Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jerusalem and Islamism
Sometimes one comes across an article that provides such insight that one is startled into understanding. This article at Crisis magazine, “Jerusalem in the Islamic Imagination” by Derya Little, is just such an article. It provides an understanding of why Jerusalem has any importance in the greater Islamic world.
First, a short bio on Derya. She was born in Turkey and raised Muslim, fell into atheism, and had a conversion experience that took her into Christianity, ultimately settling on Catholicism. She has a Ph.D. in politics, so is quite learned and scholarly, and I’ve come across a number of her articles in the past year. Her insight and knowledge of the Islamic world and mindset are invaluable. She has a book out on her religious journey, From Islam to Christ: One Woman’s Path through the Riddles of God, which I have bought and intend to read shortly.
Here are a couple of key paragraphs on which I will build some observations:
In the Muslim mind, the history of nations is similar to the salvation of man. When a Muslim reads the Old Testament, or learns about Judaism, all he sees is a nation that failed time and again to obey the commands of Allah. There is no excuse for this failure. It is sinful, shameful, and disgraceful. It is not an occasion to acknowledge that without grace all will fail.
And…
Living in a city of commerce and trade, Muhammad was exposed to Judaism and Christianity, and the pivotal role Jerusalem played as the center for Jewish worship and as the location of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Since the central claim of Islam is that Jews and Christians corrupted Allah’s message, Muhammad’s followers would have to fulfill the mission that was entrusted to earlier prophets whose words went unheeded…. The Holy Land should be passed on to those who lived in accordance with Allah’s will, something the Jews and the Christians have failed to do. This mission to reconquer Jerusalem became even more important because the Israelites failed to protect the land after Kings David and Solomon, who, Muslims claim, ruled with Sharia Law. The Jews had declined to fight to defend Jerusalem, and because of their cowardice they lost the Holy Land.
To think that Kings David and Solomon ruled with Sharia law is delusional. It is absurd. And then Derya outlines the two distinct incidents involving Jerusalem in Islam: the mystical journey Mohammed took on a flying horse to Jerusalem and from there ultimately to heaven before Allah. This provides the mythic significance of Jerusalem in Islamic theology. But Derya’s conclusion should be read carefully:
The Muslim obsession with Jerusalem is indicative of the way Islam sees the entire world: a chessboard to be conquered. While Christ emphasized many time that his kingdom was not of this world, Muhammad’s desire to become the temporal sultan required the conquest of certain cities, namely Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. While before the end times, Muhammad promised that Constantinople, then Rome, would be conquered, Miraj sealed the fate of Jerusalem as an immediate target of Islamic Jihad, not a hope to be fulfilled in time.
While the realist political scientist in me wants to read world affairs in light of national interests and balance of power, there is no denying that the Muslim claim on Jerusalem is not merely a territorial ambition. To the Muslim mind, Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is an abomination that cannot be tolerated. Any attempt to prevent the Muslim domination of Jerusalem is seen as a religious affront, not a political maneuver. Because of the nature of this particular beast, Jerusalem will remain a source of regional conflict for years to come.
Islam sees the world as “a chessboard to be conquered.” Do not think that Islamism is not inherent to Islam. It is at the core of Islam. If most Muslims aren’t acting in accordance, it is because of their failure to live up to Koranic values, of which they in time will be prodded into contrition. That the whole Muslim world doesn’t attempt Islamism is a practical calculation. If given a realistic opportunity for global implementation of Sharia, they will all take it.
The whole Islamic myth is a product of Mohammed’s delusions, or if not delusions, outright lies. It seems to me that those lies are amazingly expedient to the political landscape of his day. Whichever, they are absurd.
The answer to their objections to the issues around the world, but more specifically on the question of Jerusalem, is to put up resistance. Perhaps if they saw real resistance they would respect the opposition rather than consider us on the level of pigs and monkeys. It’s time to stop the appeasement, tell them if they don’t like Jerusalem under Jewish control to shove it, and ride off on the horse Mohammed rode on.
Published in Islamist Terrorism
I can’t predict when people will decide to radicalize, though you can see signs of it in many cases. I work in the same field as the San Bernardino killers. Of course I worry about one of my co-workers deciding to switch to a radical position – this includes lefties going Antifa as well. That’s why I don’t want to try and push them into the radical camp or tell them that they are not real true believers. What is the point?
I agree with you on appeasement. Groups like CAIR are playing the victim, while working to undermine America. Our alliance with Saudi Arabia is purely tactical – Wahabi Islam is evil, they are a brutal dictatorship, some of them sponsor jihadis, etc. I fully support mocking and denouncing the useful idiots who cover up Islam’s history of bloodshed while crying about the crusades. Also, anyone who tries to say ISIS is not Islamic is too stupid to be part of the discussion. (They are more focused on destroying history than classic jihadis – like the Khmer Rouge as opposed to Stalinism)
Where I differ from you is in saying that non-hostile Islam is out there. If people want an Islam that doesn’t decapitate people, I am all for it. The best way to help them is to crush ISIS / Al Qaeda / etc and disrupt the efforts of front groups like CAIR. Bosnian Islam, which is non-hostile, has been suffering thanks to Saudi missionaries bring Wahabi Islam. If people advocate radicalization, they are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, and should be treated accordingly.
As far as your line on communism, do you think that people like Harry S Truman and Scoop Jackson were legitimate anti-communists despite being men of the left? Would telling them they aren’t really on the left if they aren’t communists do anything useful?
I knew about the first one – many of the Jews trapped in Jerusalem were there celebrating the Passover… It was a huge travesty because so many who were not normally in Jerusalem were visiting and caught up in the uprising. Many were taken as slaves in that uprising as well. This was the uprising that Titus defeated, capturing Princess Berenice (Herod’s granddaughter?) and leaving not one stone on another. The Arch of Titus commemorates this victory.
Thank you for the information on the 2nd one. I knew there was a second uprising, I just didn’t know much information on it.
They were liberals not leftists — that makes all the difference.
My understanding it that it’s not that simple. Alia Izetbegovic, who did indeed open the door to bin Laden, al Qaeda and Wahhabi missionaries and money, was long on record as an Islamist.
In 1969, years before the fall of the Soviet bloc, his “Islamic Declaration” made his basic ideas clear. In it he wrote:
Well, if it wasn’t for non-Islamic air strikes, he and his fellow Bosniaks would all have been killed by Serbs. So the ungrateful scumbag should hope he does not become too successful, or he will wish the Croat military leader had saved him a glass of poison.
I have heard multiple times that Bosniaks, Albanians, and Kosovars are particularly friendly to the West and less interested in imposing Islamic tyranny. That obviously does not mean that all of the people in Bosnia are wonderful and friendly to the US – there were Bosniak SS raised by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a charming fellow that I hope is spending quality time with 72 virgin pigs right now.
So you’re against violent Islam but for non-violent Islam? Who isn’t? And the philosophic underpinnings of the non-violent is where? Where in Islam is the theological rejection of the violence? People are radicalized because the theology is ambiguous.
What does that have to do with anything?
That comes from the Koran. That is a tenet of Islam. If it is not Islamic, then it is pagan as far as Muslims are concerned.
And
Not sure about ambiguous. I think it’s pretty straightforwardly a religion of conquest. Allah the intolerant. Allah the capricious. Allah the cruel. Or, as Wafa Sultan would say, “A God Who Hates.”
You don’t even have to judge how the “faith” treats outsiders. Look at what it does to insiders and what “fruits” are produced in its societies. It had about a 50 year period of “enlightenment,” which was utterly quashed. That there are good, decent, highly intelligent and productive Muslim individuals is rather beside the point.
Ambiguous in the sense that it says two different things. On the one hand Muslims can point to places where they are supposed to treat others well. But there are other places where it absolutely stipulates that non-Muslims are to submit to Muslims and Allah’s law. Dhimmitude is a real concept and there is no question that a hierarchal status of Muslims being superior is the rule of day. And Jihad is a real concept, both a military term and a theological term, and the distinction is blurred. Don’t think of the Koran or any of their other religious texts as logically put together doctrine. It’s a hodgepodge of nonsense, but ultimately the latter parts of the Koran, which are the violent parts, take precedent over the earlier. And Muslims have their “perfect man” as a guide. Problem is that the perfect man was a warlord who killed thousands both fairly and unfairly. And so the violent parts dovetail with the life of Mohammed as a guide.
The most succinct way to understand the difference between Christianity and Islam is this: Christ died for love of His fellow man to start Christianity; Mohammed killed to institute the superiority of his fellow men to start Islam.