Islam versus the World
NCfan
Posts: 945
December 3, 2006
Conquest and Concession
The fate of the Hagia Sophia and the Aqsa Mosque
by Raymond Ibrahim
Private Papers
Previous to Pope Benedict XVI’s November 30th visit to the Hagia Sophia complex in Constantinople, Muslims and Turks expressed fear, apprehension, and rage. Turkey’s independent paper Vatan expressed it thus: “The risk is that Benedict will send Turkey’s Muslims and much of the Islamic world into paroxysms of fury if there is any perception that the Pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims.” Apparently praying, making the sign of the cross or any other gesture of Christian worship in Hagia Sophia constitutes an attempt to “re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims.”
Built in Constantinople in the 6th century, Hagia Sophia — Greek for “Holy Wisdom” — was Christendom’s greatest and most celebrated church. After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts from Arabs, Constantinople was finally sacked by Turks in the jihad of 1453. Its crosses desecrated and icons defaced, this millennium-old church — as well as thousands of other churches in the then Byzantine Empire — was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph. (Ironically, when Benedict quoted a Byzantine emperor saying that Islam was spread by the sword, Muslims worldwide were outraged, more churches were desecrated and a nun was shot in the back.) As part of reformer Ataturk’s drive to modernize Turkey, Hagia Sophia was secularized and transformed into a museum in 1935.
In protestation of Benedict’s visit, a gang of Turks stormed and occupied Hagia Sophia on November 22nd, exclaiming “Allahu Akbar!” and warning “Pope! don’t make a mistake; don’t wear out our patience.” On the day of the Pope’s visit, another throng of Islamists waved banners saying “Pope get out of Turkey” while chanting “Aya Sofya [Hagia Sophia] is Turkish and will remain Turkish.” And of course al Qaeda in Iraq got in on the action by denouncing Benedict’s visit on an Internet statement. (Meanwhile, one of the Pope’s expressed purposes for visiting Turkey was to promote inter-religious dialogue and denounce violence in the name of God.)
Contrast such Islamic intolerance with the tolerance granted Muslims in regards to their Aqsa mosque. Just as with emperor Justinian’s Hagia Sophia annexed by Islam, the Aqsa Mosque is a Muslim site annexed by Judaism. But unlike the permanent Muslim desecration of Hagia Sophia, one of Christendom’s holiest sites, after Israel’s victory in the 1967 war, the Jews did not deface or convert the Muslim mosque into a Jewish synagogue or temple — even though the Aqsa mosque is deliberately built atop the remains of the Temple Mount, the most important site in Judaeo-Christian eschatology.
Moreover, since reclaiming the Temple Mount, Israel has granted Muslims control over the Aqsa mosque (except during times of crises). And under Muslim control, Christians and Jews are barred from freely worshipping anywhere near the mosque. Despite such concessions, jihad has been declared on Israel, while Muslims worldwide are simultaneously demanding “justice” from the world body.
All this illustrates well the privileged status many Muslims have come to expect for themselves in the international arena: when Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories, such as Constantinople — through fire and steel, with all the attendant human suffering and misery — those whom they conquered are not to expect any “apologies,” let alone political or territorial concessions. Indeed, Turkey has yet to even recognize its genocide against its Armenian population in 1917.
Herein lies the conundrum. When Islamists wage jihad — past, present, and future — conquering and consolidating non-Muslim territories and centers in the name of Islam, never once considering to cede them back to their rightful owners, they ultimately demonstrate that they live by the age-old adage that “might makes right.” That’s fine; many peoples agree with this Hobbesian view. But there must be consistency. In other words, if we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam’s conquests resort to the United Nations demanding “justice,” “restitutions,” “rights,” and so forth?
Put another way, when Muslims beat infidels, it’s just too bad for the latter: they must submit to their overlords’ rules, that is, Islamic — not international or humanitarian — law, with all the attendant discrimination and humiliation mandated for non-Muslims. History unflinchingly proves this to the present day. Yet when Islam is beaten, demands for unprecedented apologies and concessions both humanitarian and secular are expected from the infidel world at large.
Double standards do not make for international justice. Either territorial conquests are always unjust and should therefore be ameliorated through concessions, or else they are not; they are merely manifestations of the natural order of things in which survival goes to the fittest. The excuse that the Islamic conquests are an expression of Allah’s will and an altruistic service to infidels obviously must fail in the international arena. Conquests are conquests. Nor does the passage of time exonerate crime. The fact that Turkey conquered Constantinople over 500 years ago does not prevent the Turkish government from returning Hagia Sophia to Christendom today — which would undoubtedly be a great gesture. But of course that can never be. The Muslim world would undergo a “paroxysm of fury” if a Christian pope dare pray in the conquered church; what would the Muslim world do if Hagia Sophia were actually converted back to a church?
Islam does not have — or at least should not be granted — a monopoly over the dispensation of war and peace, conquests and concessions. There is nothing out of the ordinary if some Muslims wish to wage eternal jihad until Islam dominates the globe; in fact, by so doing, they are only being true to Islam and its doctrines. However, in such a setting — where the world is divided into two warring camps, Islam and Infidelity, or, in Islamic terms, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War — how can Muslims expect any concessions from the international community? The natural conclusion of the view that “might makes right” is “to the victor go the spoils.”
But of course, Muslims cannot be blamed for expecting special treatment for themselves, as well as believing that jihad is righteous and decreed by the Almighty. The West constantly goes out of its way to confirm such convictions. By constantly criticizing itself, apologizing and offering concessions — things the Islamic world has yet to do — the West reaffirms Islam’s privileged status in the world.
A minor but revealing example: no Muslim map contains the word “Israel,” only “Palestine.” Yet almost every Western map has the word “Istanbul” where “Constantinople” used to be. The implication is clear: the West fully acknowledges Islam’s conquests of its own lands whereas Islam refuses to acknowledge its conquered state in Israel.
At any rate, what did the Pope do in his controversial visit to Hagia Sophia? He caved in, refrained from any gesture that could be misconstrued as Christian worship and instead worshipped in a mosque like a true dhimmi — a subdued non-Muslim living under Islamic law — and acknowledging Islamic superiority.
And therein is the final lesson. Muslim zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there’s something to be said about being passionate and protective of one’s own. Here the secular West — Christendom’s prodigal son and true usurper — can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes — ideologically, politically, and especially spiritually — Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does.
Raymond Ibrahim is a research librarian at the Library of Congress. His new book, The Al Qaeda Reader, which translates Osama bin Laden's communiqués, will be available in April 2007.
Conquest and Concession
The fate of the Hagia Sophia and the Aqsa Mosque
by Raymond Ibrahim
Private Papers
Previous to Pope Benedict XVI’s November 30th visit to the Hagia Sophia complex in Constantinople, Muslims and Turks expressed fear, apprehension, and rage. Turkey’s independent paper Vatan expressed it thus: “The risk is that Benedict will send Turkey’s Muslims and much of the Islamic world into paroxysms of fury if there is any perception that the Pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims.” Apparently praying, making the sign of the cross or any other gesture of Christian worship in Hagia Sophia constitutes an attempt to “re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims.”
Built in Constantinople in the 6th century, Hagia Sophia — Greek for “Holy Wisdom” — was Christendom’s greatest and most celebrated church. After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts from Arabs, Constantinople was finally sacked by Turks in the jihad of 1453. Its crosses desecrated and icons defaced, this millennium-old church — as well as thousands of other churches in the then Byzantine Empire — was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph. (Ironically, when Benedict quoted a Byzantine emperor saying that Islam was spread by the sword, Muslims worldwide were outraged, more churches were desecrated and a nun was shot in the back.) As part of reformer Ataturk’s drive to modernize Turkey, Hagia Sophia was secularized and transformed into a museum in 1935.
In protestation of Benedict’s visit, a gang of Turks stormed and occupied Hagia Sophia on November 22nd, exclaiming “Allahu Akbar!” and warning “Pope! don’t make a mistake; don’t wear out our patience.” On the day of the Pope’s visit, another throng of Islamists waved banners saying “Pope get out of Turkey” while chanting “Aya Sofya [Hagia Sophia] is Turkish and will remain Turkish.” And of course al Qaeda in Iraq got in on the action by denouncing Benedict’s visit on an Internet statement. (Meanwhile, one of the Pope’s expressed purposes for visiting Turkey was to promote inter-religious dialogue and denounce violence in the name of God.)
Contrast such Islamic intolerance with the tolerance granted Muslims in regards to their Aqsa mosque. Just as with emperor Justinian’s Hagia Sophia annexed by Islam, the Aqsa Mosque is a Muslim site annexed by Judaism. But unlike the permanent Muslim desecration of Hagia Sophia, one of Christendom’s holiest sites, after Israel’s victory in the 1967 war, the Jews did not deface or convert the Muslim mosque into a Jewish synagogue or temple — even though the Aqsa mosque is deliberately built atop the remains of the Temple Mount, the most important site in Judaeo-Christian eschatology.
Moreover, since reclaiming the Temple Mount, Israel has granted Muslims control over the Aqsa mosque (except during times of crises). And under Muslim control, Christians and Jews are barred from freely worshipping anywhere near the mosque. Despite such concessions, jihad has been declared on Israel, while Muslims worldwide are simultaneously demanding “justice” from the world body.
All this illustrates well the privileged status many Muslims have come to expect for themselves in the international arena: when Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories, such as Constantinople — through fire and steel, with all the attendant human suffering and misery — those whom they conquered are not to expect any “apologies,” let alone political or territorial concessions. Indeed, Turkey has yet to even recognize its genocide against its Armenian population in 1917.
Herein lies the conundrum. When Islamists wage jihad — past, present, and future — conquering and consolidating non-Muslim territories and centers in the name of Islam, never once considering to cede them back to their rightful owners, they ultimately demonstrate that they live by the age-old adage that “might makes right.” That’s fine; many peoples agree with this Hobbesian view. But there must be consistency. In other words, if we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam’s conquests resort to the United Nations demanding “justice,” “restitutions,” “rights,” and so forth?
Put another way, when Muslims beat infidels, it’s just too bad for the latter: they must submit to their overlords’ rules, that is, Islamic — not international or humanitarian — law, with all the attendant discrimination and humiliation mandated for non-Muslims. History unflinchingly proves this to the present day. Yet when Islam is beaten, demands for unprecedented apologies and concessions both humanitarian and secular are expected from the infidel world at large.
Double standards do not make for international justice. Either territorial conquests are always unjust and should therefore be ameliorated through concessions, or else they are not; they are merely manifestations of the natural order of things in which survival goes to the fittest. The excuse that the Islamic conquests are an expression of Allah’s will and an altruistic service to infidels obviously must fail in the international arena. Conquests are conquests. Nor does the passage of time exonerate crime. The fact that Turkey conquered Constantinople over 500 years ago does not prevent the Turkish government from returning Hagia Sophia to Christendom today — which would undoubtedly be a great gesture. But of course that can never be. The Muslim world would undergo a “paroxysm of fury” if a Christian pope dare pray in the conquered church; what would the Muslim world do if Hagia Sophia were actually converted back to a church?
Islam does not have — or at least should not be granted — a monopoly over the dispensation of war and peace, conquests and concessions. There is nothing out of the ordinary if some Muslims wish to wage eternal jihad until Islam dominates the globe; in fact, by so doing, they are only being true to Islam and its doctrines. However, in such a setting — where the world is divided into two warring camps, Islam and Infidelity, or, in Islamic terms, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War — how can Muslims expect any concessions from the international community? The natural conclusion of the view that “might makes right” is “to the victor go the spoils.”
But of course, Muslims cannot be blamed for expecting special treatment for themselves, as well as believing that jihad is righteous and decreed by the Almighty. The West constantly goes out of its way to confirm such convictions. By constantly criticizing itself, apologizing and offering concessions — things the Islamic world has yet to do — the West reaffirms Islam’s privileged status in the world.
A minor but revealing example: no Muslim map contains the word “Israel,” only “Palestine.” Yet almost every Western map has the word “Istanbul” where “Constantinople” used to be. The implication is clear: the West fully acknowledges Islam’s conquests of its own lands whereas Islam refuses to acknowledge its conquered state in Israel.
At any rate, what did the Pope do in his controversial visit to Hagia Sophia? He caved in, refrained from any gesture that could be misconstrued as Christian worship and instead worshipped in a mosque like a true dhimmi — a subdued non-Muslim living under Islamic law — and acknowledging Islamic superiority.
And therein is the final lesson. Muslim zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there’s something to be said about being passionate and protective of one’s own. Here the secular West — Christendom’s prodigal son and true usurper — can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes — ideologically, politically, and especially spiritually — Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does.
Raymond Ibrahim is a research librarian at the Library of Congress. His new book, The Al Qaeda Reader, which translates Osama bin Laden's communiqués, will be available in April 2007.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-C Addison
I agree. It really is a spectacular building. And the details are facinating as well. I can't understand why the turks removed most of the christian icons, but left some behind. Like the gold-leaf mosaics that show the virgin mary and some christian saints. Maybe they just appreciated fine art. Still, there are lots of crucifixes around the place that they didn't scratch off. Did they miss them, or were they just lazy, or did they not really care that much?
The Al aqsa mosque is pretty unimpressive in comparison, Its got a cool roof though. They wouldn't let us inside.
-C Addison
hahaha what a moron. So if I take off my shoes before entering a Japanese home or restaurant, I'm bowing down in submission as a non-Japanese person living under their laws, and acknowledging their superiority...
Hate speech has never been more amusing than it is these days.
Highlighting "muslim agression" and never mentioning the christian agression - check.
Lamenting that "they" are so close to their religion, and why oh why can't "we" be as them. Read the bible and worship, you dicks! - check
Whipping up some hate speech and easy interpretations to underpin an atmosphere of getting back at them with force. - check
Me yawning - check
Me checking out what else is on - check
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
While I agree with your post, I do hope you reserve that attitude for those who deserve it only, and not just for anyone who has anything bad to say about the Jihadists.
And I have nothing but scorn for jihadists. I yawn the Islam vs West excuse for war.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Not sure how you can scorn jihadists and yawn at the notion that radical Islam and the West have mutually exlusive goals for the future of mankind.
Conflict is imminent. Do you think either side is going to change their mind? Do you think either side is going to abandon their traditions? Do you think there is a compromise to be had? Each side is going to continue to grow and strengthen. Iran and Saudi Arabia are both theocracies that force Sharia law on their citizens. The ranks of states like these is growing. The ideology of radical Islam is growing. It's just natural that these two cultures are going to clash.... i don't see how they can't. Maybe you can explain to me how we can all just live together and get along fine. I don't see it happening, but I'm open to ideas.
I just don't see how part of the world can send humans to space, continue the progress of the Enlightenment, heal our sick with advanced medicine, feed our poor and extend to our citizens the opportunity to determine their own destiny...... while another part of the world FORCES people to believe in one fundamental religion, neglect the rights of women, persecute intelectuals, kill homosexuals, promote honor killings, gender apartied, female circumcison, etc....
Again, maybe you know how the U.S. can except this ideology (that encompasses all the things and more) and allow it to spread in the world....
Imo until the Catholic church can reclaim constantinople, than i dont see any reason to give the palestinians their just land.
:rolleyes:
If that's one of the best articles you have read in a long time, I reckon you don't read much articles. I'm not even saying you have to read "liberal biased articles", cause I'm sure you'll something like that, but come on, I've read many "right leaning articles" that were much much better than this.
naděje umírá poslední
Imo we should reclaim constantinople.
The government in Lebanon is under seige by Hezbollah. Last week, a high ranking government Christian was assisnated, followed by hundreds of thousands protesting in the streets to end the the current regime and replace it with Hezbollah rule. There is also the continuing war in Afghanistan against remnants of the Taliban who are trying to regain control of the country. Also, you have countries like Pakistan, where large sects of radicals are breaking away from the government and living by their own rules. In many parts of Pakistan, women are not allowed to be educated. Mogadishu has recently been conqurered by radical Islmists and they are attempting to consolidate power. Then you have Sudan, where a widely acknowledged genocide is taking place among Sunnis and Shites. Of course there is always Iraq too, where Al Qaida has established a presence and is fighting for their objectives and control. This is real, and it is happening all across the globe.
What does that mean?
I don't see how that's possible, the gov't of Lebanon being under seige by Hizbollah, as they are allied at this point. Hizbollah has the support of the Lebanese political leadership.
The Afghani scenario can be traced back to aanother failure in US foreign policy, its been 30 years and to this day the damage is still evident-in teh state of teh country, in teh violence in the region, in the exploding heroine trade...and so on.
Before the Iraq war US policy planners accepted the realization that invading Iraq would not make the world a more safe place, quite the opposite. And they also realized that invading Iraq would encourage other countries to pursue WMD programs to be used as a deterrant against the agressive US foreign policy. They acknowledged these facts and invaded anyway, with world opinion at only %10 in support of war...and here we are again, another failed attempt and conquest.
It seems it isn't the muslims and radical Islam that the world is most afraid of, it seems- and the numbers back me up on this-that it is the United States that the world fears the most.
It's funny though, I'm currently reading (or ploughing through, more like) a book called The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova, a lot of which talks a lot about that time period of the fifteenth century when the Ottoman empire spread its wings across Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria etc.
Sultan Mehmed (II) was responsible for a lot of that including the conquering of Constantinople, and a lot of atrocities were committed on both sides. (You might be interested to know that he also fought Vlad the Impaler of Romania at the time, otherwise known as Dracula!).
Anyway, according to the book, under Sultan Mehmed's rule, once the Ottomans took hold of the area, they actually left a lot of the christian churches alone and let the conquered christians worship as usual. They were quite congenial to them after the conquering was done. Not that this excuses it as I'm against all empire-building on principle. But I guess, people don't really hear both sides in normal reporting.
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
The Romans believed in the state religion: the gods and goddesses. When Christianity was introduced, it turned the Roman Empire into a shadow of what it had been. It was the state religion that enabled the Romans to be imperial.
Constantine may have allowed Christianity to flourish but even he cannot be considered a Christian by any standard.
-Enoch Powell
-Enoch Powell
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The "sides" are highly constructed and sensationalized. And the fear-mongering that many are trying to build on this reminds me of a lot of texts concerning jews in the early 1900s... WE have to take THEM out before THEY come and kill US and eat our children in the night or something like that. I am utterly unimpressed.
Never mind the first part used to do that too until not too long ago, and the first part of the world is sucking to itself all the riches of the world to enable them to do these feats.
The US probably wont. You never really consider if it actually would be worse to intervene than to just stay out of it and quietly support anti-regime forces. Nevermind how the US have been central in putting up and maintaining those regimes you mentioned. Saudi Arabia can do what they do with US protection of their rulers, and Iran going fundamentalist was a more or less direct result of US meddling and deposing of a secular prime minister. So, I dunno, with that track record, should you do anything? But beside the point really.
The point of the article more than anything else seemed to be whining from a religious man that christianity don't have control like that anymore, and he was jealous at the islamic countries where religion still plays a more important part. Revisionist and superficial historical accounts does not make it better.
If you want to construct an enemy to hate and fear, well go traight ahead. Blur and erase the line between islamist jihadis and islam wherever you see fit to fuel that view. Promote war on the entire islamic world. Just go ahead. I'm sure it helps a ton.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I think its funny how you obviously posted this obnoxious comment to provoke a response from anyone dumb enough to bite, and nobody did.
-C Addison
How was the book actually. Senir year of college i was reading it and couldnt finish it due to work obligations.
Is it worth finishing? It kind of seems like a Davinci code rip off.
muslim's didnt discover the world.they didnt rule it niether.why dont they fuck off and stay in there own country's and leave the world alone.the world will be better of without them in it.
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
The pope wants genocide?