By Andrew C. McCarthy
Saturday, January 26, 2013
When Mohamed Morsi dehumanizes Jews as “the descendants
of apes and pigs,” there’s an elephant in the room. We find it here:
Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath,
those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped
evil — these are many times worse in rank, and far more astray from the even
Path!
You see, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood
mahoff–turned–president did not conjure up the apes-and-pigs riff on his own.
When Morsi fulminates that Muslims “must not forget to nurse our children and
grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who
support them,” he is taking his cues straight from the Koran. Or rather, from
the Holy Koran, as “progressive” American politicians take pains to call it in
the off hours from their campaign to drive every last vestige of
Judeo-Christian culture from the public square.
The excerpt above is not from the Life and Times of
Mohamed Morsi. It originates with that other Mohammed. Specifically, it is Sura
5:60 of the Koran, the tome Muslims take to be the immutable, verbatim commands
of Allah, as revealed to the prophet. And as Andrew Bostom illustrates (with a
disquieting amplitude of examples), the verse is not an outlier. It states an
Islamic leitmotif.
Contrary to the fairy tale weaved by apologists for
Islamists on both sides of America’s political aisle, Jew hatred is not a
pathogen insidiously injected into Islam by the Nazis (with whom Middle Eastern
Muslims enthusiastically aligned). Nor did the ummah come by it through
exposure to other strains of anti-Semitism that blight the history of
Christendom. Jew hatred is ingrained in Islamic doctrine. Consequently, despite
the efforts of enlightened Muslim reformers, Jew hatred is — and will remain —
a pillar of Islamist ideology.
You may recall hearing this little ditty from the Hamas
charter — often echoed by ministers of the Palestinian Authority and in the
preachments of Brotherhood jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, on whose every word
millions hang weekly on al-Jazeera (or is it al-Gore?):
Again, these are not sentiments dreamt up by “violent
extremists” waging a modern, purely political “resistance” against oppressive
“Zionists.” The prophet’s admonition that Muslims will be spared the hellfire
by killing Jews is repeated in numerous authoritative hadiths (see, e.g., Sahih
Muslim Book 41, No. 6985; Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, No. 791).
Hadiths, it is worth emphasizing, are the recorded
actions and instructions of Mohammed, who is taken by Muslims to be the
“perfect example” they are to emulate. And in case you suppose, after years of
listening to Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama, that the prophet must
ultimately have come around on the Jews, you might want to rethink that one.
Another hadith, relating Mohammed’s dying words, recounts his final plea: “May
Allah curse the Jews and the Christians.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, No.
427.)
Now of course, none of this is to say that it is
impossible for Islam to evolve beyond anti-Semitism. As individuals, millions
of Muslims want no part of the ancient hatreds. As scholars and activists, a
number of Muslim reformers admirably endeavor to erase this legacy by limiting
it to its historical context, reducing it to allegory, or casting doubt on its
provenance. Let’s hope these efforts eventually bear fruit. After all, as noted
above, anti-Semitism stains the West’s legacy, too; and as discussed in this
space before, the history of Christianity in America is a history of evolving
beyond punishments and practices akin to those we today presume to look down
our noses at as if we were total strangers to invidious discrimination and
assaults on freedom of speech and conscience.
Nevertheless, the humility with which we must acknowledge
this history is not an excuse for failing to grapple with what it means. Elite
Western opinion came to condemn what it once practiced by correctly reasoning
that those noxious practices cut against the grain of our guiding doctrine,
which is predominantly Christian. Evolution was in no way easy, but it was
logical.
In Islam, to the contrary, the doctrine itself is the
most daunting barrier against evolution. And now, with the self-defeating
encouragement of the West, Islamic-supremacist ideology has, throughout the
Middle East, broken out of the shackles that kept it in check. The result of
this “democratization” (the regnant euphemism for sharia installed by popular
vote) is an increasingly rabid rise of intolerance.
The answer to this challenge is to take the Islamists head-on.
It is to show them for what they truly are: enemies of civil rights,
totalitarian tormentors of women and non-Muslims. The answer is not to arm them
— as the Obama administration, with the maddening support of some leading
Republicans, is arming Morsi’s regime — with a score of F-16 fighter jets and a
couple of hundred Abrams tanks.
When not manufacturing history, tears, and indignation
this week during her long-overdue testimony on the Benghazi massacre, outgoing
secretary of state Hillary Clinton stunned careful listeners by repeatedly
mentioning the “global jihad” against America. These were stark violations of
Obama-administration strictures against any reference to Islam in discussions
of the threat to the West.
They also marked quite a departure for Mrs. Clinton. She
has played no small part in propagating the “Islamophobia” canard. She has
championed the imposition of sharia blasphemy standards on speech that is
protected by the First Amendment. And, with an assist from Senator John McCain,
she has cowed 99 percent of Beltway Republicans into silence over the
longstanding ties of her top adviser, Huma Abedin, to the Muslim Brotherhood
and to an al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef, whose now-defunct “charity”
(the Rabita Trust) was designated as a global terrorist organization under
American law. Who knows: Maybe someday, after enough F-16 transfers and sharia
constitutions, Charles Krauthammer will be moved to a fleeting mention of these
irrefutable facts, making it socially acceptable for our heroes to come out
from under their desks and talk about the national-security implications. I can
dream, can’t I?
In the Clinton tradition, there was more calculated
confusion than clarity in the secretary’s meandering testimony. Mrs. Clinton
frets over the “jihadists” but insists that we must be able to “partner” with
the region’s Islamists . . . like Morsi and the Brotherhood. Do you suppose
she’s noticed that the Muslim Brotherhood demands the release of the Blind
Sheikh, just like al-Qaeda does? That Morsi and Hamas (the Brotherhood’s
Palestinian terror branch) publicly yearn for the destruction of Israel, just
like al-Qaeda does? That the Brotherhood’s top priority is the imposition of
sharia, the same imperative that drives al-Qaeda’s rampage?
Alas, this is not a series of strange coincidences. These
are the major points that define a Muslim — violent or nonviolent — as an
Islamist. When you “partner” with Islamists, you are abetting the global jihad,
not opposing it. When you arm Islamists, you become a willing participant in
your own undoing.
No comments:
Post a Comment