If the same exact criticisms being made against Islam today were also made centuries ago, is it reasonable to dismiss them all as “Islamophobic”— that is, as “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam,” as the Council on American Islamic Relations would have it?
This is the question I often ask myself whenever I read pre-modern writings on Islam. Take that elementary schoolbook hero, Marco Polo and his famous memoirs, for example. By today’s standards, the 13th century Venetian merchant would be denounced as a rabid “Islamophobe.” For me, however, his writings contain a far more important lesson — one in continuity — and deserve closer scrutiny.
Before examining Polo’s observations, it should be noted that his anthropological accounts are, by and large, objective. Unlike simplistic explanations that portray him as a prototypical “Orientalist” with an axe to grind against the “Other” — specifically non-whites and non-Christians — in fact, Polo occasionally portrayed the few Christians he encountered in a negative light (such as those of the island of Socotra) and frequently praised non-Christians, including Muslims.
For example, he hails the Brahmins of India as being “most honorable,” possessing a “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons. They are likewise remarkable for the virtue of being satisfied with the possession of one wife (p.298).” He refers to one Muslim leader as governing “with justice” (p.317) and another who “showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody (p.332).”
That said, Polo clearly had no problem being blunt about Islam (political correctness being nonexistent in the Middle Ages). Whereas he praised the Brahmins for their “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons,” regarding the Muslims of Tauris, (modern day Iraq), he wrote:
According to their doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens (p.63).
In fact, based on the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s numerous raiding expeditions, plundering infidels is quite standard in Islam and treated regularly in legal manuals; the Koran has an entire chapter dedicated to and named after plunder (Surat al-Anfal). As for being a martyr simply by dying at the hands of the infidel enemy, this too has ample support in Islam’s texts and enjoys consensus among the ulema. The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid (martyr) as “one killed in battle with infidels.”
A more telling anecdote follows: According to Polo, a certain “Achmath” (probably “Ahmed”), one of the few Muslims to have had great influence over Kublai Khan, habitually abused the largely non-Muslim subject peoples without the Khan’s knowledge: he put to death anyone he pleased, robbed them of their possessions, and, most notoriously, he and his sons regularly raped and coerced into concubinage countless women. Due to Achmath’s many atrocities, he was eventually assassinated. When the Khan later discovered the extent of Achmath’s crimes, his
attention [went] to the doctrines of the Sect of the Saracens [i.e., Islam], which excuse every crime, yea, even murder itself, when committed on such as are not of their religion. And seeing that this doctrine had led the accursed Achmath and his sons to act as they did without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for it. So he summoned the Saracens and prohibited their doing many things which their religion enjoined (p.173).
Of course, crimes against non-Muslim infidels have a doctrinal base and fall within the legal jurisdiction of jihad and its attendant institutions (e.g., dhimma status): war upon and death for non-subjugated infidels is a Koranic mandate (e.g., 8:39, 9:5, 9:29); the sub-human treatment of infidel slaves, particularly women, or, in the Koran’s language, “what your right hand possesses,” is well codified. Little wonder that Muslims like this Achmath — or today’s terrorists — can act “without any sense of guilt.”
(It is significant to note that, in both of Polo’s block quotes above, he criticizes Muslim doctrine — not so much Muslim peoples. In other words, he allows for what would today be called “moderate” Muslims, as shown by his aforementioned praise for individual Muslim leaders.)
Polo also confirms that Muslim leaders have long relied on Muhammad’s account of a lusty paradise to lure young men into becoming “martyrs.” He recounts how the Shia assassins dedicated their lives to assassinating and terrorizing their opponents simply to enter into “paradise, where every species of sensual gratification should be found, in the society of beautiful nymphs” (p.78). (It is further interesting to note that the assassin leader took into his service men primarily between the ages of 12-20 — not unlike Osama bin Laden’s position that Muslim men aged 15-25 are most suited for jihad and martyrdom: The Al Qaeda Reader, p.267.)
Other “Islamophobic” allusions are scattered throughout Polo’s account: the caliph of Baghdad’s “daily thoughts were employed on the means of converting to his religion [Islam] those who resided within his dominions, or, upon their refusal, in forming pretences for putting them to death” (p.59); and Muslims “utterly detest the Christians” (p.316), perhaps in accordance to Koran 60:4 — still cited by today’s Islamists as mandating permanent hatred for non-Muslims.
Here, then, is the problem: If today it is “Islamophobic,” that is, irrational, to claim that Islam advocates war against and subjugation for infidels, permitting the latter to be abused, plundered, and enslaved in the process — what does one make of the fact that, some 700 years ago, the same exact claims were made by our Venetian traveler? Indeed, what does one make of the fact that, centuries before and after Polo, a diverse host of writers — including John of Damascus (d.749) Theophanes the chronicler (d.818), Francis of Assisi (d.1226), Joinville the crusader (d.13th century), and Manuel the Byzantine emperor (d.1425) — all made the same “Islamophobic” observations about Islam? (The latter’s writings, when merely quoted by the pope, caused an uproar in the Muslim world.) This, of course, is to say nothing of the countless Muslim ulema who regularly affirm that Islam teaches war, subjugation, slavery, and plunder vis-a-vis the infidel, tracing it back to the words of the Koran and Muhammad.
In short, the word “Islamophobia” is a ruse — also permitted in Islam under the doctrine of taqiyya — meant to paralyze all discussion concerning Muslim doctrine; and it has been successful: the United Nations has already presided over a conference titled “Confronting Islamophobia” and a Council of Europe summitcondemned “Islamophobia.” Moreover, the influential Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) regularly lambasts the specter of Islamophobia, calling it the “worst form of terrorism,” and publishing two reports on the phenomenon.
Yet, in a classic twist of irony, the opening assertion of the OIC’s first report — “Islamophobia has existed since the time of inception of Islam” — contradicts its entire argument, for it begs the following question: How can something, in this case “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam” — to use CAIR’s definition of Islamophobia — be a constant aspect of Islam’s fourteen-hundred year history, and yet still be regarded as “unfounded”?
Note: See here for more applicable quotes from Marco Polo
Thank you, very much to the point and informative. “Islamophobia” has a rock-steady ground to stand on, and every day now, Islam is helping the message to get out around the globe.
OIC’s first report — “Islamophobia has existed since the time of inception of Islam”
I think, and I fell into this trap myself, in the face of Muslim atrocities from Islams conception by Mohammed hearing voices in a dusty cave determined “Islamophobia” is a valid position to take.
But determining “Islamophobia” is justified is a nonsense because words have meaning “Islamophobia” means an irrational fear of Islam and the Muslim behavior it informs.
Given the Islamic terror to this very minute and the political construct it seeks to impose, Egypt is simply one example, on Other if given the chance I and many Other have a very rational fear of Islamic informed muslim behavior.
Therefore rather than saying ‘To right ‘Islamophobia’ is justified because look at all the carnage’ – this just justifies the increased use of a myth, we should be saying:
“Islamophobia does not exist because rational fear is not a phobia.”
We simply point to the atrocities which have occurred, are occurring and because we can confidently say will occur tomorrow that the fear we have regards the outcomes derived from Islam are valid.
If as Tony Blair said recently there is a problem with Islam in that it’s Muslim cultural behavioral variance ‘spectrum’ constantly consistently informs terror. The ‘spectrum’ inclusive of Liberal, Moderates, Fundamentalists and Terrorists That is none of these self-defined Muslim groups can exist without the other then surely is it not rational to have fear of the nature of outcomes Islam informs?
“Islamophobia does not exist because rational fear is not a phobia.”
Marco Polo – coming from a Christian city state where persecution of Jews were common, and no Muslim would be alive in a Christian country calls out Islam as barbaric. A religion that PROTECTS Christians and Jews and regards the right of every human being to believe in whatever sky fairy they want. Sort of beats “though shall not have other gods than me” paradigm that was violently enforced in every single country where Christianity seized power – in this case, Rome. And then the Americas, Africa, the attempts of India.
Accusing Islam or even Mohammed for what violent conquerors did is accusing baby Jesus for the atrocities committed by Christians since Roman times. And using Christian monks and crusaders who made a living of killing Jews and Muslims as credible sources for Islam is so idiotic that it’s no wonder you might get a following ignorant bigots who thinks that gays should be stoned to death and that Muslims should be bombed and conquered by evangelists.
Besides, none of your claims are remotely in common with the Surahs that promotes religious and ethic tolerance. If you have ever studied comparatice religions, you would know what I am talking about.
This was the most stupid comment I have ever read.
How the heck can you compare the doctrine of a prophet with the actions committed by his followers? These two things do not have anything in common.
And your superficial analysis clearly demonstrates all your poor thinking.
The fact that many Christains killed while (some) muslims were protecting Christians and Jews does not mean anything.
For instance, I can be a Nazi but be a “good” Nazi, and the same applies for islam.
ALL you need to examine is the doctrine.
The ONLY question which deserves an answer is:
WHO was Jesus? And WHO was mohammed?
Jesus never killed, never got engaged in any indecent or sexual activity, but on the contrary never hurt anyone and spreaded messages of love and peace.
mohammed on the contrary killed several people (remember the jewsih community of medina), engaged in wars, married a 9 year old girl. All these things are disgusting and honestly, to legitimize a religion which was created by such an horrible individual is just stupid nonsense
Wello, for one Christianity resonates far better to Nazism than Islam.
How?
Christianity hates freedom of religion. Nazism came from Christianity! Not Islam. When Christians persecuted Jews, they sought refuge in the Islamic world.
Whether Mohammed killed some people is irrelevant. Your old testament is full of blood shed, directed by your blood thirsty tribal god.
You Christians have killed far more people with your tax dollars than Mohammed ever did. And you kill in the name of “national security”
So you can keep your stupid comment yourself because what you wrote makes no sense and you have made everybody who reads your drivel a bit dumber thank before.
First of all, I am sorry for you, but contrariliy to you I am not a stupid brainwashed fool, since I don’t believe in anything.
Secondly, in writing these idiotic things you do not do anything but showing all your stupidity and ignorance.
First of all, the bible is violent but the Jews never tried to convert anyone to their creed. And if you compare the bible with the new testament you find two totally different texts.
Secondly, Islam is in absolute the most violent religion which has ever existed. Indeed, the worst infection of human history, a cancer, an abomination of lies and evil.
Only an idiot could say that islam is a peaceful religion, and you are mentally retarded to say that muslims were peacefu. This clearly demonstrates that you are totally ignorant on Byzantine history. Because of islams millions of eastern romans died in the middle east, and this since the 7th century. Have you ever heard about the words of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos?
Of course not, because you are an ignorant fool.
Here is what he said
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”.
All your comments are so idiotic and false that do not deserve further answers.
Maybe (I am sure) you do not even know who Oriana Fallaci is. Read first her books and then come back arguing. Ignorant.
However, in the end, I must say that your IQ must be very low, since to really believe in a stupid book full of monstruosity and abominable things you must be mentally retarded.
I am sorry, but contrarily to you I do not have imaginary friends?
Seriously..HOW can you believe in a 1400 year old book written by an illitarate pedophile scum who was having sex with camels?
..this does not prove anything but mental retardation
Let me ask you one simple question.
Do you consider yourself to be Christian?
If so, what makes you think I
‘I’m the brainwashed one, and you the well informed one?
How much have you read from the Quran?
How many religions have you studied?
What is your historical background from the Middle East and the Dark Ages?
Other than that, you have displayed no knowledge whatsoever regarding history, or abrahamic religion.
What I find funny is how you bash Islam and make excuses for Christianity despite the fact the Muhammed to his entire mythology from the Bible.
So tell me how the Jewish tribal god, the crusaders, the conquistadors, or sniper Kyle are any better than Muhammed?
You can also explain to me where freedom of religion is guaranteed in Christianity and the bible as you find no such thing in the Quran,.
If not, I only see a lot of projections from an imbecile of a pathetic bible wanker and an ignorant fool.,
I am not linked to any religious aaffiliation.
Nothing.
Are you stupid or what? I said that I do not believe in anything
And sorry, if contrarily to you, I read about science, not your stupid quran, whose only useful usage is as toilet paper.
And here, the only imbecile pathetic ignorant fool is you, who believe in a rotten book written by a dirty pedophile 1400 years ago.
And you are telling me I am an ignorant because contrarily to you I believe in science?? While you believe in the quran??????
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HOW THE HELL can people believe in such religions in 2015?????
HOW????????
And by the way my knowledge on religion and history is much wider than yours, given all the false and idiotic stataments you are making.
Idiot
You sound like an ignorant bible wanker.
And you have proven that you know nothing about world religions.
You claim to read about science, but have no clue about the Muslims who were scientists in Cordoba during a time when science was forbidden in Christian Europe.
When Christians persecuted Jews, they fled to the Islamic world.
If it wasn’t for the TOLERANCE and ILM in the Quran, we would not have had the Renaissance. That’s right!
The MUSLIMS were the ones saving the scriptures from the Hellenic era, and promoted science.¨
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/10/islam-freedom-expression
The fact that you obsess about marriage and sexual practices during the dark age as any proof of anything, shows either how desperate you are, and perhaps your own sexual deviancy.
So not only are you painfully ignorant about world religions, history, but also painfully ignorant about science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventions_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world
And here you are. Mouthing off, defending and promote values that does this:
http://f.tqn.com/y/middleeast/1/W/o/7/-/-/abu-ghraib-torture-06.jpg
You’re an ignorant, brainwashed bible wanker of an idiot. I don’t care if you claim you believe in science. You sound like a bible wanker, and that’s what I will ,label you.
Christianity leads by far in death toll. If you are an American, then you are not only a brainwashed bible wanker, you are also living on the scene of a crime. Committed by YOUR ancestors like the true Nazis they were and almost wiped out the entire original population in your Lebensraum policies.
Yet here you are, bitching about a social reformer from Arabia as if he is any worse than Grant, James Monroe, Gen. Custer, and the Pilegrims who slaughtered Natives as thanks for being bailed out, or your own government today.
You think that Mohammed was bad, but shrug your shoulders over the atrocities committed by my ancestors, the Vikings. What do you think was worse, my ancestors killing Christians, or converting to Christianity and killing Jews and Muslims instead?
Muhammed never conquered any land outside Saudi Arabia. And there is nowhere in the Quran that promotes violent conquest or forced conversions.
But you didn’t know that. Because you’re a brainwashed idiot and a victim of Reichwing propaganda and know nothing about how science came to Europe in the first place.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Idiot
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I never read so many bullshits in my life!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
And you really do not understand a f**k! You can say whatever you want about every religion you want, since I do not believe in anything. I do not give a s***t of what christians or americans, or chinese, or whoever did what. Are you stupid or what? This is the third time I tell you this and you keep repeating me about the bible!
Man! You are really a retarded f*ck!
Idiot, muslim countries have been so evolved that now they are the shitholes of the world, just shitty 3rld world countries, having the highest rates of illiteracy and lowest human development indexes.
IDIOT! There is no allah! When you die it is over!
Only an idiotic dumbass like you could believe in such stupid fairy tales! ..at this point I believe in Santa Claus, since he has much more dignity than your idiotic allah…..incredible….and we are in 2015…..AHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Stupid fuck!
And as for your fucking book full of shit which is the quran, here is what it preaches:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
Just violence! READ IT, stupid idiot!
And you can say anything you want on the bible, the mahabharata, or any other book, I really do not care.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Incredible!
I really pity you, poor stupid fuck.
But the most incredible and ridiculous thing is that you define me “brainwashed”…AHAHAHAHAHAH
I am not brainwashed since I rely on science, and change my mind based on empirical evidence. if there is a branwashed idiot here it is you, who believe in a shitty piece of shit which is the quran written by a pedophile illiterate assassin, a shitty book only composed by dogmas. HOW THE HELL can you say that these people are not brainwashed if you must believe in stupid RIDICULOUS dogmas like those ones????
incredible…..
AHAHAHAHAHAH
Go f*cking in the ass a goat, it is what your pedophile muhammad full os shit was doing the whole time
Clearly the most uneducated answer you have managed to spew out so fart.
You’re a brainwashed uneducated redneck,.
1) I Still don’t get why I should be “uneducated” and “brainwashed” as I am a phd student at Princeton, and I’m sorry but I am not a redneck since I come from Manhattan.
2) Please study English before writing your sentences, as your comments are full of grammatical mistakes
3) You really need courage to tell someone that he is unducated when you BLINDLY follow all the idiotic bullshits written by an illiterate child rapist
I would suggest to research about relations between Nazism and Islam. It is true that Nazism came from Christianity -in the sense that Hitler was a self declared Christian- but more interesting is seeing what Nazism did towards Islam when in power. A virtual association was established, with the mutual objective of the extermination of Jews.
Whether Mohammed killed some people is not irrelevant, He was, for Muslims, the greatest man that ever lived, so in my view he should have offered a better example. The biblical god is appalling, no doubt, but that can’t be used as an argument in favor of Islam. (You can’t argue “they did worse, so we are ok when we do it”)
Of course many leaders, Christian or otherwise, have killed far more people than Muhammad did, but that is simply the consequence of number of soldiers and the advance of weapons’ technology. Muhammad personally beheaded hundreds of people and raped several slaves. I doubt Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (or George W Bush, to make you happy) would dare doing anything like that.
To begin with, I am an atheist, so don’t imagine I’m defending any religion here. I share your view that religions are akin to believing in sky fairies –including this pugnacious character Allah.
When you say “accusing Islam or even Mohammed for what violent conquerors did is
accusing baby Jesus for the atrocities committed by Christians” you miss two important differences: first, the New Testament has only a couple of verses that could be regarded as violent, or exhortations to violence, while the Qur’an has hundreds.
Second: no Christian or Jew today is obeying the horrible Old Testament mandates to killing blasphemers, adulterers, false prophets, witches, heretics, homosexuals, people who work in the Sabbath or children who are disrespectful to their parents, nor they have slaves or sell their daughters as slaves. In contrast, a sizable number of Muslim are these days following the quranic mandates to practice jihad, i.e. to wage war against infidels, to kill or oppress them, and to relegate women to second rate citizens; in general, to make sure peace will come only “when all religion is for Allah”. Much worse than what extremists think or do, even larger number of Muslims condone those violent practices while their leaders proclaim them to be good and call Muslims to arms.
You can’t make much noise about “the Surahs that promote religious and ethic tolerance”. There are two or three (not even four) verses in the Quran that promote religious tolerance: “you have your religion, I have mine”, and “there is no compulsion in religion”. Clashing with those two verses you have 359 verses which announce that infidels will go to Hell, Fire (as in Hell) and Doom, and there are about 500 violent verses. If Islam were really tolerant, it wouldn’t be calling Muslims “the best of people” and infidels “the vilest of beings”, the “worst of animals” and so on.