All right. I realize that this story has been examined ad nauseam in the media already, but I still had some thoughts and questions that I would like to bring to the table. For those of you who have been living under a rock (but strangely are able to make it to this blog), on July 22nd an explosion rocked downtown Oslo. As the Norwegian authorities scrambled to make sense of the devastation, a man dressed in a police uniform approached a political summer camp run by the Labor Party and began mercilessly slaughtering the children present. In total, about 76 people had been killed (though early reports had a higher number of dead) by both attacks. While a Muslim terrorist group initially claimed credit for the attack, it was soon discovered that the perpetrator was 32-year old Anders Behring Breivik, a native Norwegian who claimed that the attacks were in response to unchecked Muslim immigration. The apparent motive of the attacks was to draw attention to his "cause" and to spark similar acts of violence across Europe. As quick as the media have been to call Breivik a "Christian extremist," a number of prominent conservative thinkers including Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter have shown that this claim is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. But this post is not about retreading what is by now old territory. Instead, I would simply like to make some observations and ask some questions that have still not been answered to my satisfaction. As such, there will be relatively few links to other websites. After all, if someone has the information that I want, I wouldn't need to ask the question.
The way I see it, there are two possible explanations for this attack. The first is that the radical nationalist elements in Europe have begun their counter-assault on the encroaching Islamist presence in their countries. This sort of thing, unfortunately, is frankly inevitable and will only continue to get worse as the sane elements of the anti-Jihad are demonized and ignored. People with good intentions will be pushed to violence because it will be the only recourse left to them by the ruling elites. By no means do I intend to excuse or justify any of these violent actions or those who commit them. On the contrary, I do what I do so that the sane people of the Western world can shake off the coma that has consumed their society before a violent conflict becomes necessary. But there are genuine monsters lurking on the edges of society that will take advantage of the chaos that is headed our way (and already started in some places) to commit truly hideous acts. This guy, in particular, has earned my ire for his almost comical misuse of the Knights Templar as a symbol to "purify" traditionally Christian lands. Seriously, how come no one has called him (or those who parrot the line) on this simple fact: the Knights Templar did not exist to kill Muslims, they existed to ensure safe travel to the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims. The "Knights Templar" that Breivik talks about are closer to a Dan Brown novel than historical reality.
The second possibility is one that I have heard (or read) no one considering: a false flag attack. A false flag attack occurs when one group attacks a second group but makes it look as if a third group was responsible. Before you dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist, I am not saying that I believe that this is the case, or even that it is likely, but the implications should be examined regardless. From the beginning, I have thought that Breivik seems to be a caricature of Christianity and the political right, spewing almost nonsensical statements that the media seizes upon without hesitation. To be fair, many in the left-leaning media view most right-wing Christians as closet psychopaths seeking to kill anyone different from themselves, so no one would expect them to find Breivik's statements to be ridiculously over-the-top. The man's "manifesto" was largely copied from the work of the Unabomber. The rest of Breivik's manifesto also presents a problem for those seeking to easily categorize him as a Christian fundamentalist as he lays out plans to work with "the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout factions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations" (pg. 959 of "A European Declaration of Independence). So the media tells us that Breivik wants to kill the first Muslim that he sees, yet he is actively planning on working with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and Iran! Not to mention the fact that his Facebook and Twitter accounts, which provided the media with his earliest "pro-Christian" statements, had only been set up five days before the attack took place and such an attack would have taken much longer than a week to plan and organize. Adding to the discrepancies are his sudden ability to construct a relatively sophisticated explosive device (which, as the attempted Times Square bomber, the Underpants Bomber, and several other examples have proven, is not an easy task even with a moderate level of training).
No matter which scenario is correct, there is no doubt that the game has changed. I actually hope that this is a false flag attack by one of the "usual suspects" because that means that ordinary Europeans still have more time to prepare themselves morally and spiritually for the coming crisis. But if this was, as Breivik hoped, the first shot in some sort of war we will not have long to wait before another attack occurs. The explosive element of the Oslo attack at least suggests the hand of a larger group (not al-Qaeda sized, but larger than a kook with a chemistry set) which could possibly be operating internationally. Again this is speculative at the moment, but consider the situation that Europe is in right now. Communist revolutionaries are already active throughout Europe, especially in economically troubled nations like Greece or Portugal. Any reader of this blog knows (or is just a few clicks away from knowing) how active Islamist revolutionaries are throughout Europe. For example, a recent study showed that over the past five years every rape committed by a stranger (i.e., not incest) and in which the rapist was identified by the victim was by a Muslim immigrant and targeted almost exclusively native Norwegians. As the situation worsens, the ordinary people of Europe may seek protection from both of these groups and find their governments unable or unwilling to provide it. When that happens, nationalist "right-wing" (although the term is misleading when applied to European politics) revolutionaries will present themselves as a bastion against the barbarian hordes threatening to tear down European society. The moderate, sane voices will be drowned out (or eliminated) and the people of the Western world will find themselves increasingly squeezed from the center and toward one of these three anti-freedom factions as they struggle for dominance. Don't believe me? Take a look at Europe between the end of World War I and the start of World War II to find a situation eerily similar to our own (except we have the added bonus of radical Muslims blowing themselves up in major cities).
There's nothing like good news, and this post has been nothing like good news. I may not present a bright shiny future of hovercars and universal brotherhood, but I strive to tell you exactly what I believe may be headed our way. Please let me know your thoughts on the subject in the Comments section, and keep tuning in (metaphorically speaking) each week.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Temporary Delay
I realize that I did not post anything this past Friday. I am following the Oslo terrorism situation very closely and will have a related post up shortly. I simply did not wish to jump into the debate before the facts were settled and end up having to eat my words if proved incorrect. But even if the terrorist was not Islamic, there are still unanswered questions and important ramifications for the future of Europe's relationship with Islam. Hopefully I can have something up by Wednesday. If not, I will just make it this week's post. As always, thank you for reading. Please continue to tell your friends about The New Knighthood, and leave me a Comment if you have concerns, questions, or suggestions for later posts.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Tragedy Strikes Mumbai Once More
In November of 2008, the Indian city of Mumbai suffered a devastating terrorist rampage that left 164 people dead (including 10 terrorists) and over 300 wounded. The Lashkar-e-Taiba group based out of Pakistan was found to be the culprit, and many experts support the theory that Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) provided some support to the terrorists. Now, less than three years later, the people of Mumbai have been dealt another serious blow. On Wednesday, July 13, three bombs detonated almost simultaneously. The explosions occurred in the densely populated urban neighborhood of Dadar, the jewelry markets of the Zaveri Bazaar, and the business district of Opera House in southern Mumbai. At least 21 people were killed in the blasts and another 141 were injured. The Blaze has more on this story, but be warned that the article contains graphic images.
The guilty party in this most recent attack appears to be the Indian Mujahideen, a "homegrown" group that adheres to radical Sunni ideology. While these bombs were certainly deadly, STRATFOR points out that "this attack does not appear to be as sophisticated as the 2008 attacks," which involved a highly coordinated strike by foreign operatives on Indian soil that lasted for 60 brutal hours. One of the main reasons for concern (beyond the tragic loss of life) is the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba has significant ties to the Indian Mujahideen. According to some reports, bombmakers from Lashkar-e-Taiba may have constructed the devices used in Wednesday's attack because the top bombmakers of the Indian Mujahideen are all in prison. The Indian Mujahideen have tried bombings over the past couple of years, but the devices proved to be defective. Why, all of a sudden, would they be able to coordinate explosions of this magnitude? If this connection is true, then Pakistani groups may be hiding behind local Indian terrorists to advance their common agenda and spread Indian security forces dangerously thin. It would also give the ISI yet another layer of deniability without limiting their opportunities.
The Pakistani government officially condemned the attack, but in reality this means very little. I do not doubt that most of Pakistan's political class are upset at further disruptions to their negotiations with the Indian government. Unfortunately for them, these politicians have less power than they pretend. The military and intelligence services, particularly the ISI, are the real power-players in Pakistan and operate with virtual impunity. The situation is made more disturbing as Pakistan draws increasingly close to China even as Pakistani-US relations worsen. The Indian government is sure to recognize the potential consequences of two of its nuclear-armed neighbors (and rivals) establishing such a cozy relationship with one another. As Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram (read that out loud and tell me it doesn't sound like the title of a camp song) said, "We live in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world. Every part of India is vulnerable." The real question is whether the politicians and analysts in Washington D.C. understand what is happening and have the nerve to stand beside India at a time when the region is turning against them (Huh. You know, that sounds an awful lot like another "I" country suffering from regular Islamist attacks. But more on that in a later post).
The continued attacks on Mumbai highlight an important element in the jihadist strategy: weaken the enemy's financial institutions until they collapse under their own weight. At such a delicate economic time in the world, such a strategy could prove devestating. With riots spreading across the European Union and looming in hard-hit areas of the United States, one critical strike could send the entire world spinning into chaos. And that is exactly what the Islamists, along with their Socialist and Communist allies, want. The people of Mumbai have been hit with another major tragedy. It is important for all of us to recognize the implications of that tragedy. Chaos is on our doorstep, and if we are not careful the entire world could find itself in the same situation as the unfortunate victims of Mumbai.
The guilty party in this most recent attack appears to be the Indian Mujahideen, a "homegrown" group that adheres to radical Sunni ideology. While these bombs were certainly deadly, STRATFOR points out that "this attack does not appear to be as sophisticated as the 2008 attacks," which involved a highly coordinated strike by foreign operatives on Indian soil that lasted for 60 brutal hours. One of the main reasons for concern (beyond the tragic loss of life) is the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba has significant ties to the Indian Mujahideen. According to some reports, bombmakers from Lashkar-e-Taiba may have constructed the devices used in Wednesday's attack because the top bombmakers of the Indian Mujahideen are all in prison. The Indian Mujahideen have tried bombings over the past couple of years, but the devices proved to be defective. Why, all of a sudden, would they be able to coordinate explosions of this magnitude? If this connection is true, then Pakistani groups may be hiding behind local Indian terrorists to advance their common agenda and spread Indian security forces dangerously thin. It would also give the ISI yet another layer of deniability without limiting their opportunities.
The Pakistani government officially condemned the attack, but in reality this means very little. I do not doubt that most of Pakistan's political class are upset at further disruptions to their negotiations with the Indian government. Unfortunately for them, these politicians have less power than they pretend. The military and intelligence services, particularly the ISI, are the real power-players in Pakistan and operate with virtual impunity. The situation is made more disturbing as Pakistan draws increasingly close to China even as Pakistani-US relations worsen. The Indian government is sure to recognize the potential consequences of two of its nuclear-armed neighbors (and rivals) establishing such a cozy relationship with one another. As Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram (read that out loud and tell me it doesn't sound like the title of a camp song) said, "We live in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world. Every part of India is vulnerable." The real question is whether the politicians and analysts in Washington D.C. understand what is happening and have the nerve to stand beside India at a time when the region is turning against them (Huh. You know, that sounds an awful lot like another "I" country suffering from regular Islamist attacks. But more on that in a later post).
The continued attacks on Mumbai highlight an important element in the jihadist strategy: weaken the enemy's financial institutions until they collapse under their own weight. At such a delicate economic time in the world, such a strategy could prove devestating. With riots spreading across the European Union and looming in hard-hit areas of the United States, one critical strike could send the entire world spinning into chaos. And that is exactly what the Islamists, along with their Socialist and Communist allies, want. The people of Mumbai have been hit with another major tragedy. It is important for all of us to recognize the implications of that tragedy. Chaos is on our doorstep, and if we are not careful the entire world could find itself in the same situation as the unfortunate victims of Mumbai.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Slavery and Islam: Part Three-The Spoils of War
In the previous installments of this series, I have presented the idea of Islam's fundamental dependence on slavery from the perspectives of sexual slavery and slave labor. Now I want to wrap it all up where it pretty much all began: slaves as spoils of war. To be clear, taking captives to use as slaves in wartime is as old as organized warfare itself, so I am not saying that Islamic culture is responsible for this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the use of captives (almost always non-combatants) to fuel the war effort, either as a labor force or as human shields, is still a core element of the jihad and must not be overlooked or forgotten.
According to Islamic doctrine, the world is broken into two groups: Dar al-Islam (the land of submission, as in those who have already submitted to Mohammed's message) and the Dar al-Harb (the land of war, as in those who still resist the dictates of Islam). The term "land" literally refers to whether or not the national government is subservient to the dictates of Islam, in other words run under sharia. The mere existence of the Dar al-Harb serves as sufficient justification for any act of war by Muslims. Thus smooth-talking Muslim "moderates" (as opposed to Muslims who actually seek to reform their religion) can assure the media that jihad was only meant for defensive purposes without actually lying. You see, Islamic doctrine holds that the entire world began under a sort of proto-Islam that was then corrupted until the people fell away from Allah. The simple fact that we (non-Muslims) are not dead, converted, or kept in a state of dhimmitude means that we are "occupying" what should be Muslim lands and are thus fair game. With that very simple but crucial bit of understanding, it becomes easier to grasp why Islamists do what they do, including the use of slavery as a tool of war.
Historically, the capture of slaves was a priority for Islamic conquerors. Only a few centuries after the death of Mohammed, Muslim raiders were striking as deeply into Christendom as Rome itself. Early Muslim generals used captives as expendable front-line troops (with the hope that opposing armies would hesitate when facing their own countrymen). Hundreds of years later, the Ottomans would perfect that art with the Janissaries, Christian boys captured in raids or taken from occupied lands at a very young age and raised to be some of the fiercest warriors of their era. The picture was the same on the seas as Muslim pirates would attack Christian merchants or warships and take as many sailors prisoner as possible. These prisoners would either be used to bolster the Caliphate's navy or sold when the pirates returned to port. Miguel Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, suffered for five years as a slave in Algiers when his ship was attacked by corsairs in 1575. Though he was saved by the efforts of the Trinitarians (a Christian group dedicated to purchasing freedom for slaves), untold thousands were not as blessed and never tasted freedom until their death. The corsairs became such a persistent threat that, after the Holy Land was lost, the Knights Hospitallar became wholly focused on stemming the tide (no pun intended) of Islamic piracy. Later, the United States would go to war with the Barbary States (twice!) in order to protect American sailors from such a fate. While the abolishment of the Caliphate by Attaturk shattered the Muslim world's military might, the use of slaves to progress the jihad still lives on to this day.
When Muslim raiders attacked a village, their favorite tactic was to slaughter any men who would be able to resist then kidnap women and children. Those two groups were preferred captives for several reasons. First, neither group would have received any real combat training and would be easier to control through brute force. Second, their capture would have a demoralizing effect on the survivors and could prevent pursuit if the villagers were afraid the captives would be harmed in retaliation. Third, women and young girls (as well as a surprisingly large number of boys) would be valuable as sexual slaves while young men would work in the fields or as household slaves. Boys would also be drafted into the army while they were young enough to be malleable. We see this today (though again not restricted to Islam) in the abduction and brainwashing of child soldiers, particularly in central Africa.
The country of Sudan provides a chilling example of such practices in action today. Anti-Slavery International reports that between 5,000 and 14,000 people have been abducted in armed raids and forced into slavery since 1983. Almost exclusively, the targets of these raids have been the non-Muslims in the south. Rather than fighting this scourge, the Islamic government of Sudan has been a key player in these events, using militia forces to ravage the Christian and animist communities. The militias are instruments of pure terror, looting then burning homes and churches and murdering scores of innocent civilians. In response, several organizations have been working on purchasing freedom for the captives in the same way Cervantes was freed over four hundred years ago. Two of the groups active in this effort have been Christian Solidarity International and the American Anti-Slavery Group. These efforts have not always met with support from European and American officials who want to maintain good relations with Khartoum. Moreover, the government of Sudan, along with a handful of other Muslim governments, has accused those fighting the slave trade of defaming Islam. I say that is all the more reason to keep going!
In conclusion, I want to bring your attention back to Salwa al-Mutairi. You remember her, the delightful woman who wanted to restore legalized sex slavery in Kuwait? Well, a key part of that story was the fact that she advocated that "POWs" from the "Chechnyan war" be bought and sold as slaves rather than be "slaughtered." That should provide quite a bit of insight into the differences between the Western and Islamic views of war. In the West, there are many rules governing the treatment of prisoners. But Muslims waging the jihad torture and execute captives so that anyone with an Internet connection can watch. Captives exist as propaganda tools and nothing more. From that frame of mind, al-Mutairi's argument makes a certain element of sense. Why simply kill a captive when you can make a bit of profit on the side? Anything to make the Dar al-Harb weaker and strengthen the Dar al-Islam.
This series has taken us down some roads that most people in our supposedly civilized society would choose to ignore. In the next decade, I believe that we will see advocates for legalized slavery (although they would call it something different, of course) pop up in Europe and maybe even America as the Muslim communities grow bolder and increasingly radicalized. One thing is certain, however: as long as the West continues to pretend the problem doesn't exist, the worse it will get. Only honest examination of slavery, past and present, can allow us to move toward a solution to this problem. The abolition movement of the 1800s gave way to the civil rights movements of the 20th century. Will we see a similar movement in the 21st century, or is ending slave practices permitted by the Koran simply not acceptable for the politically correct "social justice" crowd?
According to Islamic doctrine, the world is broken into two groups: Dar al-Islam (the land of submission, as in those who have already submitted to Mohammed's message) and the Dar al-Harb (the land of war, as in those who still resist the dictates of Islam). The term "land" literally refers to whether or not the national government is subservient to the dictates of Islam, in other words run under sharia. The mere existence of the Dar al-Harb serves as sufficient justification for any act of war by Muslims. Thus smooth-talking Muslim "moderates" (as opposed to Muslims who actually seek to reform their religion) can assure the media that jihad was only meant for defensive purposes without actually lying. You see, Islamic doctrine holds that the entire world began under a sort of proto-Islam that was then corrupted until the people fell away from Allah. The simple fact that we (non-Muslims) are not dead, converted, or kept in a state of dhimmitude means that we are "occupying" what should be Muslim lands and are thus fair game. With that very simple but crucial bit of understanding, it becomes easier to grasp why Islamists do what they do, including the use of slavery as a tool of war.
Historically, the capture of slaves was a priority for Islamic conquerors. Only a few centuries after the death of Mohammed, Muslim raiders were striking as deeply into Christendom as Rome itself. Early Muslim generals used captives as expendable front-line troops (with the hope that opposing armies would hesitate when facing their own countrymen). Hundreds of years later, the Ottomans would perfect that art with the Janissaries, Christian boys captured in raids or taken from occupied lands at a very young age and raised to be some of the fiercest warriors of their era. The picture was the same on the seas as Muslim pirates would attack Christian merchants or warships and take as many sailors prisoner as possible. These prisoners would either be used to bolster the Caliphate's navy or sold when the pirates returned to port. Miguel Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, suffered for five years as a slave in Algiers when his ship was attacked by corsairs in 1575. Though he was saved by the efforts of the Trinitarians (a Christian group dedicated to purchasing freedom for slaves), untold thousands were not as blessed and never tasted freedom until their death. The corsairs became such a persistent threat that, after the Holy Land was lost, the Knights Hospitallar became wholly focused on stemming the tide (no pun intended) of Islamic piracy. Later, the United States would go to war with the Barbary States (twice!) in order to protect American sailors from such a fate. While the abolishment of the Caliphate by Attaturk shattered the Muslim world's military might, the use of slaves to progress the jihad still lives on to this day.
When Muslim raiders attacked a village, their favorite tactic was to slaughter any men who would be able to resist then kidnap women and children. Those two groups were preferred captives for several reasons. First, neither group would have received any real combat training and would be easier to control through brute force. Second, their capture would have a demoralizing effect on the survivors and could prevent pursuit if the villagers were afraid the captives would be harmed in retaliation. Third, women and young girls (as well as a surprisingly large number of boys) would be valuable as sexual slaves while young men would work in the fields or as household slaves. Boys would also be drafted into the army while they were young enough to be malleable. We see this today (though again not restricted to Islam) in the abduction and brainwashing of child soldiers, particularly in central Africa.
The country of Sudan provides a chilling example of such practices in action today. Anti-Slavery International reports that between 5,000 and 14,000 people have been abducted in armed raids and forced into slavery since 1983. Almost exclusively, the targets of these raids have been the non-Muslims in the south. Rather than fighting this scourge, the Islamic government of Sudan has been a key player in these events, using militia forces to ravage the Christian and animist communities. The militias are instruments of pure terror, looting then burning homes and churches and murdering scores of innocent civilians. In response, several organizations have been working on purchasing freedom for the captives in the same way Cervantes was freed over four hundred years ago. Two of the groups active in this effort have been Christian Solidarity International and the American Anti-Slavery Group. These efforts have not always met with support from European and American officials who want to maintain good relations with Khartoum. Moreover, the government of Sudan, along with a handful of other Muslim governments, has accused those fighting the slave trade of defaming Islam. I say that is all the more reason to keep going!
In conclusion, I want to bring your attention back to Salwa al-Mutairi. You remember her, the delightful woman who wanted to restore legalized sex slavery in Kuwait? Well, a key part of that story was the fact that she advocated that "POWs" from the "Chechnyan war" be bought and sold as slaves rather than be "slaughtered." That should provide quite a bit of insight into the differences between the Western and Islamic views of war. In the West, there are many rules governing the treatment of prisoners. But Muslims waging the jihad torture and execute captives so that anyone with an Internet connection can watch. Captives exist as propaganda tools and nothing more. From that frame of mind, al-Mutairi's argument makes a certain element of sense. Why simply kill a captive when you can make a bit of profit on the side? Anything to make the Dar al-Harb weaker and strengthen the Dar al-Islam.
This series has taken us down some roads that most people in our supposedly civilized society would choose to ignore. In the next decade, I believe that we will see advocates for legalized slavery (although they would call it something different, of course) pop up in Europe and maybe even America as the Muslim communities grow bolder and increasingly radicalized. One thing is certain, however: as long as the West continues to pretend the problem doesn't exist, the worse it will get. Only honest examination of slavery, past and present, can allow us to move toward a solution to this problem. The abolition movement of the 1800s gave way to the civil rights movements of the 20th century. Will we see a similar movement in the 21st century, or is ending slave practices permitted by the Koran simply not acceptable for the politically correct "social justice" crowd?
Friday, July 1, 2011
On Vacation
This week I am on vacation, but I will be back with the final chapter in my series "Slavery and Islam" next Friday.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Slavery and Islam: Part Two-Slave Labor
America's turbulent history of slavery has been used by many progressives as a club to intimidate political opponents and push for redistribution of wealth. However, these same people turn a blind eye to the rampant slavery that continues to this day in the Islamic world. In part one of this series, we examined the slave trade as it pertains to sexual slavery along with some very nasty comments from influential figures urging Muslim legislators to restore the legal status of sex slavery. Part two is focused on the more traditional version of slavery that Americans read about in our own history: slave labor. Slavery has been a part of Islamic expansionism since Mohammed began spreading his message because it broke the spirits of defeated peoples while providing free labor and human shields to build the empire.
The North African country of Mauritania, just south of Morocco, is a perfect example of the slavery that still exists in Islamic countries and how it is divided along racial lines. Mauritania was one of the last countries in the entire world to write legislation outlawing slavery in 1981. However, these laws are rarely enforced. Some estimates have current slave numbers somewhere around the 600,000 mark (about 20% of the entire population). Mauritania was a center of the Arab slave trade for many years, and the descendants of the black slaves (the Haratin) make up the vast majority of current slaves. This racial tinge is not unique to Mauritania. Part three of this series will delve more deeply into the racial underpinnings of Islamic slavery.
Our "good friend" Pakistan is also rife with instances of slave labor, especially in the rural north. In particular, household servants (drawn largely from the minority Christian population) are routinely beaten and raped. There are numerous cases of Muslim landowners claiming that someone owes them a debt (without proof) and demanding bonded labor until the fictional debt is repaid. People who have refused to work for such masters have been attacked by mobs and arrested. Even children are forced to work, usually young girls as maids. Some children have been abducted in order to pay off a family debt (real or imagined). In most cases, the slaves are offered better conditions or even cancellation of the debt if they convert to Islam (historically a common tactic by victorious Muslim armies).
It should be telling that Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Mohammed and the spiritual heartland of Islam, did not formally abolish slavery until 1962, and even then only under intense international pressure. While the slave markets of centuries past stand deserted, the underlying philosophy has not changed. The oil-rich nations of the Arabian Peninsula have a workforce almost entirely composed of foreigners. These foreign workers are often abused and forced to work in miserable conditions by their employers. In addition, despite the fact that they make up the backbone of the economy (and comprise a third of Saudi Arabia's population), foreign workers are consistently mistreated in the legal system. It is not only Saudi Arabia that has this problem. As Dubai has rapidly expanded in the last decade or so, there has been a flood of semi-skilled laborers. These laborers were lured by the promise of work but find themselves working in horrible conditions and paid so little that they cannot return home.
While isolated incidents involving members of a group does not mean that the group itself is at fault, the sheer number of abuses in Muslim countries and the theological support from the Koran means that the problem is deeper than a few individuals. I do not mean to denigrate the efforts of those Muslims who choose to stand against slavery; on the contrary, those efforts are deserving of the highest praise. But individual nobility does not excuse centuries of history and a culture that places a lower value on some human beings than others. As Winston Churchill said, "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in all the world." And this was coming from the guy who went toe-to-toe with Nazism in England's darkest hour. If he says Islam (or "Mohammedanism" as he called it) is a negative influence, we should take his word for it.
Stay tuned for the third and final installment, "Slavery and Islam: Part Three Spoils of War," next week.
The North African country of Mauritania, just south of Morocco, is a perfect example of the slavery that still exists in Islamic countries and how it is divided along racial lines. Mauritania was one of the last countries in the entire world to write legislation outlawing slavery in 1981. However, these laws are rarely enforced. Some estimates have current slave numbers somewhere around the 600,000 mark (about 20% of the entire population). Mauritania was a center of the Arab slave trade for many years, and the descendants of the black slaves (the Haratin) make up the vast majority of current slaves. This racial tinge is not unique to Mauritania. Part three of this series will delve more deeply into the racial underpinnings of Islamic slavery.
Our "good friend" Pakistan is also rife with instances of slave labor, especially in the rural north. In particular, household servants (drawn largely from the minority Christian population) are routinely beaten and raped. There are numerous cases of Muslim landowners claiming that someone owes them a debt (without proof) and demanding bonded labor until the fictional debt is repaid. People who have refused to work for such masters have been attacked by mobs and arrested. Even children are forced to work, usually young girls as maids. Some children have been abducted in order to pay off a family debt (real or imagined). In most cases, the slaves are offered better conditions or even cancellation of the debt if they convert to Islam (historically a common tactic by victorious Muslim armies).
It should be telling that Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Mohammed and the spiritual heartland of Islam, did not formally abolish slavery until 1962, and even then only under intense international pressure. While the slave markets of centuries past stand deserted, the underlying philosophy has not changed. The oil-rich nations of the Arabian Peninsula have a workforce almost entirely composed of foreigners. These foreign workers are often abused and forced to work in miserable conditions by their employers. In addition, despite the fact that they make up the backbone of the economy (and comprise a third of Saudi Arabia's population), foreign workers are consistently mistreated in the legal system. It is not only Saudi Arabia that has this problem. As Dubai has rapidly expanded in the last decade or so, there has been a flood of semi-skilled laborers. These laborers were lured by the promise of work but find themselves working in horrible conditions and paid so little that they cannot return home.
While isolated incidents involving members of a group does not mean that the group itself is at fault, the sheer number of abuses in Muslim countries and the theological support from the Koran means that the problem is deeper than a few individuals. I do not mean to denigrate the efforts of those Muslims who choose to stand against slavery; on the contrary, those efforts are deserving of the highest praise. But individual nobility does not excuse centuries of history and a culture that places a lower value on some human beings than others. As Winston Churchill said, "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in all the world." And this was coming from the guy who went toe-to-toe with Nazism in England's darkest hour. If he says Islam (or "Mohammedanism" as he called it) is a negative influence, we should take his word for it.
Stay tuned for the third and final installment, "Slavery and Islam: Part Three Spoils of War," next week.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Slavery and Islam-Part One: Sex Slavery
The history of slavery and its abolition in the United States has been written in blood. While many Americans foolishly believe that slavery began with Christopher Columbus' discovery of the New World and ended with the Emancipation Proclamation, that is simply not the case. But what they do not know, and has been carefully ignored by progressive historians, is the relationship between Islam and slavery. While the historic roots of Islam's impact on the slave trade run deep, this series will focus on the modern slavery still rampant in Islamic cultures.
Recently, a couple of videos featuring Egyptian cleric Abi-Ishaq al-Huwayni have been making the rounds. In his first clip, the prominent Islamic scholar explained that, "The poverty that we're in-is it not due to our abandonment of jihad?" He goes on to say that jihadist raids against the West could solve Muslims' economic woes because, "Every mujahid who returned from jihad, his pockets would be full. He would return with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women, and 3 or 4 children (emphasis added)." While this may sound shocking to Western ears, for the past millennium the practice of slavery has been the cornerstone of Islamic economics (see my earlier post "Better Dead than Dhimmi").
Of all the forms of slavery condoned by Islam, the most horrific is the practice of sex-slavery, whereby young girls are bought and sold to be used as the playthings of Muslim men. In Islamic jurisprudence, these slave girls have very few rights and can be used and discarded on a whim. In the case of these slaves, normal Islamic rules governing behavior between men and women do not apply. For example, according to Koran 4:24, "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." That means that, even if a slave is married to someone else, it is not adultery to use her for sex. Slaves were also given reduced status in the eyes of the law. Koran 2:178 says, "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female (emphasis added)." According to this passage, slave girls would have both their slave status and the fact that they were women held against them. If a slave girl was killed by her master, the consequences would be nowhere near as severe as if the master killed a free Muslim man, essentially amounting to a slap on the wrist.
This may seem like a custom from the medieval era, but in reality sexual slavery is still not all that uncommon in the Islamic world. In many places, such as Egypt or Pakistan, Christian women are kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man. Under sharia law, returning to Christianity is punishable by death. Many of these forced brides are "kept as virtual slaves." In addition, human trafficking is a booming business in Muslim countries like Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Eritrea, and Mauritania (keep an eye out. Some of these countries are going to pop up again and again in this series).
The most important thing to remember is that, while Christianity demands spiritual growth and the free acceptance of God's grace, Islam is static. Through the Koran and the Hadith, there is no aspect of a Muslim's life that is left unregulated. Islam also discounts the existence of free will as an insult against Allah's supremacy (for an all-powerful deity, Allah is awfully sensitive). As a result, because slavery is not only accepted but mandated as the birthright of all Muslims, you will never see a serious Islamic movement to abolish slavery. The only reason slavery is officially illegal in the Middle East today is because it was outlawed by the Western empires.
With Islamism gaining more power, we have begun to see more public calls for the restoration of legal slavery. Our good buddy al-Huwayni had a recent telephone interview in which he attempted to clarify his earlier position, which he said was taken out of context. "Do you understand what I'm saying?" he asked. "Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels." Oh. Okay. So he wanted to put in context that slaves are only to be taken from unbelieving population. 'Cause that was totally misunderstood in the first video. But then he doubled down on his slavery comments by saying, "When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards." So not only does he not want Muslim slaves, he endorses slavery for all unbelieving men, women, and children. Talk about an equal opportunity employer, huh?
But it's not just one influential Egyptian cleric who endorses enslaving infidels. Female political activist and former candidate for the Kuwaiti parliament Salwa al-Mutairi has called for legislation to legalize enslaved female concubines for Muslim men. She said that Muslim men fear being seduced into immoral behavior by beautiful female servants and that some of these servants have been "casting spells" on them. These poor men, who lack the free will to keep it in their pants, risk committing adultery if they have sex outside of marriage. Of course, slave girls don't count, so they can be used to satisfy the Muslim men until a real wife (or four) comes along. Like al-Huwayni, al-Mutairi says that "free" Muslim women cannot be sex slaves. Instead, she suggests blonde women taken from Russia because Muslim men prefer blonde women. Apparently blondes don't always have more fun. She tries to sell it as humanitarian: "In such a case (the "Chechnyan war") there must be POWs, so why not go and buy those prisoners? Is it better for them to be slaughtered over there?" In her mind, there is no possibility of releasing the prisoners, so why not make a little profit on the side?
There are many elements of Islamic philosophy wrapped up in the issue of slavery, particularly sex slavery, but there are some that are worthy of special attention. First, all non-Muslims are sub-human and worthy only of death or slavery. Second, Muslim men have no free will of their own to resist temptation so other arrangements must be provided in order to protect their honor (a group concept in Islam, remember). Every sexual whim must be granted, either by a wife or a slave girl, and the same system carries over into Paradise. Third, all efforts to spread Islam must crush the will to resist within the infidel populations and make them easier to convert or destroy. That is why the Coptic community in Egypt is particularly hard-hit by kidnappings and forced marriages. And fourth, the war against the infidels must be viewed through pragmatic eyes. To paraphrase al-Mutairi, why kill a defeated enemy when you can make him (or her) your slave?
Legalized slavery may have ended in the West, but if the Islamists have their way we could see clerics from Dearborn to Hamburg claiming their "divine right." Where are the apologists for Islam on this issue? For that matter, where is the media or the government? Every minute they spend blind to the realities on the ground, more people will be sent into a life of servitude. Hopefully this series will open some eyes to the situation. The more people who know the truth, the harder it will be for the enemies of freedom to maintain their illusions.
Recently, a couple of videos featuring Egyptian cleric Abi-Ishaq al-Huwayni have been making the rounds. In his first clip, the prominent Islamic scholar explained that, "The poverty that we're in-is it not due to our abandonment of jihad?" He goes on to say that jihadist raids against the West could solve Muslims' economic woes because, "Every mujahid who returned from jihad, his pockets would be full. He would return with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women, and 3 or 4 children (emphasis added)." While this may sound shocking to Western ears, for the past millennium the practice of slavery has been the cornerstone of Islamic economics (see my earlier post "Better Dead than Dhimmi").
Of all the forms of slavery condoned by Islam, the most horrific is the practice of sex-slavery, whereby young girls are bought and sold to be used as the playthings of Muslim men. In Islamic jurisprudence, these slave girls have very few rights and can be used and discarded on a whim. In the case of these slaves, normal Islamic rules governing behavior between men and women do not apply. For example, according to Koran 4:24, "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." That means that, even if a slave is married to someone else, it is not adultery to use her for sex. Slaves were also given reduced status in the eyes of the law. Koran 2:178 says, "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female (emphasis added)." According to this passage, slave girls would have both their slave status and the fact that they were women held against them. If a slave girl was killed by her master, the consequences would be nowhere near as severe as if the master killed a free Muslim man, essentially amounting to a slap on the wrist.
This may seem like a custom from the medieval era, but in reality sexual slavery is still not all that uncommon in the Islamic world. In many places, such as Egypt or Pakistan, Christian women are kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man. Under sharia law, returning to Christianity is punishable by death. Many of these forced brides are "kept as virtual slaves." In addition, human trafficking is a booming business in Muslim countries like Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Eritrea, and Mauritania (keep an eye out. Some of these countries are going to pop up again and again in this series).
The most important thing to remember is that, while Christianity demands spiritual growth and the free acceptance of God's grace, Islam is static. Through the Koran and the Hadith, there is no aspect of a Muslim's life that is left unregulated. Islam also discounts the existence of free will as an insult against Allah's supremacy (for an all-powerful deity, Allah is awfully sensitive). As a result, because slavery is not only accepted but mandated as the birthright of all Muslims, you will never see a serious Islamic movement to abolish slavery. The only reason slavery is officially illegal in the Middle East today is because it was outlawed by the Western empires.
With Islamism gaining more power, we have begun to see more public calls for the restoration of legal slavery. Our good buddy al-Huwayni had a recent telephone interview in which he attempted to clarify his earlier position, which he said was taken out of context. "Do you understand what I'm saying?" he asked. "Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels." Oh. Okay. So he wanted to put in context that slaves are only to be taken from unbelieving population. 'Cause that was totally misunderstood in the first video. But then he doubled down on his slavery comments by saying, "When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards." So not only does he not want Muslim slaves, he endorses slavery for all unbelieving men, women, and children. Talk about an equal opportunity employer, huh?
But it's not just one influential Egyptian cleric who endorses enslaving infidels. Female political activist and former candidate for the Kuwaiti parliament Salwa al-Mutairi has called for legislation to legalize enslaved female concubines for Muslim men. She said that Muslim men fear being seduced into immoral behavior by beautiful female servants and that some of these servants have been "casting spells" on them. These poor men, who lack the free will to keep it in their pants, risk committing adultery if they have sex outside of marriage. Of course, slave girls don't count, so they can be used to satisfy the Muslim men until a real wife (or four) comes along. Like al-Huwayni, al-Mutairi says that "free" Muslim women cannot be sex slaves. Instead, she suggests blonde women taken from Russia because Muslim men prefer blonde women. Apparently blondes don't always have more fun. She tries to sell it as humanitarian: "In such a case (the "Chechnyan war") there must be POWs, so why not go and buy those prisoners? Is it better for them to be slaughtered over there?" In her mind, there is no possibility of releasing the prisoners, so why not make a little profit on the side?
There are many elements of Islamic philosophy wrapped up in the issue of slavery, particularly sex slavery, but there are some that are worthy of special attention. First, all non-Muslims are sub-human and worthy only of death or slavery. Second, Muslim men have no free will of their own to resist temptation so other arrangements must be provided in order to protect their honor (a group concept in Islam, remember). Every sexual whim must be granted, either by a wife or a slave girl, and the same system carries over into Paradise. Third, all efforts to spread Islam must crush the will to resist within the infidel populations and make them easier to convert or destroy. That is why the Coptic community in Egypt is particularly hard-hit by kidnappings and forced marriages. And fourth, the war against the infidels must be viewed through pragmatic eyes. To paraphrase al-Mutairi, why kill a defeated enemy when you can make him (or her) your slave?
Legalized slavery may have ended in the West, but if the Islamists have their way we could see clerics from Dearborn to Hamburg claiming their "divine right." Where are the apologists for Islam on this issue? For that matter, where is the media or the government? Every minute they spend blind to the realities on the ground, more people will be sent into a life of servitude. Hopefully this series will open some eyes to the situation. The more people who know the truth, the harder it will be for the enemies of freedom to maintain their illusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)