Wonder what Mr. Spencer and other readers of Jihad Watch would say is the reason - the primary driver - so many Islamic folks have moved to Europe in the first place. Is it (real or perceived) economic opportunity, freedom from persecution of some sort, or as an advance guard? I can't imagine it's the latter, though it may ultimatly come to function that way. Thanks. Andy from Boston

Posted by: abochman at February 20, 2006 1:18 PM

Dutch painting, yes. If the lights really do go out all over Europe I hope some of the art gets rescued and taken abroad.

Since it's Mozart year in 2006, let's not forget that, if the Islamists had their way, there'd be no more music heard in Germany or Austria either.

Posted by: Yojimbo at February 20, 2006 1:24 PM

Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye'or, David Littman and me

Wow, what a target, I mean, I hope you guys weren't out wearing the conference name badges.

Posted by: FallingProphet at February 20, 2006 1:26 PM

Welcome home, Robert! Now, let's get back to work. What's to be done about the sale of our port facilities to UAE?

I agree with the bereaved father who thinks this sale is insane.

Posted by: 00Buck at February 20, 2006 1:33 PM

A note of caution: city residents rarely visit local museums. But it is the same in London.

Where do Muslim families go on vacation? Obviously, you don't see them in the sand, sea and sex resorts of Europe.

Posted by: 1630r at February 20, 2006 1:34 PM

It's so hypocritical that Christians liek Spencer should complain about art work being destroyed by iconoclast religious nuts, while his own religion's history contains some of the most disugsting cases of idol smashing imaginable. Where do you think Muhammed got the idea from?

The historian Eunapius tells of the Christian religious hate crime committed against the Serapeum:

Men who had never heard of war boldly attacked stones and walls. They demolished the Serapeum! ... they made war on offerings. Courageously, they gave battle to the statues until they had vanquished and robbed them. Their military tactics consisted of stealing without being seen. As they could not carry away the pavement because of the weight of the stones that could hardly be moved, when they had simultaneously overturned everything in sight, these great and valiant warriors, whose hands though rapacious, were not stained with blood, declared that they had triumphed over the gods. They gloried in their sacrilege and impiety. In these 'sacred places 'monks' were installed, those creatures who resemble men but live like pigs.... In that period anyone who wore a black robe had despotic power! In the abode and in place of the gods, henceforward worship was rendered to the skeletons of a few wretched ex-convicts, slaves who deserved the whip: the 'martyrs'"

Glory to God in the highest.

Posted by: Julian at February 20, 2006 1:34 PM

It feels very good that you were in Holland.

Tim

Posted by: rotterdam at February 20, 2006 1:44 PM

When you see a Mohammedan in a museum it is likely that he (or she) has other motives than admiring art or statues:

It is more likely that they go there to spy and to plan the bombing of our cultural heritage. Much more security is needed and when the riots start in earnest the timid, cowardly Eurabian governments will have no other choice but to finally call on the army to deal with this scourge in the appropriate way.

Internment and deportations NOW!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 20, 2006 1:48 PM

Julian~ when are you are yours going to bother to notice: Everything you gripe about, occured centuries ago.

We grew out of it. We have created a Thousand times as much as was destroyed. When will you?

Posted by: Gary at February 20, 2006 1:48 PM

The diatribe on iconoclasm above ignores one thing: that the iconoclasm of 8th century Byzantium arose at the very moment of Islam's early conquests, and successes that originally seemed to threaten Byzantium. It is more plausible to assume that the sudden eruption of iconoclasm was a result of aping Muslim ways, and not that the iconoclasm in Islam came from Byzantium.

Similarly, the peculiar ferocity of the Spanish version of the Inquisition probably owes much to the Spanish re-conquistadores being influenced by the ferocity of the Muslims they had to fight. And perhaps the behavior of the Spanish in the New World, much more hellbent on conversion of the Indians than were the English and French colonists in North America, was learned during the centuries of the Reconquista.

These are things that deserve study. What effect did Islam have on the attitudes and beliefs of the Spanish, as demonstrated in the Spanish Inquisition and in the behavior of Spanish conquerors in the New World?

Step right up, doctoral candidates, for thesis topics. Get your Thesis Topic here. Don't hesitate -- these things are going fast.

Posted by: Hugh at February 20, 2006 1:58 PM

Vermeer was Swann's favorite painter, not Proust's. But the pang of loss, grimly foretasted, remains the same. Not only Vermeer, but also the others Proust mentions -- Botticelli, Carpaccio, Giotto, El Greco, Hooch, Leonardo, Manet, Mantegna, Michelangelo, Monet, Poussin, Rembrandt, Renoir, Turner, Veronese, Watteau, Whistler -- would never be tolerated in a Muslim--run state, and not one of those mentioned could ever have been produced in a Muslim society.

Nor, for that matter, could the many thousands of other Western painters and sculptors who would never have been produced in the Islamic world.

And to that one can add other thousands of scientists and historians and political thinkers and philosophers who, at least during the past thousand years, could never have been produced under Islam.

Vermeer. Part for whole.

The next time you go to a museum in the Western world, think carefully about whether or not you wish to preserve the world that made the contents of that museum possible. Look around for the Muslim visitors. You won't find them -- save in that little alcove or perhaps a room or two in the largest museums, devoted to so-called "Islamic art" -- the handful of Qur'ans in Kufic, the plates with geometric motifs or Iznik tulips -- and that's "Islamic art."

The next time you visit a scientific institution, where research into the nature of life, or the nature of the universe are being studied, ask what would be permitted in the world of Islam, or if Islam were to triumph?

The next time you visit the sick or the poor, or attempt to help them, ask how much of Western money is now being diverted, in Europe, to supporting the gigantic families of people who have battened on Infidel generosity, and offer nothing in return but the kind of malice displayed by those Danish imams. Ask yourself how much more money would be available to pay for the poor and the old and the sick Infidels if the colossal cost of monitoring Muslims for security purposes, all over the Lands of the Infidels, on top of what is spent (in Western Europe) for cradle-to-grave support of every kind, free education, free medical care, housing subsidies, and living allowances, all paid to these large Muslim families, and then of course there is the cost to Infidel taxpayers of incarceration of Muslims.

And finally, there are the gigantic and ever-mounting costs of providing security for threatened individuals (Geert Wildres, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, several dozen others and their numbers are growing), in guarding airports and train and metro stations and bus terminals and roads and bridges, and Christian and Jewish houses of worship and schools, and water-treatment plants, and chemical plants, and nuclear reactors, and research institutes, and the list keeps growing -- all a huge expense that eats everywhere into Infidel abilities to cope, Infidel possibilites for happiness.

This internal Jizyah, unrecognized as such, can only get bigger as the security problem of monitoring Muslims gets bigger and bigger.

What is to be done? We hear so often that there is a "civil war" within Islam. But there isn't, for the "moderates" do nothing, say nothing, and are hardly going to war against the "immoderate" Muslims. But there is a war in the Infidel lands, a war between those who have bothered to find out what Islam inculcates, and what cannot continue to be ignored, and those who refuse to study any of this because to do so, and then to draw the logical conclusions, would undercut too many of the pieties that have become, for many in the West, simply soothing Articles of Faith.

Posted by: Hugh at February 20, 2006 2:04 PM

regarding the Muslim destroying of art..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb
Aurangzeb - an Mughal emperor in north west India, who was the first ruler to impose strict Sharia law:

hundreds (if not thousands) of Hindu temples were obliterated - thus, hundreds , if not thousands of years of art from that area of the world was completely lost to nihilistic Islamism. All artistic representations of livings things were obliterated in the areas he ruled.

and this was back in the 1600s.

Because of Aurangzeb, we had the Sikh - a militant branch of Hinduism that evolved to defend itself against encroaching sharia law.

Aurangzeb's rule was marked by constant warfare, as Hindus resisted his imposition of Sharia. This , in an area of the world that was relatively peaceful before - and had a Hindu civilisation that can be traced back thousands upon thousands of years.

Theres a lesson from history in there for the rest of us.

Posted by: archduke at February 20, 2006 2:09 PM

The Louvre is burning.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at February 20, 2006 2:14 PM

Welcome back Mr. Spencer! I'm glad your trip was productive and memorable. You are right in your fears for the treasures found in the museums of Europe. Hopefully, those in power (what there is) will awaken to the dangers and take steps to preserve them for the world, even if that means removing them to a secured, undisclosed location. Any room in your fortress?

Posted by: jhl952 at February 20, 2006 2:16 PM

More about the meeting can be found on the Brussels Journal:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/840

Posted by: Gary at February 20, 2006 2:19 PM

Uh, another teensy, weensy itty bitty problem with the diatribe is that Christianity itself decided against the iconoclasts. You can check out a handy paperback copy of the Documents of Nicea II, or perhaps just appeal to the spirt of the second Nicene Council.
As for Hugh's point, it is interesting. Leo III the first Iconoclast Emperor was born in Syria, but not raised there. Perhaps there was some Muslim influence. But on the other hand, St. John of Damascus lived in the Muslim world and was pro-icon.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at February 20, 2006 2:21 PM

Similarly, the peculiar ferocity of the Spanish version of the Inquisition probably owes much to the Spanish re-conquistadores being influenced by the ferocity of the Muslims they had to fight. And perhaps the behavior of the Spanish in the New World, much more hellbent on conversion of the Indians than were the English and French colonists in North America, was learned during the centuries of the Reconquista.

Shouldn't they have to take responsibility for their own behaviour, like anyone else? :-)

But some would say it is more the job of the historian to explain the past than to allot praise or blame, and I'm guessing this is what you're getting at.

It's been suggested that the violence and cruelty of Russian society may be connected with the long occupation by the Mongols.

Certainly, if you have conditions (such a protracted war against invaders) that produce men whose existence is orientated towards combat, they don't join the ladies' sewing circle when the original conditions are no longer present.

I believe most of the Conquistadors were from poor and backward areas of Spain and many were from the smaller nobility. They needed to make careers. Fighting was what they knew; and carving out a career with your sword would have seemed honourable to such men.

De Soto was truly horrifying:

"Much given to the sport of hunting Indians, he had an even more unpleasant habit of throwing natives ... to his pack of savage powerful dogs ... He burned one Indian alive ... because the brave and loyal redskin refused to betray the hiding place of his chief. De soto had hoped to frighten the others into betrayal. When they stood firm, he burned them all. He also went in for slashing off hands and noses as minor punishments ..."

Posted by: Yojimbo at February 20, 2006 2:55 PM

New column from Mark Steyn:

http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=24

And more rumbling about more cartoon protests from the Islamo-loonies:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4732710.stm

Posted by: Yojimbo at February 20, 2006 2:59 PM

"Much given to the sport of hunting Indians, he had an even more unpleasant habit of throwing natives ... to his pack of savage powerful dogs ... He burned one Indian alive ... because the brave and loyal redskin refused to betray the hiding place of his chief. De soto had hoped to frighten the others into betrayal. When they stood firm, he burned them all. He also went in for slashing off hands and noses as minor punishments ..."

Today we see the excesses and the atrocities committed by the conquistadors as a huge crime on humanity. To put it in context: The Spanish were ruled by the 'Moros' until shortly before they sailed to the 'new world', and the cruelty of the former Muslim-rulers obviously carried on as a tradition, even amongst Christians after the Mohammedans were thrown out of Spain.

Should we feel guilty over this? Hardly. Nothing to apologize for.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 20, 2006 3:11 PM

Yes, Muslims are conspicuous by their absense from many public places and cultural events. Here in Maine we have a Somali refugee community that is all but invisible except witin a closely defined area surrounding their subsidized housing complex. Where I work we had maybe 10-12 Muslims out of a workforce of 400 but as soon as they found out they had to work with women and were not allowed to set up a special area within the factory for their daily prayers they started to get indignant. They developed an attitude and eventually quit because they didn't like the work or got fired for bad attendance. We work round-the-clock which means Saturday and holiday work. Plus we had pork products in the vending machines. None ever went to the Company outing or participated in any company events or charitable efforts. They've made zero attempt to integrate into the fabric of the local society. What has happened is the leader of the local Mosque raised a ruckus about needing to get their Mosque up to the local building codes. It seems that the Females have their separate place of worship upstairs from where the men pray. It didn't meet code. The local leader argued he was a religeous organization and didn't need to follow local law. The City doesn't have the courage to make them comply so the muslim's refusal to follow local ordinances stands as mute evidence of a troubling trend. I could go on with other examples of how there has been a complete failure of the muslims to integrate into and accept their new homeland. But I've had enough.

Posted by: ARAKIS at February 20, 2006 3:16 PM

Robert:

You make a very valid point. It's good to point out to Westerners what is at stake beyond just our basic freedoms. We simply take far too much for granted.

Julian:

Nice centuries-old to the modern-here-and-now equivalency speech. So predictable and so impotent.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 20, 2006 3:23 PM

Robert
Welcome back. The title of your address "Do Moderate Muslims Exist?" is a question all Non Muslims around the world are asking themselves.
After violent & disgraceful scenes of burning embassies,cars,flags even poor ol Ronald McDonald
...I mean what else do these Primitives do for recreation apart from droning verses from the Koran & smashing things??
Our wonderful culture [I include Buddhist,Hindu,Sikh,Animist etc] is indeed in great danger of being destroyed by these fanatical Madmen who believe their abominable 'Prophet' and the dictates of the Koran enable them to kill Infidels and obliterate
every trace of artifacts made by Non Believers.
If one examines the history of Islam-a truthful version not the whitewash of John Exposito or Karen Armstrong- it is one long violent killing spree and the destruction of churches,temples and
beautiful objects.
In reply to earlier post as to Muslims not destroying Egyptian masterpieces-answer is these were too huge to demolish wholesale :note that after Islam the Egyptians have produced little of artistic note & invented less- they are still as poor and violent as any Islamic country where time stands still in the 7th Century.
Urge JWatchers to read 'From Holy Mountain' written by William Dalrymple. This is a witty,well written & researched account following in the footsteps of long dead Byzantine
monks into modern Middle East Christian sites and
Turkey. Bulldozers are rapidly obliterating the last vestiges of Armenian Christian churches,houses and artifacts in Turkey. This is a quiet,calculated attack by Turks to deny that
Armenians ever lived in their country. That the
Armenian Genocide happened. Mr Dalrymple chronicles the fear & uncertainty of remaining Christians in Middle East- the outlook is bleak to say the least.
In the Balkans ,Kosovo will soon be given to Albanian Muslims. This is ILLEGAL as Kosovo belongs to a sovereign state of Serbia. However,U.S & E.U are foolishly colluding in an act that can only destabalize the Balkans and
hearten Muslims everywhere-make enough noise,outbreed everyone else and the land eventually falls like a ripe plum into the Umma of Islam.This is a very dangerous precedent : at least 200 small would be countries are waiting in the wings. Do you think Spain will willingly surrender Catalonia? No, there will be violence which will divert attention from THE ENEMY WITHIN who must be laughing at the stupidity of Infidels.
As to Kosovo,all which will remain will be a very
beautiful & poignant Painting -MAID OF KOSOVO-held in Belgrade, a few bits of graffitti left on
decaying walls of burned out churches. Who says
Byzantium is 'History' when the same scenario is being repeated...

Posted by: Morgane at February 20, 2006 3:41 PM

Julian, go back to your leftist ivory tower. You will believe one day when they come for you.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 20, 2006 3:43 PM

Here is a clip from the Opinion Journal [WSJ] for all those Europeans who think that - their Islamic problems are about race or anything other than the Muslims themselves.
_________

“The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.”
_________

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

Posted by: Pass It On at February 20, 2006 3:45 PM

Thanks for that Robert. No art, no music no nothing - reminds me of Cambodia and Pol Pot with Year Zero.

Posted by: cathkins at February 20, 2006 3:54 PM

The disfunctional Spanish economic philosophy deserves study as well. Why did the Spanish place such excessive faith in gold, land and the superiority of Spaniards over Indios, and de facto slave labor (which the Church tried to dismantle from a theological point of view: enter the Lady of Fatima) rather than industry, invention, banking, principles of political equality and skilled labor, which developed so much more fluently in other European countries?

It surely had nothing to do with the legacy of the Romans; the Spanish provinces were among the most advanced and prosperous. So what happened to the Spanish? Very interesting questions all.

Posted by: JTF at February 20, 2006 3:58 PM

Why did the Spanish place such excessive faith in gold ...?

Well, you can put two and two together and make five. The obvious comparison is with the English in North America. Rather than primarily conducting a smash-and-grab raid for gold, the English settled land and farmed it. The reason for that would seem to be demographics - many here will have read this:

Why is this newspaper published in the language of a tiny island on the other side of the earth? Why does Australia have an English Queen, English common law, English institutions? Because England was the first nation to conquer infant mortality.

Posted by: Yojimbo at February 20, 2006 4:10 PM

The next time you go to a museum in the Western world, think carefully about whether or not you wish to preserve the world that made the contents of that museum possible. Look around for the Muslim visitors. You won't find them...

Well, you will sometimes. I've seen Muslims in the V & A and even the National Portrait Gallery, and the Egyptology room of the museum in Bolton - albeit schoolchildren. Nevertheless, it is certainly against Islam, and these not-quite-Muslims would, if Islam gained power, end up being deprived of these opportunities at best, and punished for enjoying them at worst.

Where you really don't see Muslims is at concerts and plays. They just don't seem to be there. Conversely, young Muslim men - and only men - go out drinking and clubbing, often with a view to pulling a Kafir bird.

(For US readers, "pulling a bird" is an expression deriving from grouse shooting, an upper class pastime beginning on the glorious twelfth. The working class equivalent would be pigeon fancying. Possibly the US equivalent would be quail missing, although Gold Star Catherine has mentioned squirrel hunting and spider killing as two popular American sports.)

Posted by: Interested at February 20, 2006 4:28 PM

Welcome back, Robert. Looking forward to reading more.

That's a sentiment I feel quite often as a Jihad Watch reader and musician-- the magnitude of what we're fighting for is just staggering at times. And the more staggering one finds it all, the more the thought of it being taken away makes one's blood boil (I also happen to enjoy going out unescorted, with my head uncovered).

The "evil America"/"evil West" mentality that pollutes education keeps many in the West-- a good generation and a half now by now-- from appreciating our own cultural heritage; these things are made to seem undesirable, or at least congenitally inferior to what lies in more exotic locales.

When the "powers that be" display that attitude, many are deprived from enjoying the great books, music and artwork that has come before us, or even making up their own minds about what they like.

Though they may think themselves rebels by trashing the masters, those "powers that be" are still very much dictating to others what to think and like. Nowadays, it has to be literally covered in crap to make it big in an art gallery. ;)

One can only hope the pendulum is slowly-- virtually imperceptible, but nontheless unstoppable, like continental drift-- swinging back in the other direction, to where it's ok to stand in rightful awe of the achievements of the West.

The time has come for antidisestablishmentarianism. :)

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 20, 2006 4:40 PM

The time has come for antidisestablishmentarianism

I'll drink to that. Let's take a stand against the floccinaucinihilipilification of Western culture. Now.

Posted by: Interested at February 20, 2006 4:45 PM

Hello all,

I like historical things. Islam is rich & full of history.

It is a pity that I got little support when I asked the people here to lobby the Saudi Embassy when I heard that the Saudis were going to knock over Mohds house in Makka to make way for a bloody supermarket....the irony is that it would have probably stocked Danish produce.

I was shattered and amazed that they would knock over a building of such historical value....It's at that time that I thought ..."this would never happen in an infidel country"....and for a few moments I felt jealous of Infidel cultural practices.

Posted by: Naseem at February 20, 2006 5:16 PM

Mr. Spencer-

Islam will allow one piece of music to survive the "Great Iconoclastic Cleansing".

The O'Jay's old Motown hit:

"Backstabber".

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 20, 2006 5:22 PM

An excellent, but very long article, requiring the best of your powers of concentration and well worth the effort.

In HTML:
Christians, Islam and the Future of Europe

In printable PDF:
Christians, Islam and the Future of Europe

A teaser:

Of course, Islam is also that which subjugated and extinguished the blossoming Churches of the Christian East and of northern Africa.

It is that which extended its domain beyond the Spain, even coming to the point of assaulting and sacking the Rome of the popes, in 847.

It is that which destroyed the holy places of Jerusalem and reconquered the land of Jesus which had been temporarily lost with the Crusades.

It is that which brought Constantinople to its knees in 1453, and more than a century later was defeated and beaten back at Lepanto, and yet did not retreat, but instead, another century later, put Vienna to the siege.

But in the meantime, Europe was ravaged by bloody wars among its own Christian members with Islam as the ally of first one and then another kingdom. For many centuries, Islam was treated as a legitimate power within the concert of nations and European public law.

It was only much later, in the nineteenth century, when the Ottoman Empire was in full decline, that the European culture of Enlightenment origin drew a boundary between a civilized Europe and a despotic, backward Europe, including within this “inferior” Europe, together with Islam, the Roman Catholic Church as well.

The same period, from the nineteenth century forward, saw also the birth of the myth of a bygone golden age, an age of peaceful multicultural dialogue between Islam and the Judaeo-Christian world, an age said to have taken place now in Sicily, now in Spain, now in Baghdad.

In reality, much of this is legend. Even in Andalusia when it was ruled by the Almoads, which is so frequently remembered and praised, Jews and Christians were second-class citizens and were systematically harassed, and the two great exponents of that so-called golden age – the Jew Maimonides and the Muslim Averroes, the great translator and interpreter of Aristotle – both ended their lives in exile.

Posted by: Lisa at February 20, 2006 5:34 PM

Robert S. - How can we miss you when you won't go away :)

Posted by: dennisw at February 20, 2006 6:00 PM

It is interesting to listen to the incessant bitching that goes on here about the bad, bad Christians. Me thinks thou dost complain too much.

Enough! Yo, Jimbo, if you are going to complain about what the Spanish Christians did wrong in America then let's hear the other side, about what they did right.

When the Spanish came to Mexico in the 16th century, they found a people that were steeped in superstition and regularly practiced offering human sacrifice to their gods, especially those prisoners captured in battle.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02169b.htm

In 1531, Mary, the mother of Jesus appeared to a poor Indian as Our Lady of Guadalupe.

http://www.ourladyofguadalupe.org/ologimage.htm

Within 3 years of this appearance, human sacrifice (which rivals any atrocity cooked up by modern day Muslims,) completely stopped amongst the people of Mexico.

http://www.livescience.com/history/human_sacrifice_050123.html

And they fell in love with Our Lady of Guadalupe. She has been honored and loved by these people and pilgrimages have been made, and still are, since 1531. Go into any town in Mexico and I defy you not to find an image or a shrine to this beloved Lady.

In 1926 when the Masonic government of Plutarco Calles, president of Mexico, decided to close the churches to end the influence of the Catholic Church on the people of Mexico, they rose up in defiance of a government that sought to destroy their church, their culture, their very way of life. They became known as The Christeros, at first fighting the federal (government) troops with stones and machetes, and then later, after several military successes, fighting with captured federal guns and ammunition. They caused quite a disturbance to the intrusive government of Calles, who sought to completely obliterate the church and in turn, the faith of the Mexican people. Many Mexican Christians died for their faith between 1926 and 1929 and many, many Catholic priests were slaughtered standing up to an ideology that they could not accept. They did not commit suicide to do this but fought in self-defense to protect their home, their families and their beliefs and willingly went to their deaths rather than surrender those homes, families and beliefs. They said, "No, we will not go quietly. We will not surrender." I hope we have their courage.

http://www.spxx.ca/Angelus/2002_January/The_Christeros.htm

If the people of Mexico were so oppressed by the Spanish Conquistadors why have they embraced the faith of their oppressors? Why were they willing to die for this faith? Was there any redeeming quality about the faith of the Spanish that influenced in a positive way, the behavior and attitudes of the people of Mexico?

I grew up in Southern California, and went to church every Sunday in a town heavily influenced by Mexican culture. In my experience, the Mexican and Mexican-American people are some of the kindest and most pleasant folks you'll ever meet. They are devoted to family and even in our strange times, many of them are devoted to some sort of Christian faith and to the Blessed Mother, especially Our Lady of Guadalupe. These people in general have no malice. They are polite, intelligent and the influence of Christianity absolutely shines through their eyes. In spite of what we've been taught about the Spanish coming to America, some of it no doubt true, some of it not, the influence of the Conquistadors can and should be looked upon as positive in bettering the lives of the Aztecs and their descendents in removing a brutal state run religion, not unlike the brutal Islamic regime that we claim to oppose here, and trading it for a religion that has enriched the culture, and the lives of the Mexican people.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 20, 2006 6:19 PM

Mr. Spencer -

I am so glad that you enjoyed your trip to the Netherlands - one of my favourite countries of Europe, especially in the spring - and equally glad that the Conference you attended was a success. Perhaps you will do a report on it in the near future and let us know what happened.

I do, however, take exception to your use of one word - Eurabia. I, and many other Europeans who otherwise support you, find that word as you and others use it and apply it to us, to be highly insulting and offensive in the extreme. What is more, we do not agree that you have made a case where it is even appropriate to use it as you do.

For the record, and for the second time in as many months on this site, let me give you some pertinent statistics on the number of Mohammedans resident in Europe and the size of the European population and then permit me to outline, also for the second time in as many months on this site, the attitude of the vast bulk of that population to Mohammedans.

The total population of Europe is in excess of 450,000,000 (450 million) people; the total number of Mohammedans in that population is 14,400,000 (approx. in 2002 - the last year figures are currently available for - Buijs & Rath, Russel Sage Foundation, New York City, USA, October, 2002) or about 3.5% of the population - scarcely Eurabia, so please stop using that demeaning and insulting word about our beloved countries; all you are doing is turning us off your otherwise excellent site.

Various institutions of the European Union are extremely worried about the attitude of Europe's indigenous populations, me and mine in other words, towards the Mohammedans. Also, currently, the investigators of the European Court of Human Rights (not, strangely, anything to do with the EU) are preparing to report several countries - including Denmark, surprise, surprise, the UK, France, Austria, Germany, Italy and Spain - to the Court for not dealing with "this overwhelming problem" as they describe it - scarcely Eurabia, so, once again, please stop using that demeaning, offensive and insulting word about our beloved countries.

The European Court of Human Rights will get nowhere and anyway, in this respect, it is toothless because EVERYONE in Europe knows that it is run by PC dhimmis, and consequently no one pays it any never mind. Many of us have the impression that you only use that word in order to scare your USA readers but, once again, let me tell you that it is offensive, demeaning and insulting to our countries and our flags and we would much prefer that you refrain from using it, please. As the statistics and the attitude of our peoples clearly demonstrate, it also has no basis in fact.

I am sorry that you were unfortunate enough to encounter a large number of Mohammedan veiled women in The Hague. The same can happen in any large city almost anywhere in the world today - I had an equally unfortunate experience in the centre of Tokyo, of all places, some five months ago - but to infer from that occurence that Europe has been overrun is far from the truth and it ill behoofs a great man, such as you, to stoop to such tactics, especially when you know them to be offensive to many who support you. We are not Eurabia; our problem is our politicians who are turning out to be a weird assortment of gangsters and PC dhimmis, a situation that is exactly comparable with the USA but we do not wander around gratuitously offending you by calling you the Islamic States of America. Hopefully, your conference will have helped in this respect.

So please, drop the insult and give us some credit for not being as stupid as you think we are. Offended, insulted and demeaned but not stupid.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 20, 2006 6:26 PM

Sorry, that last link is:

http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2002_January/The_Christeros.htm

On another subject, what do you think will happen to the Winter Olympics if Islam has it's way?

There was an interesting article in the Washington Times today regarding the jealousy of somebody from Bangladesh and his inability to compete in the winter olympics because there is no snow where he lives. Say what? How long until that precious of cultural events meets an untimely demise, because his "hopes of adding a drop of Hershey's syrup to the skim milk of the winter Olympics have been misplaced"?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 20, 2006 6:37 PM

Sorry, that last link is:

http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2002_January/The_Christeros.htm

On another subject, what do you think will happen to the Winter Olympics if Islam has it's way?

There was an interesting article in the Washington Times today regarding the jealousy of somebody from Bangladesh and his inability to compete in the winter olympics because there is no snow where he lives. Say what? How long until that precious of cultural events meets an untimely demise, because his "hopes of adding a drop of Hershey's syrup to the skim milk of the winter Olympics have been misplaced"?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 20, 2006 6:37 PM

If some Rastafarians from Jamaica can compete in the bobsled races in the winter games, why for the problem with mohammedans?

Posted by: Lisa at February 20, 2006 6:41 PM

Neighborhood surveillance doesn't lie.

Posted by: parainvesta at February 20, 2006 7:00 PM

Lisa, because they are more about whining than getting the job done. And besides, Rastas have a good attitude and they they know how to chill and not take themselves too seriously, unlike our uptight Muslim wanna-be invaders.

Here's the link:

http://www.washtimes.com/culture/culturebriefs.htm

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 20, 2006 7:09 PM

But...aren't there art museums in the Islamic world? There was at least one in Kabul before the Taliban got through with it. And there was the one in Baghdad that got looted in 2003 because our army couldn't be bothered to protect it.

Posted by: sceptico at February 20, 2006 7:42 PM

"There was at least one in Kabul before the Taliban got through with it.."
-- from a posting above

Yes, Afghanistan was the site of a Greco-Buddhist civilization that possessed artifacts of every kind -- or did until Islam arrived to make sure that they were systematically destroyed. The Bamiyan Buddhas had a reprieve because Muslims in earlier times did not possess dynamite. Now they do. And they used it. And so those Bamiyan Buddhas went the way of tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of Buddhas and other artifacts.

That Kabul Museum you mention -- I possess a guide to it from before the Taliban era. It is small, about 50 pages or so -- a pamphlet really, containing a list of the various rooms and their exhibits. That's what's left -- or was left -- of that Greco-Buddhist civilization, with a later Hindu admixture. There is nothing left.

That's Islam. That's the promise of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at February 20, 2006 7:49 PM

From a previous posting:

"I have in front of me a tiny volume as I write this. Its title: "A Guide to the Kabul Museum." It was published in Kabul (Franklin Book Programs) in 1964. It shows on the cover a Buddhist head. It is really just a pamphlet, with some illustrations, mostly of the Greco-Buddhist civilization that was destroyed by the Muslim invaders. You can see a few items in the Hadda Room, and the Bamiyan Room, and the Fondukistan Room, and the Begram Room, and the Shotorak Room, and then in the "Room of Islamic Arts." And one wonders, given the Taliban's Islamicaly-inspired destruction of all pre- or non-Islamic art it could get its hands on, what even these pitiful gathered remnants of that past managed to survive their religious vandalism.

Just as in India, where the Muslim invaders destroyed tens of thousands of Buddhist temples and artifacts and helped wipe out Buddhism in India, the Buddhist statuary all over Central Asia was subject to attack by Muslims. And that would happen in Thailand, too, if these southern Muslims were ever to get the upper hand."

Posted by: Hugh at February 20, 2006 7:51 PM

You may be delighted to know that many of the contents of the Kabul Museum were hidden away by the experts, curators and guards who staffed the museum before the Taliban regime came to power. As these people learn to trust again the items are slowly showing up and being conserved for the future in Afghanistan and the UK.

Baghdad, of course, is a different matter as the Museum there was looted. Nonetheless, a very large part of the collection has been returned and is in the process of being conserved by Iraqi and British experts. The international art trade have co-operated in the tracking down of the pieces that were sold on the black market with the sole exception of the trading houses in the USA that have refused to co-operate. The USA Government when approached about this said that no art trading house in the USA would trade in stolen or looted pieces anyway. Since most of the missing pieces seem to have been sold in New York one can only wonder at the innocence of USA Government officials!

Posted by: Certiorari at February 20, 2006 8:33 PM

The diatribe on iconoclasm above ignores one thing: that the iconoclasm of 8th century Byzantium arose at the very moment of Islam's early conquests, and successes that originally seemed to threaten Byzantium. It is more plausible to assume that the sudden eruption of iconoclasm was a result of aping Muslim ways, and not that the iconoclasm in Islam came from Byzantium.

--------------------------------

Thanks for exposing your lack of knowledge. The Serapeum was annihilated in the 4th century, 400 years before Islam arose in Judaea (later Arabia). Christian iconoclasm arose out of the Bible, and early Christian writings. Indeed, the first thing the Christians did when the took over the Empire was destroy 6 pagan temples. At two of them, the pagan priests were tortured to death.

Libanius, a pagan living under the increasingly tyranical rule of the ultra-Christian emperor Theodosius, wrote a plea to him ,Pro Templis, in which he begs the emperor to stop the monks in their crusade against paganism, pagan artwork and temples in particular. Listen to what he has to say:

Oration XXX, #8

"Then utter desolation follows, with the stripping of roofs, demolition of walls, the tearing down of statues and the overthrow of altars, and the priests must either keep quite or die. After demolishing one, they [the Christian monks] scurry on to another, and to a third, and trophy is piled upon trophy, in contravention of the law."

Christian iconoclasm even preceded the takeover of the empire. In 303 (before Constantine) a council had to be convened in Spain to deal with "martyrs" who died in the act of attacking pagan temples, and at least one saint got his "martyrdom" this way.

The Christians wiped out more pagan temples, altars, and artwork than could be imagined. My review of The Archaeology of Religious Hatred, here, covers the topic quite nicely http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0752425307/ref=cm_aya_asin.title/002-8471471-7544854?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

A college student from Europe is currently doing his doctorate on early (pre-8th century) iconoclasm. You can find it here http://www.iconoclasm.dk/

Christian iconoclasm is still alive today, especially in Africa. Recently, a Christian preacher from Africa attacked and destroyed a plastic totem of a Canadian Indian tribe, because it was "demonic." As comical as it might seem, such hatred still bubbles under the surface of the religon, especially in its sacred texts.

As for me being an "ivory tower liberal", get over it. I'm no Islamophile (I recently edited an article about porn actress/celebrity Aylar Lie over at wikipedia, what do you think of my use of Hadith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylar_Lie ?). I'm also a fre market capitalist, but Christianity is responsible for the Serapeum and all of the other terrible things it did to the pagans of the Roman emprie, and it still demonstrates signs of the same aberrant behaviour today. Just get rid of the whole darn "religious" idea.

Posted by: Julian at February 20, 2006 8:40 PM

One wonders how the muslims would feel if someone were to destroy their biggest blackest cubed artifact.

Posted by: dms at February 20, 2006 8:40 PM

One wonders how the muslims would feel if someone were to destroy their biggest blackest cubed artifact.

-------------------------

Same thing happened to the Jews of the 1st and 2nd centuries (with the temple), and it sure shut quited them down. Personally, I thinks it's the best solution to our problems today.

Posted by: Julian at February 20, 2006 8:43 PM

Edit: Funny that you guys should mention the Taliban and the Buddha statues. In Sauer's book, he explicitly compares 4th-8th century Christians to the Taliban, and I'd say it's a mighty good comparison.

Posted by: Julian at February 20, 2006 8:44 PM

Since I doubt that anyone is going to click on the link and read my review, I'll just post it here.

Eberhard Sauer has, as I said in my title, contributed to us a needed study on this important field. Christians like to claim that paganism just kind of quietly faded into the background, that over all Christianization was a good thing for the empire and its people. The Christians, they say, would never have done something like destroy the Library of Alexandria of Antioch (even though the destruction of the Serapeum at Alexandria undoubtedly met its end at their hands), or go on rampages tearing temples down (even though Christian chroniclers brag about this). Paganism, we are told, was a dead husk by the time Christianity got their, its adherents just waiting for something better to come along (of course becoming Jews would never do). Although many since Gibbon have refuted this fairy-tale history through use of literary sources, Sauer is one of the first to approach the problem from an archeologist's perspective. He shows, through investigation of coins left on the floors of temples, that paganism persisted in the bounds of the (former) empire well past the 4th and 5th century, and that paganism was rather brutally repressed. His archeological survey is very convincing, showcasing the range of pagan holy place destruction. The temple at Dendera was particularly convincing and, I dare say, frightening, since the destruction the image haters inflicted took place on story-high columns that they needed ladders to reach. It must have taken the Christians days to destroy all of the artwork; yet they fulfilled their obligation to Yahweh doggedly. Sauer also does utilize literary sources when needed, showing that pagans could not have been responsible for the widespread destruction we see though illustration of the story of how Lepidus wished to destroy a temple of Isis in Rome, but could not, for his men refrained from damaging it out of respect to the foreign religion, or how the Christian chronicles that depict Christians destroying pagan holy places are largely confirmed by archeology. Added to this is his analysis of the intense competition between Mithraism and Christianity due to their great similarity, though Sauer leaves the tantalizing question of why these 2 religions shared so much in common. He analyzes the shedding of pagan blood and its effects on Christianization, though he comes to the conclusion that it did not have a very great effect. This comes rather comically, because for the last three pages he provided us with examples of Christians killing pagans (the famous story of Hypatia, the archeological remains of a man who had has hands chained behind his back and was buried in the fragments of destroyed Mithraic icons in a Mithraum in Germany, and unruly Syrian monks run amok amongst the pagans), yet provides no evidence to back up his thesis! Although I disagree with him on the matter, I always welcome debate, and would rather have liked it if he had provided some evidence to back up his thesis, rather than just giving his opponents arguments and pronouncing his conclusion with no argumentation. He spends the last part of the book defending himself against those who would claim that paganism was already a "dead husk" waiting for the arrival of Christianity, and he seems almost timid about facing criticism from his peers, which I do not thing he should be, since he has defended most of his arguments well. Towards the end, he also makes a comparison between 4th century Christians and the Taliban that I find rather good and relevant. Over all, a very good book.

Posted by: Julian at February 20, 2006 8:47 PM

Isabellathecrusader -

Actually, the link is:

http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2002_January/The_Cristeros.htm

and very interesting, too. Thank-you.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 20, 2006 8:55 PM

Julian~ We're still waiting for you to say

1) Something Important
2) somthing not twisted from the truth.

Night all!

Posted by: Gary at February 20, 2006 9:10 PM

As a descendent of those who fled in haste in 1492 from Spain, we Sephardic Jews have never lost our love of Spain. A quick look through history demonstrates that Sephardim were used by Spain in a wide variety of ways . . . and in the other direction. It was not uncommon for Spanish Jews from North Africa to educate their sons in universities in Barcelona. In fact, Spain was an almost frozen society until the death of Franco(who was rumored to of part Jewish extraction himself). My point, maybe a sad one, is that the 200,000 Jews kicked out of Spain c 1492 never forgot their land, their heritage, their music, even their food. Was Spain influenced by their conflicts with the Muslims. No doubt, this was one of several issues. Another was the lure of temporary monetary gain by the expulsion of the Jews and taking of their property(with an unintended long term stagnation on Spain). But perhaps Spain is a good test case in another respect as well. The last of the marranos live unmolested today in the border regions of Spain and Portugal. The queen has formally welcomed Jews back into Spain where they have communities in the major citys. As noted above, no matter what the disasters the west has perpetrated on a minority group that are harped upon by Muslim apologists, we shouldn't run away from this, for isn't forgiveness human--Christian--profoundly 'Western' in nature? The Germans asked for forgivenss from Israel after WWII. Many in the West ask for forgiveness from the Indians. I don't see many Sephardic Jews that I know burning the flags of Spain=). My point: where is the 'editing' function within Islam? As I've said before, I guess being Muslim means you never have to say I'm sorry.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 20, 2006 9:32 PM

Where do Muslim families go on vacation?

Bali seems to be a hit.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 20, 2006 9:48 PM

Julian-

The time machine to 500 A.D. left already.

The Christian iconoclasts stopped about the era of Savonarola and Cromwell.

Tell the Muslims to stop.

Feeding them with outdated tripe helps nothing.

But they love the willing accomplices in the West.

"Religion" is not the problem.

Human misuse of it is.

Who are the current mis-users?

One clue: they cut heads off on t.v.

Another clue: if you are not one of the "Peoples of The Book" your neck is on their short, sharp list.

Focus, bro. Focus.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 20, 2006 9:48 PM

Certiorari,

You are welcome, sir. And thanks for straightening out my link. I sometimes think I have dyslexia! : (

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 20, 2006 10:52 PM

I find it so amazing that there are apologists out there for muslim atrocities today by citing "history" (usually out of context or with gaping holes in the retelling of it) that took place several millenia ago by Christians/Jews.

What a student of history you are! Finding comparisons between 4th century Christians and the Taliban is so profoundly irrelevant and ridiculous, but it certainly suited the author's obvious hatred and bias toward Christianity. What a bunch of liberal, vacuous, bigoted drivel.

And warning us to fear the Christians of today--yes, they are a hell-bent group of people, out sawing off heads, kidnapping innocent people, covering their women from head-to-toe, burning, looting, desecrating flags from every nation, violent demonstrations over cartoons, hanging rape victims. Yeah, those Christians. They are to be feared.

Why is it these same idiots who spew forth this drivel, NEVER decry muslim behavior today? The Christians had their Reformation. Get over it. Don't waste our time defending these barbarians.

Useful idiot, one day your neck will be on the block.

Posted by: usamomma at February 20, 2006 11:04 PM

Biorabbi,

I've read some articles and books on the Expulsion and it wasn't 200,000 Jews that were expelled. There weren't that many in all of Europe at the time. It was actually around 30,000 who left permanently and the other 30,000 converted. Most of the Jews who left, went to France and Italy.

Posted by: Ibn Rushd at February 20, 2006 11:22 PM

I think it was greater than 30 thousand. Defining the total population here is difficult for a variety of reasons. One is there was the category of new Christians and 'old' Christians . . . ie the third path--the way of the marano--who secretly practiced as Jews in their homes--sometimes losing the full extent of their faith--a community in Belmonte Portugal has sustained these 'crypto Jewish' practices up to today. Second, many didn't leave by Sea, but fled--en masse to Portugal where the Kingdom, for a while, allowed a Jewish influx--a temporary respite from the arm of the Inquisition. So, some converted sincerely, some converted on the surface--leaving in droves through the centures. Amsterdam was a home for many of these souls--and not just in the fifteenth century--but afterwards--in the 1500's to the late 1700's there was a constant stream of 'sepharic jews' leaving Spain and Portugal to 'reclaim' their heritage--often with new names. I think the last of these reconverso's fled over the border with France--another haven--after 1800. So over 300 hundred years, you had a continued eflux of thousands of Jews--not just in the year 1492 or in the months preceding the expulsion date. Many went to Italy and the Papal States, and, finally, Italy and the South America and to the US. The overwhelming majority of the first Jews in the US were Sephardic--now the situation is reversed. The reception the Jews receieved varied . . . was atrocious on the sands of North Africa--better In Turkey--at first--accepted with open arms in Amsterdam and the US. What is amazing to me is there were folks who lived a normal life, nominally on the outside Catholic, and, for whatever reason, fled three hundred years after the Inquistion to 'rejoin' the Jewish Community in say Amsterdam. I think there was a large such group who fled even after the Great Earthquake in Lisbon in 1755? -- as if something about the tragedy focused people on what matters. At any rate, this is fascinating and touches me personally, but is off topic as well.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 21, 2006 12:55 AM

I was shattered and amazed that they would knock over a building of such historical value....It's at that time that I thought ..."this would never happen in an infidel country"....and for a few moments I felt jealous of Infidel cultural practices.

Posted by: Naseem at February 20, 2006 05:16 PM

Oh come on Naseem, you can confide in us, we're your friends. We all know you have a secret fetish for all things Western and you curse your ancestors for being Hindus instead of Anglo Christians. To add insult to injury, Muhammad's butchers came along and really screwed things up.

It's ok, envy and resentment are often manifested as triumphalism and hubris but I know that deep down, you're a wannabe infidel. You're getting there; keep working on it.

Posted by: Susanp at February 21, 2006 1:00 AM

First Certioran stop useing the insulting term Mohammedan which will one day be declare than hateful word to use. The correct word is moslim.

Many of the Spanish Jew that where exile in 1492 went to the Islamist Empire in modern day Turkey. The Sultan granted then protection from harm from Spain and the right to freely workship they religion
in return they have to paid than 1% tax each year to the state on income plus a head tax.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at February 21, 2006 6:24 AM

in return they have to paid than 1% tax each year to the state on income plus a head tax.~ defender

Ahhh, Thanks! Proof that there was a dhimmi tax imposed by the mohammedans, straight from a mohammedan!

Posted by: Gary at February 21, 2006 7:05 AM

Why is this newspaper published in the language of a tiny island on the other side of the earth? Why does Australia have an English Queen, English common law, English institutions? Because England was the first nation to conquer infant mortality.

OT, but one reason the entire Anglosphere speaks English is because of battles won against the French and Spanish, financed by the virtually indigenous Jews of London who bankrolled the building of fleets of warships when the crown was almost bankrupt.

Posted by: Animus Fox at February 21, 2006 7:45 AM

- virtually indigenous compared to more recent arrivals of course - my family's Norman / French Protestant for example...

Posted by: Animus Fox at February 21, 2006 7:56 AM

DefenderofIslam -

The linguistically correct term for your cult in English is Mohammedanism - it always has been and it always will be. It does not matter what you choose to call it, Mohammedanism (with or without the capital letter) is the correct English word and has been in use for centuries. It may also be spelled Mahommedanism, or simply Mahommedism or Mohammedism. You and yours may have decided to ask us to call your cult something different in recent years but since you do not adjudicate upon the English language, and since my knowledge of my language is also infinitely and demonstrably much greater than your knowledge of it, I will continue to use the term Mohammedanism, sanctioned as it is by time, custom, dictionaries and common usage.

That the term Mohammedanism also happens to quite clearly describe the central tenet of your cult (see the recent cartoon rage incidents for proof of this) is a bonus. Many words in English are not quite so obvious in their meaning.

Given these two facts you have no reason to be offended by my use of the word Mohammedanism. Once again, your own ignorance has worked against you.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 21, 2006 8:54 AM

DefenderofIslam -

Correction. Almost all the Spanish Jews went to Albania and the area that used to be known as Jugoslavia. Many of their descendants are now returning to Spain at the invitation of the Spanish Government.

Once again, your own ignorance lets you down.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 21, 2006 8:59 AM

Certiorai,keep your ignorance close to your heart, it keeps you warm and cuddly and makes you forget that
you have no brain. Keep on calling us Mohammedans and I will keep on calling you a dumb arrogant racist as people like you have been defined for centuries by time, custom, dictionaries and common usage.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 9:00 AM

Actually Defender of Islam is right,25 000 Jews fled in 1492 to Sultan Beyazid of the Ottoman Empire.

Once again, your own ignorance lets you down

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 9:05 AM

Karim~ was your mohammedan comrade correct about the Jizya (sp) tax that those Jews were forced to pay to the sultan?

Posted by: Gary at February 21, 2006 9:07 AM

Certiorari and sceptico:

Much of what was supposedly looted from the "unprotected" Baghdad museum had actually been removed to underground vaults long before the long-threatened invasion. Lesser pieces that didn't make it into safe storage were taken. As for the failure of invasion troops to secure the museum site, as I recall, there were accounts of museum staff firing on the invaders.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at February 21, 2006 9:09 AM

Gary, you ignorant redneck, as long as you keep on munching on your corn bread, forgetting how to properly address me, I am not going to answer you anything.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 9:10 AM

I don't like corn bread. I have a BA in Geology. And a red neck is indication that I, at least, have a Job.

But since When do you ever answer any Rational question put to you here?

Sorry guys, very sleepy, best I can do. *heads off to bed*

Posted by: Gary at February 21, 2006 9:14 AM

A BA in Geology obvioulsy doesnt stop you from fitting into the crowd here and giving me terms
and names which are everywhere recognized to be offensive and invalid. So much for an education.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 9:17 AM

I stand corrected on a matter of fact. Some Spanish Jews did indeed flee to the Ottoman Sultan and were subsequently allowed to settle in the areas we now know as Albania and the former Jugoslavia. Many just settled there anyway much to the consternation of local Ottoman officials. A number also setled elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.

It is a pity that the religious tolerance shown by the Ottoman Court at the time was not found in the officials of the Empire who made the lives of the fleeing Jews an absolute misery - many were sold into slavery and many had their daughters forcibly taken from them - nor, indeed, was any tolerance found in the minority Christian population of the Empire.

This tolerance also is not reflected in today's Mohammedans but that is hardly surprising given the debased nature of their thinking processes, unable as they are even to grasp that a word, such as Mohammedanism, when it is used in a linguistically correct way cannot be offensive.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 21, 2006 9:24 AM

Certiorari, think of it whis way. Would you like me to address you only as Jesus Freak? It is the same thing for us. As a matter of fact, the moment we tell
you not to call us that way you should stop it.Because that means we feel offended and if we feel offended, Mohammedan is likely not a decent description of Muslim believes. But before you realize that you should learn a little tolerance yourself.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 9:29 AM

Karim83 -

Mohammedanism is not, nor can it be, a term of racial abuse. It is a word that nominates (gives a name to) a cult or religion. That cult or religion is not confined to one racial group but spread over many races. Mohammedanism, therefore is not a racial word but a religious word. It also happens to be correct English usage. I am sorry if you find it offensive but, nonetheless, I will continue to use it as it is correct English.

Let me make this plain. I actively discriminate against all Mohammedans but I do not discriminate against anyone because of their race. I only discriminate against people on religious grounds. You may be a member of any race, your skin may be of any colour, you may be male or female, you may be young or old and I will not care nor will I discriminate against you. However, if you are a follower of Mohammed then I will discriminate against you.

Please learn the difference between race and religion.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 21, 2006 9:37 AM

Jews in the Ottoman empire actually had access to great political power, because of the large exclusion of Turks and Muslims to political and military office. So there is a far gap between the fairy tale of constant persecution and the historical reality.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 9:39 AM

Please learn the difference between race and religion

Thank you, I couldnt have expressed it better myself,
you are a racist. And the old fairy tale of just being opposed to religion and therefore making it somehow just doesnt sit with me. That would make all Anti-Semitism justefied. As a matter of fact that would make Muslim persecution of Christians justefied. The fact is, you discriminate against a large religious minority( in you country) and make no distinction between good and bad, right and wrong and nomatter how you put it, that makes you a racist and an Anti-Semite on top. I didnt expect anything better from you.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 9:44 AM

What is discrimination but racism, the favouring of one racial or religious group over another, based on prejiduce and whims?

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 9:49 AM

I would be delighted if you called me a Jesus Freak since Jesus is the Son of God and one part of the triune Godhead according to the Christians. Therefore I would be flattered because you would be comparing me to God. I would also accept that in your language it may be correct usage. If it is correct go for it and also allow me to use my language in the correct way.

I do, of course, quite see that you would not wish to be compared to Mohammed and that being called a Mohammedan would, therefore, be an insult. However, it is technically correct in English. The other words that you have asked us to use do not have any great currency except amongst the chattering classes and, therefore, since I wish to be as widely understood as possible by my own people, I think I will stick to the word 'Mohammedanism'.

Of course, you would be making the assumption that I am Christian. I have noticed that many Mohammedans seem to insist that everyone in the west is a Christian, which is obviously not true.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 21, 2006 9:49 AM

Would you be delighted? How about your friends and your neigbours? How about my friends and neighbours, would they be delighted? You know that is not true. As a matter of fact that it is a lie. I grew up learning that if people or individuals dont like you calling them something you shouldnt. It is a basic and simple moral princible. Dont do to others what you dont like them to do to yourself. Its in your Bible. What is so difficult about calling me a Muslim? What is keeping you back except for your hate and bias? It is just a word, but words have power.
Unless you change yourself and your attitude, you will remain just that, a racist trying to apply logic
to his rascism.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 9:56 AM

Discrimination is itself a negative princible, it is the same like saying, I am not injust to Hispanics, but I am injust to Jews. That make it good. It is and it remains injustice. All are Human beings and deserve, unless they proove otherwise, fairness and justice.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 10:02 AM

It would not justify Mohammedans discriminating against Christians since Christians are spread over many races as are Mohammedans.

You wrote:
"Jews in the Ottoman empire actually had access to great political power, because of the large exclusion of Turks and Muslims to political and military office. So there is a far gap between the fairy tale of constant persecution and the historical reality."
Indeed, there is a great gap between reality and the fairy tale that you spin. If the Ottoman Empire was consistently so kind to its Jewish people then why, oh why, did these self-same Jews continue to flee, century after century, to the west, bringing with them the most terrible stories of persecution. Why, also, did Attaturk have to lecture his countrymen so severely about the way they treated other races and religions.

Racism is not the favouring of one religious group over another nor is it the discriminating against one religious group. Racism is about race. You are attempting to add a new level of meaning to a word that will not carry it.

I only discriminate against religion and I have chosen the religions very carefully and after much study. I discriminate against them because of what they teach. It is the teachings of Mohammedanism that I dislike. I am indifferent to the teachings of Judaism and therefore I do not discriminate against it or the Jews. I dislike the teachings of fundamentalist Christians and, therefore, I discriminate against them as well. I do not discriminate on any other grounds than religion. Your somewhat childish attempt to conflate race and religion in order to evince sympathy for your viewpoint will not work here.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 21, 2006 10:07 AM

So, are you asking me, and using the word 'please', I hope, as a matter of politeness and courtesy of one human being to another, not to use a word that you find offensive even though it is the correct word in English. Is that correct?

Incidentally, it is not "my Bible". Once again, you are making the assumption that I am a Christian. You have no right to assume that I have any religious beliefs at all.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 21, 2006 10:16 AM

What happened to Jews in the Ottoman Empire is what happens to all Empires, with the gradual decline of its political, economic, moral and military facilities, and the rise of Turks and Muslims to higher political office the position of the Jews began to decline, but dont forget the imposition of the famous Millet System, which garaunteed all groups religious freedo. Mustapha Kemal was no man to lecture anybody since he institutionalized rascim in Turkey with his myth of the superior Turkish race and the abhorrent treatment of Kurds. But still today the Jews in Turkey are an educated and politically potent minority. What you say about carefully selecting religion and then discriminating is just nonsense.The two words careful and discrimination are themselves a contradicition. I never heard of anyone discriminating carefully. Your use of words reminds me about what you said on Muslim mental facilities. That was discrimination, because now I am being more logical then you. You therefore had no right and no basis to say such a thing. I can show you horrible deeds committed by Christians and abhorrent part of the Jewish Talmud, what keeps you from discriminating against them is nothing but your own racsim and hate. Period. I tell you again, dont try to apply logic to it. It doesnt work.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 10:21 AM

'what keeps you from discriminating against them is nothing but your own racsim and hate' ~ karim the mohammedan

*blinks*

What keeps you from being racist and hateful, is your racism and hatred.

I see.

Can't sleep. Glad I came back to this thread. I would have missed the purest bit of mohammedan logic I've ever seen. No wonder we can('t) trace so Much of our heritage back to them, with that kind of thinking.

Posted by: Gary at February 21, 2006 10:26 AM

Gary, go back to sleep.This is a disscussion between two intelligent people.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 10:27 AM

Since when is peevish whining considered 'discussion'?

Posted by: Eisenhund at February 21, 2006 10:42 AM

It is perfectly logical to discriminate against people who hold to certain ways of thinking - such as Mohamedans, fundamentalist Christians, Communists, Marxists and devil worshippers to name but a few. Only by careful study of what each belief system is will one be able to ascertain which people one should discriminate against. I did not say that my discrimination was careful, I said that my study was careful. Please read my words with more care. I know that it is difficult for you since English is obviously not your first language. You are doing very well but a little more care in the reading, please - I am sure that your English teacher probably told you to slow down and take more care so recall his, or her, words now and just slow down a bit and read more carefully. Nonetheless, you are doing very well conducting an intricate argument in your second language - not a skill that I possess but one that I admire.

My discrimination is perfectly logical - I discriminate against those people who hold to teachings that advocate the destruction of my way of life or my society, therefore, I discriminate against Mohammedans, fundamentalist Christians, Communists and Marxists.

I tend to agree with you about Attaturk. He was only ploughing a rich and pre-existing furrow, however, since the Turks have always been inclined to believe themselves superior to everybody else anyway - indeed, many still do, do they not?

I am sorry, but I am going to have to draw this delightful discussion to a close at this point as I have a four o'clock appointment with a client that I must go to. I am sure we will chat again.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 21, 2006 10:42 AM

And no karim, 'careful' and 'discrimination' are not contradictory. Before you complain about someone elses use of language, you best have a better understanding of it yourself.

Posted by: Eisenhund at February 21, 2006 10:45 AM

Karim83-

Please cease and desist with your offensive slurs against cornbread. Some of us love cornbread, and will insist on it being treated with the dignity it deserves. I find your derogatory statements concerning cornbread to be racist. You have offended me greatly, and I am deeply, deeply hurt. You don't know what you've started with these insults.

I just might go out and start burning embassies of non-cornbread eating nations.

Posted by: kafira at February 21, 2006 10:52 AM

>>“The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.”

Looks like western multiculturalism has finally met a reality that it cannot handle. When I was growing up a popular phrase was "live and let live". Everyone is entitled to their own lives. This is fine as long as everyone shares in that value, but those who are really trying to get back to the basic values expressed in the Koran believe there are only three ways to relate with those who do not share their religion: those "unbelievers" must convert, submit or die.

That does not sound like "live and let live" to me. Since followers of the Koran don't appear to want to reconsider their Three Ways to Relate to Unbelievers, there is only one course of action: we must separate ourselves from them.

This is fine in the short run. In the long run those intent on forcing these Three Ways on the rest of us will acquire weapons by which to express these values. Already Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Soon Iran will have them too. How soon will either have bioengineered diseases to use? So we are headed for another world war even worse and more destructive than the last two.

I will not convert. I will not submit. I will not lay down and die.

Posted by: theBuckWheat at February 21, 2006 11:07 AM

and names which are everywhere recognized to be offensive and invalid. So much for an education.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 09:17 AM

Is there anything you people aren't offended by? Remember: "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you."

Grow up and learn to take it like you dish it out; there is absolutely NOTHING special about you, your religion, or the creator of your religion, Muhammad the butcher. Learn the definition of the words "racism" and "discrimination." We all "discriminate" and we do it every day of our lives. If we did not "discriminate", we would have no preferences, opinions, beliefs, or ideals. A racist is a person who considers himself superior to someone of a different race, not someone who detests a vile religion because it is violent, misogynic, xenophobic, totalitarian, tyrannical, and presents a deadly threat to the majority of humanity.

So we can "discriminate" against Islam all we want and there is nothing you can do about it. Political correctness is bullshit, and so is Islam.

Posted by: Susanp at February 21, 2006 11:17 AM

"So we can "discriminate" against Islam all we want and there is nothing you can do about it. Political correctness is bullshit, and so is Islam"

The point my lovely bunch of racists and bigots is that is true we all discriminate, however, the differene is that I dont do my best and try my hardest to do so, which would make me, because I
now submitted to a discriminatory ideology, a racist.
And no Islam is not bullshit, your manners and intellect are. I am not talking any of you until
Certiorari come back or you start answering my posts like human beings capable of logic. And no I dont have any interests in making you submitt to Islam, neither do 1,3 billion muslims. I dont count the few thousandths, because naming them as a threat is a farce. The only threat I see is the United States.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 11:29 AM

The only threat I see is the United States.

Good, now we're getting somewhere.

Posted by: dms at February 21, 2006 11:39 AM

'what keeps you from discriminating against them is nothing but your own racsim and hate' ~ karim the mohammedan

In other words:

What keeps you from being racist and hateful, is your racism and hatred.

Right.

When you figure out what is wrong with your own logic, we'll be closer to a dialogue.

Posted by: Gary at February 21, 2006 11:54 AM

Its not just his logic. His constant attempts to redefine words for his use rather than choosing the correct verbiage demonstrates one of the most common tactics of people who cannot back up a position with facts. Toss out a word like 'racist' and hope no-one looks any deeper at one's one sandy foundation or that the target of the epithet won't be taken seriously. Failing that, hold breath, stamp feet, burn something. *yawn*

Posted by: Eisenhund at February 21, 2006 12:06 PM

Look gary

My sentence was perfectly valid and you are changing it. What I said was "what keeps you from discriminating against them is nothing but your own racsim and hate." I put special emphasis on your own because discrimination is not objective. The choice to discriminate is a personal one and not based on analyzis and study. For example a Nazi might reject
discrimination against Norwegian or Scandinavian guilty of a crime, but at the same time give the harshest punishment to a Jew guilty of the same crime. What keep him from discrimination in the first case is very much his own personal hate, one being in his own eyes an Aryan from the so called supreme race, the other a subhuman. Get it?

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 12:23 PM

As a Christian, I find such 'discrimination' completely Wrong. Perhaps that is why I have such a problem with it: I don't understand irrational hatred because I don't practice it. Nor do the vast majority of Christians. Fortunately aryans are not Christian, and for that matter do not exist, seeing as the term was manufactured, much like 'palestinian.'

While I am here- elsewhere you speak of Christians 'rampaging' over 'The Last Temptation.' I am having a very hard time finding articles on that, do you have some links?

Posted by: Gary at February 21, 2006 12:49 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 12:52 PM

Dont avoid the arguement and pretend there are no Christian racists and supremacy groups. There are many who are willing to do violence. And dont start
calling the Palestinian artificial, as perfect example of discrimination, specially as an American, the most artifical nationality in the world. Palestinians are a semitic people who lived in the
region Palestine for thousandths of years. Jesus was
a Palestinian Jew, just the same as there are Iraqie and Egyptian Jews.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 12:56 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Supremacy

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 1:06 PM

While you're at it, karim, bring us up to date concerning the Christian Jihad in the last 30 years. Or maybe some info one of those rabid Jewish terrorist groups setting off carbombs in Baghdad. How about some of those Rabbis calling for 'Death to Islam!' or issuing death threats for percieved insults. You whine and bitch about semantics. Throw out insults like a lawn sprinkler. Let out the breath now and stop stamping your feet. Childish Islamic antics don't work here, especially the old refrain 'I know you are, but what am I, nya-nya-nya, nya, nya, nya'.

Posted by: Eisenhund at February 21, 2006 1:29 PM

Eisenhund, where do you want me to start? World War One, World War two, Vietnam, Algeria, Tunisia,Iraq millions upon millions, and dont start telling me these were not Christians. It is all a matter of perspective. If you can ascribe Islamic motives to every murder I can also ascribe Christians ones.

Posted by: Karim83 at February 21, 2006 1:55 PM

Being Christian and using Christianity to try to validate one's actions are two very different things. The conflicts you mentioned were not carried out in the name of Christ, Christianity, the Church, the Bible, Torah, etc. Don't try that b.s. with me. If you can't do what was asked of you, just admit it and move on. That would earn you at least a modicum of the respect Mohammedans are always demanding. Problem is, just like the one you call your prophet, none of you can admit when you're wrong.

Posted by: Eisenhund at February 21, 2006 2:03 PM

From Wikipedia: 'Protests against the movie from the religious community began before the film had even finished production. The studio was expecting a backlash due to the controversies revolving around any media treatment of Christ (see dramatic portrayals of Jesus Christ), but the protests accompanying Last Temptation were unprecedented. Major religious leaders in the United States blasted the film in fiery sermons, and condemned its subject matter as pornographic.'

Karim~ wow! Sermons!
No buildings burned.
No deaths.
The makers of the movie are not only NOT in hiding, but have made more movies since.

I don't think I can Stand the violence...

Posted by: Gary at February 21, 2006 2:12 PM

No buildings burned? No death? Can you read?

On October 22, 1988, a French catholic fundamentalist group launched molotov cocktails inside the Parisian saint Michel movie theater to protest against the film projection. This terrorist attack injured thirteen people; four of them were severely burned.

To Eisenhund, dont beome all whiny on me. I am not saying all these wars had Christian motives, although
many were sure supported by popular Preachers and the Catholic Church, I am just doing what you are, ascribing religious motives where there are neccesarily none.And since you seem to make no distinction between the West and Christianity I have every right to do so. They were Western wars after all.