Since September 11th, Muslims have been troubled by the question of why we (Kafirs) hate them.
As my previous post explained, in one sense Western attitudes are understandable. Is not the unconquered territory of the West the Dar al-Harb or the House of War while the region which has accepted God's commands is the Dar al-Islam or the House of Islam (of submission/Law/Salaam/Peace). Is it not logical that we unconquered outlaws would hate the Realm of Law.
But perhaps there's more to it. Perhaps the "Kafir Street" has a long memory.
When the Prophet died in 632 A.D., the Arabian Peninsula was not occupied by foreign oppressors (foreign oppressors have generally sought lusher territory). The Children of the Prophet were being left in peace. And yet in the 120 years following 632, Muslim armies attacked and conquered two-thirds of Christendom including 3 of that faith's 5 holiest cities.
In those days, the Christian World consisted of the ring of settled land around the Mediterranean. Britain was not fully converted. Germany, Scandinavia, and Russia were not in the church. The Five Archbishoprics of the Ancient Church: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome were the spiritual centers of the Faith.
In a rapid and unprovoked series of attacks, the House of Peace conquered Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia. Then in succession Iran, Tripoli, Cyprus, and Armenia. Muslim naval forces destroyed the Byzantine fleet and occupied Sicily. Islamic armies put Constantinople under siege for seven years. North Africa (including Carthage), Spain, and the Sind (India/Pakistan) came under Muslim control. Later Central Asia and the northern half of India were subjugated.
In the course of this campaign, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch were captured. Constantinople held out until 1453. Churches were converted into mosques. Over time, Muslim rule was extended along the sea lanes of Southeast Asia as far as the southern Philippines. Kafirs recaptured Spain by 1492 but the other conquests remained remarkably stable. Perhaps we infidels are still upset over those military losses.
Now recently various academics and progressives (but I repeat myself) have complained about how bad the Crusades were. Such analysts neglect the fact that they were a response to Muslim aggression. They attacked Christendom first and conquered big chunks of it -- not the other way around.
Then there's the issue of discrimination against Christians (and all other non-Muslim faiths) which may rankle. There are mosques in Canterbury, Rome, Geneva, and Moscow (even Salt Lake City). But there are no churches (or Synagogues) in all of Saudi Arabia. Priests in the Sudan are prohibited from possessing communion wine. Pakistani Christians are regularly executed for their faith. Maybe the Kafir Street merely seeks to redress this invidious discrimination in the same way that the EEOC does in the US.
Or maybe it's the general human rights problems of the Dar al-Islam. Europe abolished slavery by around 1200 or so. The European colonies (including us) abolished it by the middle of the 19th century. Saudi Arabia abolished it in 1962. Sudan has been too busy killing its black population for the last 40 years to get around to abolishing it at all. The Arabian peninsula imported more black African slaves over the years than North America did. The descendents of our slaves are called the Secretary of Defense, etc. Where are the descendents of Saudi Arabia's slaves? And forget about the status of women -- the Dar al-Islam certainly has.
But perhaps the answer is even simpler. Perhaps Kafirs hate their enemies. It is axiomatic that if war is declared, one is at war. War was declared on the Kafirs of the world in 1996. The Kafirs didn't pay much attention for a while (which must have been very upsetting to some) but finally the message got through.
Hatred of one's enemies is easy to understand. It's something that brings all of mankind together.
