The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (27 page)

Guess what?

• Although the Crusades failed in their primary objective, they played a key role in staving off the jihad conquest of Europe.
  
• The peoples who lived in the “tolerant, pluralistic Islamic societies” of old dwindled down to tiny, harassed, despised minorities.
  
• Islamic distaste for unbelievers is a constant of Islamic history and persists today.
  

Or would the world be different in other, quite unexpected ways? Do the words “St. Peter’s Mosque in Rome” mean anything to you?

PC Myth: The Crusades accomplished nothing

Faced with the Muslims’ continued pursuit of jihad even into the heart of Europe, the Crusaders’ inability to establish any lasting states or continued presence in the Holy Land, and the enmity that the Crusades undoubtedly sowed not only between Christians and Muslims, but between Eastern and Western Christians, most historians have deemed the Crusades a failure.

After all, their objective was to protect Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land. They originally established the Crusader states for this reason. But after the Second Crusade, those states were immensely diminished, and remained so; after 1291, they were gone. Nor did the Crusaders prevent Islamic warriors from crossing into Europe.

However, it is significant that the level of Islamic adventurism in Europe dropped off dramatically during the era of the Crusades. The conquest of Spain, the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as the first siege of Constantinople, all took place well before the First Crusade. The battles of Kosovo and Varna, which heralded a resurgent Islamic expansionism in Eastern Europe, took place after the collapse of the last Crusader holdings in the Middle East.

A Book You’re Not Supposed to Read

The splendidly titled
The Monks of Kublai Khan Emperor of China, or The History of the Life and Travels of Rabban Sawma, Envoy and Plenipotentiary of the Mongol Khans to the Kings of Europe, and Markos Who As Mar Yahbh-Allaha III Became Patriarch of the Nestorian Church in Asia
, translated by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge. First published in London in 1928, this book is long out of print and is just the sort of book that modern-day PC academics want to make sure stays that way. However, the Assyrian International News Agency has done a splendid service by making it available online at http://www.aina.org/books/mokk/mokk.htm#c72. The whole story is here, from the rise and glory of the Nestorians to the monstrous persecutions that destroyed Christianity in Central Asia. It also tells the story of the remarkable journey of Rabban Sawma, the emissary of the Mongol ruler Arghun, to Europe to try to get support from the European kings for a joint operation against the Muslims. It’s indefatigably researched, elegant, and eloquently told.

So what did the Crusades accomplish? They bought Europe time—time that might have meant the difference between her demise and dhimmitude and her rise and return to glory. If Godfrey of Bouillon, Richard the Lionhearted, and countless others hadn’t risked their lives to uphold the honor of Christ and His Church thousands of miles from home, the jihadists would almost certainly have swept across Europe much sooner. Not only did the Crusader armies keep them tied down at a crucial period, fighting for Antioch and Ascalon instead of Varna and Vienna, they also brought together armies that would not have existed otherwise. Pope Urban’s call united men around a cause; had that cause not existed or been publicized throughout Europe, many of these men would not have been warriors at all. They would have been ill-equipped to repel a Muslim invasion of their homeland.

The Crusades, then, were the ultimate reason why Edward Gibbon’s vision of “the interpretation of the Koran” being “taught in the schools of Oxford” did not come true.

This is not a small matter. It is from Christian Europe, after all, no matter how reluctant the PC establishment is to acknowledge it, that most philosophical and scientific exploration, as well as technological advancement, have sprung. We have already seen one key reason why science developed in the Christian world rather than the Muslim world: Christians believed in a coherent and consistent universe governed by a good God; Muslims believed in a universe governed by a God whose will was so absolute as to preclude coherence and consistency.

But the implications of this all-important philosophical difference could not have worked themselves out without freedom. That freedom was not available to Christians or any other non-Muslims who had the misfortune to live under Muslim rule. In fact, any people who came under Muslim rule throughout history were ultimately reduced—no matter how extensive their numbers and grand their achievements before the Muslim conquest—to the status of a tiny and culturally derivative minority. Of course, few conquered peoples have ever escaped this fate. The only people who have escaped Muslim dhimmitude have been those who were successful in resisting Islamic jihad: the Christians of Europe and the Hindus of India.

Others were not so fortunate.

Case study: The Zoroastrians

Would it really have been so bad if the Muslims had conquered Europe? After all, the Christians would still have been able to practice their religion. They would just have had to put up with a little discrimination, right?

Although “a little discrimination” is all that most Islamic apologists will acknowledge about dhimmitude, the long-term effects of the dhimma were much more damaging for non-Muslims. Even centuries after the Muslim conquest of Egypt, the Coptic Christians maintained an overwhelming majority there. Yet today the Copts amount to just 10 percent, or less, of the Egyptian population.

It’s the same story with every non-Muslim group that has fallen completely under Islamic rule.

The Zoroastrians, or Parsis, are followers of the Persian priest and prophet Zoroaster, or Zarathustra (628–551 B.C.). Before the advent of Islam, Zoroastrianism was for a long period the official religion of Persia (modern-day Iran), and was the dominant religion when the Persian Empire spanned from the Aegean Sea to the Indus River. Zoroastrians were commonly found from Persia to China. But after the Muslim conquest of Persia, Zoroastrians were given dhimmi status and subjected to cruel persecutions, which often included forced conversions. Many fled to India to escape Muslim rule, only to fall prey to the warriors of jihad again when the Muslims started to advance into India.

The suffering of the Zoroastrians under Islam was strikingly similar to that of Christians and Jews under Islam farther to the West, and it continued well into modern times (even to this very day under the Iranian mullahocracy). In 1905, a missionary named Napier Malcolm published a book in which he related his adventures among the Zoroastrians in the Persian town of Yezd.

Up to 1895 no Parsi (Zoroastrian) was allowed to carry an umbrella. Even during the time that I was in Yezd they could not carry one in town. Up to 1895 there was a strong prohibition upon eye-glasses and spectacles; up to 1885 they were prevented from wearing rings; their girdles had to be made of rough canvas, but after 1885 any white material was permitted. Up to 1896 the Parsis were obliged to twist their turbans instead of folding them. Up to 1898 only brown, grey, and yellow were allowed for the
qaba
[outer coat] or
arkhaluq
[under coat] (body garments), but after that all colors were permitted except blue, black, bright red, or green. There was also a prohibition against white stockings, and up to about 1880 the Parsis had to wear a special kind of peculiarly hideous shoe with a broad, turned-up toe. Up to 1885 they had to wear a torn cap. Up to 1880 they had to wear tight knickers, self-colored, instead of trousers. Up to 1891 all Zoroastrians had to walk in town, and even in the desert they had to dismount if they met a Mussulman of any rank whatsoever. During the time that I was in Yezd they were allowed to ride in the desert, and only had to dismount if they met a big Mussulman. There were other similar dress restrictions too numerous and trifling to mention.

Then the houses of both the Parsis and the Jews, with the surrounding walls, had to be built so low that the top could be reached by a Mussulman with his hand extended; they might, however, dig down below the level of the road…. Up to about 1860 Parsis could not engage in trade. They used to hide things in their cellar rooms, and sell them secretly. They can now trade in the caravanserais or hostelries, but not in the bazaars, nor may they trade in linen drapery. Up to 1870 they were not permitted to have a school for their children.

The amount of the
jaziya
, or tax upon infidels, differed according to the wealth of the individual Parsi, but it was never less than two
tomans
[10,000 dinars]. A
toman
is now worth about three shillings and eight pence, but it used to be worth much more. Even now, when money has much depreciated, it represents a laborer’s wage for ten days. The money must be paid on the spot, when the
farrash
[literally, a carpet sweeper. Really a servant, chiefly outdoor], who was acting as collector, met the man. The farrash was at liberty to do what he liked when collecting the jaziya. The man was not even allowed to go home and fetch the money, but was beaten at once until it was given. About 1865 a farrash collecting this tax tied a man to a dog, and gave a blow to each in turn.

About 1891 a mujtahid caught a Zoroastrian merchant wearing white stockings in one of the public squares of the town. He ordered the man to be beaten and the stockings taken off. About 1860 a man of seventy went to the bazaars in white trousers of rough canvas. They hit him about a good deal, took off his trousers, and sent him home with them under his arm. Sometimes Parsis would be made to stand on one leg in a mujtahid’s house until they consented to pay a considerable sum of money.
²

What is the effect of being made to live this way over a long period? The answer is in the numbers: After nearly 1,400 years of living as dhimmis and experiencing the true nature of Islamic tolerance, Zoroastrians today make up less than 2 percent of the population of Iran (and even less than that in India, where they fled for refuge). In Afghanistan, where Zoroastrianism also once thrived, Zoroastrians today are virtually nonexistent. This is no surprise: Conversion to Islam was often the only way these persecuted people could have any hope of living a decent life.

If the Crusaders had not held off the Muslims, and Islamic jihads had ultimately finished off Christendom, would Christians in Europe have become a tiny minority, like their coreligionists in the Middle East (where Christianity was once the dominant religion) and the Zoroastrians? Would the achievements of European Christian civilization be treated no better than trash, as Islamic societies generally tend to regard the “pre-Islamic period of ignorance” in their histories?

Just Like Today: Sistani equates unbelievers with excrement

T
he distaste that Muslims have for unbelievers, who are called the “vilest of creatures” in the Qur’an (98:6), is not a thing of the past. The Iraqi Shi’ite leader Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husayni Sistani, who has been hailed by many in the West as a reformer, a moderate, and a hope for democracy in Iraq and the Middle East at large, makes it quite clear in his religious rulings that the Islamic contempt for unbelievers is still very much in effect. This is the perspective that caused the Zoroastrians to dwindle from a vibrant majority to a tiny and despised minority. Among Sistani’s voluminous rulings on all manner of questions concerning Islamic law is this illuminating little list:

The following ten things are essentially najis [unclean]:

1. Urine
   
2. Fæces
   
3. Semen
   
4. Dead body
   
5. Blood
   
6. Dog
   
7. Pig
   
8. Kafir [unbeliever]
   
9. Alcoholic liquors
   
10. The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat [i.e., unclean things].
    ³
    

Sistani adds, “the entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis.”

Double standard alert: Sistani is respected throughout the Western world. But imagine the international outcry if, say, Jerry Falwell said that non-Christians were on the level of pigs, feces, and dog sweat.