Walter Scott, The Talisman, the Crusades, Richard I of England and Saladin: Myths, Legends and History
by Ibn Warraq
Part 46
Parts 1-39 / Part 40 / Part 41 / Part 42 / Part 43 / Part 44 / Part 45
CONCLUSIONS: CRUSADES NOT BARBARIC.
Often when criticizing Islam, I am interrupted by the remark that of course Christianity was also once equally culpable of similar crimes. The fact that Christianity certainly was once intolerant does not mean that my criticisms of Islam’s intolerance are any less valid. If a Christian makes a specific criticism X of Islam, and Christianity was once also guilty of X, it does not follow that the criticism X is invalid.
Second, Islamic intolerance is presently a far more immediate danger to all, whereas Christian intolerance is a thing of the past, and is no longer a threat to civilization. Christendom’s crimes have been recorded by Christians themselves, but, in the present climate of political correctness, many are reluctant to voice any criticism of Islam.
Of course, there is a sense in which one could well agree with criticisms of Islam’s intolerance, but go on to insist that Christianity was also once intolerant in order to, perhaps, point out the possibility of Islam evolving in a similar fashion towards tolerance. One could also point out similar shortcomings of Christendom in order to relativize the atrocious behaviour of Islamic civilization, in order not to demonise Islam alone. However, this principle should work both ways; we should equally not demonise Christendom, and be prepared to point to similar shortcomings of Islam. In a recent (December, 2008) television programme, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, presented a rather biased programme on the Crusades, but biased against the Christians, laying the blame of the Crusades entirely on the Christians, who are always depicted as barbarians. He pointed out at that Christians in Spain after the expulsions of the Moors converted a mosque into a church, and called this act “vandalism”. However, he failed to point out that the Crusades were a reaction against over three hundred years of jihad when the Eastern Christians were persecuted, and hundreds of churches destroyed. He also failed to mention the conversion of the magnificent Byzantine Hagia Sophia into a mosque, (though admittedly this took place after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 -- it was a mosque from 29 May 1453 until 1931. But my point is that Islamic Jihad did not end with the defeat of the Crusaders. On the contrary in Islamic doctrine all the later Islamic conquests were seen as a part of the religious duty of carrying out Jihad until the entire the world submits to Islam.)
The Muslim persecution of Christians, or for that matter, all non-Muslims, varied from country to country, ruler to ruler, or century to century. The treatment of non-Muslims, and its scriptural source and justification will be discussed below. Here I can only adumbrate the situation in the Holy Land a hundred years before Pope Urban II’s call in 1095 for a crusade to liberate Palestine. The cruelties of Caliph al-Hakim have been recorded by Christian and Muslim historians. In 1003, al-Hakim began the persecution of Jews and Christians in earnest. Historian Ibn al-Dawadari tells us that the first move in a series of acts was the destruction of the church of St. Mark. Al-Musabbihi, a contemporary, recounts that the Christians built this church without a permit -- the building of new churches was not permitted. The Al-Rashida mosque was built in its place, eventually extending over, and desecrating Jewish and Christian cemeteries; surely an act of vandalism. The height of al-Hakim’s cruelties was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, also known as the Church of the Resurrection, possibly the most revered shrine in Christendom, since it is considered by Christians as Golgotha, (the Hill of Calvary), where the New Testament says that Jesus was crucified, and even the place where Jesus was buried, and hence, of course, the site of the Resurrection. He ordered dismantled “the Church of the Resurrection to its very foundations, apart from what could not be destroyed or pulled up, and they also destroyed the Golgotha and the Church of St. Constantine and all that they contained, as well as all the sacred grave-stones. They even tried to dig up the graves and wipe out al traces of their existence. Indeed they broke up and uprooted most of them. They also laid waste to a convent in the neighbourhood….The authorities took all the other property belonging to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and its pious foundations, and all its furnishings and treasures.” According to Muslim sources the destruction began in September, 1007 C.E. “Most of the Muslim sources view the destruction as a reaction to its magnificence and the fact that it was a world centre for Christian pilgrims, among them many Christians from Egypt; to the splendid processions that were held in the streets of Jerusalem, and to the ‘Paschal fire’….”
To be continued.
Ibn Warraq is the author of numerous books, including Why the West Is Best and Why I Am Not A Muslim.
RSS Feed
From the article. The description of Al Hakim attacking *the* focus of Christian worship and pilgrimage in the land of Israel: the site of Jesus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection.
"The height of al-Hakim’s cruelties was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, also known as the Church of the Resurrection, possibly the most revered shrine in Christendom,
"since it is considered by Christians as Golgotha, (the Hill of Calvary), where the New Testament says that Jesus was crucified, and even the place where Jesus was buried, and hence, of course, the site of the Resurrection.
"He ordered dismantled “the Church of the Resurrection **to its very foundations, apart from what could not be destroyed or pulled up, and they also destroyed the Golgotha and the Church of St. Constantine and all that they contained, as well as all the sacred grave-stones.** {my emphasis - dda}.
" They even tried to dig up the graves and wipe out al traces of their existence. Indeed they broke up and uprooted most of them....".
**Exactly** as they are doing to the priceless archaeological treasure-trove that is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where stood the First and Second Temples.
What the Muslims did back then to *the* central historic focus of Christendom, they are doing now (and have probably been doing all along, especially at the outset, and with frantic fervour now that they know just how much even the smallest remnant of stone or shard of pottery or glass may have to say to a good archaeologist) to *the* central historic focus of Judaism:
If the stones themselves cry out against the blatantly false mohammedan rewriting of history, their attempt to pretend that the 'Muslim version' (which is a lie) is the only version, then the Muslims will attack even the stones.
What al Hakim was trying to do was to shove Christian history down the 'memory hole'. And the Muslims are trying to stuff the Temple Mount, with all of its precious ancient archaeological fragments, down the same memory hole, today.
And that, by the way, is why I would say to modern revisionists who try to make claims about Christian or Jewish history based on what archaeologists are able to find in the Holy Land, eretz Israel, *today* - do please beware; **remember** that huge amounts of evidence - buildings, bones, stones, written material, inscriptions, carvings, books - may have been **deliberately destroyed** - dug up, removed, burned, smashed, ground to powder, dumped, sh*t on, scattered to the four winds - by Muslims, in the course of 1400 years of Muslim occupation. The little bits that people find today may be the merest remnant of what might have been there to be found, had the Muslim invasion and occupation not happened.
Muslims *hate* history.
*Wherever* they go, they destroy everything that is the physical evidence of the pre-Islamic past of the land they are devouring; everything that by its very existence contradicts the Muslim narrative, by showing that there *was* a time-before-Islam, and ideas and people and things that were not shaped by Islam. Muslims want to pretend that everything was always Muslim from the beginning; which is a nonsense. In order to establish their lie, they have to destroy everything that doesn't 'fit'.
What al-Hakim did to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, what the Muslims did and are doing to the Temple Mount and other Jewish sites, is exactly what the Muslims did to Buddhist sites from one end of the Silk Road to the other, as they worked their way along it (the most spectacular and most recent example being the obliteration of the Bamiyan Buddhas and the painted caves behind them), and what Muslims did to Hindu and Buddhist shrines all over India.
V S Naipaul, in 'Among the Believers', in the section on Pakistan, has a chapter entitled "The Killing of History".
Muslims = History-Killers.