Churchill on Muslims
By John Taylor; 2007 Dec 07, 2007, 15 Qawl, 164 BE
I have revised my recent post, formerly called "Total De-carbonization," and renamed it "America Alone, Book Review Part I." I expunged the review of George Monbiot's blog entry, "What is Progress?" I plan to repost that separately, in heavily revised form. I was unhappy with this post, especially the end, where I found myself speaking on behalf of the Baha'is. Something I avoid, normally. I make enough mistakes talking on my own behalf.
Just after I had done much of this revision, I was burned by three flames on behalf of Mark Steyn's "America Alone," which you will recall left a bad taste in my mouth. All three respondents went for the jugular, sizing me up as a bad writer and an evil person; one even accused me of bad punctuation. That hurts. My punctuation is as punctuated as the next man's, and I refuse to hear any different. Here, from anonymous, is the most innocuous of the responses:
"Failure to address the argument of the book: check.
"Presence of unsubstantiated accusation: check.
"Ironic accusation of irrationality, prejudice: check.
"Nice work."
Judging by their sarcastic, Ad Hominem approach, their refusal to approach anything like reasoning or argumentation (as opposed to snide asides) I suspect that one or all of these comments were made by Mr. Steyn himself, or perhaps his mother and secretary as well. It must be nice. When your wit is as sharp as that you can sit back and strike at a distance; no reason to get dirty by engaging in messy points at issue.
The responses that come in from outside the regular Badi' list readership never fail to amuse. One came from scholar Susan Maneck, whom I mentioned in passing a long time ago. Evidently she came across the comment while ego surfing the Badi' blog and years after confronted me with a niggling objection to my assessment of her opinion. Another, written entirely in Persian, came from a Muslim who (I found out when a friend translated for me) objected that the Baha'i Faith is not a religion. Now I know how people of color feel around here. What do you say to a criticism that denies your existence? The bigot does not consider members of other races to be human. Such attitudes proliferate wherever there is not enough diversity, which is why I feel sickened when multicultural policy is held up to ridicule.
Anyway, I revised the book review of "America Alone" but found myself reposting it largely as written, in spite of the negative comment. Since I have not finished auditing the entire book I may change my mind still. If so I will duck my head and comment more substantively on it in a sequel later on. As mentioned, it was the inadequacy of my comments about Monbiot, not Steyn, that prompted me to make these unusual revisions.
One of my new critics did not post anonymously and even left the URL of his website. It was hard to read because of the American flags waving in the background. One quote from the bulldog himself, Winston Churchill, by squinting my eyes I was able to make out. I found it quite interesting and searched it out in more reliable locations on the Web. In 1898, after fighting a force of Muslim fanatics, Churchill apparently wrote,
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
"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 the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout
This is the best reference I could find on this quote. There is some controversy in Wikipedia because this passage was expunged from the second edition. Even back at the turn of the 19th Century this was considered either inaccurate or politically incorrect, you judge. You can read the gory details at:
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Winston_Churchill>
Recently Churchill's grandson gave a speech where he mentioned the following more recent assessment that his great ancestor once made of the threat of Wahabism in Islam,
"On 14 June 1921, hard on the heels of the Cairo Conference, at which he had presided over the re-shaping of the Middle East, including the creation of modern day Iraq, he (Winston Churchill) warned the House of Commons:
"A large number of [Saudi Arabia's King] Bin Sauds followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe's] religious wars.
"The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of
The grandson does not stop there. I suggest reading his whole speech, at:
<http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3158>
From what I hear, these puritanical Wahabis, still undisputed masters of the holy places of Islam, a few years ago went so far as to level the home and deface the grave of Muhammad, with hardly a peep of protest from the mass of Muslims. They also dominate university clubs and other Western outposts. Everywhere, moderate Muslims can do little to halt their eclipse by an extremist stripe of Islam. The close ties of the House of Saud with the present Administration in
No comments:
Post a Comment