Published in 1922, Stoddard’s view of Islam is much superior to our own, and rings with a clarity that is almost astounding in this dark age of the mind we find ourselves in. I shall summarize this work as concisely as possible, leaning on the Old Liberal’s quotes to the extent that this is practical.
Preface
“The entire world of Islam is to-day in profound foment.”
Such is the first line of a book we would have guessed was never written, based on the shock with which the U.S. regarded the 911 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, that supposedly signaled a new deviant strain of militant Islam. Stoddard makes excellent reading, partially because he puts the lie to much of what we have been taught. In his book The Rising Tide of Color, we discover, through the printed Japanese word, that prominent Japanese politicians were agitating for a genocidal conflict against the U.S. as early as 1900. Yet we have been taught that the war between the U.S. and Japan some forty years later was a sudden affair based solely on recent events.
“The entire world of Islam is to-day in profound foment.”
That could have been written yesterday, and would still be denied by government apologists on Sunday morning news shows tomorrow, who would insist that Islam has nothing to do with ‘The Global War on Terror,’ that we face only the wrath of certain radicals.
Stoddard goes on to explain, that although the recent Great War [WWI] inspired Arab unrest, that the ‘seeds were sown’ a century or more before.
What most people I speak to find shocking is that virtually every scrap of Islamic land was ruled by European nations until after WWII, and that even today, most Islamic nations are proxy governments—mere puppets—of the U.S. It then seems to dawn on them why Islamic radicals might want to attack the U.S., then comes the sad frown, the reluctant sigh, followed by a determination to put these uncomfortable thoughts away.
“…the followers of the Prophet Mohamed are stirring to new ideas, new impulses, new aspirations. A gigantic transformation is taking place whose results must affect all mankind.”
The world was not ready to consider Stoddard’s findings 100 years ago, when the idea of a medieval religion regaining sway over world affairs seemed patently absurd. Will the world listen today?
More importantly, what NFL team drafted the Heisman Trophy winner this year? Sorry, my town was being purged and I missed the fantasy football draft.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of Science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
-Winston Churchill, “The River War”, First edition Volume II, Page. 248-250. 1899
“Intolerance may not promote progress but it can promote survival. An intolerant Islamic world may outlast the Western world that seems ready to tolerate anything, including the undermining of its own fundamental values and threats to its continued existence. “
-Thomas Sowell, 22 March, 2011
James,
you write that "virtually every scrap of Islamic land was ruled by European nations until after WWII."
This assertion needs many qualifications, and its implied upshot—- namely, that today's Muslim furor is a longue durée reaction to historical European oppression—- doesn't hold water.
Until the end of WWI in 1918, most of the core Islamic World was ruled by the Ottoman Empire: today's Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Isrаel, Jordan, Kuwayt ... I'm not sure about the western part of the Arab peninsula, including Mecca and Medina as well as Yemen. The remainder of the Arab peninsula was independent.
Iran was independent. Libya had only been taken over by the Italians in 1911. British rule over Egypt, established in 1882, was a sort of hybrid system, leaving the Egyptians quite a bit of room for maneuver. Morocco was independent until 1910 or so.
Islamic Africa since the 1880s (mostly) had come under European rule. However, the same is true also for non-Islamic Africa, without non-Muslim Africans showing the same violent reactions today as Muslim Africans do. So the decisive element for Muslim Africans must be the Muslim element, it cannot be the eighty or so years of European rule which they share with their non-Muslim fellow Africans.
In addition, it can be argued that one of the unsung benefits of colonialism in Africa was the curtailing and eventual abolition of inner-African slavery, in which invariably Muslim Africans hunted down and enslaved non-Muslim Africans, in the cruelest of manners. 19th century pre-colonial travel accounts depict this vividly.
In the Balkans over the course of the 19th century Europeans had just freed themselves from 300 plus X years of Turkish-Ottoman-Islamic rule and, yes, colonialism (the Turks settled Muslims in the conquered lands).
So while it's true that Europeans ruled most of the Islamic World from either around 1880 or from the end of WWI to around 1945/1960, those thirty (in the Middle Eastern context) to eighty years (in the African context) can hardly explain the generalized Islamic furor we witness globally today.
Non-Muslim peoples ruled by Europeans in no way show comparable reactions. Europeans ruled for much longer by Muslims in no way showed comparable reactions.
Finally, non-European non-Muslims oppressed by Muslims in no way show comparable reactions.
The inevitable conclusion therefore is that Islam's aggressive furor is in no way reactive—- that's just a convenient smokescreen and excuse—-, it is intrinsic and part of Islam's core matrix. What is true is that Islamic furor and violence long antedates our generation, and even the 20th century.
Regards,
Herzog
I was paraphrasing Stoddard, and what he meant was hegemony, a system of client states, not, in most cases, a state of direct rule.
Thanks for the clarifications, Herzog. I will include them, in the print version.