The Beslan school siege (also referred to as the Beslan school hostage crisis or the Beslan massacre) was an Islamic terrorist attack that started on 1 September 2004. It lasted three days, and involved the imprisonment of more than 1,100 people as hostages, (including 777 children) ending with the deaths of 334 people, 186 of them children, as well as 31 of the attackers. It is considered one of the largest school shootings / massacres in history. It’s purported motivation was persecution of the Muslim Chechens and Ingus peoples. David Brooks, in a NY Times Op-Ed piece after the massacre, in 2016, wrote the following about the Muslim terrorists: We should be used to this pathological mass movement by now. We should be able to talk about such things. Yet when you look at the Western reaction to the Beslan massacres, you see people quick to divert their attention away from the core horror of this act, as if to say: We don’t want to stare into this abyss. We don’t want to acknowledge those parts of human nature that were on display in Beslan. Something here, if thought about too deeply, undermines the categories we use to live our lives, undermines our faith in the essential goodness of human beings. It should come as no surprise to me — yet it still does — that people have any confidence remaining in idea of the “essential goodness of human beings.” Yet this is perhaps one of the most durable myths of our modern secular age. It underlies both public policy and private perception, and forms the basis of many failed government and social programs. If you have the stomach for it and the honesty to look objectively, even a brief glance at human history both ancient and modern reveals vastly more evidence of the depravity of man than his essential goodness. Consider briefly the following examples: the Inquisition, slavery, Ghengis Kahn, the Holocaust, the Bataan Death March, the Cambodian killing fields, Rwanda, Idi Amin, Columbine, Saddam’s rape rooms and shredders, suicide bombers on school buses and in pizza parlors, the rape of Nanking, the gulags, and Wounded Knee. And these are only the large historical events, easy to bring to mind. Left unmentioned but vastly outnumbering these are the countless murders, rapes, child molesters, serial killings, drug dealing, and any number of other smaller — but still profoundly evil — events which now barely if ever make the news. I am not a misanthrope, and am fully aware of the potential for man to achieve great goodness and nobility. From the selfless volunteer at an inner city school to Mother Theresa, countless examples of such goodness and nobility exist, often hidden and far less noticed than deeds of evil. The issue is about the natural inclination, the deep inner nature of man: is it toward good, or rather toward evil? Your answer to this question profoundly affects your worldview. By taking the position that man is essentially good, you are left with the problem of understanding inexplicable evil, such as torturing school children and shooting them in the back as they flee, as occurred at Beslan. In evil of lesser scope, psychology and social theory are often recruited for this task: the child molester or rapist was abused as a child; inner city crime is a result of racism; the root of terrorism is poverty, injustice, and the oppression of the Palestinians by the Jews. Even there the answers fall short. But could any such combination of social liabilities give rise to such extreme evil, as seen at Beslan or Auschwitz — particularly in beings whose natural bent is toward goodness? The Judeo-Christian viewpoint on man’s essential nature is that man is fallen: created by a good God to be by nature good, but given free will either to submit to the good or to choose evil, as free will is the prerequisite for love. Having rejected the good for personal autonomy independent of God, the natural gravity of the soul is away from God, not toward Him. In God is an unspeakable and unimaginable goodness; in His rejection is the potential for equally unimaginable evil. The Judeo-Christian solution is redemption, not psychology; inner transformation, not social programs. To resist evil, you must know the face of evil, and recognize the face of good. The secularist denies the existence of God (or counts Him or It irrelevant), and therefore all goodness must have its source within man. The religious liberal believes God is good, but impotent, and therefore man is responsible to do the heavy lifting of all good works. The traditional Christian or Jew understands that man, created by God with enormous potential for good, but corrupted by failure to submit to God and therefore by nature far more prone to evil than good. Religious affiliation is an unreliable indicator of good or evil behavior. The combination of evil motives with the compulsion of legalistic religion is a potent and dangerous mix, where men pursue their evil goals under the lash of and laboring for an angry god of their own making. Man’s tendency to evil can be restrained, either by force of law, by force of arms, or ideally by inner transformation, repentance and submission to the power of humility and service. Wishful thinking and false assumptions about the goodness of man prove woefully inadequate for the encroaching and fearsome evil of our current century.
Category: Terrorism
Discussions addressing terrorism
Rewriting History
Elsewhere, I have discussed the nature of the struggle against Islamic terror, and the importance of understanding the religious nature of this war. A commenter pointed out that he was dismayed that I have such a poor understanding of history, and asserted that Christianity and Islam were brothers, and had been so throughout their history. This provided an opportunity to address common misconceptions about Islam, and which have percolated through our culture. Whatever the source of my commenter’s opinions, he is far from alone in these conclusions — which have been widely promulgated in the cultural studies, media, and postmodern history so widespread in our higher education system. The problem I have with such beliefs is not merely one of disagreement based on religious conviction or personal opinion — nor is my position motivated by some blind rage against the Islamic world. The problem is that such opinions rewrite history. In the years since September 11, I have made an effort to familiarize myself with the teachings of Islam, its history, and the historical events which have touched upon it, such as the Crusades. I make no claim to be an expert in such matters — but I have found a number of excellent sources which are both complementary and consistent, and which shatter quite effectively the illusions of Islam as a peaceful religion, happily coexisting for the most part with Christianity, with the exception of a few “excesses” — carried out equally by both sides, of course. Perhaps the most compelling source I’ve read on this subject is Andrew Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad. This book is, quite simply, mandatory reading for anyone wishing to understand the history of jihad in Islam. The author, a physician who set out to understand Islam and the concept of jihad after September 11, went to extraordinary lengths to document primary sources — both from Islam, the writings of those whose lands were conquered and occupied by Islam, Islamic scholars and jurists both ancient and modern writing their interpretations of the Koran pertaining to jihad and the fate of the dhimmis (unbelievers or infidels) under the rule of Islamic conquerors. Many of his source documents were translated from Arabic into English for the first time during his research, and provide an eye-opening glimpse for the non-scholar of jihad from the Islamic perspective. The book is not a screed: there is virtually no editorial opinion, but rather page after page of primary source quotes from Islamic scholars, historians, and ancient documents regarding jihad and the fate of those who were its subjects and victims. It’s 700+ pages, plus an additional 100 pages of footnotes and citations, provide an encyclopedic depiction of this period of history so poorly understood and so commonly misrepresented in our modern age. Bostom cites contemporary historian and scholar Bat Ye’Or in describing much of the current apologetic which whitewashes the history of Islam as: [H]istorical negationism, consisting of suppressing or sketching … one thousand years of jihad which is presented as a peaceful conquest, generally welcomed by the vanquished populations; the omission of Christian and, in particular, Muslim sources describing the actual methods of these conquests: pillage, enslavement, deportation, massacres, and so on; the mythical historical conversion of centuries of peaceful coexistence, masking the processes which transformed majorities into minorities, constantly at risk of extinction; and obligatory self-incrimination for the Crusades. Bostom shows in extraordinary detail how the principle of jihad — holy war against the infidel — was not an aberration, but is rather an institutional part of Islam from its very beginning. He details, for example, the laws of Islamic governance of those conquered under jihad, citing the Islamic historian al Mawadi, writing in 1058 A.D., who summarized the principles now understood as dhimmitude, as follows: The native infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership of the land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya)). The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation, under one of two conditions: Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, however it does not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future. Payment is made yearly and will constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established. Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years. The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector. The collector remains seated while the infidel stands in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally was to place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks. The poll tax was demanded from children, widows, orphans, and even the dead. Tax collectors were accompanied by soldiers, inspectors, surveyors, and money changers who were paid, fed, and lodged for several days at the taxpayers’ expense. Punishment and torture were commonly used by tax collectors to complete the task: people were hung, flogged, crushed under presses, thrown naked into icy water and prevented from escaping by soldiers on the shore until they froze to death. Onerous taxation, combined with indebtedness to Muslim creditors, forced Christian and Jewish peasants to abandon their mortgaged lands to their Muslim overlords, and go into exile or become slaves. Vanquished infidels were prohibited from owning arms; church bells were forbidden; restoration and building of churches, synagogues and temples was prohibited. Muslims and non-Muslims were not treated equally with regard to taxation and penal law: infidels could not seek redress in court, nor testify against a Muslim. Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslim’s had to wear special identifying clothing, hang heavy wooden crosses around their necks in public, and suffer countless other humiliations — which were institutionalized as permanent strictures of Islamic law. The unbeliever’s house could not be built higher than a Muslim’s;…