HOW WE CAN UNDERSTAND ISLAM, INCLUDING TOCQUEVILLE AND MARX

 

One of the major issues of today is how the fake or revisionist “left” has become so reactionary that it has joined forces with the very worst religion that humanity has ever known. Islam, of course.

This has got very wide implications, not least in the way that Yugoslavia was destroyed in the 1990s, by an alliance between US Imperialism (NATO) and the most reactionary forces in the Balkans, which was Nazism (Tudjman Croatia) Islam (Izetbegovic Bosnia) and the Jihadist Albanians in Kosovo

4international is quite separate from these faux Leftists. We supported the Serbs unconditionally against Izetbegovic and the Jihad, we support the Jews unconditionally against all forms of antisemitism, and against the PLO/PA/Hamas Jihad against Israel, the sole Jewish national homeland. We certainly do oppose all of this crap that has been churned up by Imperialism and Islam on the so called “Palestinians” – the most opportunist set of antisemites since the Nazis. Liars all!

We select some articles to study. The first deals with how Islam is such a divisive force in the world. It appears from this article that Jews and Arabs lived happily together pre Islam. The second deals with how the unbiased and objective French Parliamentarian, Tocqueville,  of the 1840 period (same roughly as Darwin and Marx) saw Islam first hand, as he travelled through Muslim countries like Morocco. The third is a repeat, we covered it before,  and it deals with what Karl Marx saw and wrote when he visited Jerusalem as a paid journalist in 1852

NUMBER 1, A MODERN JEWISH WRITER ANALYSES ISLAM AND ANTISEMITISM

The first is in full:

By Steven Simpson, THE AMERICAN THINKER

It is a common belief that the “Arab-Israeli conflict” is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a “Muslim-Jewish” one than an “Arab-Israeli” one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion — Islam vs. Judaism — cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of “jihad,” “Allahu Akbar,” and the bloodcurdling scream of “Idbah al- Yahud” (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly “secular” PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?

There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: “Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!” It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what — or more precisely, where — Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself “Messenger of Allah” in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews — and Judaism — were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) — then called Yathrib — was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad’s “calling,” three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa.

Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur’an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.

Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the “final seal of the prophets,” he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.

In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad’s Arab pagan enemies and had “betrayed” him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a “concubine.”

In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as “second-class citizens.” Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.

This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur’an — and later on, the various Hadiths — says about the Jews. The Qur’an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. “The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!”‘ Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own “final solution” in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.

The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur’an and Hadith should give Jews — not just Israelis — pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine “Palestine” in the 7th century, the land became part of “Dar al-Islam” (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel’s extermination), she remains part of “Dar al harb” (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of “real estate.”

Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran — conquered by the Arabs — have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur’an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people — or peoples — is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.

Islam — as currently interpreted and practiced — cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of “reformation,” it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

 

NUMBER 2…THE FRENCH PARLIAMENTARIAN TOCQUEVILLE

The second is from the French parliamentarian, Tocqueville. The introduction is by Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch and the beginning refers to the “sacked” general of Obama. Spencer has a wonderful knowledge of Islam and his vision here of how topically important are the observations of Tocqueville is a revelation:

McChrystal’s superficial, bowdlerized pieties on the Koran, and Petraeus’ complete neglect of this foundational Islamic text, contrast starkly with the contemplative, firsthand observations on the Koran (and Islam) made by Alexis de Tocqueville. Shortly after his return from America, Tocqueville studied North African Islamic culture and history — which included an analysis of the Koran (“Notes on the Koran,” March, 1838) — and made two visits to Algeria (in 1841, and 1846), becoming one of the foremost experts on these matters, while serving as a French parliamentarian.

Before visiting Algeria, Tocqueville studied the Koran, writing an analysis of the first 18 suras (chapters) in careful, if succinct notes, and elaborating his summary conclusions during additional private observations and correspondence recorded through his voyage to North Africa in 1841. Tocqueville opens his March 1838 “Notes on the Koran” with these two observations:

Encouragement, commandments for holy war.

Necessity of obeying the Prophet, of obeying him as one does God.

He accurately documents the Koran’s repeated references to jihad warfare, noting,

Sanctity of holy war encouraged with both energy and violence. … Permission and commandment to kill infidels. Prohibition against killing believers. … Cut off the hands and feet of those who fight God and his prophet.

This discussion culminates, appropriately, in Tocqueville’s more extended assessment of suras 8 and 9, which are redolent with eternal proclamations justifying and describing the conduct of jihad war against the non-Muslim infidel:

Spoils taken from the enemy belong to God and to his envoy. Fear the Lord. Whoever turns his back on the day of combat shall remain in hell. Fight infidels until the point  when there is no more schism and when holy religion is universally triumphant. O  believers! when you march on the enemy, be resolute, obey God and the prophet, fear the discord that extinguishes the fire of courage. Be firm. The incredulous who refuses to believe in Islam is more abject than a brute in the eyes of the Eternal. If the fortune of battle causes those who violate the pact they have made with you to fall into your hands, use torture to terrify their followers. God will ease your task: 20 brave believers will  crush 200 infidels, 100 will put 1,000 to flight. No prophet has taken prisoners without spilling the blood of a great number of enemies. Feed on what you have taken from the enemy. You shall have no society with believers who have remained at home, until they have marched into combat. Believers who have left their country to fight under the standard of faith and those who have given aid to the prophet are the truly faithful ones.        Paradise is their portion.

Believers who tear themselves from the bosom of their family to follow [God’s] standard,  sacrificing their property and their lives, shall have the first places in the realm of the heavens. They shall be the object of God’s kindness; they shall live in gardens of delights and taste eternal pleasures. Cease loving your fathers, your brothers, if they prefer incredulity to faith. … Young and old, enter combat, sacrifice your wealth and your lives for the defense of the faith, [for] there is no more glorious advantage for you. Some believers have let the prophet go, they have said, “Let us not fight during the heat!” The  fire of hell shall be much more terrible than that heat. … O Believers! Fight your unfaithful neighbors. May they find implacable enemies.

Tocqueville concludes his Koranic analysis in the March 1838 “Notes” with these additional observations:

Everything that relates to war is precise; everything that relates to morals … is general and confused. … As in practically all of the Alcoran [Koran], Muhammad concerns himself  far more with making himself believed than with giving rules of morality. And he employs terror much more than any other motive.

Prior to visiting Algeria, Tocqueville supplemented his initial reflections on the Koran with further meditations on both this defining Muslim text and Islam:

Reading the latter [Koran] is one of the most … instructive things imaginable because the eye easily discovers there, by very closely observing, all the threads by which the prophet held and still holds the members of his sect. … [T]hat the first of all religious duties is to blindly obey the prophet, that holy war is the first of all good deeds … all these doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them.

Jihad: Holy war, is an obligation for all believers. … The state of war is the natural state with regard to infidels. Only truces can be made [meaning…can only be interrupted by a  truce, not ended]. … After the victory, 4/5 of the booty — land, buildings, and other property — of the defeated I shared out. Two motives: fanaticism, cupidity.

Muhammadanism is the religion that most thoroughly conflated and intermixed the  powers in such a way that the high priest is necessarily the prince, and the prince the high priest, and all acts of civil and political life are more or less governed by religious law. … [T]his concentration and this conflation of power established by Muhammad     between the two powers … was the primary cause of despotism and particularly of social immobility that has almost always characterized Muslim nations.

And following his first sojourn in Algeria, Tocqueville compared Islam’s lasting impact with that of Christianity (and the latter’s possible disappearance), in an October 1843 letter to Arthur de Gobineau:

If  Christianity should in fact disappear, as so many hasten to predict, it would befall us, as already happened to the ancients before its advent, a long moral decrepitude, a poisoned old age, that will end up bringing I know not where nor how a new renovation. … I closely studied the Koran especially because of our position with regard to the Muslim populations in Algeria and throughout the Orient. I admit that I came out of  that study with the conviction that, all things considered, there had been few religions in the world so dreadful for men as that of Muhammad. It is, I believe, the major cause of  the decadence today so visible in the Muslim world and though it is less absurd than ancient polytheism, it’s social and political tendencies, in my opinion much more to be feared. I see it relative to paganism itself as a decadence rather than an advance.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mcchrystal-tocqueville-and-the-koran-the-postmodern-coinage-of-a-failed-policy/?singlepage=true

NUMBER 3…VISIT OF KARL MARX TO JERUSALEM IN 1954

Karl Marx, Declaration of war – on the history of the Eastern Question, published in the New York Daily Tribune on 15 April 1854. See Marx/Engels, Collected Works, Volume 13 (1980), pp. 100-108. The quoted passage appears on pages 107-108.

The third is the visit Karl Marx paid to Jerusalem in 1854 (an extract). As far as I know Marx made no analysis, or good description even, of Islam as did Tocqueville, but this is still very important because Marx was an empiricist in the good sense of that word, like Darwin he tended to describe accurately what was presented to him by the senses, and of course Marx relied on those 5 senses, and never saw the need for a sixth. It is doubly important because it is Karl Marx writing, and he is clearly in conflict here with the fake left pro Palestinian “Leftists” of today. The introduction is by Nathan Weinstock and contains some mistakes well covered by Jared Israel which you can investigate further via the url at the end. Just one additional point in the first few lines by Weinstock: I do not agree that Marx´s On the Jewish Question of 1843 was antisemitic in any way, as Weinstock I think suggests. The mind of Marx was complex, and his argument in that essay was complex and many do not understand it. Most often these Marx haters take an isolated sentence from the private letters of Marx to his friend Engels. This latter was the same political correctness that the sneaks used against Philip Larkin.

[The Weinstock extract begins here]

www.emperors-clothes.com/docs/weinstock.htm

“As we know, Karl Marx displayed no love for his community of origin. His 1843 “Jewish question” is so aggressively anti-Jewish that 19th century Austrian anti-Semites gleefully republished it to confound his disciples. And in his letters to Engels, he described opponents with Jewish ancestry in terms that would nowadays have him in court. However, in an article written in 1854 [1] Marx turned his attention to the fate of the Jews of the Holy Land. Curiously enough, this piece turns out to be more or less the only thing he ever wrote in which he displays some sympathy for his own people.

So, this is what he says about the Jews of Jerusalem:

[Quote from Marx starts here]

“The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and suffering of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, this quarter of dirt between  Mount Zion and Mount Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. The Jews, however, are not natives, but from distant and different countries, and are only attracted to Jerusalem by the desire of inhabiting the Valley of Jehosophat and to die in the very places where their Redemptor is to be expected.

‘Attending their death,’ says a French author, ‘they suffer and pray. Their regards turned to that mountain of Moriah, where once rose the temple of Solomon, and which they dare not approach, they shed tears on the misfortunes of Zion, and their dispersion over the world.'”[2]

[Quote from Marx ends here]

In passing, Marx informs us that Jerusalem had 15,500 inhabitants, including 8,000 Jews and 4,000 Moslems (Arabs, Turks and Moors).

His remarks are confirmed by all contemporary observers. We will leave out the surveys of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, whose objectivity might be questioned by suspicious readers, and rely instead on the accounts of Catholic writers of travel guides for pilgrims to the Holy Land. These edifying tours invariably culminated in the contemplation of the spectacle – both instructive and heartrending – of the downtrodden Jews, living in the most extreme poverty. Frozen in prayer before the Wailing Wall, they formed a living illustration of the degeneration of the “killers of God.” And in order to heighten the impact of this grand finale, a point would be made, before undertaking this final step,  including a visit to the Jewish quarter in the programme.

“This is by far the darkest and most unhealthy part of the whole city. (…) The wretched appearance of the inhabitants and the disgusting state of this district mean that nobody passing through it can forget God’s curse which weighs so visibly on the Jewish people.”[3]

Let’s return to the picture Marx painted of the Jews of Jerusalem.

What does he show us?

* That the Jews inhabit “the most filthy quarter of the town”, “the quarter of dirt.”

* That they were “the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance,” without this sparing them the insults of the Greeks and persecution of the Latins.

* That in this period the Jews of Jerusalem were not indigenous (in fact, the Jewish population of the city and the larger area had been growing constantly since the end of the 18th century through the addition of newcomers from the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere) and that they awaited death while praying for redemption.

[End extract on Marx in Jerusalem here]

In any case the above extract from Weinstock shows that Karl Marx did visit Jerusalem and far from being hostile to Jews Marx was extremely sympathetic. This is no surprise because Marx was the main fighter against antisemitism in the Left in his time, and especially against the antisemitism of the anarchist leader Bakunin. Antisemitism in the Left has come mainly from Anarchism initially and from Stalinism. Marx shows the dhimmi position of Jews in Jerusalem at that time. This is neglected by many and we wonder why? Marx in his way did show that Jews were central to the history of this area of the world and this is most important.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s