Is there an instance where the question of whether the fault lies in the West or elsewhere and it does NOT belong with the West?
I remember when Clinton made these and similar remarks. He was a pretty good President, but when he says shit like this my blood boils. Believe me, repenting to Muslims gets you nothing, ever, but their contempt for your weakness and a reassurance of their superiority.
What Muslim of any repute or authority whatever has ever apologized for the invasion, conquest and occupation of Christian lands? Spain, for instance? Or sacking St Peter's in Rome? (I bet you didn't even know that happened.) Or the millenial Muslim slave trade in Christians?
None. Ever.
2 comments:
Re President Clinton's apparent thesis that the West is "still paying for" the Crusades in the hostility toward the West that the Crusades generated: "it was the West which taught Islam to hate the crusades" (Paul F. Crawford, Four Myths about the Crusades, Intercollegiate Review, Spring 2011, p. 20 a).
Muslims had apparently been of the opinion that they won the contest: the crusader kingdoms were defeated and the crusaders went back to the West p. 19 a.
"The first Muslim crusade history did not appear until 1899. By that time the Muslim world was rediscovering the cursades—but it was rediscovering them with a twist learned from [anti-Christianity, sc anti-OT] Westerners" from the interpretation of the Crusades by Voltaire, Gibbon et al, and by the secular western civilizing imperialists who would see in the Crusaders their predecessors p. 19 b- 20 a.
These interpretations were added into Arab anti-imperialism nationalism [sc which was originally not "Islamist" but imitated various secularist western modes and orders — nationalism, socialism etc]. p. 20 a
Anyway, neo-Islam helps confirm Western anti-Westerners that the problem is Christianity, dominion founded in grace, the Old Testament torah [not halakha]. The imply'd agenda is ridding the world of violence, but the real agenda is ridding the world of the OT. The result isn't to be a world free from violence and oppression etc, or even a world less violent and oppressive etc.
Apparently meaningless violence and value-neutral power — e.g. Chinese war lords; the endless stupid rise and fall cycle of pagan kingdoms etc — is preferable to meaningful violence or 'state'. .... Speaking truth to power means revealing the value-neutrality of reality, the formalisticness of "Be"?
Post a Comment