Par Raymond Ibrahim, le 23 avril, 2015

Frontpage Magazine

Pendant que le monde continue à regarder dans la consternation les atrocités barbares commises contre les minorités chrétiennes par l'État Islamique – le nouveau «califat» – aujourd'hui, le 24 avril, marque le génocide arménien et des autres minorités chrétiennes par les islamistes de empire ottoman de la Turquie – le dernier «califat».

La plupart des historiens américains qui ont étudié ce sujet sont d'accord que les arméniens ont été les victimes d'un génocide calculé:

Plus d'un million d'Arméniens ont péri à la suite d'exécutions, de famine, de maladie, d'un environnement hostile, et de violence physique. Un peuple qui a vécu en Turquie orientale pendant près de 3000 années [c'est-à-dire 2500 années avant que les turcs musulmans envahissent et occupent l'Anatolie, maintenant connu comme "la Turquie"] a perdu son pays natal et a été profondément décimé dans le premier génocide à grande échelle du vingtième siècle. Au début de 1915, il y avait environ deux millions d'arméniens en Turquie; aujourd'hui, il y a moins de 60 000.

Un million et demi d'arméniens ont été éradiqués. Si au début du 20ème siècle, la Turquie aurait eu les instruments et la technologie pour les exécutions de masse – tels que les chambres à gaz de l'Allemagne des années 1940 – la totalité de la population arménienne pourrait bien avoir été exterminée.

La liste des atrocités infligées contre les arméniens et autres minorités chrétiennes est trop longue pour énumérer ici. Comme sous le nouveau «califat» – l'État Islamique – les musulmans du califat ottoman ont enlevé, violé, massacré et vendu d' innombrables femmes et enfants chrétiennes sur les marchés d'esclaves musulmans.

Les chrétiens arméniens ont également été torturés de façon sadique – comme les chrétiens sont présentement torturés sous l'État Islamique. Lloyd Billingsley écrit dans FrontPage Magazine:

Des escadrons de la torture brûlent leurs victimes au fer rouge, leurs déchirent la chair avec des tenailles chaudes, puis leurs versent du beurre bouillie sur les plaies. Les semelles de leurs pieds sont battues, lacérées, et lacées avec du sel. Dr Mehmed Reshid a torturé des arméniens en les faisant marcher à travers les rues après avoir cloué des fers à cheval à leurs pieds. Il les a également crucifié sur des croix de fortune.

Les musulmans ont déchiré les arméniens en morceaux tout en précipitant les nourrissons sur des rochers devant leurs mères. Ils ont brûlé le corps des morts non pour des raisons sanitaires, mais pour trouver des pièces d'or qu'ils croyaient que les arméniens avaient avalé. Les musulmans ont aussi déchiré les organes contenant les excréments de leurs victimes pour trouver de l'or. Le consul américain Leslie Davis, un ancien avocat et journaliste a documenté le zèle islamique.

"Nous pouvions les entendre pieusement chanter à Allah de les bénir dans leurs efforts de tuer les chrétiens détestés», écrit Davis. "Nuit après nuit, ce même chant est monté au ciel et jour après jour les turcs ont continué leur travail sanglant." Autour du lac Goeljik, Davis a écrit, "des milliers et des milliers d'arméniens, principalement des femmes et des enfants innocents et sans défense, ont été massacrés et mutilés de façon barbare sur ses rives."

Dans ses mémoires, Ravished Armenia, Aurora Mardiganian raconte avoir été violée et jetée dans un harem – comme ce qui se produit aujourd'hui aux non-musulmanes sous l'autorité de l'Etat Islamique. Contrairement aux milliers d'autres arméniennes qui ont été tuées après avoir été violées, elle a réussi à s'échapper. Elle se rappelle d'avoir vu 16 jeunes chrétiennes crucifiées à Malatia: "Chaque fille avait été clouée en vie sur sa croix, des pointes à travers leurs pieds et leurs mains, seulement leurs cheveux soufflés par le vent couvraient leurs corps."

Parce qu'il n'y a pas de pénurie de preuve concernant la réalité historique du génocide arménien, 44 états américains l'ont reconnu. Le Dakota du Sud, qui s'est récemment ajouté à la liste, a adopté une résolution en Février 2015 appelant

Le congrès et le président des États-Unis à formellement reconnaître la vérité historique que les atrocités commises contre les arméniens, grecques et autres chrétiens vivant dans leur territoire historique en Anatolie constituent un génocide et de travailler pour des relations arméno-turques équitable, stable et durable.

La Turquie, bien sûr, continue de nier que ses ancêtres ont commis ce génocide. Un groupe d'universitaires américains a écrit en 1995,

Malgré la quantité de preuves qui pointe vers la réalité historique du génocide arméniens – archives officielles, preuves photographiques, rapports des diplomates, et le témoignage des survivants- les différents gouvernements turques depuis 1915 jusqu'à aujourd'hui continue de nier que le génocide arménien a actuellement eu lieu.

Le gouvernement islamique de la Turquie n'est pas le seul à nier le génocide. Le président Obama refuse toujours de le reconnaître – malgré que pendant la campagne présidentiel de 2008, il professait sa

conviction que le génocide arménien n'est pas une allégation, une opinion personnelle, ou un point de vue, mais un fait largement documenté et soutenu par un ensemble de preuves historiques. Les faits sont indéniables .... en tant que président, je vais reconnaître le génocide arménien .... L'Amérique mérite un leader qui est prêt à dire la vérité sur le génocide arménien et de répondre avec force à tous les génocides. J'ai l'intention d'être ce président.

Depuis qu'il est devenue président, Obama a refusé de tenir sa parole. Le mardi du 21 avril, la maison blanche a annoncé une autre fois, pour la septième année depuis qu'Obama est président, qu'elle n'utilisera pas le mot «génocide», décevant ainsi de nombreux militants des droits de l'homme.

Selon le New York Times:

La résistance continue du président de reconnaitre le génocide est contraire à la position prise par le Pape François, qui a récemment fait référence aux massacres comme "le premier génocide du 20e siècle" et les a comparé aux exécutions de masse commises par les nazis et les soviétiques. Le parlement européen, qui a reconnu le génocide en 1987, a adopté une résolution la semaine dernière appelant à la Turquie de "se réconcilier avec son passé."

Le Comité National Arménien d'Amérique a répondu en disant que "la reddition du président représente une honte nationale. C'est une trahison de la vérité et de la confiance." L'Assemblée Arménienne d'Amérique a continué en disant que "son refus d'utiliser le terme génocide représente un échec majeur pour les défenseurs des droits de l'homme".

Cependant, il est n'est pas étonnant qu'Obama nie le génocide des arméniens et des autres minorités chrétiennes aux mains des musulmans il y a un siècle, si l'on considère qu'il nie la persécution galopante des chrétiens ayant lieu sous son leadership aujourd'hui.

The idea that Islam needs to reform is again in the spotlight following the recent publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now. While Ali makes the argument that Islam can reform—and is in desperate need of taking the extreme measures she suggests to do so—many of her critics offer a plethora of opposing claims, including that Islam need not reform at all.

The one argument not being made, however, is the one I make below—namely, that Islam has already “reformed.” And violence, intolerance, and extremism—typified by the Islamic State (“ISIS”)—are the net result of this “reformation.”

Such a claim only sounds absurd due to our understanding of the word “reform.” Yet despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”

Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western connotations.

Muslim notions of “improving” society can include purging it of “infidels” and “apostates,” and segregating Muslim men from women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home. Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—is an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society from a strictly Islamic point of view.

In short, an Islamic reformation will not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their first premises and reference points. “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they naturally attribute Western connotations to the word.

Historical Parallels: Islam’s Reformation and the Protestant Reformation

At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible. With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching. So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.

Islam’s current reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.

As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”

In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands… [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears. The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet—including every atrocity ISIS commits, such as beheading, crucifying, and burning “infidels,” even mocking their corpses—is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists. Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished. Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white teachings of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it exclusively with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it” (Bernard Lewis, The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the “reformists,” with ISIS at their head.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty). This is an important point to be revisited later. Muslims who do not become disaffected after becoming better acquainted with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures, and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.

Christianity and Islam: Antithetical Teachings, Antithetical Results

How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):

• The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
• The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
• The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.
• The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

The Islamic Reformation Is Here—and It’s ISIS

Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the founders and scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation is producing something markedly different.

Put differently, those in the West calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society. That is precisely what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is doing. Some of her reforms as outlined in Heretic call for Muslims to begin doubting Muhammad (whose words and deeds are in the Hadith) and the Koran—the very two foundations of Islam.

That would not be a “reformation”—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation.

Habitually overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal.

Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular—or any—state. Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar [temporal] and unto God the things of God [spiritual]” (Matt. 22:21). For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law; and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and the state. Allah decrees in the Koran that “It is not fitting for true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36). Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18).

Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and the example of Muhammad as laid out in the Hadith—in a word, Sharia.

And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib).

Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception).

Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without Sharia—becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.” Submit to what? Allah’s laws as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith—the very three things Ali is asking Muslims to start doubting.

The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are calling for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.

Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures and history in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.

Note:An earlier version of this article first appeared on PJ Media in June 2014