Ever heard a Moslem blame Islam for anything ?

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Oct 29, 2011 at 19:26

Kepha Hor ,

I infer from many rhetorical questions of yours that you feel really helpless. You can't shut your eyes on the ugly reality I refer to and yet at the same time with the worldview you stick to you can't react to it in an adequate rational way. What you are asking me is "What can you about it?" As Plato used to say - most problems have their origin in a wrong understanding of reality, in a wrong worldview.

>One does not need to belong to a certain group to feel sympathy with truly injured people.<

Are you saying that what the Chinese had been suffering from Uyghur jihad ( I gave you one quote what it meant which ,incidentally, you didn't refute ) is something one shouldn't feel sympathy with and on the contrary one must be sorry because Uyghur jihadists are regularly persecuted and jailed and young Uyghurs have no chance to get educated in madrasas to produce some Uyghur Bin Ladens ?

> As for not sounding "Christian" for expressing SOME sympathy for the Hui and Uyghur under Chinese Communist rule, what am I supposed to do?"

Now imagine for a moment that the Chinese communist rule falls as you wish and the Uyghurs establish an emirate in Eastern Turkestan as they once did. They introduce shariah and make the Chinese lawless dhimmis treating them the way the 'poor' Albanians treat Serbs in Kosovo. Will you shed your crocodile tears also when you learn that the Chinese are "truly injured people" or will you rather argue that they just were given what they deserve for their past oppression as the so called "humanists" often do conniving at the evil under the eyes.

What I mean is that the Chinese communist rule is a much lesser evil than the Uyghur shariah-ruled emirate the Uyghurs are dreaming of re-establishing and you visibly don't care about or connive at.

> Call for a repeat of Baghdad in 1258, was it, when all the Christians were locked in their churches and the Mongols (many Church of the East Christians themselves) set the troops loose on all the Muslim quarters of the city?<

Interesting that you bring up the Mongols here and not the atrocities of the Armenian genocide or the horrors of Arab or Turkish conquests. Is it a coincidence or an intended move ?

I read once a book about the early Arab conquests in Central Asia. What the annals described the Soviet archaeologists could ascertain on the ground. The towns and cities mentioned in the chronicles as conquered by the Arabs were found changed into heaps of ruins with thick layers of ashes, innumerable bones displaying horrible wounds and gores and other objects suggesting that scenes of wantoon destruction and mass murder had taken place there. Why not write about it instead of accusing the Mongols of doing to the Moslem master race exactly what the Moslem master race had been doing to the rest of mankind for centuries ?

> Am I supposed to cheer and glorify crusaders riding up to the horses' hocks in blood when they took Jerusalem?<

As a historian you should know enough of the origin and causes of the crusades not to present a malicious caricature of it here. It is the Moslems and their aggression that provoked it and when they were given some of their own medicine, then it is those who acted in self defense that are to your mind the culprits and not the justly punished aggressors , aren't they?

I addressed it in another post which you may feel free to refute showing that the Moslem propaganda you are repeating here is true and the Christians are, as always in conflicts between Islam and Christianity, to blame. By the way, have you ever heard of a Moslem who would blame Islam for anything ?

>Should I think that the most "holy" thing one of my country's leaders might do would be to drop a nuclear device on Mekka at the height of the Haj?<

You will sooner see the next black US president with a turban on his head in the throng of the hajis running around the Kaaba and throwing stones at the Devil than dropping a US bomb on Mecca! The US power elite is largely bought by Moslem money and as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned the US concluded a formal alliance with it in the mid-70 on the following terms. The US guarantees the integrity and safety of the royal House of ibn Saud and its absolute power in the country. It will develop the country's infrastructure and resources. In exchange the Saudis promised to sell cheap oil to the US and then re-invest the money gained from it in America. Starting from Gerald Ford all US presidents have been bound by this agreement , faithfully serving the Saudi interests , some more shamelessly, like B. Clinton G. Bush Junior, than others though.

Given these inter-dependencies between the White House and Riyad I wonder how you could even for a while imagine any of your country's leaders on the Saudi payroll as able to take a decision to bomb his rich and generous Saudi client on whose money he depends just like a drug addict depends on his drug?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".