"Everyone at the church seemed to have friends and relatives who were trying
to leave Egypt. Parents picking up their kids said they were bracing for an
Islamic takeover of their homeland. Church officials said there had been a
steady stream of newcomers seeking help or coming to Arabic Masses. One man who
arrived from Cairo three weeks ago, reached by a church counselor on a cell
phone, nervously told his story through an Arabic translator.
“I am going to apply for asylum and get my family out as soon as I can,” said
the man, 34, who gave his name only as Zekry. “The Islamists are taking over,
and disaster is coming very soon.”
In the past several months, he said, he had been threatened for sheltering
Muslims who converted to Christianity, and his wife had been harassed for not
wearing a veil when she went to pay their Internet bill. “The clerk told her,
‘Next time come back with your head covered. Your time is over,’ ” he said." Washpost
---------------------------------
Ahh! What do these Copts know about this! The State Department and NSC know what they are doing, don't they? This reminds me of Larry Wilkerson telling me (through a mutual acquaintance) that I should shut up and trust the Bush administration about Iraq. That was in 2002. He and Powell knew best (he said).
Well, the government does not know best. It is infected with the idea of "progress" in human relations, the idea that all the world wants to be like us Western people. Well, they don't.
Christians in the Arab world come in marvelous varities. Prince Hassan of Jordan did a great job of describing them in his small but learned book, "Christianity in the Arab World."
These Middle Eastern Christians are the remnant of peoples who inhabited and dominated the region before the coming of Islam in the 7th Century AD. Most of the present Muslim population in the Arab countries are descended from Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians who gradually (over centuries) yielded to; social pressure, discriminatory taxation, inferior status before the law, etc. and converted to Islam. Islam treats any conversion from Islam to be apostasy and this usually is thought to be a capital offense under sharia law.
Gradually over the centuries accomodations were reached that allowed Muslims and their dhimmi (religious minority) neighbors to live in peace together so long as the dhimmis understood that they were second class citizens without whatever political power might be enjoyed by Muslims. There were some advantages to "dhimmitude." The minoritues had their own religious courts and were not subject to sharia. they were not subject to military service requirements. In fact it was not allowed until European influence began to seep into these regions. Christians and Jews sometimes had specialized financial service occupations or were advisers to rulers. The king of Morroco is still so advised.
The Ottoman tanziimaat in the 182os and the spread of colonialism introduced the idea of an equality of humans across sectarian lines. In Egypt, the Coptic Christian minority (10%) tended to become Westernized quite rapidly and were advantaged in business and government by the Muhammad Ali dynasty and their British "advisers." Their status and that of the Jews is reflected in literature by the "Alexandria Quartet."
But, always in the background there lurked a deep resentment on the part of the Muslim majority, a feeling that the Copts ahould be put in their place as the kuffar that they were and are. Now the time has come.
This kind of ethno-religious division is commonplace across the contact "line" between Muslims and Christians. It was reflected in the Balkans in the recent past. It is reflected in the never ending sporadic attacks on churches in Pakistan.
The percentage of Christians in the population is steadily falling across the Islamic World. It will continue to do so. pl
A similar chain of events is happening in Mali. I see the Islamists are busy destroying the tombs and shrines of Sufi saints in Timbuktu. I guess we won't see the "Festival Au Desert" in 2013.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 02 July 2012 at 01:23 PM
I had an Episcopalian bishop tell me yesterday that Christians are more discriminated against today than in the past and he mentioned Muslims. What I would like to know is whether it is the more fundamentalists Muslims or if it is more widespread than that?
This has the potential to create a major backlash and since just about the only thing supporting the Muslim world is oil, any diminished use of it will have a major impact on them.
As the old saying goes: Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Posted by: Lars | 02 July 2012 at 01:50 PM
TTG
Yes. The Wahhabi takfiris hate Sufis as much as they do Chhristians. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2012 at 02:58 PM
Are they burning ( or looting for sale) all the centuries-old books as well?
Posted by: different clue | 02 July 2012 at 03:01 PM
Col: The common thread since 9/11 is Wahhabi-funded terror. And yet we act like the Iranians are the greatest threat to peace.
This is so perverse.
Posted by: Matthew | 02 July 2012 at 03:07 PM
They are Wahabi Takfiris; i.e. they believe themselves to be True Muslims.
They destroy those sites since, to them, they reek of idolatory.
They are also against Shia, Sufi, Druze, Ahmadis, Yazidis, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Sabeans, Jains, Budhists, etc.
The Wahabis are the dominant sect in Suadi Arabia and spent the better part of the last 30 years spreading their ideas all over the Sunni world.
Now, apparently, is the time to reap the whirlwind.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 02 July 2012 at 03:13 PM
All:
Several years ago I read on the Internet that the US Government - under George Bush II -had hired the Jewish Agency to depopulate Iran of Jews and Christains.
I am sure it made sense to some people, it did not make sense to me.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 02 July 2012 at 03:16 PM
Lars
"What I would like to know is whether it is the more fundamentalists Muslims or if it is more widespread than that? " Nothing like this in Scaninavia, eh? As I have said here, endlessly, boringly, there are as many forms of Islam and ideas of what it requires as there are Muslims. That is true in spite of the inclination of Muslims to group themselves under the interpraetation of some individual or institution who defines Islam for them. was that helpful? I'll bet it was not. "People" do not want that explanation. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2012 at 03:23 PM
Col. Lang:
In regards to Pakistan:
The sporadic attacks are also against Shia (Pakistani as well as Afghan), Ahmadis, and Hindus.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 02 July 2012 at 03:27 PM
I thought the Israeli government was also doing its best to bribe Jewish Iranians into leaving Iran. Having a Jewish population willingly living in Iran obviously does not support the Likud/Neocon narrative of a dangerously intolerant Iran. George W. was just doing his part to help his Likud/Neocon buddies.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 02 July 2012 at 03:34 PM
Isn't a sizeable portion of the Pakistani population also Sufi? I thought I read of Sufi resistance to Taliban encroachment into their valley villages a while back.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 02 July 2012 at 03:38 PM
A turcopole was a mounted archer of the Ottoman Empire and generally Christian IIRC.
I find it interesting to note that the mostly jewish neocons push for these little adventures and uprisings with little regard of what happens to the people after 'liberty'. If the first thing the Islamists did after coming to power was purge the jews, I imagine we would be at war across the NAME. However its just Christians so instead we've got the nominal leadership of both parties tripping over themselves to see who can be the better lapdog to Israel.
What a shameful state of affairs.
Posted by: Tyler | 02 July 2012 at 04:02 PM
tyler
The military religious orders of the crusader period also had turcopoles. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2012 at 04:07 PM
Babak Makkinejad
The Wahabi Takfiris -are they also resposible for the destruction of the Bhudda Statues in Afghanistan ? Are the Taliban Haqqani network also
Wahabi Takfiris. Does the PRC also have its own wahabi takfiris network insurgency to deal with -perhaps elements of the Uighirs ?
Is there a global response possible he Wahabi takfiris whirlwind you describe ?
Posted by: Alba Etie | 02 July 2012 at 04:20 PM
Col Lang
I have been trying to read up on the Sunni Wahabee revival- in fits & starts . is it possible we could see another Saladin arise out of the whirlwind that Babak desscribes ? Like in the Crusades - is that why al Qa'ida describes Western troops as Crusaders ?
Posted by: Alba Etie | 02 July 2012 at 04:25 PM
There is a Shia response to Wahabi Takfiris.
I am unaware of any other.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 02 July 2012 at 04:40 PM
AE
Many pious Muslims see the world as a moiety between Islam and the West. AQ are not unusual in that. It is in that context thet rhey describe our troops as "crusaders.' For them the wars of faith have not ended. No, there will not be another Saladin. the Islamic world is too weak for such a figure to have much impact. Terrorism is a strategy of the weak, a mere nuisance. Think about the devastation that we have wrought upon the Islamic World as a result of 4,000 odd casualties on 9/11. A greater attack will result in even greater disproportionate destruction. That is what the idiots who rant about the Islamic "threat" do not seem to understand. The West is not going to convert to Islam and they are essentially powerless against us militarily. Nasser would have been a dangerous man, but he lacked the Wehrmacht as a tool. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2012 at 04:43 PM
It would be awhile before Muslims dominate Scandinavia. They would have to learn how to play ice hockey first.
What I am still interested in is how widespread this is within the Muslim community. I also wonder if in the long run they can afford it. I really do not know but there may be some here who know a lot more about it than I do.
Posted by: Lars | 02 July 2012 at 04:48 PM
lars
"how widespread this is..." How widespread what is? A vague feeling of hostility towards the West? A commitment to violent jihadism? There are a billion Musiims. How is anyone supposed to answer either one of your possible qustions? You think there is literature on this? On the basis of questionnaires maybe? One of the favorite "games" in the Arab World consists of lying to people who ask questions like this. The jihadis even have a medievally sanctioned "license" to lie about these matters. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2012 at 04:56 PM
Col Lang
And what of the Erdogan reforms in Turkey ? Will the Turks be proactive in addressing the Egyptian mess if it goes down the path of the wahabee takfiris ? It seems I have read about the Turkish proactive involvement lately in Somalia -and were not Turkish Special Forces some of the first NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 ? Is this an wahabee whirlwind an existenial threat to the USA in any event ? Perhaps the biggest concern is still some Islamist terrorist network delivering a WMD attack here at home - and although horrible would not be a threat to our continuance as a Country ?
(In an earlier thread you made mention of CoL Wilkerson & Sec of State Powell - I have always been more afraid of the Neo Cons and my civil liberties then of vials of anthrax in the hands of terrorist )
Posted by: Alba Etie | 02 July 2012 at 05:04 PM
Funny you should mention a Saladin 'rising' from the Middle East. I've personally wondered if we are due for a Cromwell figure rising in the United States.
Posted by: Tyler | 02 July 2012 at 05:05 PM
What scares me is anthrax in the hand of NeoCons.
Pardon my paranoia, but I still suspect that's what happened in 2001. Who else could have arranged for the FBI to bungle the investigation so effectively?
Posted by: elkern | 02 July 2012 at 06:38 PM
You know, we could go round the houses on the whole theological underpinning of the Wahabi/Takfiri/Salafi mindset, but the most concise answer is that, frankly, they're just c&nts!
Posted by: Lord Curzon | 02 July 2012 at 08:56 PM
Does anybody in Washington really care about the fate of the Middle Eastern Christians?
Certainly not Christian Fundamentalists. They cheered Israel on while Palestinian Christians fled in droves. And what about the Christians of Syria?
Interestingly enough, it appears that Russia Today is about the only news organization covering the plight of Christians in Syria.
As usual, it appears that ME governments that are the United States' friends can do whatever they damn well please, even encourage Christians to leave. If they start to cross the United States, however, beware! You will start to see stories like that in the WaPo.
Middle Eastern Christians have become mere pawns in the great game of demonizing your enemies and protecting you allies.
Posted by: JohnH | 02 July 2012 at 10:06 PM
It was very sad day indeed to see Gen Powell at the UN with that vial selling us all down the NeoCon rabbit hole...
Posted by: Alba Etie | 02 July 2012 at 10:46 PM