En god post om et BBC-program hvor man kan se hvordan muslimer tror den
europæiske historie har udfoldet sig, - og jeg kan bekræfte at den tese
programmet arbejder ud fra: at alt godt kommer fra islam, og alt ondt fra
modstand mod de muslimske erobrere, - som man aldrig kalder erobrere, de VAR
bare pludselig i Europa - den bliver gentaget igen og igen og igen på
muslimske diskussionsgrupper. Korstogene var uprovokeret aggression, mens
den muslimske erobring af store dele af Europa, kun var for at hjælpe de
stakkels europæere, og ingen byers indbyggere blev hugget ned , - som man
ellers kan se i arabiske historie.
Også i USA har man TV-programmer, som hvidvasker alt hvad islam står for, og
der bliver aldrig indsat kritiske spørgsmål. Man kan - hvis man lyster -
også se hvad de muslimske Råd i USA "informerer" skolelærerne med i deres
fagforeningsblad, en total forvrængning af hvad islam var og er.
Men læs om hvad en britisk muslim siger om Europa og islam:
(hvis man ikke gider, - hvad man nok ikke gør -, så se indlæggerens svar til
en anden, som siger han bare kan skifte TV-kanal)
Eller læs slutninger her:
Den er da god: Europa/Vesten fik fremgang og den islamiske verden
tilbagegang, fordi dette område faktisk er islamisk, mens Mellemøsten er
u-islamisk eller ikke-islamisk. Så islam vinder uanset om brødet falder med
smørret opad eller nedad.
At the heart of Omar's thesis is this question: Why did the world
system promised to Muslims by their god fail to transpire? (Or, as a
non-Muslim would put it: Why did Europe suddenly make political and
cultural progress once it recalled its past - and, in the south, after
Muslim dominance had ended - and why did Europe, and the west, so
quickly overtake the 'Muslim world' in material, tecnological and
political terms?) This question answers itself of course, but such an
answer (Islam failed because it was mistaken) is impossible; therefore
he has to invent an ellaborate conspiracy to explain it all: Europe and
the west succeeded because, despite all appearances, it is actually
Islamic, not unIslamic (the 'Islamic world' meanwhile - the middle east
- has failed, despite its incredible natural wealth, because, despite
all appearances, it is actually unIslamic, not Islamic). But of course
Europe's benefactors, its former Muslim overlords, are also Europe's
victims.
Thus Islam is the source of all the manifest success of those parts of
the world where Islam has had little or no influence (in his next
series, Omar will presumably tell us that Japan's relative wealth is
due to its secret Islamic past), but is not the reason for the manifest
failures of all those parts of the world where Islam has had a great
deal of influence...
AND...
Muslims are always the victims of non-Muslims: wherever Muslim armies
have invaded non-Muslims' land, the will of God is being enacted and we
should all be happy; wherever non-Muslims seek to retake their land,
Muslims are being victimised by heathens.
This is Rageh Omar's thesis; this is 'Islamic history'. And it is being
taught to Muslim schoolchildren the world over. Its a pack of lies, and
its dangerous.
----------------------------------------------------
An Islamic History of Europe is a BBC4 TV series, one and a half hours
long, AFAIK one day a week, presented by BBC reporter Rageh Omar.
It tells a history of Europe from an Islamic perspective; which is to
say, it tells a history of Europe in which every major event, and every
cultural change, is caused either by the presence or influence of Islam
(if it is a 'good' change), or by a reaction against the presence of
Islam (if 'bad'). This 'history' is not new; it is more or less the
history of Europe all Muslim schoolchildren are taught in 'Islamic'
schools all over Europe and the middle east.
It has two main components, which are stereotypically described by
Omar: that the most 'advanced' (the term 'advanced' being undefined)
parts of medieval Europe were those 'ruled' by Islam, namely
'al-Andalusia' (Spain), Sicily and Malta, and the eastern Mediterranean
lands including the formerly Christian lands of Palestine, Lebanon,
west Syria and Turkey; and that the 'knowledge' (again, undefined) on
which the Renaissance is somehow founded was introduced by Muslim
scholars, chief among them the Muslim 'philosopher' Avorroes.
Omat follows the script in his series by refraining to describe
precisely how it was these Mediterranean lands came to be under Islamic
'rule', which, given that Christianity predates Islam by 600 years, and
had long since spread throughout the mediterranean world before
Muhammed was born, ought to be of central concern; the nature of the
expelling of the Muslims, on the other hand, is dwelt on at length.
This matters because, without exception, southern and eastern Europe
came under Muslim domination, without exception, by force. There is no
evidence that, excepting the eastern Med coast, that rule was ever
accepted by the majority of the Christian population, and much evidence
that from the moment of invasion onwards, a civil war raged throughout
these lands until the Muslim rulers were forced back out. Omar
describes the taxation of Muslims in Sicily and Spain once the
Christians had regained some power; he fails to mention that throughout
the Caliphates (Muslim empires), non-Muslims alone were obliged to pay
taxes (Muslims were exempt), and were often treated with great cruelty.
Omar also fails to mention the widespread criminality that
characterises many of the formerly Muslim dominated, now Christian,
lands of the Med; nor does he mention the African slave trade, which,
though not introduced by Islam, was certainly intensified and spread
throughout the African continent by Muslims - a strange oversight given
that Omar himself is quite possibly the descendent of African slaves.
By the same token, the Crusades are presented by Omar as an example of
unprovoked aggression of Christians against Muslims, as if Palestinehad
not been a predominantly Christian region before Islam even existed.
The second part of his thesis, that some kind of 'knowledge' was
introduced into Europe thanks to Islam involves a degree of subterfuge
on Omar's part:: the 'knowledge' he refers to are specifically those
ancient Greek philosophical tracts that were either unknown in Europe,
or suppressed by the papacy. For saving this knowledge for the world,
we should all be grateful to the Caliphates.However it should be
remembered that they were not saved because the Caliphs believed in
free speech; rather it was because they were not deemed to be a threat
to Islam, based as it is on a single book of assumed revelation, th
Koran, in comparison with which, should they appear contradictory, all
other written words can be dismissed. Omar is referring to Greek
philosophy, but he makes it appear he is referring to the Koran.
Averroes was a great man in Islamic history because he had, unnusually,
sufficient curiosity to study Greek philosophy. He tried to 'prove'
that Islam was 'true' by applying proofs he found in the writings of
the ancient Greeks, wrote several volumes in the process - and failed
in the attempt. According to Omar, Averroes, and the lesser Muslim
writers who followed him are directly responsible for the Renaissance
and therefore, Omar says, the course of western history, is the result
of Islam.
Ancient Greek philosophy predates Christianity of course, and so
predates Islam. It was the knowledge base of the Roman Empire and so
would have been understood by any educated Roman subject or citizen
during Christ's lifetime, presumably including Christ himself
(Aristotle's division of human affairs into ethics and politics -
church and state - is at the heart of Christianity, but was ignored by
Muhammed). While it may be true that much Greek philosophy would have
been lost to the world if not for the Caliphs, the use it was put to by
Averroes was irrelevent. The Renaissance, which began in Florence in
the 14th century (not Paris in the 13th century, as Omar must allege to
suit his thesis; the notion that Paris was the 'intellectual centre of
medieval Europe', as he claims, is laughable) was primarily a movement
in art, sculpture and architecture, which referred back to the art of
ancient Rome, deliberately bypassing Christianity and with no
connection with Islam whatsoever. It also describes a movement in
secular literature, of which Shakespeare was part, where we perceive a
movement away from religious faith altogether as inspiration for
artistic creation. Averroes was trying to 'prove' something that any
pious Christian would have regarded as heresy at best, a form of
satanism at worse; and which the non-pious Christian would have
regarded as irrelevent. Islam, therefore, had no direct influence on
the Renaissance (it may have had an influence later, on the
Reformation, but that doesn't 'fit' Omar's thesis).
The point about all this is not that Islam is uniquely 'bad' or
'wrong', and Christianity 'good' and 'right' - any more than the
opposite is true, however much Rageh Omar may wish it. The point is
that the contribution made by Islam to the artistic and political
development of Europe is negligible, and to its cultural development
Islam mostly takes the form of an alien 'other', to be resisted at all
costs. To re-write history in terms of those who 'lost', whose way of
life was rejected, has some value, but only if the reasons for that
rejection are explored (which should be the BBC's remit in this case;
obviously someone other than Rageh Omar, a born prosyletiser, should
have been given the job). But to turn history on its head; to pretend
that everything we know, which is demonstrably the case, is false; that
there is some secret explanation for why things are the way they are,
is dangerous.
At the heart of Omar's thesis is this question: Why did the world
system promised to Muslims by their god fail to transpire? (Or, as a
non-Muslim would put it: Why did Europe suddenly make political and
cultural progress once it recalled its past - and, in the south, after
Muslim dominance had ended - and why did Europe, and the west, so
quickly overtake the 'Muslim world' in material, tecnological and
political terms?) This question answers itself of course, but such an
answer (Islam failed because it was mistaken) is impossible; therefore
he has to invent an ellaborate conspiracy to explain it all: Europe and
the west succeeded because, despite all appearances, it is actually
Islamic, not unIslamic (the 'Islamic world' meanwhile - the middle east
- has failed, despite its incredible natural wealth, because, despite
all appearances, it is actually unIslamic, not Islamic). But of course
Europe's benefactors, its former Muslim overlords, are also Europe's
victims.
Thus Islam is the source of all the manifest success of those parts of
the world where Islam has had little or no influence (in his next
series, Omar will presumably tell us that Japan's relative wealth is
due to its secret Islamic past), but is not the reason for the manifest
failures of all those parts of the world where Islam has had a great
deal of influence...
AND...
Muslims are always the victims of non-Muslims: wherever Muslim armies
have invaded non-Muslims' land, the will of God is being enacted and we
should all be happy; wherever non-Muslims seek to retake their land,
Muslims are being victimised by heathens.
This is Rageh Omar's thesis; this is 'Islamic history'. And it is being
taught to Muslim schoolchildren the world over. Its a pack of lies, and
its dangerous.
And it's on the BBC.
Which we pay for
............................................................................
> I take it you don't like the programme then? your not the only one that
> pays a licence fee and besides your not forced to watch every
> programme. Just try changing channels instead of ranting and raving.
Imagine that the BBC broadcast a programme made by Americans, which
stated that American soldiers not only won both world wars (single
handed) but defeated the French at Waterloo and Agincourt, and the
English at Hastings; that Archimedes, Democritus, Siddhartha,
Confucius, Jesus Christ and Mohammed, not to mention Shakespeare,
Michelangelo, Goethe, Tolstoy and Leonardo da Vinci, were all
Americans; that Americans invented everything from the longbow to the
steam engine to email; and that American slavery had never happened,
no native American was ever disposessed of land, no atomic bombs were
dropped on Japan, and no battles lost in Vietnam and Somalia - AND
that all of this was being taught to American schoolchildren
routinely.
You might think it already is (you'd be mostly wrong); you might think
it's none of your business. But I think you would resent all this
being presented on UK TV as if it were factual, without any kind of
conflicting argument presented alongside it or after it.
And I think you would expect to be able to *say* you resent this kind
of distortion without being accused of anti-Americanism.
En af de ting der gør *mig* mest nervøs ved islam/ledende muslimer, er at
fremstillingerne af hvad islam er, altid er fyldt med de mest hårrejsende
forvridninger. Læs på Nettet de hundreder af vejledninger til muslimer og
ikke-muslimer, om hvad islam står for, og man ser de samme utrolige
fordrejninger, fx den med, at der er fuld lighed mellem kønnene i islam, og
at islam er hamre-tolerant over for andre religioner, til trods for at
kvinders vidnesbyrd tæller halvt, og til trods for at det er forbudt at
forlade islam uden straf, og at kristne og jøder altid er blevet forfulgt og
som minimum betragtet som andenklasses borgere.
Man bliver nervøs, når selv helt evidente ting, åbenbart skal skjules for
den naive offentlighed, - og enhver kan gå ind og se for sig selv, at det er
sådan det forholder sig.
Tyrkerne hævder jo fx også, at de altid har været overordentlig
imødekommende over for deres armenske befolkning, og at der pludselig på
mirakuløs vis forsvandt 1,5 million af dem, det kan ikke være deres skyld.
|