Was Marco Polo an ‘Islamophobe’?
If the same exact criticisms being made against Islam today were also made centuries ago, is it reasonable to automatically dismiss them all as “Islamophobic” — that is, as “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam,” as the Council on American Islamic Relations would have it?
This is the question I often ask myself whenever I read pre-modern writings on Islam. Take that elementary schoolbook hero, Marco Polo and his famous memoirs, for example. By today’s standards, the 13th century Venetian merchant would be denounced as a rabid “Islamophobe.” For me, however, his writings contain a far more important lesson — one in continuity — and deserve closer scrutiny.
Before examining Polo’s observations, it should be noted that his anthropological accounts are, by and large, objective. That is, unlike simplistic explanations that portray him as a prototypical “Orientalist” with an axe to grind against the “Other” — specifically non-whites and non-Christians — in fact, Polo occasionally portrays the few Christians he encountered in a negative light (such as those of the island of Socotra) and frequently praises non-Christians, including Muslims.
For example, he hails the Brahmins of India as being “most honorable,” possessing a “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons. They are likewise remarkable for the virtue of being satisfied with the possession of one wife (p.298).” And he refers to one Muslim leader as governing “with justice” (p.317) and another who “showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody (p.332).”
That said, Polo clearly had no problem being blunt about Islam (political correctness being nonexistent in the Middle Ages). Whereas he praised the Brahmins for their “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons,” regarding the Muslims of Tauris, (modern day Iraq), he wrote:
According to their doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens (p.63).
In fact, based on the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s numerous raiding expeditions, plundering infidels is quite standard in Islam and treated regularly in legal manuals; the Koran has an entire chapter dedicated to and named after plunder (Surat al-Anfal). As for being a martyr simply by dying at the hands of the infidel enemy, this too has ample support in Islam’s texts and consensus among the ulema. The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid (martyr) as “one killed in battle with infidels.”
A more telling anecdote follows: According to Polo, a certain “Achmath” (probably “Ahmed”), one of the few Muslims to have had great influence over Kublai Khan, habitually abused the largely non-Muslim subject peoples without the Khan’s knowledge: he put to death anyone he pleased, robbed them of their possessions, and, most notoriously, he and his sons regularly raped and coerced into concubinage countless women. Due to Achmath’s many atrocities, he was eventually assassinated. When the Khan later discovered the extent of Achmath’s crimes, his
attention [went] to the doctrines of the Sect of the Saracens [i.e., Islam], which excuse every crime, yea, even murder itself, when committed on such as are not of their religion. And seeing that this doctrine had led the accursed Achmath and his sons to act as they did without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for it. So he summoned the Saracens and prohibited their doing many things which their religion enjoined (p.173).
Well written and informative. Thanks!
Most historians do not dwell on the decades preceding the Islamic attempts to conquer Western Europe, they generally discuss the Eurpean wars of defence, the battles the Europeans fought to repel the invading Moslems, and sometimes the cruel and inhuman situations which followed the fighting. But what probably happened in Southern Europe and the Balkans was what is happening today throughout the world. That is more and more Moslems are immigrating into the West and bringing with them their culture of ignorance, poverty, misogyny, and violence and attempting to inflict this culture on a largely Enlightened West. However, in the past, the West still respected it’s own vastly superior culture while knowing how to use violence to defend itself from these Moslem interlopers. The question now is demographic, can the West somehow begin to reproduce itself in enough numbers to stave off the Moslem onslaught, and if so, can the West once again regain a cultural upper hand in the face of Moslem ignorance and aggression, and finally will the West ever again have the courage and will to take up the arms necessary to defend itself from Islamic encroachment? Lately it seems like the West, especially Europe, is doomed to Moslem domination within a generation or two because the Christian Europeans either cannot or will not stand up and defend themselves.
You should read Giles Milton’s book White Gold about the Islamic trade in European slaves.
Here’s another noted “Islamophile” (though neither he nor Polo seemed at all afraid of Muslims – except perhaps those bearing scimitars):
Montesquieu, in “Spirit of the Laws” (1748), wrote (these are chapter headings):
“That the Catholic Religion is most agreeable to a Monarchy, and the Protestant to a Republic.” (Book XXIV, Chapter V)
“That a moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan.” (Book XXIV, Chapter III)
In the next chapter, he adds
“It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.” (Book XXIV, Chapter IV)
Absolutely beautiful, Mr. Ibrahim.
“Surely fourteen-hundred years is an unusually long time for “unfounded” stereotypes to persist.”
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
I wonder if satirical contempt may be applied to them under “tagiyya.”
Mr. Ibrahim,
The last phrase is a poor argument. Anti-Semitism is older than 1400 years and is based on unfounded stereotypes.
Actually, no.
Anti-Jewish sentiment has been around for a long time, based on strange ideas, perhaps envy of not having to cart one’s idols around with them, and the rather serious military abilities of the Hebrews, as they were known at that time. Anti-Semitism was actually only coined as a word in, I believe, 1879; and began as a serious mental impairment in the early 19th century, primarily in France and receiving its most widely publicised illustration in the Dreyfus affair prior to the rise of Germany’s version of race-based fascism. As the powers of the world that profit from destabilisation have energised fundamental Islam (as it proved so successful in Iran), the spread of active anti-Semitism has upscaled in recent years from some decades of relative quiescence.
The difference between anti-Jewish actions and anti-Semitism is notable in that the unspeakable and irrational hatred found in the latter concept bears no resemblance to the envy and acquiescing issues of the former state confronting Jews during the Reformation period as feudal practices disappeared across Europe.
Indeed I’d have better used Jew hatred rather than anti-Semitism.
But that’s the only thing we agree about.
Anti-Semitism was actually only coined as a word in, I believe, 1879; and began as a serious mental impairment in the early 19th century, primarily in France and receiving its most widely publicised illustration in the Dreyfus affair prior to the rise of Germany’s version of race-based fascism
I was wondering when “France” would appear on board as the initiator of anti-semitism LMAO
Did you know that France was the first European nation that acknoledged the Jews as being ” full Citizens” of France by a Revolution decreat ? And that in the beginning of 19th century Napoleon hired them in the army (right which so far was denied to t’em)and administrations ? Dreyfus affair was the escuse for having lost the 1870 war, Jews were seen as the responsable but of course politicians didn’t assume their responsabilitiess. Though hlf of the french intelligentia defended him, and he finally was restablished in his rights. Now, tell me if any pogroms occured in France ? you should rather look towards your “good Alliees”, Poland, but not only, Germany, Russia, surprising, not in France !
the word antisemitism appeared first in german language around 1860
But I could say too, that “antifrenchism” (even if the world is avoided) appeared in english language earlier !
Otherwise, I didn’t remember that Marco Polo’s work was that much emphasizing on “islamophoby”, but rather on “marvels”. Also, it is said that he worte his book from imagination in a Venisian prison (could be in Korkula, as the island was unde Venise rules)
“Though hlf of the french intelligentia defended him”
Though HALF of…
Hi Marie
The Jews were expelled from France not once but twice. They had a region in Southern France that was forcefully invaded and taken by the then Pope. We are talking about the 1200′s. Pogroms, massacres, forced conversion…..yes it happened.
Hi my dear Oscar, it’s quite a while we haven’t talk to each other, but I don’t forget you in my thoughts !
Uh, you said that the Jews were expelled twice and that in the era of Avignon popes they had to leave too.
I Knew that they were expelled of the kingdom of France at least once for a quite a while, during the deseases of the black plagues if I remember well, but I didn’t find any writings corroborating the “twice”, or their bad treatment in the region of Avignon during Popes mendates.
Kingdom of france of the era was small, as the provinces had litterally their autonomy, depending if the princes or the king run out of money, Jews were ask to contribuate to the state or province debt ! you know how wars were easily launched on neighbours, usually nobles didn’t want to contribuate, so as the rest of the population was serfs, small lands owners, or small stores or enterprises owners, the people that had some means were the Jews, who used to be the bankers and the wealthiests traders. Almost all of the trades with foreign countries were made through them, especially with Spain Maghreb and ME. So depended on the “bon plaisir” of the king, and or of the provinces nobles how the Jews were welcomed. Generally their expel didn’t last long, they were called back. (In comparison with England their expel lasted quite a few centuries). Though can’t find that the Avignon popes mistreated them. Of course there were some obligations to convert or to run away, depended on the catholiscism fervor of the noble of the corner. In Normandy they had quite a few problems, is it because of the intransigent origin of the Normans ? Well the French weren’t constitutional deep Jews haters, it was more opportunism to jump on them, but remember the roman catholic chuch was repeating its propaganda, Jews killed Jesus ! so like since a few decades it is easy to bash the French without fearing a court trial or a trade retaliation (like it is with Chineses or Blacks), at the era it was easy to prejudice a Jew without fearing excommunication or any court punition.
But I don’t know that any pogrom occured, at least the pogroms that we litterally view as such, like they occured in the eastern countries.
Marie Claude
Do Take a closer look at Eastern France (Troyes; Metz; Strasbourg… regions; Jews were usually not allowed into towns) history. The first crusade period, for instance. Not that Anti-Jewish pogroms and atrocities started at that period, nor had they ended then and there.
And arguing about the different “technology” used to perpetrate a pogrom in E.Europe vis-a-vis E.France (especially since such events happened at different times) doesn’t really matter nor change the facts. Indeed, even the local term for “pogrom” at the beginning of the 2nd millennium will probably be hard to retrieve (not sure Rashi transcribed it).
So however you call massacres of communities, they existed.
Bern, you’re probaly using Wikipedia:
“The Jews of France do not seem to have suffered much during the Crusades, except, perhaps, during the first (1096), when the Crusaders are stated to have shut up the Jews of Rouen in a church and to have murdered them without distinction of age or sex, sparing only those who accepted baptism.”
Curiosly, in the french version, the recalcitrant Norman Jews weren’t all “murdered” but also some commited suicide :
“Un texte hébreu relate aussi que le duc Robert II de Normandie se serait concerté avec ses vassaux pour que tout Juif qui n’accepterait pas le baptême sur leurs terres soit éliminé, menace mise à exécution, alors que de nombreux Juifs se suicident Au nombre des martyrs se trouve l’érudit Rabbi Senior. Un riche et influent érudit de Rouen, Jacob ben Jekuthiel, s’était auparavant rendu à Rome (1007) pour solliciter la protection de ses coreligionnaires de Lorraine par le pape ; le souverain pontife envoya un haut dignitaire pour mettre fin à la persécution. Mais Robert le Pieux, bien connu pour ses préjugés religieux et la haine qu’il portait aux hérétiques, poursuit dans la ligne de l’intolérance. Il pourrait y avoir un lien entre cette persécution et une rumeur qui s’est répandue au cours de l’année 1010 : à en croire Adémar de Chabannes, qui écrit en 1030, en 1010 les Juifs d’occident adressent une lettre à leurs coreligionnaires d’orient les avertissant de l’imminence d’une expédition militaire contre les Sarrasins. L’année précédente, le Saint-Sépulcre avait été transformé en mosquée par les Musulmans, sacrilège qui avait provoqué la fureur de la chrétienté et notamment du pape Serge IV. L’exaspération de la chrétienté répand alors la croyance en une entente secrète entre Musulmans et Juifs”
The Jews were accused to have warn the Muslims that a crusade was launched to deliver the Christ grave, and as the Mulims were their customers and suppliers for their trading activity, this grievance (conspiracy theory or fact), plus catholiscism bigotism look like a logical reason to accuse them of treason.
(Troyes; Metz; Strasbourg… regions; Jews were usually not allowed into towns)
hmm, I dunno where Wikipedia fund that, (it says that too in the french version) cuz these regions, specifically, were the regions where Jews found refuge when they were expelled fom other provinces, and everyone here have heard of the jewish quater of Strasburg… well, I’m not an expert of the specific history of the french Jews as a mere, but if they had crossed a more violent fate in France than in the eastern countries, I suppose that our “global history” books would have quoted it
Marie Claude,
Try some more reliable sources than Wiki. Knowing your own country’s history can only be beneficial. There are quite a few books, in French too, retracing the bi-millennial history of Jews in France.
Charlemagne and Napoleon were exceptional, including in their attitude to Jews.
Nern
I wrote :
“Bern, you’re probaly using Wikipedia:”
does that cling a bell in your arrogant little brain ?
I was comparing your very source of arguments, the english one with the french one !
Inutile de m’insulter, petite ignare.
Do some reading beyond Wiki, get some knowledge, a bit of culture.
Savoir-vivre won’t harm either.
t’as de la chance, je suis modérée
On n’a rien élevé ensemble, malheureuse.
A boor who can’t even write in proper English can hardly pretend to represent a great country.
LMAO, I’m not sure that the Quai d’Orsay” would endorse your subtil way of insulting !
minable !
mal à ta France ? France isn’t your ownship, what have you done for her ? if you only take in account the skimmed cream that fits your easthetical views, you end into the redundant french academy, that doesn’t want to see our language to evolve. I tell ya one more objective truth, language and notion of national identity is not the result of the (supposed) brillant spirits of the “educateds”, but a popole expression that have the same life worries. Now go back to your heavenly highnesses
what I appreciaste the most, it’s the fairness of the moderators !
A boor who can’t even write in proper English can hardly pretend to represent a great country.
a boor ? glad I’am one, it helps to remain impermeable to smart popole of your sort !
the correct sentence is: on n’a pas élevé les cochons ensemble, but who pretended such a incongruity ? your higness !
and don’t talk of my “great country” when it fits your agenda, justement, nos cochons ne comprennent pas l’hypocrisie enrobée de miel
you are a joke !
Well, I did suspect it. The Quai d’Orsay isn’t what it used to be. Or is it?
Adieu veau, vache, cochon… connasse.
The Quai without subtlety? How many missions have you done for them to be that au courant?
And, can’t they afford a language-and-manners acquisition training for you, or is it that desperate a situation?
Really, reading asinine “prose” like yours me donne mal à ma France.
Well, yes, “Jew hatred” has existed for over 1,400 years. On the other hand, “Judaism” by whatever name you want to call it, was founded in Bagdad (er, “Babylon”) about 7,000 years ago. That leaves about 5,600 years unaccounted for.
“Islamaphobia” has existed ever since Islam was invented, a mere 1,400 years ago.
Bingo. Not to mention, all the negative stuff Ibrahim quoted from Polo can also be found in the writings of Muslims themselves. In other words, Muslims themselves say that it is ok to steal from non muslims and kill them, etc.
Why are we just now learning this about Marco Polo? We must go through the history books and razor out all references to this bigot. Political correctness demands nothing less. Speaking of that, we must also support the Obama’s administration’s refusal to reveal details about the Fort Hood massacre despite the prying of Lieberman and his Republican henchmen. It’s time to put this regrettable incident behind us.
Yes.
This needs to be submitted to the ‘department of information retrieval’.
To which bigot are you referring, Polo or yourself?
Is Banjo a bigot because he mentioned Obama? I am only asking because I need clarification on your rules of bigotry so I do not upset your intricately tuned and delicate sensibilities in the future.
Just change a few words and see how it sounds:
“How can something, in this case “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Jews” be a constant aspect of the Jewish people’s X-hundred year history, and yet still be regarded as “unfounded”?”
do you still think this reasoning works? No it doesn’t.But anyway:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/14/sheikh_to_terrorists_go_to_hell?page=0,0
That anti-Semitism is ‘founded’ in envy, paranoia over economic control, resentment at ‘Christ-killing’ and stereotypes pushed in certain Christian texts does not make it ‘correct’ or justified. That is unless you assume those acting on such motives to be ‘objective’, reasonable, etc.
If you want to justify opposition to Islam as a continuation of anti-Semitism, then double back and apologize for anti-Semitism based on resisting Islamic encroachment, then this is just one more form of cowardice.
Perhaps you are unable to differentiate between the irrational bubbling sort of failings that give rise to Jew-hatred in Western societies and the under-reaction to the threat of a proudly world-conquering ‘faith’ like Islam. This attitude does occur frequently on right-wing websites – that is, certain ‘Christians’ and others using their fear of Islam to justify anti-Jewish attitudes. It is a shame, but not a surprise.
Exactly, that’s the difference, and why anti-semitism is unlike Islamophobia.
‘If the same exact criticisms being made against Islam today were also made centuries ago, is it reasonable to automatically dismiss them all as “Islamophobic”…?’
As Bern points out (#6), the exact same question could be asked about Jews and anti-Semitism.
As pointed out to Bern, he is wrong – as are you. The problem is the superficial and politically correct version served up the Americans in their pitifully politically correct schools – and the lack of love for scholarship which virtually ends all non-professional learning at the point of graduation from whatever school is last.
None of the criticisms noted in Polo’s documents could be said of Jews, as it is notable that he didn’t. The Torah, which has been ill-translated into much of your old testament, does not permit the kind of degradations of non-Jews as is encouraged by the Koran against infidels.
Sorry, but you need to learn what you are talking about before merely chiming in with this politically correct BS.
The point is about the formulation of Mr. Ibrahim’s final argument, not the article. There’s a difference between the fact-founded criticisms of Islam (as this article shows) and the unfounded accusations manifest in Jew hatred.
The persistence over time of either unnecessarily veils the distinction.
Great article , Mr. Ibrahim!!!
A copy should be sent to the present administration, editors of all those liberal rags such as NYTimes etc, and the present academia who continue to conduct the Muslim taqiyya jihad against all those who tell the truth about Islam and Muslims.
A question is: will they ever learn??
In a word, no.
This explains why Obama has no problem with plundering (infidels)America.
Re: 6, 8 & 9,
I see your point about anti-Semitism but consider what anti-Semitism actually consists of ie the blood libel etc.
In other words, the expression of anti-Semitism demonizes Jews, tells irrational lies about them, their practices and beliefs which are plainly contradicted by the facts of Jewish life and culture.
For instance, if you were to say that Judaism teaches that one could kill a non-Jew and pay only half the penalty that one would pay if one killed a Jew and then could point to ample evidence that Jews did indeed seem to kill non-Jews with some frequency with few moral qualms, the facts would clearly contradict this statement. You could find so little evidence for the claim that it would be impossible to connect the teaching of Judaism with a tendency to kill non-Jews.
But you can do the above with Islam in case after case for 1400 years.
I agree that Ibrihim’s argument could be better phrased or clarified. But the general idea, in the context of Islamic history is sound. In other words, the facts support the 1400 years of criticism of that faith.
Meanwhile, Jews have lived peacefully and productively in the West since time immemorial. The persecution of this people throughout history at the hands of Christians and Muslims has been both irrational, grossly unfair and just plain stupid.
…“Achmath” (probably “Ahmed”), one of the few Muslims to have had great influence over Kublai Khan…put to death anyone he pleased, robbed them of their possessions, and, most notoriously, he and his sons regularly raped and coerced into concubinage countless women.
Uday Hussein’s spiritual brother.
Little wonder that Muslims like this Achmath—or today’s terrorists—can act “without any sense of guilt.”
They try to convince themselves they’ve got Allah’s approval, for insane acts like stepping into a crowd of human belings and blowing themselves to smithereens.
(hopefully, Allah will have a little surprise for them in the Afterlife)
(It is further interesting to note that the assassin leader took into his service men primarily between the ages of 12-20—not unlike Osama bin Laden’s position that Muslim men aged 15-25 are most suited for jihad and martyrdom…
The exploitation of children and young persons, the forced study of the Koran to the exclusion of other books & the brainwashing into the glories of martyrdom etc., while the old men hide behind rocks and in caves in Waziristan, is one of the more egregious aspects of contemporary Crazy Islam*.
(where’s “The UN” on all these “human rights” abuses ?)
(*I’m seeking a term that will be more accurately descriptive than “Radical Islam”)
The threat posed by Islam to the West is nothing new – as Mr. Ibrahim points out. The problem is that the West of the late 20th and now 21st century is in decline. The West has forgotten or, in some cases, rejected the very principles, values, and beliefs that made the western world strong. The West embrace of multiculturalism and moral relativism has left it weak, divided, and unsure of itself. Our success and rampant consumerism has left us intellectually and morally flabby. The only way to recover and successfully defend against the Islamic onslaught is to regain the values and principles that the west abandoned in its rush to modernity. We must reject the nihilism, existentialism, and faux pacificism and embrace the western civilization that ruled the world. If we do not recover the essence of our civilization, then it will pass away and be replaced. Even if it is a lost cause – as some say – will we go gentle into the night or will we make a stand against the despotism and darkness that will surely follow?
I disagree with some of the posters who say that 1400 years is an unusually long time for an unfounded fear to persist being equally applicable to the Jews as well as the moslems. If you look at history, the Jews have always been hated because of envy. It seems that wherever you put a Jew and no matter what obsticles you place before him, he will prosper in spite of it all. But no matter where you put a molem and whatever help you offer, he will always be an angry, disgruntled, hateful, poor and violent member of your society. It goes to show that the culture, ethics and habits of mind that a certain religion teaches are important. There is a reason the religion of the ancient Mayans no longer exists.
You ignored the point of the argument in favor of the modifier. “Islamaphobia” has existed SINCE ISLAM WAS INVENTED, over 1400 years ago, and has not abated.
I believe that most thinkers are expressing well-reasoned fear in regard to Islam, rather than a phobia, and those who use the word Islamophobe are actually the ones who have an unreasoned fear of questioning or examination of what they believe and who they pledge their allegiance to; Mohammad and his life in particular.
Also troubling is the divine right of deceit (taqqyia) that Islam allows. It causes one to question the sincerity of any Islamic religious leader who expresses disgust for behaviours that their prophet himself practiced.
I think that many people actually practice Islamophobia when they seek to appease by silencing our questions and our concerns.
Moslems are very open in their intent to kill people like me, an atheistic pagan. For members of atheistic political creeds (the Left in the US) to assume they have nothing to fear from Islam, is the height of stupidity. Suicidal stupidity.
We Mormons are in trouble too, no matter how conservative we are. We don’t believe in Trinity in Unity or the Nicene Creed, which makes some supposed Christians declare that we ain’t Christians at all, but from the Muslim perspective we’re munkur, conjoining other gods to Allah. I would argue that many Muslims are munkur too, adding fascism, socialism, the worship of death, or the worship of jihad to a pantheon right next to Allah. And then there’s all those tribes who add their local customs to the Quran as if burkas etc. were holy writ too. The problem with finding out what Muslims think is finding an actual Muslim. In practical terms nearly all avowed Muslims are heretics against their own religion, making up rules (adding to the Sunna and Hadith or just asserting new rules) that suit them and ignoring whatever pieces of the Quran they don’t like.
Of course we Mormons have been there before. Along with the Ghost Dancers we’re in the very exclusive club of religions on a death list. Only one state, of course, MO, but it has been legal to kill members of only a very few religions in America, and we’re one of them.
Even though several of my Muslim friends have been impressed with some LDS beliefs such as refraining from alcohol and drugs etc, I’m afraid our belief in Godhead won’t let us ever be good little dhimmi-types. We might not believe that Jesus is just an emanation of God, but we still believe He’s divine, a God and still a servant of the Father. We won’t be accepting the Christ as a prophet inferior to Muhammad any time soon.
I think though that false beliefs can certainly stand the test of time. The prejudice against Jews is very old and has remained very similar: the Pharoah saw them as strangers waxing strong in Egypt, and it’s one of the things Jews been constantly accused of ever since–being rich strangers. And it’s often been true. There have been wealthy Jews in many countries where they never blend into the population, but remain slightly aloof. Thus much of the roots of that prejudice has a basis in reality. What’s more, they’ve always been middle-class aloof–hard workers who prove by their success that the fatalism of the lower class is a self-fulfilled prophecy. The resentment of peasants is not hard to understand, especially with priests egging them on with passion plays. The rest of the idiotic ideas of Jew-hatred have no basis in reality–and really ought to be called Israeliphobia or something. All the blood libels and the New Age/Nazi garbage about them being the reason for the downfall of Atlantis, the conspiracy theories etc–these are simply diseased imaginings.
With Islam you have plenty of history to go with the written word of the Quran etc to check against, and a lot of the negatives are true, and have been for many centuries. Indeed, it’s hard to think of anything similar to the ridiculous fancies of antisemitism in ‘Islamophobia.’ The Crusaders killed a lot of Muslims, true; but the Crusades wouldn’t have happened if the Turks and Arabs had let Christian Pilgrims visit Jerusalem without robbing or murdering them. Lots of Muslims died in Spain and Eastern Europe, but that’s what happens when you invade your neighbors. Lots of Muslims died at the final siege of Constantinople, too, but the Byzantines didn’t invite them.
So just because a prejudice has some basis in truth doesn’t mean it’s not a prejudice,and it remains necessary to judge carefully and correctly individuals and collectives in the present based on what they do now rather than what their ancestors did. The example of the Jews is largely responsible for America–aren’t we a nation of middle-class people who think we’re kinda special too? And while there have been plenty of really rotten Muslim leaders though the centuries, there have been a number of good and great ones too. Islam looks monolithic from the outside but it SURE ain’t. There’s already a movement to reopen ijtihad (very similar to the scientific method but ‘closed’ since the 1300s) that’s gathering steam a little at a time. It could turn out to be rotten too–or it could be a flourishing reformation. We Mormons believe that we have to preach in every nation before Jesus will return–so at some point that means all the middle-eastern nations are going to have to allow proselyting. When that happens, you’ll know we were right, and further know that it’s time to repent double quick!
When it doesn’t happen…the party’s at my house.
Guess ya gotta have a place to spout off..Actually a decent read…until the end..
Mr. Ibrahim’s article raises a crucial point that so far has gone unnoticed or has been avoid.
If, as the article seems to indicate, the Koran and Islam has given sanction to the violence and despoilation of infidels, then those Muslims who do such things are not radical nor out-of-touch with their religion. Indeed, terrorists are simply devout Muslims who take the dictates of their religion seriously and seek to practice them. Islam is thus not a religion of peace.
‘If the same exact criticisms being made against Islam today were also made centuries ago, is it reasonable to automatically dismiss them all as “Islamophobic”…?’
As Bern points out (#6), the exact same question could be asked about Jews and anti-Semitism.
I agree that using the myth longevity to prove it is not a myth is weak argument from the author. But inferring like you seem to do that just because this multisecuklar myth on Jews has been disproved to imply that it is also wrong about Muslims is dishonest. We have plenty of examples, we have Shariah and Koran, we have countless Muslim historians gloating about the number of female captives brought in harems to be raped (cf Muslim chronicle about conquest of Spain or the fall of Saint John of Acre), we have the official Muslim version of the life of Muhammad for proving that what Marco Polo said about aggressive nature of Islam or the “everything is fair against non-Muslims” were true and are still true.
I definitely don’t argue that Mr. Ibrahim is wrong about Islam.
I merely point out that the persistence of stereotypes over time is not a valid criterion to conclude their veracity.
Furthermore, the acts and facts reported in the article clearly show that Mr. Ibrahim is not discussing stereotypes but reliable events.
Terric;
But no matter where you put a molem and whatever help you offer, he will always be an angry, disgruntled, hateful, poor and violent member of your society.
That doesn’t bear empirical scrutiny. The few million Muslims in the US aren’t committing violent acts and most of them aren’t in Section 8 housing either.
Re #19
“That doesn’t bear empirical scrutiny. The few million Muslims in the US aren’t committing violent acts and most of them aren’t in Section 8 housing either.”
–> This above statement is WRONG. Muslims are – emprically proven throughout the whole Western world – the most violent part of the civilisation. Compared to their respective percentage of inhibitants of a country, muslims are comitting brute and violent crimes up to 5 to 7 times (!!!) more than all other groups together.
just one example (1st google hit actually), feel free to educate yourself further
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/sweden-soaring-crime-rates-directly-related-to-rampant-muslim-immigration/
Empirical scrutiny isn’t necessary. Just use your own eyes. I live in a small town with a muslim pop of about 500. Not sure what housing has to do with it but while they may not be in section 8 housing the majority of them definitly live in substandard housing. Anyway, in this small town there has already been one murder commited by a muslim against another muslim. I have no doubt that the hateful stares we have encountered from muslim males around here indicates a clear desire to commit crimes against non-muslims as well. The net, as Nodhimmi points out, has plenty of evidence.
I admit I am afraid of Muslims.
When I see one, I tend to stare.
I do not understand their thinking, and I would like to hear them explain how they follow the words of a killer/pedophile. Complete disregard for your fellowman.
Islam/Muslim is a culture/religion of hate. Their God is obviously not my God.
They spread hate where ever they go. I think they hate themselves.
Polo had it right.
th
Polo had it right.
Perhaps the muslims have not had their fill of blood. Perhaps, when the agony and misery they inflict on others is inflicted on them, there will be change. That we, the west, stand idly by and allow these maniacs access to nuclear weapons shows how deeply we have gone down the rabbit hole. That our elected leaders seem to have reached an accomodation with a people whose only cause is to kill them, is despicable. At some time in the future, we will have to fight them. It will be a long and drawn out war fought with genocidal intensity. This will happen because we did not have the foritude to say ‘enough’ today. Millions if not billions will perish on the pyre of political correctness.
I don’t have the quote handy, but Col. T.E. Lawrence remarked in his diary how Islamic movements tend to erupt in violent spasms from time to time only to dissipate rather quickly when the frenzy wears off. In his lifetime that would have included the Mahdist rebellion which caught fire for a brief time in the Sudan only to burn itself out. Contemporary Wahhabism, Salafism, and Al Qadism seem to be part of the same pattern. It would be more accurate to identify these movements specifically as the source of the problem over muddled concepts like The War on Terror (dumb), or radical Islam (better but lacking in specificity). Of course, the current administration prefers the completely meaningless euphemism “overseas contingency operations.”
Contingency operations: “limited operations undertaken in areas where the Army intially lacks, or has a very limited, base of operations. …contingency operations can be undertaken for any number of political, humanitarian, or punitive purposes….” (Andrew J. Birle, U.S. Army Counterinsurgency and Contingency Operations Doctrine,1860-1941.)
Technically, Mr. Obama and his administration is correct in describing Iraq and Afghanistan as contingency operations; however, the term is virtually meaningless when it comes to give direction and focus to the effort. The use of the term is a reflection of the confusion of the administration and even the military when it comes to setting goals for the conflict.
I have all those years of playin in the pool, my kids playin in the pool and now the grand kids playin in the pool, with one of them saying (eyes closed).. “Marco” and the rest of us having to say “Polo”…..So from that angle, I have to thank him for a great pool game. I wonder if South America, Europe, the Mideast, Africa and the far east have their own versions?…..hmmm one wonders indeed…
I suggest “islamophobia” has nothing on “kaffirphobia”, one of the greatest bigotries infecting the world for over 14 centuries.
Surely, the point is that Christian anti-Semitism is based on the belief that the Jews carried guilt for a single death 2,000 years ago — the death of Jesus. This is quite different from the historical truth that the practitioners of traditional Islam have been repeatedly guilty down through the ages of religious murder on a genocidal scale. The fact that something remains in the historical annals for fourteen centuries doesn’t mean it is true or false. The fact that Islam preaches and historically has practiced things that are inhumane and inimical to freedom is a truth. Any other argument misses the point that people need to grasp.
Over-simplification. Jews were present in Medieval Europe but remained outside the feudal system. Therefore, in most places, they had to turn to occupations that did not require land ownership – such as banking. How popular are bankers today regardless of their religion. Imagine how easy it would be to scapegoat bankers if they were all the same religion? Kill a few and get your loan forgiven.
Muslims, until recently kept to themselves and were not moving into Christian countries (partially because our ancestors wanted nothing to do with them). Marco Polo’s observations were made in Muslim countries.
Point of order: Jesus was killed by the Italians (“Romans”). At the time of his death, Jesus was just another trouble making, rabble rousing Jew of the Nazerine tribe.
A telling point when it comes to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
In Christianity & Judaism it is a sin and a failing to deny God no matter the circumstances. In Islam it is not a sin to deny God if you are undermining infidels. Interesting isn’t it?
That is a very good point. Excellent!
Raymond asks: “How can something, in this case “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam” … be a constant aspect of Islam’s fourteen-hundred year history, and yet still be regarded as “unfounded”?”
Great question. I have noted the extent to which Islam is a parasitical ideology, from its sanction and endorsements of thievery and piracy, to it’s doctrinal perversions of Judaic and Christian cosmology into its confused illiterate epistemology. Muslims, who congentially look down upon and virulently hate Jews, are confronted by the astounding success of Jews in the world, especially in America and Israel. Compared to the pahtetic record of accomplishment from the Arabs, who outnumber Jews by several orders of magnitude (15 million compared to 1.5 billion or so), this unreconcilable contrast is unsettling. How could the supremacist Muslims, whom Allah has honored as the true Chosen People (another parasitized bastardized version of Judaism), be shown up by a dirty band of humans whom Allah holds lower than swine???
In the poisoned Muslim mind, Jewish ascendancy and accomplishment isn’t due to hard work or cultural attitudes which cherish humanity, faith, or plain hard work. No — the parasitical Muslims look to victim pimping organizations like the ADL, whose questionable tactics convince Muslims that the path to the top is through non-stop claims of harrassment, *phobia, and accusatory complaint. See how similar the approach of C.A.I.R. or any other Muslim “rights” group is to the activities, tone, and approach of a group like ADL or crazed haters like Meijer Kahane. That is the page Muslims in the west are copying out of to attempt to elevate themselves in the West. Their misreading of reality, and their disposition to exploit victim-pimping methods to forward their cause are only a couple reasons their creed is so inimical to our own, and will never live in harmony with the humanism or the secular nature we’ve striven so hard to accomplish in the West.
Morton
Meyer Kahane was portrayed in the American MMS as a nut. However, he simply stated that there is no co-existence with Moslems; and, he wanted them out of the West Bank which is historical Israel. Today you see the MMS trying to do the same with Netanyahu. Tomorrow they’ll pick another victim.
Oscar the Grump – That’s not all Kahane had to say – he maintained that America was a festering anti-Semitic nation and truly seemed to hate us. He reveled and seemed to thrive on the cult of Jewish victimology, which I suggest inspired some of the approach Muslims take today in their Jihad against America.
I actually think it’s worth exploring the wisdom of expelling Muslims who take their religion seriously from our dominions. As their Jihad unleashes ever spiralling horrors against us that path will look more and more reasonable. But Jihad makes endless Muslim claims of victimhood especially revolting when contrasting their genocidal planetary rape of mankind against true stories of persecution and genocide in the world. It is as if their religion formed in the mind of a rapist – Hey wait a minute… it did.
Excellent and informative article. Well done.
The word Islamaphobia might not accurately describe Marco Polo’s position. Realist might better describe his position. Describing a behavior as a phobia. implies the it is an irrational fear. As an example being afraid of a hand grenade with the pin pulled is not a phobia. Fear if snake knees could well be a phobia.
In my opinion fearing Radical Islam is reasonable and rational behavior. Fearing butterflies os most likely a phobia.
The Islamicists want to declare that anyone who doesn’t believe that Islam is the best thing since sliced bread is guilty of a phobia.
As for me, I don’t fear Islam, but I do recognize that the Islamacists hate me, and would prefer if I were dead. And I respond appropriately.
I can’t argue with your point of view.
Has there ever been a time in the history of Islam, in which the followers of that “religion” have managed to get along with those who weren’t of their “religion”?
The Jews have demonstrated time and again, that they are able to live peaceably with anyone who isn’t trying to kill them.
In Sub-Saharan Africa Chritians and Muslims are of about equal numbers. African Christians view Muslims as predisposed towards violence, but, curiously, Muslims don’t feel the same way about their Christian neighbors. At first blush it could be (mis)interpreted as the Muslims being more tolerant, but it’s really an honest assessment by each side of the other. Recent history in parts of that region bear out the Chritians’ paranoia as well as the Muslims’ appreciation of the fact that their Christian neighbors are les likely to turn violent against them.
Do keep in mind, though, that there has been Chritian retaliation against Muslim violence in paces like Nigeria. The old religious aspect of the Muslim-Christian conflict may be flaring up in Africa, and this time the Christians have plenty of numbers.
What are “Chritians,” says Don Rodrigo to self. My fingers betray me!
Islamaphobia …too funny.
if one isn’t afraid of what Islam will do to you then you are naive or a Muslim.
two things about Islam and Muslims.
1) they plan to kill or enslave all infidels …so no I don’t like them. Show me a moderate Muslim and I will show you a liar or a Muslim that doesn’t understand his/her (maybe scratch the “her”) religion.
2) Most Muslims are a conquered people. Unless they are descendants of the Arabs from the area of Mecca or Medina then they were attacked , conquered and forced to change to Islam at the point of the sword. So that means most of all Muslims never had the option of religion.
..and they go nuts when some one mentions “creative design” …the christians have nothing on the fables of Islam. good luck with that.
1400 years is a very long time to be debating the same obvious points about Islam. What is everyone in the west afraid if? Perhaps they are afraid of some day being forced to convert to,and suffer under, a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion,and then seeing their children and grandchildren suffer from the same “benefits” of Islam that Muslims now “enjoy”. It’s time someone in the West had the courage to call Islam what everyone already knows it is. An evil ideology deserving of nothing but extinction.
Re: #19
That doesn’t bear empirical scrutiny. The few million Muslims in the US aren’t committing violent acts and most of them aren’t in Section 8 housing either.
Ok I will grant that you are correct about that. But its the situation that is different. Its not evidence in the favor of Islam.
Muslim immigrants to the U.S, at least until recently, were already well off and well educated when they got here. Here they found a relatively tolerant reception and plenty of opportunity thanks to our capitalist free markets.
But put ANY Muslim in a crisis situation where the situation goes against them in some way and most if not all will resort to the example of their (so-called) prophet when he was in trouble. They resort to violence and extremism, cloaked in the justification that is it “necessary” to save Islam or Muslims from oppression. When for some reason they are not strong enough to resort to violence, they fall back on excuses and resentments for why they aren’t the top dogs like Allah promised them they would be.
Seriously, push the mild mannered Muslims of America hard enough and they will show the true colors of their faith. They have no example of suffering through persecution unto death as Christians do. There will always come a point where they see no other option but to fight.
Now I do not think that we should discriminate against law abiding Muslims in this country. But just saying don’t be fooled by their behavior in what is a basically ideal situation for them. Anyone can be an angel when they are getting their way. The proof of a person’s dedication to peace and non-violence comes when you don’t get your way.
It is a curious fact that the Muslims who are quick to delight in denying the Holocoust are also the ones most eager to bring on the next. Now I have a new word to describe what causes this addled thinking: taqiyya.
I have it on good Authority
that Mohammed paid some of Medina’s Jews for their ideas and thinking, hence some of the similarities between the Old Testament and the Koran.
Also, post death of wife #1, Khadija, Mohammed got into the multiple wives lifestyle & one of those wives was (reportedly) a (former) Jewess and one of his concubines was also a Jewess.
It is very hard to reconcile all this Muslim centered Jew hatred (Nasrallah of Hezbollah and Arachnid-jihad of Iran recently met with Assad in Syria and confirmed their determination to rid the Middle East of “Zionists”…)with some of these apparent realities of Mohammed’s life.
~signed,
when will we ever learn ?
That he married them does not mean he loved them or even liked them. In those days such men married for power, not love.
I have not read all the comments, but so far many people are taking umbrage about RI’s last comment. But he did not say “All stereotypes are correct, if old enough.” He said, in effect, that this particular stereotype, which appears to fit the facts, is too old and has too many ahherents to be dismissed.
I learned about Islam from the generation of my parents. They didn’t know very much, but what they did know has been borne out by facts and my experience. Political correctness is a very new phenomenon.
About Ibrahim’s last comment, I also do not see how it correlates to anti-Semitism. His point is obvious enough, that the same exact things people say about Islam today, people said about Islam then — and they had evidence. As for Jews, the reasons given for hating them throughout the ages have fluctuated, from Christ-killers and eaters of Christian children, to usurers, to world-rulers, to Palestinian killers, etc. If the reasons constantly change, then the charges are obviously unfounded, but if, as with Islam, the reasons are constant, then they are an indicator that the centuries long charges are valid. This is the major difference.
The whole age of exploration was about avoiding Muslims. Columbus got financing from a Queen that was also involved in driving the Muslims out of Europe. “Get the Musims Out! is the core of modern civilization.
Once again, Raymond Ibrahim shows why he has fast become the leading expert on Islam. His ability to blend history, doctrine, and philosophical insights is unparalleled.
Indeed, an argument like “if it’s not true, then why have people so long believed in it?” is a rather weak one. The fact that a statement once made has been reproduced down through the centuries does not prove its validity. Rather,it proves that established opinions, once shaped, are repeated uncritically. The Christendom had good reasons to hate Islam which was a dangerous challenge to Christianity both theological and military), so it comes as no surprise that Europeans were inclined to demonize the enemy.
It is strange that Mr. Ibrahim considers Marco Polo’s book as the truth and presents his assertions as “observations”. I don’t think Marco Polo was closely familiar with “the accursed doctrine of the Saracens”, nor is one likely to take seriously his stories about the Khalif’s secret conversion to Christianity etc.
I can’t understand why some people here object to comparing Islamophobia (that does really exist)to Anti-Semitism. Haven’t such traits as avidity, guile, treachery been attributed to the Jews for centuries?
At last, Mr. Ibrahim cites irrelevant Quranic verses and hadiths to “back up” Marco Polo’s claims (though I’m not at all surprised.
About #41′s point that “established opinions, once shaped, are repeated uncritically.” Problem is that most people today who have negative views on Islam, don’t even know that people like Marco Polo had the same views, or that they “established” them. In other words, these views are not passed down. Rather, different observers through time and space who do not know each other make the same observations, which is Ibrihim’s point. How many anti-Islamists today even know about the writings of guys like Marco Polo? Probably few. So the remarkable thing is that, though they are not familiar with their writings, yet they have the same observations on Islam.
As usual, RI advances ridiculous arguments to “prove” that Marco Polo was “right” by citing irrelevant verses from the Qur’an. Those verses says about the battles the Muslims fought to defend Islam. Marco Polo says nothing about war – he simple writes that Islam “excuses every crime” against non-Muslims which is not true. Surat al-Anfal that RI mentions is about war booty, a thing that has always been permitted, so it’s simply dishonest to use it to prove that “the theft is no crime” in Islam. Nor have I heard a single Muslim Scholar affirm “that Islam teaches war, subjugation, slavery, and plunder vis-a-vis the infidel”.