin Laden is Dead, Say Sources." Fox News.com; May 1, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/. Accessed May 1, 2011.
2. "Obama addresses U.S. on death of bin Laden." CNN.com Live; May 1, 2011. Accessed May 1, 2011.
It doesn't really matter.
Now, when I say that, of course it matters in terms of morale for our troops as well as the short-term implications of bin Laden's followers' attempts at retribution. But the death of Osama bin Laden does very little to slow the advance of worldwide Islamism. Osama bin Laden was one of the greatest threats to the world... ten years ago. Now, thanks entirely to the sacrifice and bravery of the intelligence and military services of America and our allies, al-Qaeda has been reduced to inducing individual Muslims to go on random shooting sprees. Terrifying, to be sure, but not the way to win any sort of strategic goals. As dangerous as non-state actors like al-Qaeda can be, it is Islamic nations (and the traitorous actions some of our own politicians and media figures) that pose the truer threat to Western civilization. Iran, Turkey, and now Egypt are posed to do more damage than bin Laden's organization could have ever dreamed of achieving on their own. Indeed, that is why al-Qaeda and its ilk are so intent on gaining significant political power in the revolutions spreading across the Middle East.
The true threat of an organization such as al-Qaeda (which will still continue the jihad after the passing of their leader) is the number of concessions that we in the West are willing to provide in the name of "peace." Put another way, al-Qaeda is the stupid school bully who keeps poking you on the playground until you are willing to do anything to get him to leave. al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, along with all of their cohorts, cannot truly force us to do anything. What they can do is pester us until we are willing to give up ourselves. This is not full-scale warfare as much as it is Mafia-style extortion. When watching the old tapes of Osama bin Laden giving speeches that are bound to flood the Internet once more with news of his death, imagine him saying in an Italian accent, "I'm making you an offer you can't refuse." That is the essence of every speech and interview that was ever released.
What matters now is the big picture. Where do we go from here? Now that bin Laden is dead, does Obama claim victory in the War That Shall Not Be Named? In his address to America, President Obama made sure to distance bin Laden from any connection to Islam whatsoever. "Osama bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. He was a mass murderer," Obama said (2). So, will the President or his administration be asked to explain why bin Laden could point to the Koran as the explanation for his actions? Probably not. But we, as free and informed citizens, know the truth.
This was a tremendous victory for the United States as well as every freedom-loving man or woman on the planet. bin Laden was scum, but he was not alone in his convictions. We must address why he chose to abandon his life of luxury for a life of fear and poverty. So enjoy the good feeling while it lasts, because the fight is far from over.
References:
1. "Usama Bin Laden is Dead, Say Sources." Fox News.com; May 1, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/. Accessed May 1, 2011.
2. "Obama addresses U.S. on death of bin Laden." CNN.com Live; May 1, 2011. Accessed May 1, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)