Islam Is Colonialism
Daniel Greenfield explains at Front Page about the bullshit claim that Israel "colonized" Palestine, "a country that doesn't exist and which has produced nothing worth studying except terrorism":
The only reason there's a debate about the Temple Mount is because Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem and ordered a mosque built on a holy Jewish site. The only reason there's a debate about East Jerusalem is because invading Muslim armies seized half the city in 1948, bombed synagogues and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population to achieve an artificial Muslim settler majority. The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence.There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.
Israel is littered with Omar mosques, including one built in the courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, because Islam is a colonial entity whose mosques testify to their invasive origins by celebrating colonialism as their true religion. The faith of Islam is the sworn religion of the sword.
Islam is a religion of colonialism that spread through invasion, settlement and conquest. Its caliphs, from the original invaders, including Omar, to the current Caliph of ISIS, wielded and wield religious authority in the service of the Islamic colonial enterprise.
Allah is the patron deity of colonialism. Jihad is just colonialism in Arabic. Islamic theology is nothing but the manifest destiny of the Muslim conquest of the world, colonial settler enterprises dressed up in the filmy trappings of religion appropriated from the culture of conquered Jewish and Christian minorities. Muslim terrorism is a reactionary colonial response to the liberation movements of the indigenous Jewish population.
Even "Allahu Akbar" did not originate as a religious sentiment. It does not mean "God is Great", as it is often mistranslated. It was Mohammed's taunt to the Jews he was ethnically cleansing. His purge of a minority group proved that "Allah was Greater." Islamic colonialism is used to demonstrate the existence of Allah. And the best way to worship Allah is through the colonialism of the Jihad.
As luj pointed out here recently, the Jews bought land from the Arabs -- terrible, mosquito-ridden, swampy, or sandy land...crap land -- and for inflated prices.
And white guys "bought" Manhattan island for a string of beads. These are silly stories and horrible history.
It's entirely possible that whatever its grander moral calculus, Israel's geography is just a shitty idea.
Quiz! It's important that you post the your answer publicly. Choose one:
Crid at April 7, 2016 8:02 AM
Silly stories? It's a matter of record, there are news articles of absentee Arab landlords floating about overcharging the Jews one they realized who the land was being bought for.
As for if America should go to war, should America have gone to war against the nazis? After all they never attacked us like the Japanese did.
The founders, some of them anyway, envisioned a nation where we were allies with no one but open to friendship for all.
Personally unless there was a coalition of Muslim states attacking Israel, then no, I'd see no reason to commit troops. Nor would I see any reason to refuse weapons sales.
But at the same time I don't think we have any right or reason to make comments about how they conduct their security
lujlp at April 7, 2016 8:23 AM
You're not allowed to mention that the Crusades were a campaign to recapture the formerly Christian Holy Land from Muslim conquerors. Or that the Crusades were initiated after Christian pilgrims reported being attacked by brigands on their way to visit the holy places and the Muslim ruler refused the Pope's entreaties to protect the pilgrims. He later reconsidered and established protection for Christian pilgrims, but the First Crusade was already underway.
Instead, you're supposed to remember the Crusades as a Western religio-imperialist attempt to conquer native Muslim lands.
Conan the Grammarian at April 7, 2016 8:31 AM
If Israel needed our help because of imminent invasion or actual war, we should help them. I believe it is in our interest to do so for several reasons that have been posted here in the last 2 years. We need to have their back.
gooseegg at April 7, 2016 10:53 AM
Mark Steyn took part in a Munk Debate a couple of weeks ago regarding the unrestricted immigration of refugees into Europe. Here is a link to an article about it and his passionate response to the pro side regarding the tsunami of gang rapes that have swept across Europe. You see, they don't need to shoot up a nightclub or bomb an airport to hurt you. They can just gab you as you walk home from school or work. The video starts with Simon Shama and goes directly to Mark's response. The whole thing is worth watching and can be found on YouTube.
http://www.steynonline.com/7507/when-mark-steyn-struck-back
Sheep Mom at April 7, 2016 12:03 PM
"You're not allowed to mention that the Crusades were a campaign to recapture the formerly Christian Holy Land from Muslim conquerors."
Right. An anthropologist friend -- one with a voracious appetite for history -- once spent an hour explaining the real story of the Crusades and the supposed victimization of Muslims by Christians. It was quite the other way around.
This wouldn't matter now -- any more than the Spanish treatment of Jews during the Inquisition does now -- save for how the ideology of Islam is the issue here, and still leads to mass slaughter and removal of freedoms today.
Thanks, Sheep -- I saw that this morning, posted on Jihadwatch. I loved the bit where the debaters sneered at his supposed newfound "feminism," and he said that he wasn't much of a feminist, but had a problem with 3-year-olds, 5-year-olds, and so many other children, especially, being raped.
There's rape culture for you. And yes, Islam says that rape of infidels is permitted. In fact, it's encouraged. Mohammed did it, and Mohammed's behavior is to be emulated by Muslims. (He also looted, mass-murdered, and married a 6-year-old kid and has sex with her at 9.)
Amy Alkon at April 7, 2016 12:35 PM
Granted, Greenfield's version is sanitized.
So let's take the worst version as read: the Israelis flat out stole part of the Levant from the putative Palestinians.
Therefore, what?
If the answer is give back what was wrongfully taken, then upon what justification should European Americans not give the US back to the Indigenous Americans?
BTW, the answer to your question is: depends on which action is in America's national security interests.
A la: Should America go to war to defend Taiwan?
Jeff Guinn at April 8, 2016 11:06 AM
> So let's take the worst version
Why?
> as read:
Rather than what?
> upon what justification should
> European Americans not give
Who?
> A la: Should America go to
> war to defend Taiwan?
I covered that on this blog "at July 28, 2014 3:16 PM." Or sometime thereabouts. You shoulda been there. Saying things again isn't really that appealing. I listed sources the first time.
Crid at April 9, 2016 1:02 AM
Looks like I'll have to start from the top of nearly a year ago.
Crid, July 28, 2014 7:19 AM:
Not completely wrong, but a fair distance in that direction.
Yes, there is a supernatural element which, by definition, excludes others.
However, the primary motivation for the creation of Israel, was the conviction, based upon thousands of years of experience, and confirmed by the holocaust, was the Jews could never be safe unless they had a country of their own.
More later. I have a flight to catch.
Jeff Guinn at April 10, 2016 5:04 AM
Yeah, you covered it. Exactly like an amateur. For example:
Our larger interests are what? Can you, in a not particularly long sentence, describe the bases for US national security policy? (No google-cheating.)
And then there is your penchant for pronunciamentos (a great word, btw; if it didn't already exist, you would have been the father of its invention):
Two barking errors in one sentence. You apparently have no idea upon what national legitimacy is based, and then compounded that by entering bizarro backwards world: Israel is Teheran's sworn enemy, not the other way around.
That's tin-foil hat territory.
Speaking of pronunciamentos:
Which prances so inelegantly with this:
An empty statement paired with an empty question: from what?
In thinking up an answer for that, please refer to your in depth understanding of the fundamental elements of US national security policy.
Jeff Guinn at April 12, 2016 8:35 AM
Leave a comment