Vincent J. Curtis
6 Feb 15
I did not attend the Islamic conference that was held at the
Hamilton Spectator auditorium last
night, as most likely I would have been thrown out. However, ace Spec reporter Daniel Nolan did attend, and reported on the event in
an article headlined, “Terrorism tied to colonialism, says imam.” The sub-headline read, “200 attend forum in
Spec auditorium.”
The subject of the talk was “Who is Muhammad?” and according
to the story featured three imams fielding questions about Islam and its
prophet.
An audience member asked when the association between Islam
and terrorism started. The rest of the
story consists of the answers the various imams gave to that question.
I cannot tell at this remove whether the question was planted
or not, and how much of the evening was spent dealing with current political
issues instead of the question at the point of the evening, namely “Who is
Muhammed?”
Had I been either the moderator or one of the imams, I would
have deferred answering the question on the grounds that it was not relevant to
the question of the evening but would be glad to take it afterwards. Evidently, that was not done.
It is the pith of the answer to that question from the
audience that is revealing, and disturbing.
The answers to the question rehearsed the usual grievances that
professional Muslims (and, probably, the private practicing ones as well) offer
about the West. There is the false
accusation of colonialism, the U.S. intervention in Iran in 1953 that put Shah
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi back onto the Peacock Throne, and general prejudice
against brown people by white westerners here in Canada, for example.
What these answers say is that acts of terrorism, however
evil the acts might be, are somehow justified or ultimately the fault of the
West or westerners.
Imam Shabir Ali came right out and said it, “What has been
seen is that this modern phenomenon of terrorism is a response to these greater
powers…terrorists commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islam…because of this
foreign interference. Some of their
beliefs may not be justified, but if we want to deal with terrorism effectively,
one of the important factors is that modern, Western nations have to rethink
their international policies.”
To the uninitiated, the remark about rethinking
international policies means that Israel must be destroyed by western powers if
westerners expect to live a quiet life free of Islamic terrorism.
The business of western colonialization of allegedly Muslim
lands is a combination of arrant nonsense and special pleading. Because Islam is special, what is or was once
under the domination of Islam rightfully belongs to Islam, and that would
include Andalusia, or modern-day Spain.
The heart of Arabia was never colonized by the British or the
French. It was colonized by Turkey, and
was called the Ottoman Empire. The
Ottoman Empire was finally brought low by British Empire forces at the end of
World War I, and several Arabs states came into being.
In the course of fighting the War, the British and French
governments secretly negotiated in 1916 the “Sykes-Pico Agreement.” By this agreement, the British and French
governments delineated their respective spheres of influence in these otherwise
ungoverned areas should the war end with the complete collapse of the Ottoman
Empire. As a result of this agreement
and the favorable end of the war, France established Syria and Lebanon, while
Great Britain established Transjordan, Palestine, Iraq, and Arabia, which soon
became Saudi Arabia. The governments of
these countries during the 1920s and 1930s were heavily influenced by Britain
and France, but these countries were never colonized as British India was or
North America or Algeria were. Such is
the complaint of colonization.
Plainly put, it was morally wrong of Christian Europeans to
exert such influence in the heart of Islamic territory. And for that, revenge is permissible today by
the excitable, according to Imam Shabir Ali.
The concept of Islamic territory being inviolable by Christians is at
the heart of the complaint about the Crusades and Crusaders, which are also
used to justify acts of terrorism.
The serious outcome of the evening was that Muslims who can
speak authoritatively on behalf of Islam espouse Islam’s grievances against the
West, justify terrorism on the grounds that Westerners have it coming, and
offer the destruction of Israel as the salve which might temporarily pacify excitable Muslim lads who will leave
the West in peace.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment