Re-Writing History for Hate

History Book or Agenda-for-Profiteering tool?

 

“MEDIEVAL WORLD: A CREATION OF ISLAM”  is an item by John J O’Neill in the bigoted SIOE offshoot of Pamela Geller’s hate-for-profiteering efforts. 

It is nothing less than a farce in the face of history and I would have ignored it completely except that it is a perfect example of how history is full of such efforts in changing history, abusing its context, to somehow have one side look better of the only option at the expense of others.  In this case it is to create hate for profit but the tools are the same.  

We can add that if John J O’Neill wishes to be considered academic, then why does he avoid context, all facts and tellingly write for and associate with the likes of Geller and would-be-academics like the blogger Robert Spencer? 

Do go to the link and read its style, to learn how well worded text may look scholarly but in fact when looked into are just ugly propoganda tools.  I wrote the following reply, I doubt it will stay long, thus my publishing it here. 

It is a tragedy when one tries to write history to prove an agenda, rather than discover facts based on studying the history in the first place.  The author has most certainly failed on this case, and clearly struggles in desperation to find source to justify it. 

Henri Pirenne is regarded as a history writer of Belgium and now is rather discarded as an example of a time when Belgium tried to justify itself when it was simply a creation of politics at that time.  Similarly, his wider histories are basically ignored as part of that Western-Christian exceptionalism that was so common, and a failure when it came to actually history. 

Most certainly great cities and civilizations existed before and after the ascendancy of Arab and Muslim expansion. Seville had great bridges, viaducts and bathhouses, built by Romans.  Most civilizations expanded and built upon the previous, or destroyed them.  What is the point of O’Neil’s writings but an attempt to somehow temporarily ignore that fact only for the Arabs and Muslims? 

The undeniable fact was that the Arabs and Berbers moved in to locations like Southern Iberia and not only supported what was worth keeping but expanded and added more.  That at that time, Europe was in decline if not moving backwards whilst the Muslim World was in many places starting their own Golden Age.   Cordoba became a centre for learning and science whilst its neighbours were often sleeping in the same room with their sheep, pigs and cows.  Whilst philosophy, astronomy and the words of Aristotle and Plato were being restored, discussed and expanded on – Europe was burning those thinking of such things as witches and heretics. 

Just as undeniable is that the clash of faiths existed, brutality and anti-semitism existed on both sides and histories were often fabrications to support agendas. 

O’Neil attempts to read those that suit his agenda as truths whilst ignoring others and their contexts.  At worst he fails to at least mention other views and leave the questions to the readers, that for him would be defeatist to his agenda. 

The Library of Alexander was destroyed at least four times to varying degrees, rumours of it being finished off by Muslims for various reasons have resonated for years, mostly incorrect and most certainly forgetting the Great Fire of the Alexandrian War in 48 BC, the SAcking by Aurellian in the 3rd Century and the vetting of the un-Godly texts by Pope Theophilus (Copt) in 391.   Most certainly Caliph Umar chose to get rid of what was left of the Library because it stored Ismaili texts that were creating schisms in the empire.  This is well documented.  The problem was that Christianity wanted to say otherwise, such as the equally well documented hoax of Pococke’s translation of “History of the Dynasties” in 1663. 

The only question that comes from this item is why was it written and for what agenda, hate or profit – my bet is a little bit of both. 

Donny vdH
Rotterdam
blootstellen.wordpress.com 

The Cordoba Initiative Revisited

As an update to my previous item on the Cordoba Initiative, the building of a large Mosque and Community Centre a few blocks away from the 9/11 site in New York, the Project appears to be continuing with legal efforts failing to stop it.

I have stated in my blog and in some forums that I am against the Project, but for none of the reasons pushed by the ugly agenda driven groups leading the opposition.   I have not seen evidence enough from the Project that demographics demand the location and that radicalization and other political agendas will not take over the Project.   From what I have seen, there is enough radical, ultra-conservative and outside influences that seep into America’s Muslims, regardless of the best intentions to stop it.  The combination of these two points for me is enough to say, do not build it, or at least do not build it there.  Demographics is important, as it is still a Mosque, they say they want the Project to be a national symbol and a monument to inter-faith dialogue, I support that – so why not in Washington DC as a site?

Today I read in the “Upshot” section of Yahoo News an item by John Cook called “Mosque’s opponents have taken opposite position in court” showing the hypocrisy of some of the forces trying to stop the Project.  It is very telling.

It tells us that many of the players trying to block the project have in fact used the laws that are supporting the Project to support the building of Churches and other houses of worship and yet are now opposing these very same laws.  Cook says “Oddly, many of the groups leading and supporting the campaign against the so-called mosque have a history of arguing in favor of religious freedom on similar cases.”

Family of 9/11 Victims are pushed emotionally by those with agenda hate to assume Islam itself is the cause of their suffering.

The American Center for Law and Justice, the legal advocacy group leading the charge, has argued repeatedly and forcefully in federal court on at least three occasions that local land-use laws such as historical landmark designations don’t trump the religious and property rights of religious groups to build houses of worship. So has the Anti-Defamation League, which controversially came out in opposition to the mosque last week. The group has filed no less than five amicus briefs in federal court arguing that local governments can’t use zoning laws to prevent the building of churches and synagogues.

Indeed, these groups all compose part of a large ecosystem of religious-rights organizations; members of such groups have made frequent use of a federal law that erects significant barriers for local governments seeking to interfere with religious buildings. With few exceptions, in the case of Cordoba House, these groups have either been silent or directly contradicted their own history of statements and action.

The American Center for Law and Justice, the legal advocacy group leading the charge, has argued repeatedly and forcefully in federal court on at least three occasions that local land-use laws such as historical landmark designations don’t trump the religious and property rights of religious groups to build houses of worship. So has the Anti-Defamation League, which controversially came out in opposition to the mosque last week. The group has filed no less than five amicus briefs in federal court arguing that local governments can’t use zoning laws to prevent the building of churches and synagogues.

Indeed, these groups all compose part of a large ecosystem of religious-rights organizations; members of such groups have made frequent use of a federal law that erects significant barriers for local governments seeking to interfere with religious buildings. With few exceptions, in the case of Cordoba House, these groups have either been silent or directly contradicted their own history of statements and action.

More condemning:

The group’s website says it “remains committed to the principle that the use of zoning laws to curtail the religious freedoms of churches is unconstitutional.”

The group’s shift on Cordoba House indicates it may not believe the same rights should be afforded to mosques as “churches.” ACLJ wrote a letter to the New York City Planning Commission [pdf] urging it to confer landmark status on the building and Wednesday, after the Planning Commission unanimously voted not to interfere with the construction of the mosque, ACLJ vowed to pursue the matter in state court, and today filed suit seeking to stop construction of Cordoba House.

I find it interesting that with all the blogosphere hype and a few very short appearances on cable, Pamela Geller who claims to be the leader of the anti-Mosque movement, is not mentioned at all.  Her greatness is obviously in her own mind and she will make her racist, bigoted and self-congratulatory remarks as if she will stop the Project by her own super-powers.

I hope the Project does not go ahead, as I have mentioned, not for bigoted and agenda-for-profiteering reasons.  They simply have to work harder to justify it.

The Netherlands – another election coming?

The promise of a quickly formed government by leading Dutch party figures has most certainly failed from birth.   The beginning of July figure has passed us by and we are now into the fourth negotiator.  

The demand for a coalition from the right of politics dies because of Wilders’ bigoted and ugly demands, a “Purple Coalition” even more so fails as Labour and others will have nothing to do with the racist anti-Islam party.   A minority of left and centrist parties seems to be ignored because they are a minority and had screwed-up Holland’s economy and social welfare system in the past.   The Netherlands opportunity for creating a government now is stuck in a quagmire of its’ own making – a combination of an antiquated and flawed electoral system that allows one-man political parties and encourages coalitions; and the previous governments failing the people in social and economic areas that when unheeded breeds radicalization.

It is simply time to admit the people screwed-up, fell for well worded ugly propoganda and broke the traditional mold of voting serious in national elections and protests in local ones.  Had the Dutch people understood that in the current electoral system, giving a mad-man and wannabe Jorg Haider around 13 per cent of the vote will cause this mess – they would most certainly change their votes.  

The possibilities of forming a government appear to be zero and the greatest of errors now would be the feeling that they are obliged to form one with what they have regardless, is scary to say the least.  

Last Sunday (25 July 2010) Robin Pascoe wrote in the Opinion section of DutchNews.nl a very well worded item called “Talking about talks may not get us anywhere“.     He correctly says that:

CDA leader Maxime Verhagen has made it quite clear that a number of elements in the PVV’s manifesto are non-negotiable.

A ban on immigration from Islamic countries, the closure of all Islamic schools, a ban on the Koran and the introduction of a tax on headscarves… none of these are ever going to become a reality in a cabinet involving the CDA.

Nor is a foreign policy based on combating Islam. The Dutch will not start calling Jordan Palestine.

On radio this weekend, senior VVD member of parliament Frans Weisglas (an old friend of mine) called on his leader Marke Rutte to stay clear of Geert Wilders and the PVV stating that ‘I do not think a Liberal party like mine, the VVD, should work together with a party which systematically discriminates against an entire part of the population’.

Equally, in the Financieele Dagblad, Arie Oostlander and Bert de Vries, leading figures of the CDA called forming alliances with Wilders as a recipe for “hiking up opposition rather than bridging tensions”.  Additionally, Oostlander stated that Wilders would not sit quietly in a minority government and play every moment to his advantage.  He called Wilders “far to slippery”.

According to Pascoe, the only real commonality between the potential coalition of VVD and the PVV is that “both the VVD and PVV are opposed to any tax increases – or passing the cost of reducing the budget deficit onto the man in the street” and then raises the very understandable question about how could they achieve it when the rest of the manifestos are so different (let alone the PVV platform is not based on workable experience).

I reported just after the election that exit polls and then another a day after hinted that if they knew what the results were, the population probably would have given Labour a workable majority.   As a former PVV party member and city Councillor for them, that pains me but nevertheless consider that a better option.   I wonder what a new election would produce now?

Time to find out I think.