What is the current significance to the historical atrocities of Islam?

Question

Do you know why islam proclaims Jerusalem one of *their* holy sites?
Do you know why Sunnis and Shi'a fight each other?
Did you know that at one time Christians and Jews were considered lesser allies to islam and their early rulers?
Are you aware that 'infidel' cannot be applied to a Christian according to the Koran?
How rooted in history is islamic atrocities?

In my article, "The Holy City of Jerusalem and the Ummayyad Caliphate," I address the history of atrocities as well as how the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem became a 'sacred' site.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-DfkctJU7dK5B7LcNROoyVQ--;_ylt=AiNXZokI1G6zowgYXNnJS9m0AOJ3?cq=1

No politics. Only the objective groundtruth from a combat veteran that has been to both fronts of our War on Terror, backed up by independent research and historical study.

Know your enemy!

"Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I have said since 9/11 that this war will last at least that long, CPT. I hope our citizens have the stomach for it and that you are proven wrong on the deadliness of their future attacks.

I am however glad to see that others see the realistic future of our conflict. (I hope you weren't the one that I offended with my Army greeting of the day.)

Thank you Mike.

Craig: you make an interesting argument, but the fact is that religion IS being used in their pursuit of territory.

Does it not follow then, that we should understand the method used to motivate their followers and their terrorists in that pursuit, even if their own motives are more secular, even if hidden in the 'sacredness of their religion?'

I am surprised at the educated responses to this question.

Cyber: You are mostly correct but your first point is incorrect. Mohhammed did not espouse a pilgrimage to Aelia (as Jerusalem was then called).

And atrocities are deeply rooted in islam, predating the murder or assassination of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Caliphs.

Eagle29: I certainly had no idea that that small illustration in the article would cause anyone to deviate from the topic of it. I have traveled in Latin America and I do love it. Yes, they are proud of their individual nationalities but they also use the term 'gringo' because "estadodoundense (sp?)" is cumbersome and they also recognize that we are and we call ourselves "americanos." Next time you get a chance, take your conversations on the label deeper and you'll see my point on that one.

Still the article is about history, which is very significant to our current conflicts, rather than the religions or which is correct, even though it covers a portion of the history of 3 religions.

Stay Fan: You make some interesting and valid arguments concerning islam.

I have often argued the futility of attempting negotiations with AQ. Amazing that so many seem to think they'll talk.

The significance of my articles on history is not to attempt to open a dialogue with radical muslims, but to help Americans (and our allies) understand the enemy we face. I *do* use historical accounts to help explain the current conflict, but also use modern day stories and research. If we are to overcome the threat we face, I believe we must understand the motivations of it.

If one is to understand the futility of attempting negotiation, one must understand the mindset that causes that circular rationalization.

In short, we must know the enemy in order to defeat them. That includes a study of their culture, religion and history as well as their current methods.

Viking: While I gain nothing from my writings on 360 and do hide behind the screen of a computer, I do admit that I am attempting to give information through my 360 blog to Americans, not as well read as you are.

I do thank you for the recommendation on two books that I have not read. Please feel free to provide your educated opinion on these subjects of our common study.

Realize, I attempt to tailor my articles to subjects being raised in YA, that the media is not being forthcoming on and that cannot be fully answered in the small and temporary space afforded here in YA.

Given your knowledge of the enemy, I'd even recommend you set up a similiar 360 page, if you have the time for it.

Answer 1

The Islamic jihadists made a point of defiling the holiest places if their enemies, and establishing shrines of their own on the sites.

While the most famous is, of course, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the Muslims did exactly the same thing with the Hagga Sophia in Istanbul. What was the largest church in the world and the centre of the Christian faith in its day was converted to, and remains a mosque to this day. The birthplace of the Buddha was converted to a mosque in identical fashion.

One can only wonder what they would do to Yankee Stadium.

The facts demonstrate that the Islamics have no respect for any religion but their own, and will not compromise with others on even the smallest point. It was the return of the Jews to pray at the Wailing Wall that initiated the first Palestinian pogroms. Until that time nobody cared if the Jews returned. Two years ago the Muslims in India rioted because some Buddhists gathered outside the mosque built on their holy place.

Perhaps the time has come to occupy Mecca, and turn the Kaaba into a shopping mall. That would be the modern equivalent of Muslim behaviour.

Answer 2

1. Mohammed (pbuh) taught that Jerusalem is one of the three places to which the faithful should travel.

2. After the passage of the Rightly Guided caliphs, the Caliphate was taken by persons who thought they were important. When the family of the Prophet (including son-in-law Ali) made a pilgrimage to Mecca to protest against the suppression of freedom, the Caliph had the family killed. The Shi'a remember the martyrdom of Ali, and defend themselves against becoming victims like him. The Sunni have made a habit of killing those who are not Sunni.

3. I disagree. Jews and Christians received the _earlier_ revelation, not an inferior revelation.

4. The people of the Book worship the same God as the faithful. They therefore do not need to be hit on the head, because they already know and worship Allah.

5. Muslim atrocities are no more rooted in history than Christian atrocities. But no Muslim Sultan or caliph ever answered a soldier's question ("How do we know which people are the enemy?") by saying "Kill them all: God will know his own."

Answer 3

Let us not squander our time in the study of empty words and ancient ideals. The fact is, religion is the excuse, not the motive. There are those people who wish to uproot the world, and they happen to use Islam as their banner. If it were not Islam, it would be something else. It is all the interpretation you see. For it is not religion that leads these people into their destructive ends, but it is the responsibility of those who do follow this religion to make their name honorable in the eyes of the rest of the world. The rules put down in scripture here and there mean little to people who are single driven to these destructive ends.

Most wars come down to something very simple. History may say they were fought over idealism, over misunderstandings, or what have you. But in the end, all wars are fought over territory and resources... whatever means we use to justify this can vary greatly. But we are animals, and we seek territory and resources. That is the bare truth of it.

Craig

Answer 4

I don't think we have seen the worst, not by a long shot. As they become more embolden, better armed and more fanatical, I believe we will see attacks that will approach or even dwarf 9-11 in deaths. And nukes will not be required. I believe this conflict will continue for the next 60-100 years. We have become too civilized to do what is necessary.

Answer 5

Fascinating blog, but unsure of the significance.

Reading islam's justifications for its historical actions is all interesting, but because what's really important is to understand the fundamental position from which analysis in islam begins: islam is Right and you are Wrong. So there is no debate or discussion possible, because any reasoning that YOU do from any other base is - by definition - flawed and therefore not worthy of considering.
By the same token, islamic reasoning is remarkably self-contained, but ultimately flawed when exposed to the light of the external world.
It would be like examining the logical step by step explanations of why Charles Manson explain what he did and why he did it. Internally, it all flows - but externally, it's irrational.

For example:
islam states that muslims cannot kill civilians even in war.
but then "people who support the government with whom we are at war" are EXCLUDED from being civilians, and therefore fair game.
And the "with whom we are at war"? Well, that is whomever obl or any other self-proclaimed leader declares it to be. US, UK, other muslims - THEY are the enemy, and ALLof them are targets.
However, since obl or any other self-proclaimed leader is NOT an official leader of islam, this declaration of war is one-way - theENEMY (all of them) are targets, but - on the islam side - only those who pick up arms are targets. The civilians who support this unusual war are NOT targets because they are - by the islamic definition - "civilians" even though they are supporting those who engage in the war.

So the moral of THIS little rant is:
it truly is impossible for islam to have an equal and rational dialogue with the non-islamic world, because of the way in which islam defines "rational." Rational is "according to islam," which is circular and completely excludes any other viewpoint.

Answer 6

In the scope of history ... the current atrocities of islam will be looked at as moslem on moslem with the moslems blaming the jews and christians ... like they always do ... use a scapegoat for their own shortcomings.

Answer 7

Nice bit of self-promotion. But, I've already digested "Milestones" by Siyyad Qutb and "Militant Islam Comes To America" by Daniel Pipes. So, I've learned who our enemy is.

Answer 8

DUDE YOU LOST ME WHEN YOU SAID "Another thing to note is that “American” in Latin America refers to one who lives on one of the two continents as opposed to one that lives in the United States of America. "
I HAVE TRAVELED LATIN AMERICA EXTENSIVELY AND I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANY OF THE PEOPLE OF MEXICO, COLUMBIA, PERU, VENEZUELAN, OR ANY OTHER SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRY I HAVE BEEN TO CONSIDER THEMSELVES AMERICAN. IF YOU KNOW LATIN AMERICAN YOU WILL KNOW THEY THEY ARE VERY PROUD OF THE COUNTRY THEY WERE BORN IN AND THEY PRONOUNCE IT THAT WAY. THEY WILL NEVER CONSIDER THEMSELVES AMERICAN BECAUSE THAT TERM IS RESERVED FOR THOSE THAT COME FROM THE UNITED STATES. IN THEORY WE THAT LIVE IN THE AMERICAS CAN BE CONSIDERED AMERICAN BUT WHEN YOU GO TO A LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRY THEY SAY " OH YOUR AMERICAN" THEY WILL NEVER CONSIDER THEMSELVES AMERICAN. YOU LOST ME ON THAT BIT. I SHOULD HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER TRAVELING TO THESE COUNTRIES IF YOU EVER HAVE THE CHANCE AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE NATIVE POPULATION DO NOT AND WILL NEVER CONSIDER THEMSELVES AMERICAN. THEY HAVE TOO MUCH PRIDE FOR THE COUNTRY THAT THEY WERE BORN IN AND THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES WITH THAT COUNTRY. ANY TIME YOU SAY AMERICAN IT MEANS THE USA. I'M NOT TOO INTERESTED IN THE ISLAMIC CULTURE. I KNOW THE KORAN IS BASED IN PART ON THE BOOKS FROM THE BIBLE AND THE TORAH. THEY HAVE MANY SIMILAR STORIES BUT THATS AS FAR AS I GO. I'M NOT RELIGIOUS EITHER WAY.

Answer 9

Interesting blog - good luck with it!!!