CP Politics

Saturday, May 23, 2015

How Historic Revisionism Justifies Islamic Terrorism

October 31, 2013|10:31 am

How important, really, is history to current affairs? Do events from the 7th century-or, more importantly, how we understand them-have any influence on U.S. foreign policy today?

By way of answer, consider some parallels between academia's portrayal of the historic Islamic jihads and the U.S. government's and media's portrayal of contemporary Islamic jihads.

While any objective appraisal of the 7th century Muslim conquests proves that they were just that-conquests, with all the bloodshed and rapine that that entails-the historical revisionism of modern academia, especially within Arab and Islamic studies departments, has led to some portrayals of the Muslim conquerors as "freedom-fighters" trying to "liberate" the Mideast from tyrants and autocrats. (Beginning to sound familiar?)



Of course, before the Islamic "liberator" thesis had become mainstream, historians such as Alfred Butler, author of The Arab Conquest of Egypt, had this to say about it:

Even in the most recent historians it will be found that the outline of the story [of the 7th century conquest of Egypt] is something as follows:… that the Copts generally hailed them [Muslims] as deliverers and rendered them every assistance; and that Alexandria after a long siege, full of romantic episodes, was captured by storm. Such is the received account. It may seem presumptuous to say that it is untrue from beginning to end, but to me no other conclusion is possible. (emphasis added; pgs. iv-v).

In fact, one of the major themes throughout Butler's Arab Conquest of Egypt-which, published in 1902, is heavily based on primary sources, Arabic and Coptic, unlike more modern secondary works that promote the Islamic "liberator" thesis-is that "there is not a word to show that any section of the Egyptian nation viewed the advent of the Muslims with any other feeling than terror" (p. 236).


Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiu [along the Nile]… seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches-men, women, and children, sparing nobody. Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found…. But let us say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed…"

Nonetheless, today's accepted narratives do not come from antiquated historians or primary historical texts; they come from the Saudi-funded ivory league- Berkeley, Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Harvard, Princeton, etc.-all of which peddle pro-Islamic propaganda (I personally had direct experience at Georgetown), including the "freedom loving jihadis" vs. "oppressive tyrants" thesis.


Put differently, the Islamic terrorists waging jihad against autocratic (but secular, religiously tolerant) governments-most notably in Syria today-are easily portrayed in the West as "freedom fighters" against oppressive tyrants and thus deserving of U.S. support in great part because this motif has permeated the social consciousness of America-as molded by Hollywood and the news rooms-thanks to the academic distortion of events that took place nearly fourteen centuries ago.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Islamic "freedom fighters" are slaughtering, raping, beheading, persecuting and plundering-just as they have been for nearly fourteen centuries.

That is the only unwavering constant in this sad story.

Source URL : http://www.christianpost.com/news/how-historic-revisionism-justifies-islamic-terrorism-107816/