A Word from London

Herbert London

Herbert London is author of Decade of Denial, published by Lexington Books, and publisher of American Outlook. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

Restating the Obvious about Islam

With war clouds on the horizon in the 1930s and policy analysis in thralldom to a form of denial, George Orwell said, “things have sunk so low that the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.”

In our own time there is a reluctance to consider the true and emerging nature of Islam, what the faith teaches and its doctrines. For tactical reasons, many politicians in the West call Islam a religion of peace; some say it is a religion hijacked by extremists and others maintain that Sufis (a small minority sect) represent the true nature of Islamic pacifism.

Very recently, however, MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) reports that an Islamic scholar Dr. Kamel Al-Najjar challenged these suppositions by restating the obvious: intellectuals, who call for a condemnation of violence among Moslems and an openness in Islam, do not understand the history of this religion.

According to Dr. Al-Najjar, Islam was tolerant during only one brief period in its history. Islam was humane and tolerant when it was relatively weak, during the so-called Mecca period. Later Koranic verses call on Muslims to fight anyone who does not convert to Islam: “And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out.” The “verse of the sword” and other warlike verses were said to abrogate tolerant verses of the Mecca period.

The Second Caliph imposed his well-known contract on Christians that forced them to cut their hair and wear special garments so that they would be recognizable, and forbade them to ring church bells.

Al-Najjar also notes that violence is rooted in Islam from inception. A child should be beaten if he doesn’t pray and a woman should be beaten if she disobeys her husband. Fatwas are routinely issued against those who criticize any form of the religion. And apostasy, as events in Afghanistan suggest, is a crime punishable by death. By the way, this Sharia code has been adopted in 14 Muslim nations.

How then can Judeo-Christian societies co-exist with Islam when Christians are described as polytheists for their worship of the Trinity and Jews are portrayed as descendants of apes and pigs? The hostility engendered by claims the Bible and New Testament are falsified is not easily overcome.

Surely the West should attempt to discover the radiant face of Islam, but it can do so only with realism, facing harsh facts and understanding a history that has been ignored or misunderstood.

The emerging clash of cultures has to be considered without a whitewash of Islamic history. Winston Churchill, who fought against the Mohammedans, recognized the extremism endemic to the religion. The rivers of the Sudan and Asia Minor turned red from the blood let by Islamic violence. It doesn’t make sense to ignore this past.

This description does not presuppose a strategy. I do not know how this religious force let loose on the world stage can be moderated. However, I do know the first condition for strategic planning is an unvarnished view of the truth, what Orwell called the restatement of the obvious.

On this score, we should not suffer from illusions. Islam is not comparable to other religions; it is distinctly uneasy with modernity. Islam has not had an Enlightenment. As a consequence, politics and religion are not separate entities. Sharia holds for both. Islam does not provide for individual rights; there are only group rights. And Islam is totalistic in the sense it pervades every aspect of one’s life.

This leads to several poignant questions: Can Islam adapt to the 21st century without violence? Can Islamic leaders find precepts in the Mecca period that can predominate and reduce the extremist impulse? Can the young be reeducated to accept the views of other religions?

The world jury awaits answers. In fact, the fate of the globe may hang in the balance of these answers. At the moment, however, it is best in my judgment, to consider conditions as they are rather than how we might like them to be.

Clockwork Orange In France

“Clockwork Orange” is not merely a novel by Anthony Burgess dealing with sadistic youngsters who terrorize their neighbors; it is the reality of French life, the underbelly of banishment, in what the French call banlieues. These are places populated by Muslims who for years French authorities ignored; they live on the wrong side of the Paris ring road, “barbarians at the gate.”

Now the Paris establishment quakes at the prospect these angry hordes of unruly youngsters can invade the heartland. Alas, they can and do. Groups of hooded youths robbed and bludgeoned students engaged in anti-government demonstrations quite recently.

The chilling story of Lian Halimi, a Jewish telephone salesman, who was seduced by a pretty Islamic schoolgirl and then kidnapped and tortured to death, lives as a scar on the French imagination, a reminder that barbarism resides side by side with sophisticated French culture. It is appropriate that the gang which brutalized and killed Halimi is known as “les Barbares,” the Barbarians.

Perhaps as chilling as the murder is the fact that more than 30 neighbors in the building where Halimi was held captive knew what was happening, but said nothing about it.

With the attention given this crime and the subsequent arrest of the Barbarians’ leader and street demonstrations against anti-semitism, one might assume that these vicious acts were on the wane. However, that assumption would be wrong. “Honey traps” have been and continue to be set for unwary young Jewish males. The targets are based on the anti-semitic mythology that all Jews are rich and willing to pay a ransom.

Savagery in these lawless Muslim enclaves is continually exposed. Recently at the trial of Jamal Derrar, it was reported that he burned a 17-year-old to death after she defied his order to stay away from his “territory.” In 2004 a 22-year-old woman was stoned to death by a gang of youths in Marseille.

The raft of barbarous acts and anti-semitic virulence has led thousands of French Jews to move to Israel in the past five years. In 2005, 3,300 relocated, the highest one-year total in 35 years. France, with the largest Jewish population in Europe, is starting to resemble Germany in the 1930s.

Admittedly the leaders from Chirac to Villepin have repudiated anti-semitic acts. Yet French intellectuals claim the news is exaggerated, a function of press sensationalism. Some commentators are simply traumatized by the rush of events. They seem unwilling to limn “la belle France” in an unflattering way.

Nonetheless, some conditions cannot be denied. The Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, which keeps track of anti-semitic acts, claims violent attacks against Jews have been on the rise since 2000, with the rate of violence increasing in each successive year.

In France, the post-Holocaust statement of “Never Again” has a hollow ring. The laissez-faire attitude of French officials towards Muslim enclaves has come home to roost. Averting one’s gaze to atrocities is not a policy.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the former Minister of Finance and candidate for president, seems to understand the problem. But the question remains as to his ability to undo years of neglect even if he is elected to office.

History never repeats itself exactly. Occasionally it does repeat itself in part because ideas like anti-semitism have a certain persistence, a staying power that finds scapegoating useful.

When Burgess wrote about feral youths in the United Kingdom intoxicated with sadistic behavior, he was referring to a condition that emerges from modernity. Alas, the Muslim youths of France trapped in a similar psychological web are the living examples of fictional characters. Does life imitate art? It would seem so as decency becomes the victim of this ripening barbarism.

Israel’s Options

Writing in Haaretz the distinguished journalist Ari Shavit argues that with the Hamas victory in the Palestinian territory momentum has shifted in the Middle East to the fundamentalist Muslim side. On the other side of this conflict--as Shavit notes--is an Israel:

. . . up against a Palestinian neighbor whose countenance has changed beyond recognition, and he is telling us to go, not to be here, to cease to exist.

The new reality in Israel is certainly hard to swallow. There is an unequivocal, on-going confrontation with no obvious end in sight. It is difficult to come to terms with the fact that after finally accepting a two-state solution, Israel has an enemy demanding everything from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. It might even be argued that the Israelis have been outplayed since they have been converted from victims to oppressors.

The question that emerges from the Shavit analysis is: Where does Israel go from here? Onward to where?

Notwithstanding Shavit’s understandably lugubrious scenario, I’m not persuaded conditions in Israel are so grim, nor am I persuaded that Israel hasn’t any short-term options.

Admittedly it is impossible to negotiate with a “partner” whose charter calls for the elimination of Israel. No matter, how well-meaning appeasers choose to rationalize conditions, Hamas has vowed to destroy the nation of Jews. There may be a “hudna,” a period of peace, in order to seduce Israel into lowering its guard. But in the end, whenever that may be, Hamas’ goals will remain unchanged.

On camera, a self-described Hamas warrior for Mohammed said, “Jewish blood is good; I want to drink it.” Hamas leaders have been retelling the tale of the rock and the tree. In this hateful story a Jew hides behind a rock and a tree but these objects speak to Mohammed and tell where they are hiding so that they can be found and killed. And new Hamas MP Mariam Farhat said, “Jihad comes ahead of everything, including my feelings as a mother.” She is the mother of three sons who died in suicide missions in Israel. With this as a widespread sentiment, Israel has only one choice: It must separate itself from Palestinians and do so unilaterally. Security demands this separation.

Secondly, Israel must literally cut itself off from the West Bank and Gaza through the completion of the fence. At this point, drawing borderlines should take only national security concerns into account. Withdrawal from settlements or adequate land for Palestinians is, to some degree, irrelevant. Defensible borders takes on new meaning in the present context.

Third, the new reality in the Palestinian areas requires a different Israeli military response. Up until now the Israeli tactical response to rocket attacks and suicide bombing has been targeted assassinations aimed at leaders who promote terror. As I see it, the time has come for Israel to strike hard and massively at terror. A world view based on terror must be defeated unconditionally, whether it emanates from Hamas or Nazis.

Last, until Hamas alters its view--a virtual impossibility--or is ousted at the polls, Israel must separate itself emotionally, economically, socially as well as physically. Since the Palestinian territory ironically depends on Israel for its survival, it is time to play hardball. Despite the many bleeding hearts in Israel, the only recourse is avoidance of the political contagion that afflicts the West Bank and Gaza.

The possible linkage of Hamas to Iran dictates a change in the stance of the Bush administration. Whatever Israel does to defend itself will either be approved or ignored by a team that had constructed the road map for a two-state solution. The two-state solution has gone the way of the hula hoop whatever anyone in the State Department says to keep this idea alive.

It is instructive that with violence evident on the streets of Europe, even the Arabists in the E.U. are coming to appreciate the Israeli position. Rapidly disappearing from diplomatic channels is the pressure exerted on Israel for concessions. Madrid and London bombings, burning cars in France, and riots engendered by cartoons have introduced the Europeans to Israeli reality. How can European diplomats ask Israel to accept conditions they now find abhorrent?

If the Hamas victory and subsequent statements have done anything positive, it is in clarifying the nature of the enemy. This is no longer a Fatah that speaks of peace in English and violence in Arabic. The Hamas message is transparently clear: we want to kill you and destroy your state. Although this is a vicious enemy, it is best to know what you are confronting than to be deluded into thinking those who speak of treaties, but are planning your demise, can be negotiating partners.

Assuredly the Israeli picture is not bright. Then again, it never has been. At least now Israel knows, or will soon know, what it must do to survive, and as events unfold, the West may come to see that an Israel separated from the promoters of terror can serve as a model for its own future.

Lawsuits and Security

The ACLU and several other organizations have brought two well-publicized law suits against the Bush administration on the issue of “unauthorized” domestic spying. Of course, none of the plaintiffs can demonstrate that they have been targeted by the surveillance program and the claim that this is domestic spying is not technically accurate since only those conversations with a suspected terrorists outside the United States are considered.

Plaintiffs include a gaggle of left-wingers including the Council on American Islamic Relations, Greenpeace, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and a writer for the Nation among others. Their argument is that the present administration is in contravention of the law since the president lost the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance domestically after the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The administration counters this claim with the argument that surveillance was authorized with the 2001 congressional resolution allowing for the use of force against al Qaeda.

Lost in the swelter of claims and counterclaims is the context for this litigation. The war on terror has not ended and the threat posed by the terrorists remains real and frightening.

While the president insists all measures must be taken to assure American security, the plaintiffs seem to be asserting that the only threat is the abridgement of the law and the erosion of civil liberties.

On the day the lawsuit was filed, al Manar Hezballah’s main vehicle for spreading anti-American propaganda asked, “What structure built of gray sandstone in 1792 became a source of all oppressive decisions the world over?” The answer: “the White House.”

In May 2004 Sheik Nasrallah said he is prepared for martyrdom:

Let Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and all those tyrants in Washington hear . . . there will only be room for great sacrifice, for the call to martyrdom.

The editor of Egyptian weekly Al Arabi is quoted in MEMRI as saying, “Anti-Americanism is like music” to his ears. He calls America “a plague” and “an ongoing crime.”

The head of the Sunni religious courts in Lebanon, Sheik Muhammad Kar’an, called America “the garbage of all nations.”

A professor of political science at Notre Dame University in Lebanon, Dr. George Hajjar said, “America is the New Nazism.”

Anis al Naggash, who was involved in terrorist attacks in the ‘70s and ‘80s, appeared on Al Manar in August 2005. He said,

The U.S. is the enemy of Arabs and Muslims . . . every person must resist it . . . if he can resist with weapons, it is his duty, mandated by the Koran. Any cleric with knowledge of Islam must declare jihad against the U.S., England, and their allies.

As late as this January three would-be-terrorists were arrested in Italy after vowing to launch an attack in the U.S. that would dwarf 9/11. Curiously, with the exception of the Philadelphia Inquirer, this story was conspicuously ignored by the U.S. press corps.

Through conversations that were wiretapped, Italian officials heard Algerian terrorists plan to kill tens of thousands of Americans.

There are those in our midst who prefer legal battles against the administration because they fear a loss of civil liberties, but they do not fear, or appear not to fear, radical Islamists intent on their destruction.

Can there be any doubt that if fanatics in various corners of the globe could get their hands on nuclear weapons, they would be used?

Can there be any doubt that radical Islam is intent on causing harm to the United States, its citizens and our allies?

And can there be any doubt that a toxic poison has been set loose worldwide that could have apocalyptic repercussions if we do nothing about it?

President Bush, in fact any future president, has an obligation to take those steps necessary to provide for national security. It is not merely sad, but dangerous that many civil libertarians do not appreciate what is at stake in this global war.
 

Criticism of Catholics and Muslims: An Eye-opening Contrast

Opus Dei, the conservative Catholic organization, has asked for a disclaimer in the upcoming film based on The Da Vinci Code. Not only does the author of the book, Dan Brown, defame this Catholic group, but the thesis undermines the very legitimacy of the Church and its doctrines.

Brown’s argument is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and there are descendants living in Europe. Although Brown maintains this claim is predicated on a nonfiction book, the evidence for this assertion is entirely speculative.

Sony Pictures, which has produced the film, dismissed the request by noting the film is “a work of fiction, and at its heart, it’s a thriller, not a religious tract.”

Contrast this event that blasphemes Catholicism, with an Italian magazine, Studi Catollic, that recently published a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad cut in half and burning in hell. The drawing in question shows the poets Virgil and Dante looking down on Mohammed split in two and engulfed in flames.

“Isn’t that man there split in two from head to navel, Mohammed?” Dante asks Virgil.

“Yes and he is cut in two because he has divided society,” Virgil replies. “While that woman there, with the burning coals, represents the politics of Italy towards Islam.”

As an aftermath of publication, the editor was threatened. He immediately said he hadn’t any intention of offending any religion. “I freely ask . . . for forgiveness.”

This was a marked change of tone from the editor’s initial comment, when he said, “We must not fear freedom of opinion.”

In fact, included in the apology is the claim that the cartoon isn’t against Mohammad; “It addresses a loss of the West’s identity.”

While I don’t have evidence suggesting a change of heart was brought about by intimidation, it is a plausible conclusion based on dozens of similar events. Moreover, it might well be asked why there is any fuss over a cartoon that represents in graphic form what Dante Alighieri wrote centuries ago?

Dante placed Mohammed in Hell in Canto 28 of the Divine Comedy. This canto inspired a painting by William Blake, depicting Muhammad with his entrails hanging out, and a fresco in Bologna Cathedral showing him being tortured by a devil.

There are several conclusions that can be drawn from these two descriptions. Criticism of religion is permitted, whether tasteful or not, in Western societies. In the case of Opus Dei, a disclaimer for an offensive film was requested. In the case of Muslims, offended by a cartoon in an Italian publication, threats are made and intimidation quite likely.

In the former case, the request is rejected; in the latter, the editor grovels and revises his intentions.

The role that Islamic violence, or possible violence, plays in preemptive acceptance of Islamic positions should not be underestimated. Catholics understandably reject the implicit precepts in The Da Vinci Code, which goes directly to the heart of the religion. But I could not find any evidence that Brown and his publisher have been threatened. Had they been put in that position, the public outcry would be deafening.

Islam, however, is treated differently. The West is fearful of offending Muslims because we have seen the reaction on our television screens and on the streets of European capitals. One might even say the threat of violence has a chastening effect on public attitudes.

This is the dilemma: Western tolerance permits intolerant responses to real or perceived offenses. In fact, the sensitivity to Islamic concerns is so well ensconced in the public imagination that self-censorship often precedes revelation.

Who can forget what happened to Theo Van Gogh when he criticized the treatment of Muslim women? Emerging from this comparison is a West that may not be able to defend its own traditions, not when might makes right or principle is modified by fear.     *

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” --Edmund Burke