From Islam Q & A (thanks to Goon) comes this "Ruling on Jihad and kinds of Jihad." It is quite lengthy and revealing, and accords with traditional Islamic theology on jihad. The different stages of revelations to Muhammad about jihad are explained, concluding with this:
After jihad was enjoined upon him, the kaafirs [unbelievers] then fell into three categories: those with whom there was a truce or peace treaty; those with whom he was at war; and those who lived under the rule and protection of the Islamic state.”
The truce is temporary, so there are really only two choices for unbelievers: war, or subjugation. This is the ideology motivating jihadists around the world today.
The history of Europe from 711 (the invasion of Spain) to 1689 (the siege of Vienna) is one long Muslim siege, with Europe pushing the front line forward or back according to strength and good fortune. But the siege as such was not broken until the decisive war that ended in 1714, in which the power of Turkey to threaten the Habsburg lands (and consequently the heartland of Europe) was broken for ever; and even so, the cruel pirates of Barbary continued to raid European coasts in search of light-skinned slaves, until the early nineteenth century. If this depth of history does not teach us that the normal relationship between Islam and the rest of the world is war, nothing will. Quotes from this or that Muslim authority are rather beside the point: they will only convince those who can be convinced, but they will simply fly past the large class of deluded pacifists like water off a duck's back.
Boy, those a&b questions are rather hard to figure out, Hmmmmmmm......I choose war.
I have to agree with Hugh Fitzgerald. Defending the West is a necessity. The alternative is too bleak to resign ourselves to - life under Islam. But, what kind of war shall we wage? I think it would be much more effective, as Hugh Fitz suggests, to bury the enemy by exposing him and his silly "frat" religion which was invented by a henpecked camel boy who suffered from too much sun on the brain.
If the Leaders of the West used the strategies of the information age to expose Islam, its "prophet", and its goofy tenets, the "war" would be over.
Why, if the Hollywood elite, alone, received an education in what life under Islam would be like for them personally, military recruiters would have a hard time keeping up with the applicants.
Peggy, that would be the Perfect crowd to teach. The few actors who are already with the program are too few and far between.
Imagine if we could even get Michael Moore... naaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
OT~ otterfisher, if you see this- where did you get your handle?
I helped raise river otters for seven years.
(sorry for the OT, guys, I just had to ask!)
OT but related~ one of the internal wars amongst muslims in Iraq was against the marsh muslims, down near Basra. In the proces of driving them out / mass murdering them, a great deal of environmental damage was done to those swamps- including wiping out a species of river otter, named for the writer who got me hooked on otters- Gavin Maxwell. Yet another reason for seeing this kind of religous/political hatred wiped out...
Back to house chores.
I saw Ron Silver (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0798779/maindetails) on BBC London News recently. I didn't see the whole of the interview but he seems to be starring in a film about islamist terrorists and in the interview he said "... not every muslim is a terrorist but almost all terrorists are muslim..."
One of the few Hollywood people who are on our side. We need to involve and suppport people like him. He doesn't have an official website so I don't know his contact details. I'd have to look into it.
The above URL doesn't work because of the ")" - use this one instead: http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0798779/maindetails
Yes! We must educate people about what life would be like under Islam, but
FIRST:
People need to be convinced and shown that Islam, INDEED, is attempting to dominate the world. Most people SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE IT. It seems farfetched to them.
Islam is a RELIGION, they think, and have been conditioned to tolerate ALL religions and think that Islam is simply a way for people to worship their god, not as a politcal means of overwhelming people and installing a caliphate.
We need to educate people, as Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitz are doing for us, that radical Islam is not just a small minority of radicals. How to do this.
When I talk to people, they think the terrorists, aka 'insurgents' are simply resisting America and our 'unjust policies.' Our media and the far left is very effective at portraying this. They are surprised when I tell them about what is happening in areas of the world where THE U.S. DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A PRESENCE OR ANYTHING TO GAIN!
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND TO HAVE TO PRINT OUT: is a MAP OF THE WORLD showing all the areas where radical Islma is now doing battle, for starters. I would also like to see a map of where mosques and madrassas are in the US.
For the average person to understand, it has to be DRAWN OUT GRAPHICALLY.
Someone had a suggestion of a tee shirt with Islam spelled out in beheaded victims with blood flowing. Something like this should get attention, and then what about peaceful demonstrations against radical Islam, with people acting out how it enslaves and humiliates people. A WAR PROTEST, because Islam IS WAGING A WAR ON THE WEST. And we should protest it as others are protesting our war on terror.
ACTION! Education. Comic books with facts. People are not very educated and too busy with work, sports, TV, shopping and food to do much investigating on their own. But they do have power in numbers, So we should get the truth into their faces so they can't avoid it.
Lets get creative. CREATIVE CULT CONTROL. Send people to read what ex-muslims have to say and why people should fear Islam until it reforms and becomes tolerant of the beliefs of others. And if that is not possible, continue to help all countries resist it until it shrivels up and dies.
I've got a great idea, why dont put all the jihadists along with thier western right ring counterparts that seem to dominate here and blow the fuckers up.
Patricia:
Apparently, you are not a Jihadwatch fanatic. Mr. Spencer kindly produced a map detailing all Jihad activity in the world just recently. Perhaps it is time for Mr. Spencer to repost it. Here is the link:
Tiny Minority of Extremists World Map
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003897.php
I found that telling people this week-end about NO bikinis on TV in England had a big effect on people??
Yes who is taken your Freedom Jews in Short Skirts?
Christians in Short Skirts??
OR Mulsums in Burkas??
People saw real quick who ??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Victory [FREEDOM] to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat give the World to Stand and Fight against them Amen
PS
Did any one see the Vidio of the Monsters fireing a Morter then run to a house and the Americans GOT THEM ALL!!
of course the answer is simple??
May we kill all ckerics if it is them who are above all and can issue all this war??
So it is kill the cleric and save the king??
The third situation is when the leader tells the people to mobilize; the leader (imam) is the highest authority in the state, but he need not necessarily be the leader of all the Muslims, because there has been no leader of all the Muslims (khaleefah) for a long time. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Listen and obey, even if you are ruled by an Abyssinian slave.” So if a man becomes a leader, then his word is to be heeded and his commands are to obeyed.
(al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 8/10-12).
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com
Yes the Answer is very simple!!! Not all the children and Innicent people killer but the one who would do so??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER AMEN
A great classic. Muslims, feel obliged to read on.
The Mad Mad Mad World
By Ali Sina
Hello Ali,
How could you say something like this ?
"However there is not a single verse in any religious book that I know of that encourages its followers to actively hunt the non-believers and slay them wherever they find them and reduce them into slavery or dhimmitude, except the Quran."
did you get this information from this verse ?
[9:5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them "
You see if you read Koran in Arabic you could have noticed that the word used in the verse Pagans is Mushrikin and not kafirin ( non-believers in English) .You cannot substitute the word Pagans with non-believers as you did . It's too broad because you have included Christians , Jews, atheists , Buddhists , Hindus and so on. While God meant one group of people Mushrikin Arabs who believed in Allah, but associated with him gods made from stones such as Hobal , Oza , Manat etc .Here we can see that Mushrikin were not pure Pagans. Pure Pagan is somebody who worships just Idols. If it were up to me the word Mushrikin in Koran should be translated as associators and not pagans or polytheists let alone non-believers .
Regards
Mhamed
Dear Mhamed
I don’t know how you can worship a god who tells you to kill those who associate partners to him. So what? Why this god is so jealous, petty and paranoid? If there are no other gods but him why is he so desperate to the degree that he orders his prophet to murder those who associate partners to him?
If you stopped only for one minute in your entire life and thought about it, you’d see the absurdity of it all.
Suppose I live with my wife in an island where there is no other man. What would you think of me if I tell her I will kill you if you look at other men? Apart from the fact that this jealousy is psychopathic, the fact that I am jealous of imaginary rivals makes me a total nutcase. Do you really want us to believe that the maker of this universe is a crackpot loony? If there are no other gods but Him, why is he so concerned?
That is not how I see things. I see Muhammad as a psychopath and Allah nothing but his own alter ego. He invented this bugaboo deity to fool people and ride them. Allah is no god and even if he is, Muhammad did not receive any revelations from him. Muhammad was a deranged man. He concocted this whole lie to fool people. He was no different from Jim Jones, David Koresh or Charles Manson. Muhammad was a ruthless man and a false prophet. He made people hate each other. He divided them so he could conquer them. He separated sons from their fathers and daughters from their mothers and even encouraged them to kill their own fathers and brothers if they do not submit to his sick claim. Allah was only a convenient tool in the hand of a psychopath. It was this pathological narcissist who craved to be loved and respected not God.
Why would God be so desperate about being worshipped? Don't you see the ploy? It is not God who wants us to worship him. He would not give a damn if we do or we don't. Raise your head! Look at this universe. Witness the immensity of it. Our solar system is not even a speck in our galaxy and our galaxy is less than a speck in this vast universe. You and I are insignificantly nothing compared to what God created. Do you really believe the creator of this magnificent universe is so desperate that would order his prophet to kill those who associate partners to him? Do you really think he is so sick to burn people for eternity for not believing in him?... For eternity!? …This is nuts! How can you not see that? Would you punish your dog in this way for disobeying you? Would you torture a scorpion in this way for eternity?
If truly this God was a psychopath as Muhammad described him why he dose not kill those whom he wants to kill and why he orders men to shed each others' blood? Why we should prove our loyalty to him by butchering our own kind? Why you and I should become God's henchmen when he can easily kill those who disbelieve in him or associate partners to him?
Don't you see Muhammad's god is helpless? His only power is in fooling people. This is Allah's forte. After fooling them he makes them commit all sorts of crimes on his behalf. He makes them terrorists promising them if they assassinate and murder people he will reward them with plenty of sex and debauchery. He tells them: "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you”? (Q.2:216). Is really fighting good for us? In another place he says: “Unless ye go forth, He (Allah) will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place”? (Q.9:39).
These are not the teachings of a loving God. These are Satanic verses. These are the teachings of a demon who wants to create hate among us humans and destroy us. He is helpless and powerless but he can lie and he can deceive and he can use the fools to do his demonic work. And you have allowed yourself to become the instrument of this Satan? With what face you will present yourself in front of your creator? How would you cover your shame when the real God asks you why you did not use the brain that he gave you? No, the real God is not going to send you to hell, burn you or torture you. He is not a psychopath. He most likely will forgive you but what about you? Will you be able to forgive yourself and your stupidity for defending the cause of the Satan all your life and for being part of a terrorist network that has taken the lives of countless innocent people? Here is our chance to do good and sow the seeds of love. Instead you are promoting the cause of Satan and fomenting hate. This is not the reason why you and I have come to this world. We are created to bring love and unity among all the children of God. We are not created to hate, to divide and to kill.
Muhammad raided innocent people. He looted them. He massacred them. He raped their women. He assassinated poets for composing poetries that he did not find flattering. He tortured people whom he captured in his ambushes to make them reveal the whereabouts of their hidden treasures. Why this Allah who was always ready to provide for his beloved prophet's sexual needs and licence him to sleep with any women he lused never told him where his victims have hidden their treasures so to save those poor people from being tortured? Muhammad beheaded people and slept with their wives in the same night. He fooled his followers to such extent that one of them allowed him to sleep with his 9-year-old child. What kind of a person can have sexual feelings for a 9-year-old child? Normal people do not get any sexual feelings for; 9, 10 or even 13 year old girls. Children at that age do not have femininity. They are not sexually appealing to normal men. Only a sick person can be aroused by a 9-years-old child. Yet Muhammad had sexual feelings for Aisha when she was only 6-years-old. Abu Bakr, the history's grand fool, begged Muhammad to wait for a few more years until she matures. But Muhammad, this sick monster, could not wait more than three years and when Aisha was nine he took her to bed and entered her in the same forenoon. Don't these things bother you? How can you justify them? How can you believe in the lies of such monster?
Do you really want us to believe the God of this universe is a psychopath like Muhammad? Do you really want us to believe that even God is bereft of decency? Allah appears to be more concerned about the sexual needs of his prophet than tens of thousands of lives that he destroyed. Do you really want us to believe that God was a pimp of Muhammad? 33:50
If you want to believe in false prophets, there are plenty of them. But why you chose to believe in a monster? Muhammad was not a human. He was the most evil creature who ever walked on this planet. How can a billion people be so foolish? How can the rest of mankind allow this madness to continue? This is the greatest insanity of our species. It is a far bigger insanity than Nazism which affected only a few millions of people and for only a few years. The insanity of Islam is going on for 1400 years and has engulfed everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Islam must be denounced. It must be stopped at all costs. We are at the threshold of the Armageddon. Millions, nay, billions are going to perish. Hundreds of cities are going to melt in scorching smoke. We are the doomed generation. We are the cursed people. Why don’t we dare to question the validity of Islam that is threatening to destroy our world? Why we want to continue with this insanity?
Don’t you want to pause for just one minute and think about these Questions? What if Muhammad lied? What proof you have that he told the truth? Is there any proof that he was telling the truth? Give me one solid proof that he did not lie and I promise to take out $50.000 US dollars out of the equity of my house and give it to you. If you don’t care about the money, do it for mankind. Do it for the peace. Do it for our children. If you don’t give a damn about that, do it for your own soul! You are following the Satan. If you don’t care about logic, truth or mankind, at least have mercy on your own soul. Think of one proof that Muhammad was not lying. I have given hundreds of proofs that he was lying. Can you give me one proof that he was not?
The evilness of Muhammad is more obvious than the glaring sun. Why you people do not want to open your eyes to see the truth? You resemble one having an erotic dream and while the house is on fire, he covers his head beneath the pillow to prevent waking up because he does not want to give up on his dream.
Can't you see Muhammad's heaven and hell are stupidly childish. How can grown up people believe in such stupidities? Having orgies with 90 feet tall see-through celestial whores? Isn't that ludicrous? What a pathetic man was Muhammad who could not envision a pleasure bigger than sex. Even his paradise is carnal. He was sick in the mind. But what about you? How can you follow a sick man? Doesn't this mean you are sick too?
What insanity is this that in this day and age a billion people believe in absurdities, feed their minds with lies, fill their hearts with hatred of their fellow beings, and are ready to commit atrocities and blow up this world? What insanity is this that their to-be victims, those who are the objects of the hatred of these billion zombies, do nothing to stop this madness and accept the right of these benighted souls to continue with their insanity, to promote their hatred and to plan for the destruction of the world?
This is indeed a mad, mad, mad world.
Thanks for posting that Prickzilla. Ali Sina can say it better than most.
My suggestion to acquaint Hollywood with facts about Islam is to TELL THEM WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ALL THEIR CUTE POOCHES UNDER SHARIA LAW!Indeed how dogs are treated in Muslim countries NOW should be enough to give Hollywood Stars a nasty jolt and get them on our side. There are several stars who have pet pigs, Clooney for one, so that is another area to target...As Hollywood doesn't seem to care or dismisses what happens to women and apostates under Islam, let's try 'It's a Dawg's Life' approach.
P.S I like otters too...
I wish there was a way to convince the Hollywood crowd just how their lives would change under Islamic rule, but they are too shallow to listen to reason. They live in a make-believe world with make-believe people. They wouldn't know reality if it bit them in the butt.
Just to show you exactly how sick the Islamofascists are they put a bomb on a man that people said appeared to have Down-syndrome,he walked close to the polling station and blew himself up about 300 feet from the outside,it looks obvious that he had limited awareness of his mission and flipped the switch too early.
I thought the Palestinians were sick when they sent a 13 year old retarded boy to blow up an Israeli checkpoint,but these slimeballs used a mentally challenged human like a animals that had no intrinsic value for keeping alive.
Yes I expect CAIR to announce that the Quran forbids using down-syndrome victims as suicide bombers and the slaughter of civilians trying to vote is un-Islamic and goes against all of Muhammed teachings.....blah blah,blah blah,blah blah blah blaaaaaaah.
NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE
Oh come John B, don't be like that.., your Stalinism is showing.
Could someone please post the source of the newstory about the Downs Syndrome child being used as a suicide bomber?
Thanks.
CNN promotes the 'Hajj...' Any doubt about who owns CNN?
Equally disturbing to see our preachers and clergymen suck up to the Imams in Europe: I spent 3 weeks in January in Europe watching all kinds of TV channels pussyfooting around the issues. Some programs showing clergymen getting real cuddly with the Islamics, openly admiring them, really warming up to them as they appear to be so much more popular then our traditional churches. Something more to worry about, folks!
An I just can't forget that picture of the pope kissing that dirty book, the Qu'ran...
CNN promotes the 'Hajj...' Any doubt about who owns CNN?
Equally disturbing to see our preachers and clergymen suck up to the Imams in Europe: I spent 3 weeks in January in Europe watching all kinds of TV channels pussyfooting around the issues. Some programs showing clergymen getting real cuddly with the Islamics, openly admiring them, really warming up to them as they appear to be so much more popular then our traditional churches. Something more to worry about, folks!
And I just can't forget that picture of the pope kissing that dirty book, the Qu'ran...
Hey preacher, got another church for sale...?
"Why, if the Hollywood elite, alone, received an education in what life under Islam would be like for them personally, military recruiters would have a hard time keeping up with the applicants."
This is an excellent idea, something which I fully support.
The majority of Hollywood figures, even if they did set foot inside a college classroom, it was most likely that drama class and not a history or political science class.
The other thing is, just because Moore, or Sheen, or Clooney have lunch with political figures -- and many of them do -- they think that that makes them experts in politics. I'm sorry but it doesn't.
But, but, but... No! Jihad is about a peaceful, inner struggle with oneself against worldly temptation™!
Why is the West so eager to judge what it doesn't understand? Can't we be more tolerant?
/dhimmitude
And as far as dealing with non muslims frm Quran
The Qur'an says: "God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just." (Qur'an, 60:8)
Have you ever read it.
And as far as Spain is considered, where were the Jews sheltered after the christians drove them away.
By Muslims , lol.
U people on read one verse of Quran and comment on it. We have 30 chapters in Quran. I reqauest you to read it fully.
And doesnt Bible say propogate killing
Non-Christians , Sex slavery etc.
Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians. Then Americans and Britons used them in AbuGhraib.
Let me mention just a few verses from the Old Testament and New Testament and tell me what do you say about them:
"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. (Deutronomy 7:1-2)
"When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes (Deutronomy 20:10-17)
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, sparefor yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
Even in the New Testament we read the following statement attributed to Jesus saying to his disciples:
"I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)
Atleast Islam doesnt allow to have sex with the bondswoman unless she consents. But Bible propogates Outright rape and slaughter.
Any comments on that!!!!!
Well Prickzilla read this carefully
And as far as dealing with non muslims frm Quran
The Qur'an says: "God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just." (Qur'an, 60:8)
A Muslim is supposed to deal with people kindly and justly, unless they are open enemies to Islam and/or Muslims.
"Allah does not prohibit you from being kind and just to those who have not fought you on account of religion, nor expelled you from your homes. Allah loves those who are just. Allah only prohibits you from being intimate friends with those who have fought you on account of religion, and expelled you from your homes, and assisted others in your expulsion. Whoever befriends them is a wrongdoer." [Surah al-Hujurat (60), 8-9]
"Treat people with good character." [Narrated by Tirmidhi, who said it is a good hadith]
The Messenger of Allah, when sending out dispatchments, would say, "…Do not behave treacherously, nor mutilate, nor kill children or those [secluded] in hermitages." [Ahmad. Thanwi graded it as hasan in I`la al-Sunan, 12/354]
"Whoever unjustly kills a person of the covenent of dhimmah, Allah has prohibited Heaven for him." [Abu Dawud, Nasa'i; Bukhari, Ibn Majah, Ahmad, Tirmidhi(hs), Darimi
Have you ever read it.
And as far as Spain is considered, where were the Jews sheltered after the christians drove them away.
By Muslims , lol.
U people on read one verse of Quran and comment on it. We have 30 chapters in Quran. I request you to read it fully.
And doesnt Bible propogate killing
Non-Christians , Sex slavery etc.
Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians. Then Americans and Britons used them in AbuGhraib.
Let me mention just a few verses from the Old Testament and New Testament and tell me what do you say about them:
"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. (Deutronomy 7:1-2)
"When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes (Deutronomy 20:10-17)
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, sparefor yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
Even in the New Testament we read the following statement attributed to Jesus saying to his disciples:
"I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)
Atleast Islam doesnt allow to have sex with the bondswoman unless she consents. But Bible propogates Outright rape and slaughter.
Any comments on that!!!!!
Removing the Mask from the Ugly face of Christianity
Even in the New Testament we read the following statement attributed to Jesus saying to his disciples:
"I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)
Barbarism of the Crusaders
In the summer of 1096, this mob of self-appointed crusaders set off in three separate groups, each taking a different route to Constantinople, where they met up with one another. The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I, did what he could to aid this force, comprising 4,000 mounted knights and 25,000 infantry troops.3 Raymond IV of Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse;Bohemond, Duke of Taranto; Godfrey of Bouillon;Hugh, Count of Vermandois;and Robert, Duke of Normandy commanded this army. Bishop Adhemar of le Puy, the close friend of Urban II, was their spiritual leader.4
After ransacking and setting fire to many settlements and putting countless Muslims to the sword, eventually the crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099. After a siege of approximately five weeks, the city fell. When the victors finally entered Jerusalem, according to one historian, "They killed all the Saracens and the Turks they found... whether male of female."5
Crusaders slaughtered everyone they met and looted everything they could get their hands on. They murdered indiscriminately those who had taken refuge in the mosques, whether young or old, and devastated the Muslim and Jewish holy sites and places of worship setting the city's synagogues aflame, burning alive Jews who had hidden inside. This slaughter continued until no longer could they find anyone to kill.6
One of the crusaders, Raymond of Aguiles, boasts of this incredible cruelty:
Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted . . . in the temple and the porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.
7
In The Monks of War, researcher Desmond Seward narrates the events of these tragic days:
Jerusalem was stormed in July 1099. The rabid ferocity of its sack showed just how little the Church had succeeded in Christianising atavistic instincts. The entire population of the Holy City was put to the sword, Jews as well as Moslems, 70,000 men, women and children perished in a holocaust, which raged for three days. In places men waded in blood up to their ankles and horsemen were splashed by it as they rode through the streets.
8
According to another historical source, the number of Muslims pitilessly slaughtered was 40,000.9 Whatever the actual number of the dead, what the crusaders committed in the Holy Land has gone down in history as an example of matchless barbarism.
The first crusade ended with the fall of Jerusalem in 1099. After 460 years of Muslim rule, the Holy Land came under Christian control. The crusaders established a Latin kingdom that stretched from Palestine to Antioch and made Jerusalem its capital city.
Thereafter, the crusaders began struggling to establish themselves in the Middle East. But to sustain the state they had founded, they needed to organize themselves—and to achieve his, they established unprecedented military orders. Members of these orders had emigrated from Europe and, in Palestine, lived a monastic life of sorts. At the same time, they trained for war against the Muslims.
gateway4success@yahoo.com
xyz:
Welcome to your contribution!
Tell me something: Wasn't the crusades a reaction to the Muselmans conquest of the holy lands? Who did occupy the holy lands 2000 years ago and before, if not Jews and Christians?
The Latin Kingdom was the Roman Empire dating back to Cleopatra, Ceasar and Marcus Antonius. So I think you got mixed up in your Islamic fervor here: Islam is a 'Johnny come lately' amongst the worlds religions, (I still call it a militant ideology rather) but it (Islam)is certainly not holding back with atrocities and by doing so on a daily basis I doubt the wisdom behind your writing. The crusaders did what they had to do in order to contain Islam and all its barbaric practises, and in doing so they may have used the same strategies as the muslims did. Why would we apologize for that?
If I had my way there would not be a Mosque (or a hatred spewing Imam) in all of Europe. I hope to live long enough to see how Europe unites and drives the followers of your cult back into the desert, where they can frolic with camels and goats!
XYZ would like to play taqiyya on Jihad Watch and he would like to start from the very beginning where the Crusades were responsible for the slaughter of innocent muslims.
Before you call a dogs tail a leg you had better be sure that in fact it is a leg growing out of his......... if not it will be disproved.
The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden
With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.
As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?
Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.
Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.
During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.
* * *
Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:
How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’"
The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:
Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? ...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?
The reconquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was not colonialism but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one’s love of God. Medieval men knew, of course, that God had the power to restore Jerusalem Himself—indeed, He had the power to restore the whole world to His rule. Yet as St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached, His refusal to do so was a blessing to His people:
Again I say, consider the Almighty’s goodness and pay heed to His plans of mercy. He puts Himself under obligation to you, or rather feigns to do so, that He can help you to satisfy your obligations toward Himself.... I call blessed the generation that can seize an opportunity of such rich indulgence as this.
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.
The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews’ money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.
Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:
Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered.... Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."
Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.
It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.
By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause. Many of them died, either in battle or through disease or starvation. It was a rough campaign, one that seemed always on the brink of disaster. Yet it was miraculously successful. By 1098, the Crusaders had restored Nicaea and Antioch to Christian rule. In July 1099, they conquered Jerusalem and began to build a Christian state in Palestine. The joy in Europe was unbridled. It seemed that the tide of history, which had lifted the Muslims to such heights, was now turning.
* * *
But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.
When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East.
Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were asked to sacrifice their wealth and, if need be, their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front, all Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin, the great unifier, had forged the Muslim Near East into a single entity, all the while preaching jihad against the Christians. In 1187 at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of ports held out.
The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I Lionheart of England. By any measure it was a grand affair, although not quite as grand as the Christians had hoped. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land. Philip and Richard came by boat, but their incessant bickering only added to an already divisive situation on the ground in Palestine. After recapturing Acre, the king of France went home, where he busied himself carving up Richard’s French holdings. The Crusade, therefore, fell into Richard’s lap. A skilled warrior, gifted leader, and superb tactician, Richard led the Christian forces to victory after victory, eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. But it was a bitter pill to swallow. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe.
The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart.
The remainder of the 13th century’s Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was quickly outwitted by the Egyptians and forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of a disease that ravaged the camp. After St. Louis’s death, the ruthless Muslim leaders, Baybars and Kalavun, waged a brutal jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslim forces had succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.
* * *
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. One of the great best-sellers of the time, Sebastian Brant’s The Ship of Fools, gave voice to this sentiment in a chapter titled "Of the Decline of the Faith":
Our faith was strong in th’ Orient,
It ruled in all of Asia,
In Moorish lands and Africa.
But now for us these lands are gone
’Twould even grieve the hardest stone....
Four sisters of our Church you find,
They’re of the patriarchic kind:
Constantinople, Alexandria,
Jerusalem, Antiochia.
But they’ve been forfeited and sacked
And soon the head will be attacked.
Of course, that is not what happened. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a beachhead for his invasion of Italy. Rome was evacuated. Yet the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plan died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy.
Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.
From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.
Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.
If I am not mistaken, xyz is a cut-and-paste Troll who has been here before.
thanks for the info Gary, he goes into the troll file.
Chuck:
Could you put up a link for that article?
Gary's correct about the troll.
Well I wonder why the so called relegious Knights of Europe wiped out the Christian Empire of Constantinople and looted the so called relics of Jesus Christ which are in Europe now.Ahem!
Second thing, When Muslims Invasion of Iran was successful they had very less army to defend their borders as a result the Christians wanted to take the advantage of two things.
1.Weak Muslim Army who were weary of fighting.
2.Vanquished Persians.
But before they could invade , the Muslim General, Khalid Bin Waleed anticipated the attack and posted a small army on the border from where he thought the Christians would attack.
His doubts proved right and the attack was repulsed.ALhamdhuLiLLah.
This was the startig of the war wwith the Christians. A meeting of the Shura was held and it was decided that in order to protect the lands of Muslims a fitting response was necessary for this unprovoked attack. I think your historian has completely forgotten these facts or may not be willing to accept them.
Third issue:
Its not Islam but Christianity which spread by sword_>>> Verse in Quran>>>
1. La Iqraha Fiddeen- meaning there is no compulsion in relegion.
2. Lakum Deenukum Waliyaddeen >Meaning> Unto you Your relegion and unto me mine.
Refer -- Battle for God by Karen Austen>> Jews and Muslims were slaughtered or driven away from Spain umless they accepted Christianity and as a test had to eat Pork, etc.
The remaining Jews were sheltered by Muslims in Morocco not by any other Christian Nation.
And what was Adolf Hitler.
Who dropped the Nuclear bombs in Japan.
WhenJerusalem was taken by Muslims, it was not ceased immediately but a peace treaty was held during which the head Priest of Christians handed over the keys to Caliph Omar Radhiallahu Taa'la Anhu and those who left were not harmed and no innocents were killed.
Compare this to the conquest of Crusaders, my goodness , Ur relegious warriors didn't even spare the Christians of Constantinople.
I wonder who uses the sword.
I wonder if you ever knew that Saladdin the Conqueror as you have put forgave many of the Crusaders and didnt force them to convert.
You have turned a blind eye to those parts of history which show your faults.Its evident.
And why you have weakened in faith is not because of the loss of four sisters but your regular changes in the BiBle and you have thrown over your own books over your backs.
I would like to ask you, when Prophet Jesus prayed, how exactly did he call out the God of the BiBle??????
Do you know it? First try to find out whom you are worshipping rather than criticising the other relegions.
And your knowledge of Islam isnt much>>>
The principle of Taqqiyyah isnt an Islamic concept but the concept of Shias. So i am not interested in it.
I think George Bush has a bigger Taqqiyyah , by saying he attacked Iraq for weapopns and then wen they r not found , instead of accepting his lies he says we did it good for the people of Iraq.
I wonder wat good has be brought to those except who are asleep in their graves in Iraq.
Bye
I am sure I have seen xyz's selection of OT verses in a post on David Pipes' site, attributed, this time, not to a Muslim but to an atheist. Versatile person!
xyz posted before today about 2/3 months ago. His trademark is tu-quoque and mobile phone style text speak.
XYZ:
I'm glad to see you worked out your hate and anger issue that must have consumed you over the years,now that you found a Peaceful/Loving/Tolerant faith that respects all beliefs,I can see those qualities expressed within your orations and I envy your talents as a motivational speaker for educating others on your faith so they see the light and convert.
Please don't change a thing,Muhakmmed's Love and foregivenss oozes from you and there's no better example for us infidels to gain an insight
on how really bad the West is for allowing freewill and freedom of religion.
BTW, it would be more of a selling point if you fixed some spelling errors and learned about
capital letters for titles or proper names.
allah sucks
Dear Sux and others,
I have been here many times b4 but I do not have enough time to reply every time as I do not have my own PC and I also have to dedicate time to my job.
As far as this post is considered, my spelling mistakes etc are not the question.It would be better if you answered to what the issue is rather than making a troll out of me, lol.
I wonder who is this new Darwin. I think U will make me the 8th wonder of the Modern world.
Someone said abt freedom of speech in West.
Well I didnt oppose it. Its again your self built phobia abt me. Its better if you respond to what is there, rather than start a new evolution theory here.
Bye
Dear Sux and others,
I have been here many times b4 but I do not have enough time to reply every time as I do not have my own PC and I also have to dedicate time to my job.
As far as this post is considered, my spelling mistakes etc are not the question.It would be better if you answered to what the issue is rather than making a troll out of me, lol.
I wonder who is this new Darwin. I think U will make me the 8th wonder of the Modern world.
Someone said abt freedom of speech in West.
Well I didnt oppose it. Its again your self built phobia abt me. Its better if you respond to what is there, rather than start a new evolution theory here.
Bye
Well U just showed how racial you people are.
Anyway , why Jihad is initiated is not because of Islamic Scholars etc, but following things towards which USA and Europe always turns a blind eye:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1402261,00.html
Israelis use barrier and 55-year-old law to quietly seize Palestinians' land
Chris McGreal in Bethlehem
Monday January 31, 2005
The Guardian
The Israeli government has quietly seized thousands of acres of Palestinian-owned land in and around east Jerusalem after a secret cabinet decision to use a 55-year-old law against Arabs separated from farms and orchards by the vast "security barrier".
Most of the hundreds of Palestinian families whose land has been confiscated without compensation have not been formally notified that their property has been transferred to the Israeli state. But plans have already been drawn up to expand Jewish settlements on to some of the expropriated territory.
The move has drawn stinging criticism from the Palestinian leadership and some Israelis, who call it "legalised theft" and say it is evidence that the vast steel and concrete barrier under construction through the West Bank and Jerusalem is less for security than a move to expand Israel's borders.
"The government is walling in east Jerusalem for the first time in six centuries," said Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli lawyer fighting the seizures on behalf of several Palestinian families.
"It is turning the eminently reversible step of a barrier into an irreversible step by building immovable homes. It is a move to assert aggressive Israeli sovereignty over east Jerusalem."
Palestinian officials have warned that if the strategy is not reversed it could prove an insurmountable obstacle to a final peace agreement with Israel. The Palestinians want east Jerusalem as the capital of an independent state.
The cabinet secretly decided to seize the land in July last year using a law passed in 1950 allowing the state to confiscate property abandoned by Arabs who fled to neighbouring countries during Israel's independence war.
Among those who have lost their land in the recent seizures is Johnny Atik. His front room, in the Bethlehem house he has lived in for 55 years, looks on to the three hectares (eight acres) of olive groves from which he is now officially deemed absent after Israel built the "security fence" between his home and his orchard.
"What is the law of absentees when we are here before your eyes? We are not absent. The law is that any Israeli with an American or European passport who goes to live outside Israel is not considered absent. But me, who lives here, is called absent," he said.
Boundaries
Immediately after occupying east Jerusalem in 1967, Israel redrew the city's boundaries to run deep into the West Bank. Swaths of land that had fallen within the municipality of Arab towns such as Bethlehem - including Mr Atik's - were suddenly defined as part of "greater Jerusalem" and therefore within the borders of the Jewish state. But the landowners were classified as residents of the occupied territories and therefore outside the country.
However, successive Israeli governments decided not to apply the absentee property law to Jerusalem because many Arabs who owned land within the area claimed by Israel lived only a short distance away in other parts of the West Bank.
But over the past two years, the invisible city boundary that Mr Atik walked across to reach his land each day was transformed into a border marked out in concrete and steel.
In July, Mr Sharon's government decided to reverse the absentee law policy on east Jerusalem, but the cabinet's decision has only now become public after the army told lawyers for some affected Palestinians. The army had promised Mr Atik a permit to cross through a military checkpoint to get to his olive trees, but his lawyer, Mr Seidemann, spent a year trying to get the pass out of the military.
"Eventually, I was told that the reason Johnny Atik couldn't go to his land was that it was no longer his, it belonged to the government," he said.
Another Bethlehem resident, Anton Salman, has lost about 40 acres. "It began in 1996 with a small road for the checkpoint. Then there is a bigger road, and then a fence. And then you lose your land. It's all done in the name of security but this is no way to bring peace," he said.
Across the valley from Mr Atik's land is the Jewish settlement of Har Homa. The clank of heavy machinery, the scaffolding crisscrossing the front of half-built flats, the cranes towering over the site all testify to the rapid expansion of the settlement. The latest Jerusalem municipal plan earmarks land for Har Homa's expansion as far as Mr Atik's land.
Expansion
The West Bank town of Beit Jala, near the Jewish settlement of Gilo, asked the Israeli government to route the barrier so that residents could still reach their land without passing through a checkpoint. The authorities refused and the army now says that everything on the Jerusalem side of the barrier - about 1,000 acres, which provide an income for 200 families - has been seized.
Some of the land is already being levelled in preparation for construction linked to a nearby Jewish settlement.
The village of Walaja, which straddles the greater Jerusalem border, is losing about 2,500 acres. An Israeli development firm already claims to have bought part of the land to build new homes for Jewish settlers.
The state has also appropriated a once thriving hotel, the Cliff, on the edge of east Jerusalem even though the owners live nearby. When the army started building the eight-metre-high concrete wall that bisects the area, it seized the hotel for "security needs". But under the regulations for constructing the barrier, the government would have had to pay more than £1m in compensation. Then the owners were told their hotel had been confiscated under the absentee property law without recompense.
The government declined to discuss the new application of the absentee property law.
Since the signing of the Oslo accords a decade ago, Israel has doubled the size of the Jewish settlements. Many Palestinians suspect that the West Bank barrier was just another means to grab territory.
"This is state theft," said the mayor of Bethlehem, Hanna Nasser. "They are thieves and they are bluffing everybody. It's not a security wall, it's the future frontier of the state of Israel."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4222249.stm
Israel 'rethinks' land seizures
Land on the Jerusalem side has already been expropriated
Israel is rethinking the application of a property law under which thousands of hectares of Palestinian-owned land could be seized, media reports say.
Haaretz says the US is concerned a 1950 absentee owners law could be used to take land from Palestinians cut off by Israel's separation barrier.
The review is expected to be announced at a meeting of Israeli envoys and the US secretary of state later today.
Senior Israeli officials confirmed the newspaper report to the BBC.
The main purpose of the meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli envoys Dov Weisglass and Shalom Turgeman is to prepare for her trip to the region in the coming week.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government decided to implement the controversial Absentee Property Law in east Jerusalem last July.
It was originally enacted to allow the seizure of property of Palestinians who fled to neighbouring Arab countries during Israel's creation in 1948.
Hundreds of Palestinian families risk being considered absentee owners as the barrier Israel is building between the West Bank and the Jerusalem municipality currently cuts them off from their land.
Palestinians say it is an attempt by Israeli to justify illegal acquisition of territory in Jerusalem with a view to excluding it from future peace talks.
Israel captured the eastern half of Jerusalem in 1967. Palestinians want it for the capital of their future state.
--------------------------------------------------
I wonder who the trolls really are.
Well U just showed how racial you people are.
Anyway , why Jihad is initiated is not because of Islamic Scholars etc, but following things towards which USA and Europe always turns a blind eye:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1402261,00.html
Israelis use barrier and 55-year-old law to quietly seize Palestinians' land
Chris McGreal in Bethlehem
Monday January 31, 2005
The Guardian
The Israeli government has quietly seized thousands of acres of Palestinian-owned land in and around east Jerusalem after a secret cabinet decision to use a 55-year-old law against Arabs separated from farms and orchards by the vast "security barrier".
Most of the hundreds of Palestinian families whose land has been confiscated without compensation have not been formally notified that their property has been transferred to the Israeli state. But plans have already been drawn up to expand Jewish settlements on to some of the expropriated territory.
The move has drawn stinging criticism from the Palestinian leadership and some Israelis, who call it "legalised theft" and say it is evidence that the vast steel and concrete barrier under construction through the West Bank and Jerusalem is less for security than a move to expand Israel's borders.
"The government is walling in east Jerusalem for the first time in six centuries," said Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli lawyer fighting the seizures on behalf of several Palestinian families.
"It is turning the eminently reversible step of a barrier into an irreversible step by building immovable homes. It is a move to assert aggressive Israeli sovereignty over east Jerusalem."
Palestinian officials have warned that if the strategy is not reversed it could prove an insurmountable obstacle to a final peace agreement with Israel. The Palestinians want east Jerusalem as the capital of an independent state.
The cabinet secretly decided to seize the land in July last year using a law passed in 1950 allowing the state to confiscate property abandoned by Arabs who fled to neighbouring countries during Israel's independence war.
Among those who have lost their land in the recent seizures is Johnny Atik. His front room, in the Bethlehem house he has lived in for 55 years, looks on to the three hectares (eight acres) of olive groves from which he is now officially deemed absent after Israel built the "security fence" between his home and his orchard.
"What is the law of absentees when we are here before your eyes? We are not absent. The law is that any Israeli with an American or European passport who goes to live outside Israel is not considered absent. But me, who lives here, is called absent," he said.
Boundaries
Immediately after occupying east Jerusalem in 1967, Israel redrew the city's boundaries to run deep into the West Bank. Swaths of land that had fallen within the municipality of Arab towns such as Bethlehem - including Mr Atik's - were suddenly defined as part of "greater Jerusalem" and therefore within the borders of the Jewish state. But the landowners were classified as residents of the occupied territories and therefore outside the country.
However, successive Israeli governments decided not to apply the absentee property law to Jerusalem because many Arabs who owned land within the area claimed by Israel lived only a short distance away in other parts of the West Bank.
But over the past two years, the invisible city boundary that Mr Atik walked across to reach his land each day was transformed into a border marked out in concrete and steel.
In July, Mr Sharon's government decided to reverse the absentee law policy on east Jerusalem, but the cabinet's decision has only now become public after the army told lawyers for some affected Palestinians. The army had promised Mr Atik a permit to cross through a military checkpoint to get to his olive trees, but his lawyer, Mr Seidemann, spent a year trying to get the pass out of the military.
"Eventually, I was told that the reason Johnny Atik couldn't go to his land was that it was no longer his, it belonged to the government," he said.
Another Bethlehem resident, Anton Salman, has lost about 40 acres. "It began in 1996 with a small road for the checkpoint. Then there is a bigger road, and then a fence. And then you lose your land. It's all done in the name of security but this is no way to bring peace," he said.
Across the valley from Mr Atik's land is the Jewish settlement of Har Homa. The clank of heavy machinery, the scaffolding crisscrossing the front of half-built flats, the cranes towering over the site all testify to the rapid expansion of the settlement. The latest Jerusalem municipal plan earmarks land for Har Homa's expansion as far as Mr Atik's land.
Expansion
The West Bank town of Beit Jala, near the Jewish settlement of Gilo, asked the Israeli government to route the barrier so that residents could still reach their land without passing through a checkpoint. The authorities refused and the army now says that everything on the Jerusalem side of the barrier - about 1,000 acres, which provide an income for 200 families - has been seized.
Some of the land is already being levelled in preparation for construction linked to a nearby Jewish settlement.
The village of Walaja, which straddles the greater Jerusalem border, is losing about 2,500 acres. An Israeli development firm already claims to have bought part of the land to build new homes for Jewish settlers.
The state has also appropriated a once thriving hotel, the Cliff, on the edge of east Jerusalem even though the owners live nearby. When the army started building the eight-metre-high concrete wall that bisects the area, it seized the hotel for "security needs". But under the regulations for constructing the barrier, the government would have had to pay more than £1m in compensation. Then the owners were told their hotel had been confiscated under the absentee property law without recompense.
The government declined to discuss the new application of the absentee property law.
Since the signing of the Oslo accords a decade ago, Israel has doubled the size of the Jewish settlements. Many Palestinians suspect that the West Bank barrier was just another means to grab territory.
"This is state theft," said the mayor of Bethlehem, Hanna Nasser. "They are thieves and they are bluffing everybody. It's not a security wall, it's the future frontier of the state of Israel."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4222249.stm
Israel 'rethinks' land seizures
Land on the Jerusalem side has already been expropriated
Israel is rethinking the application of a property law under which thousands of hectares of Palestinian-owned land could be seized, media reports say.
Haaretz says the US is concerned a 1950 absentee owners law could be used to take land from Palestinians cut off by Israel's separation barrier.
The review is expected to be announced at a meeting of Israeli envoys and the US secretary of state later today.
Senior Israeli officials confirmed the newspaper report to the BBC.
The main purpose of the meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli envoys Dov Weisglass and Shalom Turgeman is to prepare for her trip to the region in the coming week.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government decided to implement the controversial Absentee Property Law in east Jerusalem last July.
It was originally enacted to allow the seizure of property of Palestinians who fled to neighbouring Arab countries during Israel's creation in 1948.
Hundreds of Palestinian families risk being considered absentee owners as the barrier Israel is building between the West Bank and the Jerusalem municipality currently cuts them off from their land.
Palestinians say it is an attempt by Israeli to justify illegal acquisition of territory in Jerusalem with a view to excluding it from future peace talks.
Israel captured the eastern half of Jerusalem in 1967. Palestinians want it for the capital of their future state.
--------------------------------------------------
I wonder who the trolls really are.