JUNK HISTORY
By Mark Glenn
Next to "junk science," one of whose claims is that
the earth is warming to the point that we will all be
burned to a crisp within just a few years, the one
thing that I hate most about the age in which we live,
an age that renders little to no critical thinking as
pertains important issues, is the area of "junk
history." There are, more so today than at any other
time I think, a few things that invariably pop up in
discussions that demonstrate just how easy it is to
sway a society's thinking on a given topic with only a
few well placed and misleading items repeated over and
over again.
As someone who taught history for many years, I cannot
describe how irritating it is to hear that Abraham
Lincoln fought the Civil War in order to free the
slaves, that FDR saved this country from the Great
Depression, that the first amendment to the US
Constitution guarantees the right to publish
pornography, and that "assault weapons" have been the
greatest source of crime and violence in the US during
the last century. And yet, it is easy to see how
well-intentioned people, who have not yet grasped the
extent to which they have surrendered to media and
government types the ability to think for themselves,
can buy into these notions. They are packaged very
cleverly, with bits and pieces of information that are
verifiably true. And let's not forget to consider
those mouthpieces doing the convincing-very
impressive. All kinds of advanced degrees from this
school or another, a book tour, a radio or tv show,
you name it.
Although a little late in the debate, nothing
exemplifies the topic of junk history better than the
made-formass consumption notions concerning Islam and
its relationship to the "Judeo-Christian West," and
the fact that since September 11, we in the US have
been treated to a daily dose of propaganda surrounding
this topic that has obviously led to momentous
policies, in particular, the perpetual war in the
Middle East.
From the beginning that "they," the architects and
authors of this junk history, decided that the Muslims
were going to take the fall for the events of that
day, (justly or not) we have been served a buffet of
lies surrounding the religion of Islam and its history
with the West. Not just out of government mouthpieces,
but virtually the entire "conservative" talk show
parade as well as almost every big-name Christian
evangelist. Their message has been common and crude:
The religion of Islam teaches hatred for all other
faiths, most notably the Christian and Judaic. They
point to history as proof of this, citing the "fury"
with which the Muslims swept across the Mediterranean
lands, forcing the conversion of Christians and Jews
at the point of a sword. And now, these sirens
maintain, they are attempting it again.
This is a theme over which I am constantly battling
with the peoples in my circle. For the purposes of
posterity I must reveal here that I am not a Muslim,
but a conservative Catholic. By a conservative
Catholic, I hold to the notion that there is only one
faith, and therefore one would assume that it would be
in my interest, given these leanings, to jump on that
same religion bashing bandwagon that many of my
coreligionists have. The problem is that it would be a
lie for me to maintain such a notion, as much as it
would be a lie for me to maintain that it is illegal
to possess a bible in public school, due to the
restraints placed on religion by the first amendment,
a notion, like those presently spewed against Islam,
that has been illicitly conceived and perpetrated for
the purposes of misinforming the public in pursuit of
another agenda. According to the readings I have done,
(and I have done more than a few) the facts concerning
the Muslims are these.
1. Within the religion of Islam, Christians and Jews
are not considered "infidels" as we have been led to
believe. In fact, a cursory study of the Quran will
reveal that Christians and Jews are referred to as
"peoples of the book," since we are all monotheistic
and trace our roots back to Abraham. The term
"infidels" is reserved for pagans, or those who do not
believe in the One God.
2. Christians and Muslims were not "converted by the
sword" as is commonly taught and believed. Christians
and Jews were allowed to keep and practice their
religion within those areas where the Muslims had
gained hegemony. Indeed, it was in the interest of the
various Muslim leaders and other secular authorities
to keep it this way, since non-Muslims were taxed at a
higher rate than Muslims. Obvious proof of this
tolerance exists today in the fact that in many
Islamic countries, including Iraq, Syria, Jordan,
Turkey, and Lebanon, there are millions of Christians,
and who knows how many churches.
3. The conquest of Islam was not a conquest of
religion, but, rather, was done in the same vein as
were many of the Crusades, i.e., a conquest initiated
for the acquisition of territory and political power.
In fact, many of the Arabs that fought within the
Muslim armies in these wars of conquest were
Christians and Jews.
4. The conquest of lands that had been Christian was
not the blood-soaked struggle it has been taught to
have been. Due to dynastic infighting within the
Christian lands over who would rule, as well as
problems involving the incompetence, high taxes and
corruption within many of the Christian governments,
the Christian subjects themselves many times welcomed
the Muslim invaders who promised them lower and fairer
taxes, more efficiency, and more stability.
5. Those particular passages of the Quran that deal
negatively with the Christian religion deal
pecifically with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It
is due to the complete devotion to monotheism that the
Muslims view the idea of 3 persons to be contradictory
and unacceptable. These items are not difficult to
find. Get yourself a history book on the subject, and
irrespective of the religious affiliation of the
writer, (excepting those authors with the last names
of Falwell, Swaggert, Graham, Wolfowitz, Perle,
Limbaugh, Savage, or Sharon) the information will be
about the same. There are other items for my Christian
friends to consider here as well.
-In many Muslim countries, it is illegal to profane
the name of Jesus or of his Blessed Mother. Further,
one should consider that in several countries within
the Christian West, movies made depicting Jesus in a
blasphemous way have been shut down because of the
public outrage exhibited by, not the Christians, but
the Muslims.
-The Muslims believe in the Virgin Conception of
Christ and venerate his Blessed Mother more so than do
most Christians, particularly those of the Protestant
faiths.
-The Muslims believe in the miracles of Christ,
including his raising of the dead, healing the sick
and blind, and that he was the greatest of all
Prophets.
-Mohammed, the founder of Islam, considered Christians
to be the greatest of friends to the Muslims, for in
his words, the Christians were "free from pride, and
had priests and monks among them."
There is enough evidence lying around that even the
most barely educated among us should be able to see
that this "Islamic hatred of everyone not Islamic" is
a sham. The mouthpieces who claim this fail to
consider (or reveal) many glaringly obvious pieces of
evidence. They would like us to believe that there is
something organic about Islam that makes it seek to
dominate the "Judeo-Christian" West. So let's just do
a short run of some evidence that reveals this as a
fallacy.
Firstly, there hasn't been a war between the Muslims
and the West for many centuries. Even more
importantly, since it was in the US that the attacks
of 9/11 happened, consider this: From 1776 until
September 11, 2001, there were roughly 10 major wars
that involved the US and a foreign power: The American
War for Independence, The Quasi War, The War of 1812,
The Mexican War, The Spanish American War, WWI,WWII,
Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War.
Based on this short list, it looks to me like we were
fighting Christian nations, (excepting Iraq, whom we
attacked first) and that we weren't attacked by the
Muslims once. True, there was this issue with pirates
from Libya attacking American ships after 1776, but it
was an issue of piracy, and not an attempt to forcibly
convert the nascent American nation to the religion of
Mohammed. Many would say to these things, "So what?
The war is over now, what good does it do us to hash
over all this now?" To which I would say
1. You're a fool if you think that it is all over. It
is just beginning, and
2. Even if it were all over, your reluctance to learn
the truth, truth that would have prevented you and the
rest of this nation from being conned by a bunch of
propagandists is nothing more than an attempt to hide
your willful ignorance, as well as an attempt to
pretend that you had nothing to do with the
prosecution of an illegal and imperialist war that has
wrecked the lives of millions of people today, as well
as millions more tomorrow.
So why do we hash over all this now? Because what
people believe leads to policies being enacted, and
when people believe lies, as in the case of junk
history, disastrous consequences can occur. The fact
that we have attacked another nation that has not
attacked us, destroyed its government and
infrastructure, laid waste to its institutions, caused
incalculable suffering to innocent men, women, and
children, and that one of the pretenses offered in
justifying this action was this non-existent war
between Islam and the Christian West that began in the
7th century and has gone on ever since should indicate
to everyone involved that there is great danger to be
found in believing junk history, although, in this
case, it would be better to categorize the current
propaganda not as junk history, but rather as just
plain garbage.
My advice to fellow Christians in the US would be
this: Turn off Peter Jennings, Falwell, Robertson,
Limbaugh, and Hannity, get yourself a few decent
history books, and try thinking for yourself for a
change.
Mark Glenn is an American Catholic of Lebanese
descent, the father of 6, and a former school teacher,
having taught, American History, History of Western
Civilization, as well as the Latin, Italian, French,
and Spanish languages. This is his first literary
work, which occurred by complete accident during the
days preceding and following the second Gulf War. His
works have now appeared on over 80 websites dedicated
to political discussion concerning the Middle East, as
well as a half dozen printed publications. He lives
with his family in the American Northwest wherein he
plans to continue his writing and speaking out against
the injustices wrought against his fellow man,
wherever it may occur.
