When nothing ever begins
Leopold99 said:
10 to 1 muslims are at the core of it though.
That depends on where we want to assign a starting point:
Nothing ever begins.
There is no first moment; no single word or place from which this or any other story springs.
The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and to the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator's voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making.
Thus the pagan will be sanctified, the tragic become laughable; great lovers will stoop to sentiment, and demons dwindle to clockwork toys.
Nothing is fixed. In and out the shuttle goes, fact and fiction, mind and matter woven into patterns that may have only this in common: that hidden among them is a filigree that will, with time, become a world.
—Clive Barker
Where do we wish to begin this sad tale of human failures? With the modern state of Israel? A well-intentioned land-grab by a civilization (e.g., the Western world) that regarded Arabs as subhuman? Americans, at least, should have known better. Did we learn nothing from Manifest Destiny?
So a bunch of people are evicted and pitch a fit. And there are all sorts of shenanigans, including a last-minute push to secure territory before a deadline. Innocent women and children are destroyed; if the killer is a Muslim, he is reviled as a terrorist, but if he is an Israeli Jew, he is lauded as a hero and eventually raised to the presidency. This is a stark contrast to Spain under the Muslims, when Jews were treated about as well as they ever were in Europe before Israel.
What has happened these last sixty years is nothing short of a disaster. You know, many of my generation were taught at some point that the establishment of Israel was intended as an apology, a gesture of kindness after what happened in Germany. This argument is swallowed easily; it makes us sound noble. But that nobility depends on ignoring the fact that people were displaced, the rules thrown out, and justice discarded. Anyone looking ahead at the time should have been able to see at least something of what would happen.
So the kindness theory is bunk, but what does that leave? Was Israel a puppet spawned to create a strategic interest in the region? But at what cost? One could say that we in America have no right to be offended by what happens there because this is what we wanted. That is, it was worth the price.
How many lives, how many billions of dollars, how much misery squandered, and for what? Perhaps the most distressing aspect of all this is that it plays into an American dualistic myth, one that fits perfectly with the Straussian reduction of the world to polar opposites: There is good, and there is evil. We are good. They are evil. What could possibly create that "evil", that
other that our mythology so desperately requires? Certainly the displacement of so many, and the abandonment of our own sacred institutions of justice might do the trick.
It is currently popular in some circles of the Western press to refer to the rise in Islamic consciousness and identity as "Militant Islam." For those Muslims engaged in the process of Islamization, Militant Islam appears to be their response to "Militant Secularism," "Militant Christianity" and "Militant Judaism."
The Muslim encounter with "the West" in the 19th and 20th centuries was most intimately experienced through European conquests of Muslim lands which facilitated Western political, economic, social and cultural domination of the daily lives of the Muslims. By the end of World War I, there were only four Muslim nations—Afghanistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen—which had not experienced direct or indirect European rule.
European expansion, which began in the 17th century through the search for markets and natural resources, was by the 19th century enhanced through an ideological support system based on the teachings of social Darwinism: "natural selection" and the "survival of the fittest." This gave European man "scientific" proof of his being the acme of human evolution and of his civilization being the final state in human achievement and progress.
Colonialism was justified on "humanitarian" grounds. Its purpose was to share the enlightenment and its achievements with those of inferior development. The colonial conquests were thus cloaked in the image of the European man’s "manifest destiny" which would lead the rest of humanity to become a replica of European man and to enjoy the benefits of the institutions he devised.
Meanwhile, many religious circles viewed Christianity in a similar way as the highest form of religion, affirming that all other religions were of human origin, leading people astray from the worship of the true God as He made Himself manifest in Jesus Christ in order to save the world. Armed with Bibles, printing presses and a sense of service and mission, thousands of missionaries went into the world to Christianize it—many of them convinced that all humanity would be brought into the Christian fold within this century ....
.... While World War I precipitated direct European intervention in several Arab countries, World War II brought European domination to an end. The new independent states came into being almost simultaneously with the State of Israel in 1948. Although the Western press has incessantly created an image of a tiny Israel being attacked by formidable armies from several Arab nations, a careful study will show that the army of Jordan continued to be under British leadership while the British sat astride the Suez Canal in Egypt and were able to intercept armament shipments destined for Arab countries. Furthermore, the national government of Syria was trying to remove "the mercenaries" that supported French hegemony.
The defeat of 1948 and 1949 was seen to be the consequence of Arab lack of preparation and Israeli acquisition of a fresh arms supply from Czechoslovakia (despite the armistice stipulation against such acquisition by either party). It signaled the end of the democratic experiment in Arab Muslim countries. The parliamentary systems were tested by this war and found inadequate. Imitation of the West had not brought parity with the West.
It had become evident for some time that although the Arab countries had constitutions and elected parliaments, these institutions were not effective. Some Western observers have blamed the failure of the parliamentary systems on the alien nature of consultative democracy to the Arab mind. Clearly their failure was also hastened by the attitude of the colonial rulers towards such institutions. Whenever foreign governments or their representatives disliked what the democratically elected deputies decided, they tried to countermand their wishes by a variety of means such as seeking their dismissal or applying relentless direct pressure, blackmail or bribery. When Arab governments attempted to use European law to assure freedom and the implementation of the will of the people, it was these same colonial rulers who ridiculed them and treated them as upstarts.
When we pause to think that Dr. Haddad wrote that article over twenty-five years ago, it is nearly staggering to think that we are, in many ways, still stuck at the crossroads she described. But we ought not be surprised if we consider the point in the context of that Straussian myth. "Imitation of the West," Haddad wrote, "had not brought parity with the West."
The Straussian myth, while seemingly uniquely American, can be traced back at least to Zoroastrianism, in which the spiritual and material, the good and the evil, are locked in constant struggle. That dualism is also found deeply rooted in the Christian experience, which transformed the idea of Satan from a social concept of symbolic value into a literal character believed by many over the years to be real (
cf Pagels). It was not necessarily that anyone sought to harm the Palestinians, at least not any more than I might consciously wish ill onto a steer while ordering a double cheeseburger at the Wendy's drive-through.
And that's the problem: The Muslims were regarded, at least subconsciously, as subhuman. After World War II, large parts of the Muslim world were divvied up between the British, Americans, and Soviets, ostensibly to civilize and modernize the people, but it is more accurate to say that they drew boundaries between them about who got to exploit what. The Islamic world has been transformed over the last century or so. Once an infidel enemy (thus part of Satan's legions, and thus inhuman), Muslims became
personae non gratae until they asserted themselves in response to the Israeli usurpation. From that point forward, they have grown in stature as a mythical political enemy, to the point that an American president is willing to start wars and torture and abuse the prisoners. Gitmo, during the Bush years, was used as a black hole, a place to deposit people where, according to the administration, no law covered them but that which the president and his men assigned. In other words, Muslims have grown in stature as an enemy to the point that they are inhuman.
This hatred is part of the Western cultural heritage. Consider two passages from the twelfth-century
Song of Roland:
XLV
"Speak, then, and tell me, Sir Ganelon,
How may Roland to death be done?"
"Through Cizra's pass will the Emperor wind,
But his rear will linger in march behind;
Roland and Olivier there shall be,
With twenty thousand in company.
Muster your battle against them then,
A hundred thousand heathen men.
Till worn and spent be the Frankish bands,
Though your bravest perish beneath their hands.
For another battle your powers be massed,
Roland will sink, overcome at last.
There were a feat of arms indeed,
And your life from peril thenceforth be freed."
• • •
CXCIII
He smote anew on the marble stair.
It grated, but breach nor notch was there.
When Roland found that it would not break,
Thus began he his plaint to make.
"Ah, Durindana, how fair and bright
Thou sparklest, flaming against the light!
When Karl in Maurienne valley lay,
God sent his angel from heaven to say,
'This sword shall a valorous captain's be,'
And he girt it, the gentle king, on me.
With it I vanquished Poitou and Maine,
Provence I conquered and Aquitaine;
I conquered Normandy the free,
Anjou, and the marches of Brittany;
Romagna I won, and Lombardy,
Bavaria, Flanders from side to side,
And Burgundy, and Poland wide;
Constantinople affiance vowed,
And the Saxon soil to his bidding bowed;
Scotia, and Wales, and Ireland's plain,
Of England made he his own domain.
What might, regions I won of old,
For the hoary - headed Karl to hold!
But there presses on me a grievous pain,
Lest thou in heathen hands remain.
O God our Father, keep France from stain!"
We see in the twelfth century an abiding hatred toward Muslims. They are, at best, tools to exploit, such as in the discussion 'twixt Marsil and Gan (XLV). And so wretched are they that, in his dying hour, Roland disposes of his holy relic; unable to destroy it, he casts it into poisoned waters—'tis better that no man should have it than a Muslim, and this despite his words to Olivier in XCI, "That he who wears it when I lie cold may say 'twas the sword of a vassal bold." Hatred is found throughout the epic: Muslim victory is false, and the people are of of falsehood and evil pride—apparently there is a good and Godly pride, such as Roland showed in his dying hour.
And, certainly, this hatred of Islam was not new in the twelfth century. In 1095, Pope Urban II called the able-bodied to the first Crusade, and depending on which source you go by, it's ... interesting, to say the least. According to Fulcher of Chartres, Christ himself commands the crusaders to undertake a war that should have been fought long ago. Robert the Monk wrote that Urban II invoked commanded men to leave their families behind in order to defeat the very enemies of Christ; they are to cry out that their victory is the will of God. The anonymous author of the Gesta states that the footsteps of Christ led men to war. Balderic of Dol asserts that Urban II called the Muslims "pollution", and that those who die in the service of the Crusades are promised a place in Heaven. Indeed, according to Balderic, the Pope called the Crusade against the Muslims "the only warfare that is righteous". And he called for
genocide:
And turning to the bishops, he said, "You, brothers and fellow bishops; you, fellow priests and sharers with us in Christ, make this same announcement through the churches committed to you, and with your whole soul vigorously preach the journey to Jerusalem. When they have confessed the disgrace of their sins, do you, secure in Christ, grant them speedy pardon. Moreover, you who are to go shall have us praying for you; we shall have you fighting for God's people. It is our duty to pray, yours to fight against the Amalekites. With Moses, we shall extend unwearied hands in prayer to Heaven, while you go forth and brandish the sword, like dauntless warriors, against Amalek."
And it goes on. There is not an account of Urban's speech that is not fraught with betrayal of Christ or dehumanization of Muslims. Guibert de Nogent° wrote that Urban stated, "it is true tat the Lord has left us Sabaoth as seed."° The mere presence of the Muslims in Jerusalem is pollution. One can easily construe that Guibert's account ties the Muslims to the Devil.
It is extremely rare to find in the Christian heritage any respect shown the Muslims, and it is only since the latter half of the twentieth century that the Western world has begun its emergence from the veil of Christian myth. This hatred is a part of us, and ought to be defeated instead of celebrated.
We might, indeed, choose an arbitrary starting point—in this case, the establishment of modern Israel seems a tempting choice. But no telling of this tale can approach truth without consideration of all that has come before; we can no more affix the advent of this tragedy at the time of Mohammed's revelation of the Qur'an. Understanding its roots means reaching back farther than the Gospels, and one can justly assert that the beginning occurred sometime in that mysterious and mythical period 'twixt creation and the burning bush. It may even go back further.
But one thing is clear: We might argue about who started what, but nothing—
nothing—will bring this tragedy to a close until Muslims are included among the human species, and treated accordingly. And the deeper we get, the longer this goes, the longer and more difficult will that reconciliation be. For not only must we believe it true, but also we must convince the Islamic world of that new belief.
__________________
Notes:
° Gubert de Nogent — Interestingly, the abbott attributes to Urban II certain statements that are familiar even today:
With the end of the world already near, even though the Gentiles fail to be converted to the Lord (since according to the apostle there must be a withdrawal from the faith), it is first necessary, according to their prophecy, that the Christian sway be renewed in those regions either through you, or others, whom it shall please God to send before the coming of Antichrist, so that the head of all evil, who is to occupy there the throne of the kingdom, shall find some support of the faith to fight against him.
This idea is at the heart of what is called premillennial dispensationalism, which is a key element to contemporary American evangelicalism and Christian support for the Israeli state.
° Sabaoth as seed — A name of God: Yahweh Sabaoth is the God of War. (Pagels)
Works Cited:
Barker, Clive. Weaveworld. New York: Poseidon, 1987.
Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage, 1996.
Haddad, Yvonne Y. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v. 15, i. 4. September-October, 1982. http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=120&aid=163&pg=1
Halsall, Paul, ed. The Song of Roland. Trans. by John O'Hagan. Internet Medieval Source Book. 1998. Accessed January 2, 2009. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/roland-ohag.html
—————. "Urban II: Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095". Internet Medieval Source Book. 1997. Accessed January 2, 2009. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html
