The New Muslim Anti-Semitism
A reader e-mailed me the following fascinating article at the Jerusalem Post. The subject of the article is the treatment of Jews throughout Islamic history and how Muslim attitudes towards Jews have changed in the 20th century.
The overall point is that for a long time, Jews were treated much better in the Islamic world than they were in Christian Europe. Yes, Jews and Christians were second class citizens, and yes, they had to recognize the authority of Islam, but they were a ‘protected people’ “who enjoyed security of life and property, religious freedom, freedom from forced conversion, communal autonomy, and equality in the marketplace.”
They were restricted in what they could and couldn’t do, but they were far more secure in the Muslim world than they were in the Christian world. Not only that, they could - and did - prosper financially and they could worship God as they saw fit.
It was considerably better for a Jew to live in the Muslim world than in Europe.
Of course, it wasn’t all peace and harmony all the time.
In the Muslim world, Jews retained for centuries their substantial security as well as their recognized place in the natural hierarchical social order. They did so by acknowledging, at least by their behavior in public, the superiority of Islam, by adhering to the prescribed restrictions of Islamic law, by paying an annual head tax called jizya, and by refraining from serving in government offices, where they might be in a position of superiority over Muslims. To be sure, there were periodic outbursts of violence, though they were almost always directed against dhimmis as a category, and not against Jews per se. These excesses occurred when the dhimmis were seen to be violating the terms of the dhimma arrangement; or when a particular ruler was pressured by Muslim clerics - the ulama - to crack down on the violators; or when Islam as a polity came under attack from the outside, as happened from the late 11th century on during the Crusades (the Crusade against the Muslims in the Holy Land and the Crusade to reconquer Spain from the Muslims) and during the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.
Jews were, however, rarely forced to convert to Islam (the Koran forbids compulsion in religion) and, with two major exceptions proving the rule, they were not expelled from Muslim lands. One expulsion took place in the Hijaz, the holy sanctuary of Arabia that includes Mecca and Medina, shortly after the death of the Prophet, and the other, in Yemen in the 17th century.
AGAIN, TO understand the relatively decent Jewish-Muslim relations in the medieval period, one needs to contrast them with the Christian world, where, from about the 12th century on, Jews were subject to a shaky adherence to an older commitment to protect the Jews and to guarantee their freedom of religion, as well as their liberty to practice any economic walk of life they wished - all of these things, of course, a function of time and place and the policies of particular secular rulers or the Church.
In Christian society, moreover, hostility was focused on one, “evil” non-Christian group, the Jews, paving the way for what was to become - beginning in the 12th century - anti-Semitism, understood as a religiously-based complex of irrational, mythical, and stereotypical beliefs about the diabolical, malevolent, and all-powerful Jew, later on infused, in its modern, secular form, with racism and the belief that there is a Jewish conspiracy against mankind.
But, “anti-Semitism did not exist in the medieval Muslim world. It did not make its appearance there until the 19th century, when it was fostered by European Christian missionaries living in the Middle East.”
Another beautiful export product of the West, you could say.
The author of the article, Mark R. Cohen - professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University - then goes on to explain that the kind of anti-Antisemitism we see in the Middle (and Near) East today is “an Islamized version of its Christian roots.”
Jewish-Muslim relations have been degraded because:
Jews and Muslims got along better in the Middle Ages than they do today. But the co-existence of Jews and Muslims in the Middle Ages could not easily be maintained in the modern era. Colonial disruption of Muslim society, conflicting nationalisms, Arab belief that Zionism is just another form of European colonialism robbing them of their own right to self-determination in a modern state, and Jewish fear that Arab and Muslim enmity - and more recently, terrorism - might lead to something akin to another Holocaust…
Of course there’s another thing he should have mentioned, namely the existence of Israel. Yes, this too has played a role: it’s a Dhimmie country in the Muslim world. In Israel, Muslims have to accept the Jewish authority. That’s new in Islamic history, and Muslims have to find a way to deal with it. But there’s more to it than that, though, there’s also the fact that quite some Jews in the Diaspora support the Armenians in their quest to get the world to accept their version of what happened in 1915 as true. This, at least, causes many Turkish Muslims but also Azeris to believe that ‘Jews’ are out to destroy their country.
But the overall story stands: Muslims didn’t hate Jews for centuries. Jews were living secure and prospered in the Middle and Near East for ages. Hatred for Jews is something new there, it was inspired (almost invented) by Christian missionaries and colonists. This doesn’t mean that we can ignore the anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, but if they were living together peacefully once, they should be able to do so again.
Read Cohen’s entire article: he also deals with Jews living in the West who have created the myth that Jews have been persecuted in the Muslim world from the get-go. Well worth your time.
that is true, Michael.
I personally witnessed this even in the USSR.
I was born in the one of the Muslim republics on the south, and lived there until i was 27, the only time i personally (rarely) encountered that ugly disease happened from my contacts with non-Muslim population in that republic .
But when I moved to Moscow to continue my carrier in the biochemistry research, i was stunned how drastically that all changed. While I would say that the majority of population was still tolerant, the cases and restrictions of anti-semitism increased exponentially.
I would agree with the author that Israel is one of the reasons, plus many Arab rulers allied themselves or have got influenced by the fascist Germany (was Turkey a member of axis?) .
Another personal observation/opinion.-
Armenians had much more anti-Semitism in the past then any Muslim neighboring countries. The attitudes and realignment happened much later ( when they considered themselves being a persecuted nation as well-solidarity). There was an old joke in USSR.:
Armenian father tells his kids to be good to Jews and save them from persecution, cause when they will finish with Jews they will start with Armenians…
My God. No. It kept itself from the war (logically considering that only 20 years before, the ‘allies’ had done their very best to destroy Turkey, while Turkish leaders on the other hand - especially Atatürk - despised Hitler and his regime), but then sided with the allies.
"the Koran forbids compulsion in religion"
The statement in the article puzzles. The Koran has passages that explicitly say that non-Muslims should be converted or killed. If that’s not compulsion, the word has no definition. Now, I can understand if the modern Muslim interprets those passages as an artifact of the dispensation of the time (though I understand that Muslims do not have "dispensations" as Christians do with the Bible), but that doesn’t mean the passages don’t exist.
Jimmie actually, the Koran has a provision for allowing people of other faiths to live under Muslim rule, as long as all able-bodied men pay the jizya, a tax. No Muslim may be under the rule of a non-Muslim however, but the rule isn’t neccesarily convert or die.
Of course many verses in the Koran DO seem to imply those are the options, but then I don’t see why Muslims can’t ignore vast swaths of their holy book at their convenience, just as Jews and Christians do, and as many Turkish Muslims do. These ancient civilizations are proof that Islam is not irrevocably tied to anti-semitism and violence, though it’s probably more militaristic in doctrine than other faiths. This means of course that a Muslim, in order to be willing to live in a modern and civilized society, probably has to ignore a greater proportion of his or her book than your average Christian or Jew. Still, it can happen. In fact, let’s hope it starts happening fast.
Jimmie, frankly only one with little knowledge about the Islamic empires can say anything like that if it’s the ‘honest truth.’ I respect you, but you’re way off base with this one. Have you actually read the Koran? I’ve done so, and I’ve found that although it can be interpreted in many different ways, it’s not half as violent as some like Spencer say if interpreted in its correct context.
More, throughout Muslim history it has been interpreted as Lynx argues: that people of other faiths are inferior, but allowed to live as they please (according to their religion) and that they can prosper. In fact, Christians and Jews had their own laws in the Ottoman Empire for instance.
Contrary to popular opinion, it wasn’t normal for people to be converted by force. European Christians did that, Muslims didn’t.
Lynx: have you read the Koran? In its entirety? If so, I don’t see how anyone can say that they have to ignore more than Christians and Jews have to. Seriously. That’s quite simply not true.
I have not. It’s next on my list, after I finish the bible. Since I’m taking the words of others in saying that the Koran is more militaristic in approach than other holy books, I’ll take it back until I read the book myself. The fact remains though that all modern societies have to ignore important chunks of their holy books in order to function. If jews kept all the rules of the Torah (much of which I HAVE read) Israel would never function as a modern state. I think it’s unfair to suppose Muslims are incapable of doing the same thing Christians and Jews have already (mostly) done.
Lynx: sure. Read it, I’d say. You know what I thought when reading it? That it shows remarkable similarities with the Old Testament, although it’s written much more beautifully (if you’re interested in literature, go read the Koran).
The fact remains though that all modern societies have to ignore important chunks of their holy books in order to function.
If we all tried to live by Leviticus, North Korea would look like a free society in comparison.
Michael,
I haven’t read the Koran so I don’t know if my impression is accurate (I’m sincerely interested in your opinion since you’ve more experience in comparison between Christianity and Islam) but here’s how I see differences in the three religions and their various Scriptures:
For most modern Jews, the Scriptures simply aren’t treated the same way they are in the other two religions. They are, I think, seen as more historical and thus many of the laws and prohibitions aren’t seen as necessary or legitimate today.
For Christians, the difference is that we see Christ as having completely changed the ‘law’ by fulfilling it. We don’t live by the Old Testament because we have a new covenant established by Christ. Although still obviously open to interpretation, there is a filter through which to view the OT and to better understand it, and to better understand the relationship between God and man.
For Islam, it seems to me like they’re generally more like Old Testament Jews (this is where I invite your comment, Michael- am I wrong to think this?) I know that some moderate Muslims aren’t like that, and I imagine Turkey has quite large numbers like that (as does the US, I think.) But in many of the Muslim majority countries, my impression is that the beliefs still require strict adherence to religious laws, much as the Jews of the Old Testament did. I think to whatever degree I’m correct about this, it probably has more to do with the culture and political development of the country (whether or not political systems and cultural traditions have evolved to keep law and order, which then allow the religious laws to be relaxed) than with the religion itself.
Really? You do realize that many Jews live quite strictly according to the letter of the Torah, no? With ‘this’ isn’t allowed, that ‘is’ allowed, etc.?
Yes, but that’s an interpretation dating back to Paul and after that only in the last few centuries, especially in the 20th. That has been different, though, for some 1500 years.
It’s true. The question is, in how far live they in accordance with those rules, in how far are their views influenced by recent developments (of Muslim countries being colonized for instance), etc.
I think that the question should not be whether people are very strict in their own lives, but whether they support Sharia law in public. Some do, others don’t (in Turkey, there’s virtually no one who supports it, in Iran the situation is different, in Saudi Arabia as well).
Remember though: Islam is 800 years the junior of Christianity. Go back 800 years in Christianity’s past.
No, I disagree with you about Christianity- it may be true that it wasn’t completely understood until later, but Christ’s teachings themselves from the Gospels provide the basis for overturning the strict OT laws.
Just as the Koran’s other teachings provide the basis for overturning extremist laws and views.
Read it first, then comment
?? I wasn’t saying anything about the Koran or Islam in that comment- just disagreeing with your assertion that the ‘overturning’ in Christianity came much later and only because of Paul’s writings.
To me it just makes a difference theologically, that Christ was the reason for overturning the old laws. Don’t you agree that this is different than people just beginning to interpret things differently?
No, because that’s exactly what happened in Christianity. You seem to have no idea how Christianity was taught and understood for centuries. It was all about interpretation: what do you focus on, how do you interpret more violent and intolerant passages? That’s what it’s about with Christianity and that’s what it’s about with Islam. In both cases it’s about emphasis and explanation of the holy book.
The Koran and the Bible have a similarity: it’s very much possible to interpret both in a very peaceful and tolerant manner. The main difference is that for the biggest part of its existence the Koran has indeed been interpreted in that way, whereas the Bible has been interpreted for the longest history of Christianity in a intolerant and aggressive manner.
What I’m trying to say is that for me personally it makes a tremendous difference that in Christianity there is a specific reason that the laws changed- and that this reason was a very direct revelation from God. Our whole relationship and understanding of God changed- it wasn’t just as though the old laws had outlived their usefulness or that people decided to interpret them in different ways. There was actually a revelation which explained why those old laws were no longer necessary for men to approach God in that fashion. Justice was understood in the context of God’s mercy and sacrifice of His own Son (who taught us to turn the other cheek, not ‘an eye for an eye’.) And with God creating a new covenant through Christ, the laws of the Old Covenant concerning purification and animal sacrifice, for example, were no longer part of our approach to God.
You seem to think I’m arguing that Islam can’t similarly be interpreted in a peaceful manner and I’ve said no such thing. But to me, when it is done in Islam it’s more in the manner that the Jews do with the OT, instead of being like the Christian understanding of why change came.
And no, I still do not agree with you about the gradual understanding that took place through the centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Just because it took time for the understanding to sink in doesn’t mean it’s as you imply, that it was just the creation of man. It’s not that I’m ignorant of the history of Christian theology, it’s just that I don’t accept it as though it wasn’t true revelation (which seems implied in your statements, correct me if I’m wrong but that’s how I read your comments.)
C. Stanley, even if your assertion is true, the fact still remains that what your holy texts happen to say does not neccesarily influence what your society is like.
Let’s suppose that in fact doctrine after the time of Jesus really did teach things utterly incompatible with modern society. I personally have seen some very clear verses regarding how women are under men, and should defer to their husbands in the NEW Testament. However, that hasn’t stopped the Christian world from having the Enlightenment and progressing to a tolerant and liberal society.
Now lets suppose you’re entirely correct, and in fact the New Testament is totally in line with an ideal, humane society. That hasn’t stopped hundreds of years of inequality, bloodshed, slavery and subjugation of women and minorities, often under the auspices and justified by religious authorities.
If you change to Islam you can see how, if you suppose the book is essentially more militaristic and violent, that didn’t stop ancient Islamic societies from being more tolerant places than their Christian contemporaries, despite their supposed "superior" holy text. Likewise, if the Koran is taken to essentially espouse the "religion of Peace" that doesn’t change the fact that the current Islamic world (most of it) is anything BUT merciful and peaceful, despite the fact that it claims doctrine as the reason for being that way.
The upshot is that whether or not your holy text is nicer seems to be a secondary matter to how you behave as a society.
Lynx: I’d argue that you haven’t read enough to understand the context of those verses about women’s roles. And yes, of course it matters whether or not the ‘book’ is read correctly and practiced correctly, but isn’t it important to start with the correct approach and then keep pulling people back to that when they go astray?
The problem with issues like women’s roles is that you are comparing to your own idea of the ideal- which isn’t necessarily what we were created to me.
I’ve got to run unfortunately- will have to continue later.
Two points to add to the debate.
1) The link to the article didn’t include the comments attached, here is that link.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517277167&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
2) IMO - The comments from Israel are more moderate than the comments from Western Europe and the US. The likes of Robert Spenser originate in the West and not Israel. I believe this to be true, I’ve read JP and Haaretz(more) and generally found my second comment to be true.
Israel
USA
Christine it seems to me that you don’t get that what you say:
Is again a matter of interpretation and emphasis. Again, it wasn’t taught like that for 1500 years. Now, I agree with you that this is the correct way to interpret it, but more Popes than not would’ve considered you a heretic.
Not at all. It’s exactly the same actually. Although a difference will always be that Muslims will believe that behavior is more important than faith, or just as important, whereas Christians nowadays believe the opposite.
That’s now I interpret it as well, but that’s not how it has been interpreted for over 1500 years.
Also: you talk about the Koran, but you haven’t read it you admit. First read it, then argue
I’m a bit kidding, but also a bit serious actually: it opened my eyes in so far that it convinced me that the differences are there, obviously, but that they’re not as big in this regard as some seem to believe.
The subject being how one treats religious minorities: the basis is there for tolerance, in fact Islam has always been tolerant. That has changed for the worse in the last 2 centuries or so, mostly because Christians suddenly started occupying Muslim lands.
Yes, but in the debate about the future of Islam it’s important to look at foundations. Christianity had no foundation to be reformed as it was except for the Bible itself and the creativity of great minds. Islam has the Koran for reforms like that, like Christians had the Bible but it also has a long history of tolerance. Christianity did not have that.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that Islam will change significantly again in 200 years time. In fact, there’s little doubt in my mind that Europe will be weak 200 years from now, while the Middle East will have rebuild itself, with tolerance and peace.
Really? How’s that? And: it has been interpreted very differently until well into the 20th century. Are you saying that all our ancestors were wrong? If so, I’ve studied on this subject and it’s crystal clear to me that both interpretations can easily be defended.
And context? Funny how that doesn’t apply to the Koran according to quite some people huh?
Christine, I am not pretending to know much about religion ( I grew up in the atheist environment ) but I think Michael and Linx are essentially correct. It is a matter of the interpretation .
Bible has been used both to spread love tolerance and on the other hand wars and oppression.
Now as Michael mentioned, Christianity is 800 years older then Islam, and Christianity went through the transformations Islam still has to go through and it is actually doing it right now trying to conform to modern times.
I am sure the future of it will be as great as the future of Christianity, right now it having it’s birth pangs ( using C.Rice expression here )
Sashal,
That’s essentially what Reza Aslan argues in his great book "No god but God." He says that Islam is going through a reformation and that it could very well get a lot worse before it ever gets better.
I think the West’s best long term bet is to stay out of their internal struggles. Share our culture and ideas, but don’t try to force anything (we don’t want to breed more resentment).
Think about the Soviet Union. It might be a myth, but I think there is at least some truth to the idea that the Soviet citizens were jealous of how good we had it in the United States, Britain and France. I don’t get that vibe from the angry muslim types. My guess is that they’d likely be jealous of us and want to emulate us if they didn’t feel that our success has been at their expense. Like propping up dictators for stable access to oil.
It’s more complicated than that, but there is some truth to it imo.
Think about the Soviet Union. It might be a myth, but I think there is at least some truth to the idea that the Soviet citizens were jealous of how good we had it in the United States,-Chris
That is interesting.
When the general population of the USSR in the first years after the revolution was mainly poor, most were ideologically supportive of the ideas of communism ( everybody was equally poor but happy and enthusiastic in the anticipation of the great future ).
In the 70th-80th due to oil exports and increased individual wealth of good chunk of Soviet citizens, consumerism became an obsession, western higher quality goods became to penetrate USSR markets,etc,etc,.
USA had won the cold war , and one of the fields the victory has happened was in the minds of the average soviet citizen, when they finally got fed up with communist Utopia (western goods, movies,Voice of America radio, higher standards of living etc…)
Michael #20 and #21: Once again, where did I EVER say that Islam shouldn’t also be judged the same way that I ask people to judge Christianity? You continue to argue against me as though I’m overly critical about Islam, but you haven’t addressed the ONE distinction that I’m making here (that I think the interpretation issue for Islam is more like it is for Judaism, one of discarding historical laws or interpreting them in a modern context, instead of having a whole new filter for understanding God’s commands differently. Do you really not understand the difference? I have, as you say, admitted that my knowledge of Islam isn’t broad at all- but I’m ASKING you if you can show me anything similar to the HUGE change that Christology makes. No, I’m sorry, I don’t have the time or the interest to read the entire Koran, and I assume that reading excerpts from it will only be confusing. So, I thought that since you are someone who knows the Christian theology and is also beginning to explore Islam, that perhaps you could share some information that you’ve learned. If there is some similar thing which made Islam become open to new understanding of the relationship between God and man, then I don’t know what it could be. If not, then how am I wrong to compare the development of modern, moderate Islam to that of Judaism?
Also, Michael, you often point out that Islam has a history of tolerance because they were more enlightened in that regard than were the Christians of the same time period. I think that’s absolutely correct, yet the tolerance they showed then is less enlightened than the Western/Christian tolerance toward other religions is today. It’s quite correct to judge by the standards of the time. But then using that same yardstick, you could also say that the New Testament attitudes toward women were quite enlightened for their time- Christ was somewhat of a feminist by the standards of the day.
sashal: I have never disputed that it’s extremely important to judge people’s actions and to acknowledge that people can interpret ALL religious texts in ways that twist the goodness of them. What I’m trying to say though is that I still think of all the texts involved, the New Testament is much less prone to that because it doesn’t have nearly as many references to violence being righteous as do the OT and the Koran. There are just a few isolated verses where Jesus refers to ‘turning father against son’ or similar things- but in context it’s pretty obvious that he’s just saying that each individual has to be willing to always put God first, even before family.
IOW, no matter how much you insist that people twist all of the religious texts, it still matters whether the text itself really advocates violence or oppression. It’s like the US: we could say that our Constitution isn’t good because it didn’t prohibit slavery, or we could say that that particular deviance was an aberration and the document itself is one of the best proscriptions for a just society.
On the "how is that" question, it’s critical to understand the whole theology of the roles of women and men- that we were created to have equal dignity, but to have distinct gender characteristics and somewhat distinct roles. That doesn’t mean it has to relegate women to simply being child bearers, but the fact that women were created to BE the child bearers certainly implies something about God’s plan for us. Similarly, you can see obvious differences between temperaments and other characteristics between the genders, and I think our modern secular society tries too hard to pretend that those don’t exist. It’s fine to say that there are exceptions, that some women fit better into traditionally male roles and vice versa- and also of course, it’s good to allow women to develop all of their potential including education and careers, but I think we’ve gone so far in promoting the importance of that so that the childrearing is seen as some form of subjugation. It is, I believe, an honor in God’s eyes, and should be in societies’ eyes as well. Also, you can’t separate these ideas from Christian theology as a whole, which says that ‘the last shall be first’. Christ established a new order, teaching us that those who have the power on earth are the ones who are LEAST in the kingdom of God. So to secular ears, some of the verses which describe a woman’s role sound offensive or like forced subjugation, but I’m guessing it’s similar to Islam’s view that submission is something that God (or Allah) calls us to enter into voluntarily- and that those who do this earn nothing but honor and respect.
More food for thought about Christianity’s transformation: what was the basis of it? It was people like Martin Luther who forced people to take a closer look at Christ’s message and interpret it more faithfully. So what I’m asking is, how can modern Islamic reformers make the case that their interpretation is more correct than is that of the fundamentalists? I’m not saying that’s impossible (and I certainly hope not) but I don’t see how it’s just a matter of time as some of you suggest. I do realize that time is a factor, but it seems to me that there are other differences too which seem to make modernization more difficult for Islam.
Just for my sake, what is the basis of 800 years knowing that the Islamic calendar considers 622 CE as the beginning of Islam?
One place you may find some food for discussion is "The Trouble with Islam Today" http://www.irshadmanji.com/the-book
"The Trouble with Islam Today shatters our silence. It shows Muslims how we can re-discover Islam’s lost tradition of independent thinking — known as "ijtihad" — and re-discover it precisely to update Islamic practices for the 21st century. The opportunity to update is especially available to Muslims in the West, because it’s there that we enjoy precious freedoms to think, express, challenge and be challenged without fear of state reprisal. In that sense, the Muslim reformation begins in the West."
Michael van der Galien January 3, 2008 @ 1:43 pm CET was Turkey a member of axis? My God. No. It kept itself from the war (logically considering that only 20 years before, the ‘allies’ had done their very best to destroy Turkey, while Turkish leaders on the other hand - especially Atatürk - despised Hitler and his regime), but then sided with the allies. Throughout the war, Turkey walked a tightrope, balancing the needs and expectations of the Nazis against those of the Allies.Turkey signed an important trade agreement with Germany. In exchange for raw material, especially chromite ore, Germany would supply Turkey with war materials and other finished goods. At the same time, Turkey maintained friendly relations with the U.S. and Britain, which supplied Turkey with modern war equipment in exchange for chromite ore. Turkey’s chromite ore was critical for the Nazis. Turkey was their sole source for chrome, a vital element in steel making. Albert Speer stated that Turkey’s chromite ore was so vital to the Nazis that war production would come to a complete stop 10 months after the supply was cut off. The ore was shipped from Turkey by rail through some of the most rugged country in the world. Towards the end of the war, the allies targeted bridges along the main rail line to stop the chromite shipments. It wasn’t until April 1944 before Turkey ceased the chromite exports to Germany, and then only after being threatened with the same economic sanctions that the other neutral countries were under. Later in August, Turkey suspended all diplomatic relations with Germany. Late in February 1945, on the eve of establishing the United Nations, Turkey declared war on Germany. http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/goldp7.html
Not only the Jewish Diaspora:
"On 2 May 2005, the Hebrew University Armenian Studies Program, under the auspices of Professor Michael E. Stone, brought the massacre to the forefront of the thoughts of Israelis in a commemorative evening, one week after the 24 April official day of remembrance of the genocide. "
http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=7/a/archives/050520051
Quite reassuring indeed at at time when I am applying with a heavy heart to collect the insurance of my three relatives that perished during the genocide. I wander if Turks have a similar insured claims list?
http://www.armenianinsurancesettlementaxa.com/
There is a saying in Armenian that the fire burns where it falls. It appears the fire has not hit Michael van der Galien.