David Thompson profiles Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong:
In my review of Robert Spencer's The Truth About Muhammad, I wrote: "In his book, Islam and the West, the historian Bernard Lewis argued: 'We live in a time when… governments and religious movements are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have been, as they would like their followers to believe that it was.' This urge to sanitise unflattering facts is nowhere more obvious than in biographies of Muhammad, of which, Karen Armstrong’s ubiquitous contributions are perhaps the least reliable." I've since received a number of emails asking me to clarify why Armstrong is unreliable in this regard. To that end, here's a brief catalogue of Ms Armstrong's errors and distortions, a version of which was first published by Butterflies & Wheels. Some of her rhetorical airbrushing is, I think, quite spectacular."Armstrong would have us ignore what terrorists repeatedly tell us about themselves and their motives. One therefore has to ask how we defeat an opponent whose name we dare not repeat and whose stated motives we cannot mention..."
Karen Armstrong has been described as “one of the world's most provocative and inclusive thinkers on the role of religion in the modern world.” Armstrong’s efforts to be “inclusive” are certainly “provocative”, though generally for reasons that are less than edifying. In 1999, the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Los Angeles gave Armstrong an award for media “fairness.” What follows might cast light on how warranted that recognition is, and on how the MPAC chooses to define fairness.
In one of her baffling Guardian columns, Armstrong argues that, “It is important to know who our enemies are… By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the… problems of our divided world.” Yet elsewhere in the same piece, Armstrong maintains that Islamic terrorism must not be referred to as such. “Jihad”, we were told, “is a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has no connection with violence.”
Well, the word ‘jihad’ has multiple meanings depending on the context, and it’s hard to determine the particulars of what “most Muslims” think in this regard. Doubtless countless Muslims would recoil from connotations of violence and coercion. But it’s safe to say the Qur’an and Sunnah are of great importance to Muslims generally, and most references to jihad found in the Qur’an and Sunnah occur in a military or paramilitary context. Aggressive conceptions of jihad are found in every major school of Islamic jurisprudence, with fairly minor variations. The notion of jihad as warfare against unbelievers is affirmed by Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi and Shafi'i traditions, to which the majority of Muslims belong. And Muhammad’s own celebration of military jihad and homicidal ‘martyrdom’ makes for interesting reading. How these ideas are reconciled by believers is not entirely clear.
Muslims who do commit acts of terrorism and intimidation do so, by their own account, because of what they perceive as core Islamic teachings. The jihadist movements in Indonesia, for example, refer to theological imperatives and the names they give themselves – jihadi, mujahedin, shahid – have no meaning outside of an Islamic context. Mukhlas Imron, the Bali bombing ‘mastermind’ and leader of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, explained his actions not as a response to Iraq, Bush or Blair, but as intended to advance the creation of a vast Sharia state covering Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines. Imron pointedly cited Muhammad as his inspiration: "You who still have a shred of faith in your hearts, have you forgotten that to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other? Aren't you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Muhammad and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?"
In his book, Robert Spencer argues, “If peaceful Muslims can mount no comeback when jihadists point to Muhammad’s example to justify violence, their ranks will always remain vulnerable to recruitment from jihadists who present themselves as the exponents of ‘pure Islam’, faithfully following Muhammad’s example.” But Armstrong would have us ignore what terrorists repeatedly tell us about themselves and their motives. One therefore has to ask how we defeat an opponent whose name we dare not repeat and whose stated motives we cannot mention.
Read it all.
I finally got to see Krazy Karen on CSPAN last month. She looks awful and comes across as a nut. I detest her whitewashing of Islam and its phony prophet. She's lost in some kind of New Age lala land like our recent poster JebZehan. Where Mohammed's evil is either swept under the rug or falsely equated with Christian wars and the Hebrew wars against the pagans of Canaan
There is one central war monger in Islam and that is Muhammad. Whose war making example is valid for all Muslims at all times. (So say the Muslims) Whose life Muslims are ordained to emulate
Who is the central war maker in the Old and New Testaments? You will not find him, there is none. No Jew is called upon to emulate the main characters in the Tanach (Old Testament) and Christ didn't make any wars or lead any battles for booty and sex slaves. That was Muhammad.
Jews study and learn from the Talmud and Tanach. There is admiration and criticism of the important figures. But no robotic emulation
I do not believe that "jihad" as a word and a concept is no more complex than the English word war. Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty, not a single poor person was killed. We have had wars on highway litter; not one litterer was abducted and held for ransom. War can also mean "an internal sprirtual struggle." My mother once declared war on my chaotic bedroom when I was a teenager; I am still alive. The campaign against liquor just before prohibition has been described as a war.
These people who try to narrow the definition of jihad to disguise the meaning are disgusting little creatures worthy of nothing but our contempt.
"The campaign against liquor just before prohibition has been described as a war."
Thank God we had an exit strategy from prohibition.
"terrorists repeatedly tell us about themselves and their motives"
...And the MSM refuses to report the truth as to what the terrorists are repeatedly telling the world.....as if all the body parts showing up daily around the world are not really there....
Ban Muslim Immigration...
I saw the C-SPAN show featuring Karen Armstrong too. This the person whom most people in the West see as a valid expert on Islam??? She doesn't have a clue. Maybe she thinks Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah after some constructive dialog will join us in a "Hold Hands Around the World" and sing "Kumbaiyallah"
Yes, David Thompson writes some interesting articles.
Here's a fresh slice of Dhimmitude from Ms Royal in France: Apparently criticising the slaughter of sheep in bathtubs by Muslims (which is illegal) is 'odious'.
Still, Muslims are a serious voting block in France these days:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/26/wfra26.xml
"In 1999, the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Los Angeles gave Armstrong an award for media “fairness.”
That alone is reason enough to brand her as an apologist for the enemy and discredits her writings. Did she receive a lovely black shroud as her award?
I have to wonder if THIS is her comment...
"The greatest threat to the British people is it's own government."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=F11&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2007/02/12/ublview12a.xml#comments
Assalamau Laikum all,
We all know that Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades. They began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley and ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged.
Jews were killed because they were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this "blood libel" regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare.
At the same time, catholic popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, while Muhd SAW was portrayed as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with some envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts.
At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women.
Thus the Christians of Europe mixed all these things up...wanting to give a mixed message...and to debase Islam...and so it become Islamophobic - became known as the religion of the sword.
In this state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting disquiet about their OWN activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted.
T
he world simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. Until the 20th century, Islam was a more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity.
You all know that the Qur'an forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from Allah SWT …his flat earth policy was considered most superior in the middle AGES.
Alex- the slaughter of sheep in bathtubs is odious?
She has sold out. If she gets elected the sharia will be part of national law way much sooner than predicted.
That's right Naseem, the flag of Saudi Arabia, the keeper and spreader of the islamic faith, has a sword on it, which must have been put there by the misunderstanding of the Europeans. What could the sword mean?
Naseem hadn't heard from you in a while, too bad I thought you had fallen off your flat side of the earth.
Assalamau Laikum Gaelen,
You say "Naseem hadn't heard from you in a while, too bad I thought you had fallen off your flat side of the earth".
Gaelen, you descendent of an ape...stop being so cheeky.
Assalamau Laikum Gaelen,
You say "Naseem hadn't heard from you in a while, too bad I thought you had fallen off your flat side of the earth".
Gaelen, you descendent of an ape...stop being so cheeky.
Posted by: Naseem at February 26, 2007 11:29 AM
lol,naseem everytime you start with that flat earth crap i just can't help myself. By the way I used to work with primates, they are extremely intelligent animals.
Naseem,
A lot of people here disagree with you, making quite valid points, but you never seem to be bothered to make a logically coherent rebuttal.
However, I will try to make you see reason.
You say –
“Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades”
You write about the “crusaders” a lot, obviously not approvingly.
A little history lesson.
Arab armies swept out of the Saudi peninsula in the 7th Century to attack what was then Christendom, basically centred around the Mediterranean.
Countries like Eygpt, Syria and that province the Romans named Palestine were all Christian once.
Arab armies crossed the Straights of Gibraltar in 711 to invade Spain.
It was not until 1095 that Pope Urban II called for the first crusade.
The idea that hostility between Christians and Muslims started during the Crusades does not bear exanination when confronted with the facts of history.
It was your lot that started the wars of religion, not ours.
I suggest you read Robert Spencer’s book on the Crusades for more information.
Jews were killed because they were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this "blood libel" regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare.
sorry Nazeem.. what you attribute to us is actually being done in Egypt andthe other cesspoolistans in The middle east, pakiland and indonesia!
just the facts bitch.
PS. I can't wait for True Crusaders to return. The duplicitous deed and words of momos.. always blaming the victims... it all makes me so very sick.. where do I sign up for a good Crusade?
Karen Armstrong's denial of objective truth in regard to the nature of Islamism is not shocking. Some of the most celebrated and powerful westerners are precisely those who manipulate the psyche of the public in order to make fantasies believable; actors, politicians and trial lawyers for example. If the relativism embraced by the post-Christian west is cognitive koolaid, we shouldn't be surprised that huge numbers are lining up for a large glass of it, rather than a less sugary drink of objective reality.
lol,naseem everytime you start with that flat earth crap i just can't help myself. By the way I used to work with primates, they are extremely intelligent animals.
Posted by: gaelen
I'd rather turn my back on a gorilla than on a moFo 5 year-old. Check 'em out on Youtube. Don't they look darling with their little guns? Oh yes.. we need MORE aid for the Pals.. //sarc off
Damn I wish we could get rid of all the stupids in the West.. The Reds, the Greens.. Labour types.. Neocons and One Worlders.. Liberal Christians and guilty white liberals.. black radicals and all the other garbage that we haven't flushed out for so long.
In their steed we'd love to have more people like Hirsi Ali and all the persecuted under islam.
Can't those who hate the West just LEAVE?! See if you can get asylum and social services in KSA or in Pakiland! Maybe Lebanon or "palestine"?? I am sure they can't wait to welcome boatliads of dhimmies.. er.. dummies.. er.. whats the difference anyway?
Can't those who hate the West just LEAVE?! See if you can get asylum and social services in KSA or in Pakiland! Maybe Lebanon or "palestine"?? I am sure they can't wait to welcome boatliads of dhimmies.. er.. dummies.. er.. whats the difference anyway?
Posted by: Allahfanculo at February 26, 2007 01:36 PM
They can never leave-their goal is to destroy the existing order and bring about utopia, no matter how many millions must be enslaved or killed to achieve it.
Great name, by the way!
Robert Spencer says:
Sorry, Robert,
I think the history of other religions suggests that is a hopeless task, and we need other methods.
AFAIK, in no religion have modernists ever refuted fundamentalists solely by logical argument and analysis of the sacred texts. Modernist Christians haven't refuted Creationist fundamentalists by arguing from the Bible. Reform Jews haven't refuted Orthodox Jews by any arguments out of the Torah. The fundamentalists always have the sacred texts on their side. They can quote verses and simply interpret them literally, which is the simplest interpretation for average folks to understand. It's always the modernists who have to come up with nuanced, sometimes tortured re-interpretations: It's a metaphor, it's a myth, it's out of context, it's mistranslated. Not as easy to explain to average folks, putting the modernists at a basic disadvantage. When Genesis says the Earth was created in six days, it's a lot easier to interpret that as meaning six actual days (fundamentalist), rather than some amorphous geological epoch (modernist).
The modernist, reformist religious movements got started for reasons having little to do with religion. Often economics or politics. The fundamentalist, burn-the-heretics-at-the-stake Christian Church of the Middle Ages gave way to the rise of science and capitalism. If you were freezing to death in the winter, you could either pray to God to make the winter milder, or you could hire artisans to build you a fireplace with a functioning chimney flue pipe. The latter worked better.
Even Reform Judaism got started in America, a secular/Christian nation "devoted to the almighty dollar," rather than in the great centers of Jewish learning in Poland and Russia, where one would expect to find a major religious shift led by Judaism's greatest rabbis. That a major religious reformation (Reform Judaism) would originate in the United States, a country that had no centuries-old Jewish tradition comparable to Europe, is bizarre. Probably due to simple practicality: Jews were doing very well in America so why not find a "reason" to adapt better to modern life there?
Thus, if we want to see a reformation of Islam that will decisively refute and roll back the violent interpretation of jihad and so on, you really have to look outside the religion altogether for countervailing forces to force reform. That is what history suggests.
There are several ways this could be done: First, the West must stop depending on oil imported from Islamist countries, especially Saudi Arabia, a major enabler of the hate propaganda that fuels terrorism. Saudi Arabia must be cut down to size. Period. End of story. It must stop and it must stop IMMEDIATELY.
Second, as Ralph Peters suggested, the Saudis must relinquish political control over the sacred sites of Mecca and Medina. They should be internationalized, free cities under a United Nations mandate.
Third, regime change in Iran, which will eliminate a potential nuclear power controlled by mullahs.
“Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades” - Naseem
Naseem,
Anti-Mohammedanism dates back to the time the first person was murdered in the name of the camel driver's new cult.
I bet those nuns who were raped on the alter table of a church outside Salerno, in 873, by a Muslim general who'd gained temporary control of the area, did not have much of a good word to say about Mohammedanism. It amused him to have a new one each night, in accordance with the Muslim jihad policy of demoralising and striking terror into the heart of the enemy. It also demonstrates the contempt for, and hostility towards, other religions that lies at the heart of your godforsaken cult. Needless to say, was also his legal right, as a Mohammedan, to do so (in accordance with divinely revealed law -ha!ha!) - indeed your brutal imposter of a prophet would have heartily approved of his action.
By the way, your Pakistani lads are supposed to have raped 200,000 women during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. Some people think it was 400,000. Pakistanis don't deny it - they just quibble about the figures. I'd say this bad habit, invariably displayed by Muslim armies, was grounds enough alone for a degree of Islamo-nausea. It stems from a basic misogyny built into the creed.One of the most pitiful things about devout Muslim females is their blindness to this obvious fact.
At the core of the Karen Armstrongs of the world is a self-loathing. They feel they are to blame, they are guilty, they are mistaken. It is a disfunctionality. They are disfunctional human beings, and they project that disfunction on everything they see and analyze. All intelligence and intellectual honesty goes out the window and all evidence and facts and reasoning based on them. We are to blame, we are guilty, we are mistaken.
This emotional disfunction clouds the thinking to an amazing extent and plays out even in those who seemed quite intelligent at one time -- not Karen Armstrong, of course, but some of the intellectuals of the left such as Chomsky who has become completely absorbed in this self-loathing he has projected on his vision of America. And he has done to to such an extent that he ignores all historical documentation and examples and even current rhetoric of the Jihadists that mostly quotes directly from their own "holy" texts.
It is truly astonishing and sad.
Karen Armstrong is a nasty (expletive) (expletive) (expletive) Mohamedan collabo.
You all know that the Qur'an forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from Allah SWT …his flat earth policy was considered most superior in the middle AGES.
Posted by: Naseem at February 26, 2007 11:11 AM
Naseem, how can you say flat earth policy was superior on the middle AGES? It was wrong then, as it is wrong now.. and you know it! Only difference is that noone (specially your ignorant prophet) knew better and opportunist Mo/Allah cashed in. West, through it's relentless persuit of truth, knows, what muslims even today, don't. Then again, why do I bother debating a muslim?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2635000/2635845.stm
hahahhahahaha
Alert, I don't know if you know it or not, but muslims believe that Armstong heard the "call to prayer" on the moon or something like that because that's where, I think, the "prophet" or something or other lives. I'm not certain about how this mania works...
...all something to do with allah the moon god of the time that he stole as a concept...
Also, the middle ages was not the last time a "learned scholar" of the world's oldest and biggest death cult proclaimed the world is flat (based on the insane ramblings of the Quran, of course). Sheik Abdel-Azi Ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993 I think it was.
hahahahhahahaha
Yes, Islam -- let's ignore historical record, fact, logic, and science, and believe what our "infallible books" say no matter what!
hahahahahhahaha
Abraham_Lincoln,
At the core of Karen Armstrong’s belief is not self-loathing but, it would seem to me , self-love of the most narcissistic kind.
These people wish to present themselves as the ultimate liberal and in order to do this they are prepared to completely ignore all evidence as regards the true nature of Islam.
There is, I believe, quite a lot in common, between the psychology of the far-left and the Muslim suicide bomber.
Both find it totally unbearable to admit they are wrong about anything.
This pride is complete. To a suicide bomber, reciprocity and a willingness to negotiate are a sign that their belief system is flawed, something they find unbearable.
Their own lives and the lives of others are insignificant compared to this pride.
The leftist intellectual such as Karen Armstrong and Chomsky have a similar inability to admit they are wrong.
They would prefer to lead Western Countries to their demise rather than reconsider any of their assumptions about multi-culturalism.
Are they leading the West toward suicide largely because their wish for an ego-trip?
I think so.
Among the reading list of the US Army for our officers: Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong.
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/biblio/deploylist.asp
As warped as it is, I believe we are both right, Odyessus.
I think it's a deep-seated subconscious self-loathing that manifests itself in over-compensation with a public, extroverted narcisism in which they present themselves as the infallible ultimate Liberal. Facts (and reasoning based on them) be damned. They play to a crowd, an audience, telling them what they want to hear -- a crowd of more disfunctionals like they are way deep down inside -- that unthinkingly and without doing their own research, applauds them mindlessly. The Armstrongs and Chomskys's egos are fed while their self-loathing finds expression in their delusional, fact-blurred and half-missing tracts.
At the core of the Karen Armstrongs of the world is a self-loathing.
Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln
You got it exactly right! These people feel that they (and the rest of us Islamophobes) must be punished for our past sins - slavery, racial discrimination, insensitivity, homophobia, sexisim, the list is endless. Because of our past we have NO MORAL AUTHORITY to question anyone or anything - ESPECIALLY someone with a brown skin.
We are so vile that WE DESERVE TO LOOSE! Whatever the Islamo-nazis have in mind for us, well we've got it comming!
As was noted above this guilt trip overrides all logic and common sense. Look for it in the Democrat party today (with the notable exception of Joe Lieberman, who they threw out).
Robert Spencer is sort of like a Martin Luther King of the dhimmies.
Karen Armstrong's "Islam: A Short History" was one of the first books I read on Islam after deciding to educate myself more about the religion, and not knowing anything about Armstrong and being too naive, or maybe oblivious, at the time to consider that there might be a liberal agenda behind her work. That being said, and even with my limited knowledge of Islam at the time, even as I was reading it it felt like a whitewash and I couldn't help but be suspicious. Needless to say, I'm a bit more careful now with what I read. Thank god for Robert Spencer and others like him, who aren't afraid to publish the cold, hard facts, whether they're politically correct or not.
-Sarah
Naseem,
Islam regards all religions as valid? That's why the Qur'an says of Jews and Christians "How perverse are they!"
For more anti-dhimmitude visit http://www.masada1234.blogspot.com - a new blog about Israeli and World politics.
Naseem,
Islam regards all religions as valid? That's why the Qur'an says of Jews and Christians "How perverse are they!"
For more anti-dhimmitude visit http://www.masada1234.blogspot.com - a new blog about Israeli and World politics.
Not to worry - it seems like we've got Islam all wrong. I just heard Tariq Ramadan on the radio talking about his new book "The Messenger: The Meanings of the Life of Muhammad".
Mohammed, he claims, taught love, respect for women and brought justice for all - he was even concerned about the environment. What's wrong with Islam, we're told, is simply a matter of perception, or rather the the misperceptions that the rest of the world holds about Islam.
You don't suppose that Ramadan would lie about this stuff, do you?
Zaltys
Of course Muhammad was concerned about the environment! And look at all the European Green party office holders who make alliances with Muslims to get elected (/sarcasm)
At last an islamist quote I can agree with. I wonder if this fellow, or whoever translated this, understands that the literal meaning in English is that there is no deed that has a lower reward than this one. Taking reward and punishment on a continuum this would mean that something like hellfire (unless there's something lower) should be the "reward" for this deed.
I'd say that this is roughly correct, but unfortunately very unqur'anic...
I wonder if this fellow, or whoever translated this, understands that the literal meaning in English is that there is no deed that has a lower reward than this one.
I don't think you're interpreting this correctly, Archimedes2. Saying something has a reward "above no other" means that it has the highest, not the lowest, reward; so killing "infidels and the enemies of Islam" would merit the killer a better reward than he could for anything else. Thus why the jihadist cited in the article used that quote from Muhammad as his inspiration.
dennisw: I finally got to see Krazy Karen on CSPAN last month. She looks awful and comes across as a nut.
I saw her too and I thought she came across as very credible. And I've been visiting Jihad Watch etc for a year or more. I think she had an impact on uninformed people. I thought at the time, I'd love to see a debate between her and Robert Spencer.
Jacob Tutt
Of course KA has sway over many soft minds, they fall for her shtick. I'm being unbiased when I say she looks awful to me. That's how she looks with her demeanor and absurd hairstyle.
There was always debate in the past, but things have changed.
Now in the halls of the academy there is no price to be paid for being wrong, no censure for getting pounded upside the head with reality.
Academic fraud is a-ok now, it's even lucrative. And, in the absence of comeuppance, why not? If you have a craving for the bullsheet.
With what's going on in the colleges nowadays, I would expect to see thousands of letters of resignation. But these letters are not forthcoming. Therein lies the problem, right alongside the regrettable institution of tenure.
I caught Armstrong on CSpan, too. When she described Mohammad's conquests as kingdoms that were about to topple anyway, as if he was just a lucky, well-meaning guy who showed up at the right place at the right time, I understood the depth of her scholarship.
"to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other"
This is just a case of a misplaced modifier. Correct English would be: to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a rewarded deed above no other.
"above no other" is meant to modify "deed" not "reward"
Here is an article by Charles "Chuck" Colson who wrote that Jesus, the Gospels, and the Christian faith from the start championed the God-given rights of women and respect for.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/charles_w_chuck_colson/2007/01
bigcatgirl
Take a look at the panelists on the On Faith group. Mohammed Khatami ("moderate" Iranian ex-President) and Tariq Ramadan are on it. I wouldn't trust Mr. Coulson or anyone who writes an article for On Faith. I bet that group also gets a good deal of Saudi money. Just some more deception via interfaith alliances.
The Koran clear state that the Earth is than general sphere shape.
dennisw posted:
'Of course Muhammad was concerned about the environment! And look at all the European Green party office holders who make alliances with Muslims to get elected (/sarcasm)'
You onto it, obviously. Great minds think alike:
Help me: I'm compiling a list of enemy agents here and over there.
Look at this one, is there anything more obvious than this?
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/01/18/murat-kurnatz-the-al-qaeda-war-manual/
If you know of others help me expose them!
Naseem
The 'Crusaders' were not True Christians!!! What they did was not True Christianity!!!
So do not use their example of fighting back against the muslim, mohammedan 'Crusaders' to mitigate what islam was and is!!!
If the Crusaders attacked civilians I do not condone this, in fact, I condemn it.
But if the Crusaders fought Jihadists then I do not condemn it.
Why?
Because as I have repeatedly made clear, I believe the Crusaders were defending Christendom.
Muslims attacked Spain in 711 AD.
384 years later Pope Urban II called for the Crusades.
The Mediterranean was once part of Christendom.
I am still waiting for Naseem to answer this point.
Islamophobia did not begin with the Crusades – there was almost 400 years of Jihadist-inspired bloodshed leading up to the Crusades.
Nassem, do you ignore evidence when it does not fit your theory?