| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Here is an interview I did with Zenit: "Modern Aftermath of the Crusades: Robert Spencer on the Battles Still Being Waged." For more detail, see my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).
WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought, according to one expert.Robert Spencer, author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" (Regnery), claims that the damage is not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed but is a more subtle destruction.
Spencer shared with ZENIT how false ideas about the Crusades are being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today.
Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action -- one that was long overdue.
As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.
"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.
"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."
He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades.
Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?
Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world.
In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.
Early in the eighth century 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies -- except for a small number who converted to Islam.
Muslims also demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay.
Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the tax on non-Muslims -- jizya -- that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of their own children and fellow believers.
Early in the ninth century the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled for Constantinople and other Christian cities. In 937, Muslims went on a rampage in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.
In 1004, the Fatimid Caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. Over the next 10 years 30,000 churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives.
In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches, including the Church of the Resurrection. In 1056, the Muslims expelled 300 Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
When the Seljuk Turks took Jerusalem in 1077, the Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.
Another common misconception is that the Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force. Glaringly absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the Council of Claremont is any command to the Crusaders to convert Muslims.
It was not until over 100 years after the First Crusade, in the 13th century, that European Christians made any organized attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, when the Franciscans began missionary work among Muslims in lands held by the Crusaders. This effort was largely unsuccessful.
Yet another misconception revolves around the Crusaders' bloody sack of Jerusalem in 1099.
The capture of Jerusalem is often portrayed as unique in medieval history, and as the cause of Muslim mistrust of the West. It might be more accurate to say that it was the start of a millennium of anti-Western grievance mongering and propaganda.
The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem was a heinous crime -- particularly in light of the religious and moral principles they professed to uphold. However, by the military standards of the day, it was not actually anything out of the ordinary.
In those days, it was a generally accepted principle of warfare that if a city under siege resisted capture, it could be sacked, and while if it did not resist, mercy would be shown. It is a matter of record that Muslim armies frequently behaved in exactly the same way when entering a conquered city.
This is not to excuse the Crusaders' conduct by pointing to similar actions. One atrocity does not excuse another. But it does illustrate that the Crusaders' behavior in Jerusalem was consistent with that of other armies of the period -- since all states subscribed to the same notions of siege and resistance.
In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler had already left the city -- so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians.
Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination."
Finally, it is a misconception that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades. He did not.
There is no doubt that the belief that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades is widespread. When he died, the Washington Post reminded its readers "during his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican's associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo."
However, John Paul II never actually apologized for the Crusades. The closest he came was on March 12, 2000, the "Day of Pardon."
During his homily he said: "We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward the followers of other religions."
This is hardly a clear apology for the Crusades.
Q: How have Muslims perceived the Crusades then and now?
Spencer: For centuries, when the Ottoman Empire was thriving, the Crusades were not a preoccupation of the Islamic world. They were, after all, failures from a Western standpoint.
However, with the decline of the military power and unity of the Islamic world, and the concomitant rise of the West, they have become a focal point of Muslim resentment of perceived Western encroachment and exploitation.
Q: To what extent are false ideas about the Crusades being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today?
Spencer: The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought -- but not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed. Today's is a more subtle destruction.
The Crusades have become a cardinal sin not only of the Catholic Church but also of the Western world in general.
They are Exhibit A for the case that the current strife between the Muslim world and Western, post-Christian civilization is ultimately the responsibility of the West, which has provoked, exploited, and brutalized Muslims ever since the first Frankish warriors entered Jerusalem.
Osama bin Laden has spoken of his organization not as al-Qaida but of a "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," and called in a fatwa for "jihad against Jews and Crusaders."
Such usage is widespread. On November 8, 2002 -- shortly before the beginning of the Iraqi war that toppled Saddam Hussein -- Sheikh Bakr Abed Al-Razzaq Al-Samaraai preached in Baghdad's Mother of All Battles mosque about "this difficult hour in which the Islamic nation [is] experiencing, an hour in which it faces the challenge of [forces] of disbelief of infidels, Jews, crusaders, Americans and Britons."
Similarly, when Islamic jihadists bombed the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in December 2004, they explained that the attack was part of larger plan to strike back at "Crusaders": "This operation comes as part of several operations that are organized and planned by al-Qaida as part of the battle against the crusaders and the Jews, as well as part of the plan to force the unbelievers to leave the Arabian Peninsula," the jihadists said in a statement.
They also said that jihad warriors "managed to enter one of the crusaders' big castles in the Arabian Peninsula and managed to enter the American consulate in Jeddah, in which they control and run the country."
In the face of this, Westerners should not be embarrassed by the Crusades. It's time to say, "enough," and teach our children to take pride in their own heritage.
They should know that they have a culture and a history of which they can and should be grateful; that they are not the children and grandchildren of oppressors and villains; and that their homes and families are worth defending against those who want to take them away, and are willing to kill to do so.
Posted by Robert at March 13, 2006 10:27 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
leftism is a major reason why people view the crusades as an invasion by alines into the muslim world.
it is similar to the LIE the left has told about the left-and-right - this is the one we were ALL taught in school: that the left is socialist and they are the opposite of fascists and nazis who are on the right.
the truth is that fascsim and nazism are variants oif socialism; they ALL belong on the left.
prroof of this is the fact that in this "spectrum" there is no logocal place for anarchists.
in a true accurate spectrum anarchists are oin the right and socialists on the left and mixed welfare state democracies are in the middle.
the commi-left versus nazi-right lie was fomented in order to make the USSR seem benign. this was okay during ww2 when they were ourt allies, but it has unfortunately persisted.
BACK TO THE CRUSADES LIE:
the post modern left LIED about the crusades in order to portray it as another eurocentric attempt at COLONIALIZATION.
post modernists believe that the west is responsible for ALL the problems in the world: racism; global arming; third world poverty.
as you poiunt out, the truth is the crusaedes wer a defensive war waged by the west against muslim INVADERS.
the middle east was jewish and christian before it was invaded by muslims.
HECK: what is now saudi arabia was largely jewish and christian before muhammed! so was iraq - and baghdad.
the idea that jews and christians don't belkong in israsel and the middle east is leftist BS; this is the heart and soul of Judeo-Christianity.
From Morocco to Iraq!
the OPNLy way it became muslim was under duress: the MOHAMMEDANS invaded and threatened every0ne with derath iof they didn;t convert.
that's their tactic today.
and the post modern left enables it.
Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 13, 2006 10:48 AM
Curiously, Spencer only obliquely alludes to the massive Ego Quoque in the West about the Crusades, treating it as though it were some sort of natural atmospheric process on the periphery of the problem, rather than the powerful, sociopolitically dominant mental and emotional attitude it is.
Without our Ego Quoque, the Muslim tactic of Tu Quoque would have little, if any effect. Without our Ego Quoque, the Spencers of the world would not, sadly, be marginalized as minority flakes.
Why Spencer chose to only peripherally allude to our dominant Ego Quoque is inexplicable and, at this late stage of the game, inexcusable.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 13, 2006 10:52 AM
reliapundit, I had not read your post before I posted: it looks like we are on the same page, though, annoyingly, Spencer is not. Oh well, one can't have everything. One must oft settle for crumbs in this bleak world.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 13, 2006 10:53 AM
Spare us, lord, any more of these half-baked hobbyhorses being ridden all the way to Banbury Cross, and at every conceivable and inconceivable, even entirely imaginary intersections, bobbing up here and there, so as to ensure that attention is drawn to the riders of those particular hobbyhorses. For what results is not general enlightenment, but obstacles to what otherwise could be smoothly humming modes of mental transport, thereby slowing things down so much that at times those rapid mental movements are in danger of ending up behind the maddeningly slow clip-clop of those hobbyhorses, moving with the all-deliberate-unspeed pace, but without any of the stateliness, of a funeral cortege.
Posted by: Hugh at March 13, 2006 11:19 AM
Pep:
This is "Jihad Watch," not "Suicide of the West Watch."
My work focuses on jihad, not the suicide of the West.
Do I deny the suicide of the West? No. Am I unaware of it? No. Is it important? Yes. Is it the focus of my work? Only peripherally.
Inexcusable? Don't excuse it then. Count us as your opposition and go elsewhere. But I believe that at the end of the day the approach I'm taking will do more to save the civilization you claim to hold in high regard than yours will. Your opinion will differ.
I am as tired as Hugh is of your hobbyhorse, and your mean-spiritedness, and your consistent attempts to change the focus of this site and to deplore us for not doing what we do not intend to do. I invite you to go away, and to found "Suicide of the West Watch."
I wish you all the best of luck with it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 13, 2006 11:26 AM
The whole 'Muslim Crusades Myth' is just another contrived, deliberate Muslim lie. The Muslim's know they are lying, and most all of the Humanity knows they are lying, the single possible exception being, pathetic Western Islamic Apologists.
But then... maybe the pathetic Western Islamic Apologists actually know it is a lie too.
Posted by: cheese_burger at March 13, 2006 11:29 AM
A view of the effect of Islam upon western Europe in the early middle ages:
One of the reasons why the west did not respond to the early islamic depradations was that it could not.
After the numerous barbarian invasions, the cohesion of the remnants of the Roman Empire was lost and each part had to more or less survive by itself and each area had its waves of barbarian tribes competing with each other and with the locals.
By 750 AD it was all settling down in the west and Islam copped a bloody nose from the Byzantines when it tried to to capture all of Asia minor thus limiting for the time being its expansion to the northwest
But the call of loot and slaves was too great and so Islam swung its bloody sword to the west of Africa and along the northern coast of the Mediterranean and occupied all of Christian north africa killing all members of the church and many others, and stripping these lands of all valuables and of their youth. The libraries kept in all large cities were burnt as a standard islamic repsonse to any literature nonkoranic.
This cancer slowly spread all over the former christian countries of north Africa and reached spain where internal disputes enabled easy conquest. The Muslims armies only failed in their attempt to capture france because they over extended themselves so that when they finally met a determined army and were defeated they had to retreat back to spain.
Adding to this in the early 8th century a Byzantine fleet raided Alexandria which prompted the Muslims to form their own fleet. This was the beginning of 1000 years of Islamic piratical infestation of the Mediterranean. The loss of the knowledge, the trade and the peoples of north africa plus the devastation committed by the pirates(who ransacked the vatican in 800 AD) all around the Mediterranean when added to the previous barbarian invasions put southern Europe into the "dark ages" well and truly for much longer than would otherwise have been the case. The first true post dark age empire in western Europe was one which was out of reach of the Muslims: the Franks.
So not only did Islam capture half of the known christian world population most of whom died or were converted to Islam,but its constant need for the loot, slaves and killing of razzias made it certain that the coastal communitiues received no respite ever.On their raids, they even burnt crops to make certain they got everybody...even the vikings didn't do this.
The combination of loss of trade, loss of population, loss of knowledge plus the seaborne depradations in my view extended the dark part of the middle ages far longer than anyone realises and was the main reason as to why the west took so long to respond to Islam. It was simple: the west was too weak, too disorganised and had lost too much knowledge to confront a buoyant Islam, let alone take back what had been lost. Spain was a special case and was only recaptured because internecine warfare had weakened the western caliphate but the winning spaniards made no attempt to cross to Africa and push their luck.
In the east the Byzantine empire (the source of almost all "Islamic" architecture) was sufficiently strong to repell the Muslims abut not sufficiently so to recapture the middle east, whose population was antagonistic to it anyway because of the pre-islam heresy wars. Only when the east finally started to weaken with wars on all fronts did it finally ask for help which resulted in the crusades.
Sorry this is so rushed but it is >3am here and this is really only a rough precis of a much longer essay on the subject.
Posted by: Zathras at March 13, 2006 11:35 AM
Relia, this is not a leftist versus rightist issue but an Islam Vs The West. Our enemies will do nothing but rejoice if they succeed in dividing us. The left and the right must unite to face the enemy, who is slicker than an oiled snake.
Posted by: josephpalazzo at March 13, 2006 11:43 AM
"They should know that they have a culture and a history of which they can and should be grateful; that they are not the children and grandchildren of oppressors and villains; and that their homes and families are worth defending against those who want to take them away, and are willing to kill to do so."
I think this is one of the most salient and important points of the interview. Our education system has been overrun by unaccountable, tenured and frankly anti-American/Western teaching staff who are feel resentful and guilty about the history and traditions of their own country and culture, and it's sickening. Kids are growing up these days and graduating from high school almost completely ignorant of the Constitution, our civic system and it's institutions, and the centuries long struggle for freedom and liberties that gave birth to our Western systems.
We in the West have worked so hard and struggled so long for these cherished rights and freedoms... it's so sad to see people are so guilty of their prosperity and ignorant of their heritage that they're willing to give it all up for nothing.
Posted by: sologue at March 13, 2006 11:46 AM
"Ego Quoque" -- "Ego also" ???-- What does this pseudo-expression mean? Also, describing this interview as "crumbs" is crummy. (is that tu quoque enough for you?)
at March 13, 2006 11:51 AM
JSLA:
It means "I also." Dr. Pepper has been waging a campaign here for months to shame us into changing the focus of this site from jihad activity to the ways it is suicidally abetted by Westerners.
I have covered this abundantly in my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers" and elsewhere, and while I respect his difference of opinion, I strongly deplore his tendency and that of others to try to expel from the Resistance those whose points of view do not coincide 100% with his, and to suggest that we are in fact working for the other side.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 13, 2006 11:59 AM
"Spare us, lord, any more of these half-baked hobbyhorses being ridden all the way to Banbury Cross, and at every conceivable and inconceivable, even entirely imaginary intersections, bobbing up here and there, so as to ensure that attention is drawn to the riders of those particular hobbyhorses."
I have no idea what that means, but it can't be good. (I should have went to a better school)
Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at March 13, 2006 12:12 PM
Jihad Watch has really broadened my horizon after first being introduced to it about two months ago, and I appreciate this platform where I can read cutting-edge headlines and topics that allow me the freedom to express my views, and read the views of others, who are "against Jihad", not against America.
I challenge you to find a better country than America to live in - and if you do - then move there!
at March 13, 2006 12:24 PM
For the first time in recent history,the italians are saying NO to muslim immigrants who want to build a grand mosque in Italy...
http://www.english-france-echos.blogspot.com
at March 13, 2006 12:32 PM
Mr Ape Pig -
You make me laugh! Pep didn't come up with that toxic waste himself - no - he stole it from the pages of HELL!
Posted by: champ at March 13, 2006 12:35 PM
Robert,
just read your outstanding interview and special question and answer part. I had learned a lot from this article about the truth of the crusades and that it was really a long overdue defendsive action. Also I appreciate the truth about the statement made by the late Pope John Paul II that he never "actually apologized for the Crusades " as you stated. This really cleared the air IMHO, because ever since the msm first reported it, it was the case. The truth of the crusades must be told because not only for the sake of the west being able to take back its true heritage but also to appreciate the current war against global jihad terrorism.
BTW, do you know what is the current position, if any about the issue of the crusades and the present pope, Benedict XVI?
If you can answer or direct me to information, it would be most helpful please. Thank you.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 13, 2006 12:55 PM
Dr Pepper should get his own blog, and stop making a childish pest of himself on Mr. Spencer's excellent blog.
Posted by: pst314 at March 13, 2006 1:19 PM
Mr Ape Pig -
You make me laugh!
If I can't impress with my "genius" I try for the cheap laugh.
I guess I can safely say "Mission Accomplished"
(theres an unfunny joke in that as well)
at March 13, 2006 1:25 PM
I'm certain our success in this matter does not revolve around selecting a Latin term.
Posted by: Beagle at March 13, 2006 1:26 PM
Hi,
I'm sorry to put this on this web page.
This is a notification of current situation about the threat to diversity in Indonesia (in general), through forced law on anti pornography (sponsored by islamist groups that can be tracked back to wahabbi center, saudi arabia).
---
Today, the Jakarta-based militant moslem organization Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI) has issued a "Somasi" (legal grievance) to the Governor of Bali and the island's community leaders for their opposition to the Anti Pornography Bill.
....
MMI demanded that the Indonesian government and military should take an immediate and "firm action against the disintegrative element."
---
This is the kind of jihad they're waging in Indonesia at this moment. For complete coverage please visit http://jiwamerdeka.blogspot.com (it's not my site, but I'm a proponent of their movement and Balinese people resistance in general).
Best regards,
Raka
at March 13, 2006 2:02 PM
The moslim didnoy use force to convert anybody first it against Islamist law to focreful convert anyone against their will. When Islam rule Spain less than 10% of it population was Moslim the rest where Christian and Jew. Many of the Africa Christian didnot believe in the Trinity as the Trinity believe are not praction than belief in One God. They where convert to the Trinity belief by forces by the Trinity believer. When the moslim came along with Islam some of the people saw than new form of belief in one God so they change they religion willing.
The idear of converting people by the sword was invent by the west to explain why Islam grew so fast
and it fitted in with the methored the Trinity believe use to convert non-believer in Europe. First it is impossibe for than small moslim army of about 15000 man who took the Holyland from the Romane Empire(Eastern) to convert people to their believe by the sword. Than when the Crusader occupt the Holy Land why didnot people who where forceful convert convert back to Trinity Religion.
Islam religious belief where spead by peaceful mean and people willing convert to it. In some case they worst enemies convert to it when they saw the error of they way. The population in Africa and the Eastern Roman Empire was stable and growing compare to the backward west where population where in decline for some time.
Posted by: DefenderofIslam at March 13, 2006 2:18 PM
BTW, do you know what is the current position, if any about the issue of the crusades and the present pope, Benedict XVI?
I just had a look and found this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4168042.stm
Not encouraging - the usual sloppy moral-equivalance that takes so little study or thought.
The Pope spoke of past wars that had been waged between Christians and Muslims with both sides invoking God's name as if, the Pope said, killing the enemy could be pleasing to God.
What is that if not moral equivalance? And, yes, killing the enemy is, apparently, pleasing to Allah, who, apparently, has a "cause":
http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.084
Like so many, the pope obviously means well, but it is not enough.
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 13, 2006 2:31 PM
All excellent answers, Robert.
Your readers can take a look at my BRIEF chronology of the history of Islam and see that it is one long and seamless acts of violence, murder, treachery, assasinations, executions, coups, and, in a word, JIHAD.
http://thomistic.blogspot.com/2006/02/religion-of-peace-updated.html
Also, has everyone forgotten about the UNC Chapel Hill terrorist attack by the SUV jihadist?
I have collected what recent coverage there has been.
http://thomistic.blogspot.com/2006/03/chapel-hill-terrorist-coverage.html
All the best,
D. Ox
at March 13, 2006 2:33 PM
Dr. Pepper said
the Spencers of the world would not, sadly, be marginalized as minority flakes
And we will soon be seeing photos of Dr. Pepper and reliapundit with nationally prominent co-members of the fight against jihad, right? We will soon be hearing Dr. Pepper and reliapundit on nationally syndicated radio shows and television news shows. We'll soon be reading books on the NYT (!) bestseller list by you, right?
Robert is being marginalized all the way to fame and fortune while fighting jihad in the most rational and thoughtful way possible, while Dr. Pepper and reliapundit are, at best, late-night callers to the Rush Limbaugh show.
Sorry if the truth hurts, but don't come to JW and insult the person who makes it possible, 'kay?
Posted by: special_guest at March 13, 2006 2:46 PM
i guess whoever took it off agree's with DefenderofIslam
Didn't see it. What's to agree with in Defenderoftheindefensible's post?
That the West, the cradle of science (and in particular the home of both Newton and Einstein); the birthplace of the troubadours and the modern idea of romantic love; the home of Chartres cathedral, of the Clifton suspension bridge and a thousand other marvels; of the poetry of Dante and Chaucer, of the music of Bach and Beethoven, of the writings of Goethe and Kant; that the West, the scene of so much endeavour, so much achievement, so much wisdom and beauty is backward?
Of course it is.
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 13, 2006 2:46 PM
"That the West, the cradle of science (and in particular the home of both Newton and Einstein);"....
Posted by Yojimbo
You forgot the West's greatest contribution "Cheese Whiz".
(Sorry, slow day at work)
at March 13, 2006 2:56 PM
I am happy that Zenit interviewed my admired Robert Spencer, that I saw, some days ago, because I hadn´t seen his face. Thanks Roberts to telling us, such interesting things. Thanks.
Posted by: Franze at March 13, 2006 3:00 PM
A sincere thanks for the clear and direct review of 'Crusader' history. Helps clarify alot of thoughts.
Posted by: MikeMontana at March 13, 2006 3:04 PM
What's wrong with the Stone Age?
Newgrange Megalithic Passage Tomb, Ireland, 3200 BC:
http://www.knowth.com/newgrange.htm
Skara Brae, 3200 BC - 2200 BC:
http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/skarabrae/
Stonehenge (various building phases):
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.876
Temples of Malta & Gozo, ~5000 BC:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/malta/
Chauvet Caves, France:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/
These are only a few of the achievements of Stone Age societies ...
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 13, 2006 3:06 PM
Having glanced at “DefenderofIslam” above, you may be tempted to think that that kind of poster offers no cause for alarm. Think again, Dick Whittington.
Take the above "Defender of Islam." Now multiply him a few hundred million times. Now endow him with the revenues from an accident of geology -- the accident of geology that so far has provided $10 trillion dollars since 1973. Now add into the mix Westerners eager to get some of that $100 billion, out of that $10 trillion, that has been spent on mosques and madrasas and propaganda in the Western world, as hirelings willing to do the bidding of those who pay them. Now of the remaining $9.9 trillion, think of all those corporations and governments eager to please to get some of that business. And they can always pretend that “we must do thus and so” otherwise we will “lose access” to oil (it’s all nonsense, but the public doesn’t know that, and few are going to enlighten them).
Now add to the mix the members of assorted Western governments, run by assorted elites, who all failed to study Islam, and into their countries, and amidst their trusting and largely inattentive populations, allowed the mass of millions of Muslims, bearing undeclared in their mental baggage a belief-system that was and is not merely an alien, but a permanently hostile, creed, a creed that tells one not to befriend Christians and Jews ever (except feignedly), that tells Believers they have a duty to support the Jihad to spread Islam, that the only thing that is of genuine and lasting worth in this world is Islam, and the Truth of Islam. What came before Islam, what is the product of the non-Islamic world in all its un-islamicness, does not matter. Why should it? That would make no sense.
Now to those trillions of dollars, and those millions of Muslims already behind what they (not we) regard as enemy lines, add in the thousands of means to produce and disseminate the Muslim message, the means invented and perfected by Infidels, but now exploited by Muslims for their own use. No Iranians invented the audiocassette, but audiocassettes by the tens of thousands, bearing the message of Ayataollah Khomeini, were distributed all over Iran and helped to whip up a frenzy against the ancient regime of the Shah. Videocassettes were not invented by Muslims, but propaganda for the Jihad is distributed all over the Muslim world (and among Muslims in the West) by videocassette. And now by satellite channel –Al-Jazeeera leading the pack, headquartered in, and supported by, our “ally” Qatar. And finally there is the Internet, not invented by Muslims, but exploited by them, to undo the very Westerners who managed to create it, yet seem unable – or unwilling – to control it for their own protection.
There are ways to limit the exploitation of those technological advances. Satellite television depends on a satellite – in this case, Arabsat. Is there no way for the Western world to knock it down, or out of commission, or at least jam its broadcasts the way the Soviet authorities used to attempt to jam Radio Liberty, broadcasting from offices just overlooking the Englischer Garten in Munich? Are there ways to deprive users of Arabic and Urdu and other languages from the Internet, or not? We would all like to know. That won’t keep the Internet from being used altogether, but it might be possible to limit its use.
There are ways to limit the Muslim presence within Dar al-Harb, where such a presence, it should be obvious by now, is not only a clear threat to the physical wellbeing of Infidels, but has resulted in constant upheavals, and constant demands pressed on every occasion to change our own ways, customs, laws, when we Infidels did nothing to deserve this. And of course a large-scale Muslim presence requires tens of billions of dollars in the United States alone (and hundreds of billions spent if we add in what the much more threatened Infidels of Western Europe must spend), spent every year to monitor and guard against attacks by those pressing the Jihad through violent means.
There are ways, finally, to diminish Muslim revenues. While folkloristic displays of Saudi daggers-and-dishdashas war dances, in all their pseudo-Bedouin pseudo-authenticity (Ye Olde Rub al-Khali), are not nearly as menacing as those black-balaklavaed bezonians and bazhibazouks (brividi! Mamma li turchi!) marching through the streets of Gaza or Ramallah, Beirut or Baghad (once upon a Ba’athist despot) to scare the Infidels, what is most frightening is all that money, piling up, with some of it being handed out for a mosque here,a madrasah there, or to buy up stocks in media companies, to bully or bribe business owners here and there and everywhere. That is much scarier, in the end, than any of those marches staged by the balaklava-and-kalashnikov brigades.
Trillions of dollars in OPEC revenues. Millions of Muslim migrants, unbowed, unchecked, making demand after demand when one would think they would be cowering after so many atrocities, within and without Europe. Thousands of ways to disseminate the full message of Islam.
Now do the math.
What do you get?
A sum sinister.
at March 13, 2006 3:09 PM
Speaking of the Irish, its common knowledge that God invented whiskey to keep the Irish from taking over the world (I don't wanna hear any boos or hisses, I'm half Irish/half Scot!). Now if the Mohammedans do take over and outlaw alcohol, seems to me they're gonna have a BIG problem on their hands.
Posted by: Eisenhund at March 13, 2006 3:12 PM
Good whiskey and beer, ladies with lilting voices, and some mighty fine rugby players.
Speaking of Ireland, has Ireland now surrendered control of its borders, immigration policy, etc. to the EU?
If it has, then large-scale Muslim immigration can't be far behind. And if takes place, what would Irish Nationalists make of that? What's the point in worrying overmuch about whether the representative for a Belfast constituency sits in Westminster or in the Dail, if policy is being made in Brussels and the burqa is on the streets of Dublin.
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 13, 2006 3:25 PM
Defender of Islam,
It makes me wonder, if things were so good in Spain under the Muslims, why was it that after seven hundred years, the Christians, having fought and was sucessful in taking Spain back?
When the Christian faith came, first to the Middle East and then North Africa, it was spread by first the first disciples of Jesus and then latter early Christian missionaries. This was done by peaceful means.
The spreading of Islam by the sword is not an invention by the west, it is a historic fact that cannot be denied.
Also, thanks to the early western Christian monostic communities, ( with special thanks to the Irish ), these early Christian communities saved the great writings of the Greeks and Romans, thus planting the seeds for the restoration of the West.
at March 13, 2006 3:55 PM
Thanks, Yojimbo for what you were able to find.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 13, 2006 3:59 PM
half-baked hobbyhorses being ridden all the way to
the above statment was made by Hugh and repeated by Robert has me confused. my education was mostly in the sciences (biology etc.) and grammar-English was not my best moments in school.
Robert's books especially the lastest one PIG to Isalm and the Crusades did not become a NYT best seller by the push of the print media and old media, but because of its truth backed by facts. People have a hunger for the truth, and the book made by to top sellers inspite of the media's attempt to ignore it! So l do not put Robert Spencer as a what Dr.Pepper puts it "be marginalized as minority flakes." Bobert's message is coming out, the truth cannot forever be kept from the masses. and Dr.Peppe's statement "One must oft settle for crumbs in this bleak world." is so depressing, that l refuse to pessimistic, but rather be positive and thankful for the work that people like Robert,Hugh and others on this website help educate us, and hopefully someone can give me an insight of "hobby horse"..
at March 13, 2006 4:07 PM
Lulu, in this context, hobby horse means someone's favourite subject, a topic that they talk about a lot, perhaps obsessively, whether or not it is relevant to the issue under discussion. "Bee in your bonnet" is a useful expression meaning something similar.
I'm not sure that "half-baked hobby horse" really works. Perhaps the horse in question should be half cocked.
(See also Hitler, bogey etc.)
Posted by: Interested at March 13, 2006 4:16 PM
"Spain was a special case and was only recaptured because internecine warfare had weakened the western caliphate but the winning spaniards made no attempt to cross to Africa and push their luck."
The Iberian Peninsula (Portugal and Castilla+León+Aragón+Granada=Spain) was retaken from the Moors because the Moors were divided and the Christians (for the most part) were not.
And "the winning spaniards" (aka Portuguese) went on the offensive and invaded North Africa in 1415 capturing the Moroccan city of Ceuta - a city that remained Portuguese from 1415 to 1640, and Spanish from 1640 to this very day. Portugal and Spain both conquered dozens of cities in North Africa, and both nations did more to cripple the the Muslim economy of the Middle Ages than any other part of Europe (with the possible exception of the Byzantine Empire). This was publicly recognised by John Paul II, at least regarding Portugal.
Posted by: cruzado at March 13, 2006 4:24 PM
DefenderofIslam - you wrote....
"the idea of converting people by the sword was invented by the west".
Not true! Do your homework and read your Quran, because it clearly reveals that Muhammad invented the use of force by the sword to spread Islam - the west didn't invent this practice!
I could quote you chapter 'n verse from the Quran; as could many other posters who visit this site, because we all know that your above statement simply isn't true.
Posted by: champ at March 13, 2006 4:33 PM
Hugh said
Now add into the mix Westerners eager to get some of that $100 billion, out of that $10 trillion
I never saw the number in print before. $10 trillion. $10,000,000,000,000. That's alot of zeros. The questions in my mind as to how Bush (with his Saudi oil connections) or Clinton (with his UAE consulting connections) could take the positions they do, are a bit clearer now. Or how Fox News could be presenting a show tonight at 8pm with Neil Cavuto entitled "The Negative Image of Islam: Is the Media to Blame". $10 trillion goes a long way towards answering those questions in my mind.
And I would like to point out to our Muslim overlords that I might be of some use to an Islamic dictatorship. I am well-spoken, trusted by many, and if you show me how, would be eager and willing to help you mix up batches of ricin or anthrax, whatever helps the cause.
[Note: for any Office of Homeland Security officers or others with a terminal lack of humor reading this, I am joking. Unlike many in our Administration, I would not turn against my country for $10 or $10 trillion. Hmmm, even though I could get that nice house on the hill with the great view and that nice shiny sports car, and it's not like I'd be the only doing it... but no, I'm still not willing to hold hands with or kiss any wealthy princes or spread dawa lies. It's just plain wrong.]
Posted by: special_guest at March 13, 2006 4:43 PM
That's a must-watch on Fox tonight!
Can't imagine how they're gonna blame the media for Islam's tarnished image - not unless 911 was a colossal misunderstanding.
Posted by: champ at March 13, 2006 5:08 PM
Teaching the 'daring' details- the unsavory aspects of your nation's history- which is always exciting for dull instructors- only makes sense if the fundamentals are taught a hundred times more.
You need to know your own culture's heart, have an instinctive sense of its worth, and value it enough to defend it intelligently and militantly.
Giving out self-loathing history can be as sweetly toxic as lead.
The full truth re-balances the wobbly.
Mr. Spencer,
Keep up the good fight.
Keep answering weakness with power.
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 13, 2006 5:14 PM
Interested, thank you for the answer of "hobby horse", l have not of heard of this term used that way.
going to Hugh's statment of billions of dollars going to arab oil. well the arab billionaires reminds me of when you hear about those poor people who win the big lottery, and within a few years are broke and worse off.. well that is the muslims..they neve worked at being prosperous, and just found their butts parked on the oil, and some enterprising Westerner found it,and drilled it..in fact they still need western people to keep their drills working, and stop their oil fires.
at March 13, 2006 5:18 PM
champ, I saw the commercial on tv this morning, with the details exactly as I described it. But when I went to their website just now, they don't list the program anywhere. There's a listing for some Neil Cavuto program about the current state of Iraq, but not about the unpopular image of Islam.
Not sure if they ran an old advert on tv this morning, or if their website is out-of-date, but now I'm curious enough to tune in (even though I won't watch Fox News anymore since they became Islamic mouthpieces) just to see what's on then.
I have my fantasies that they were forced to air the program by their Saudi owners, but refuse to publicize it as a form of passive protest. Kind of like the US soldiers in Vietnam who held the U.S. flag upside down on their hostage videos to show they were speaking under duress.
Posted by: special_guest at March 13, 2006 5:22 PM
I still learned at School that the crusades were belated and badly organized efforts to liberate the holy land from the Mohammedans....
That would have been 40 years ago.
I wonder what went wrong here and why this is no longer taught in the western education=curiculum.
I am equally puzzled about how many people are either completely oblivious of this fact and about the strange reaction I get from many, when I tell them.
I am not sure what exactly is taught today, for I have met so many who are either clueless or believe the crusades were something bad or something to be ashamed of.
Any answers?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 13, 2006 5:29 PM
The children are taught that Thomas Jefferson was an evil slave owning hypocrite who had sex with his slaves and fathered mulatto children -- they're taught that America is the most violent nation that has ever existed in the history of the human species -- They're taught that the arrival of white men on the American continent is mainly notable for the "genocidal extermination" of native humans, and that the notion of "manifest destiny" was an ideology of genocidal white imperialism -- They're taught that America's hegemony in the world today is heinous, that America, with only 5% of the world's population, consumes 25% of the planet's resources, and is largely responsible for most of the poverty in the world, and global warming... They're taught that the rest of the world hates us, and is right to hate us...
I could go on, but I won't -- It is truly vile filth.
Posted by: jsla at March 13, 2006 5:37 PM
champ, BTW, whenever they air it you don't need to watch the program, as I can summarize it for you:
- Islam does not allow suicidal attacks
- Islam is against all violence against innocent people
- The Holy Quran says that killing one person is the same as killing all mankind
- Islam is the source of modern mathematics and other modern inventions
- Islam accepts Jewish and Christian prophets as its own
- Islam has had excellent relations with Jews and Christians throughout history, except for when the evil Christians attacked the Muslims in the Crusades or when the evil Jews took the Muslims land to create Israel
- Every religion has its radicals
- Those who commit violent acts are not truly Muslims
- the vast majority of moderate Muslims disagree with the few radical Muslims
yadda yadda yadda
Posted by: special_guest at March 13, 2006 5:38 PM
sheik yer'mami, l had pretty neat history teachers in high school, that Islam was spread with the help of the sword. that was in '75! yikes long time ago!
that was part of world history. l dont know if they teach that anymore.
at March 13, 2006 5:42 PM
champ, sorry for blathering; but please feel free to use my previous post as a "Bullsh*t Bingo" (tm) gamecard. Everytime you hear one of the phrases mentioned on the program, just check it off. Once you get three in a row, yell "Bullsh*t!" to the amazement of all around you.
Posted by: special_guest at March 13, 2006 5:45 PM
The program was aired, and in another sign of his marginalization, Robert was on it...
Hope they repeat it tonight.
Posted by: special_guest at March 13, 2006 6:02 PM
This is a bit off-topic, but goes to explain where Huge was coming from in regard to the origin of "these half-baked hobbyhorses being ridden all the way to Banbury Cross..." It comes from this somewhat ancient English rhyme:
"Ride a cock horse to Banbury cross To see a fine lady upon a white horse. With rings on her fingers and bells on her toes, she shall have music wherever she goes."
at March 13, 2006 6:24 PM
How do I know?? Does it matter?
The fact is, where else would he use "hobbyhorses" (which is the same as a "cock horse")in relation to "Banbury Cross" if it wasn't in reference to this little rhyme? He didn't pull it out of nowhere.
But again, does it matter?
Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 13, 2006 6:49 PM
Re the little matter of Dr. Pepper's "hobbyhorse" from earlier in the thread. I see no need for Dr. P to set up his own website, "Suicide of the West Watch". I believe that topic is already abundantly covered at Dhimmiwatch.org. Maybe he could merely confine his comments to that thread and thereby satisfy all concerned.
Posted by: Caroline at March 13, 2006 6:53 PM
sorry - site or "companion site" rather than "thread".
Posted by: Caroline at March 13, 2006 6:57 PM
All things considered, the less said about hobby horses the better. Catherine the Great came to a sticky end on a horse,and none of us would like to follow suit.
Posted by: Interested at March 13, 2006 6:59 PM
The Muslims can cry a river over the Crusades, but will weep an ocean over WWIII.
The Texican.
Freedom, the ony choice at any cost.
at March 13, 2006 8:02 PM
jsla, some of the 'vile' things taught today may be factual, or new ways of looking at facts. Some may be lies - is that what you are saying?
None of the things you have mentioned, even if facts, would be justification for hating a country, let alone a child's own country. If they are based on fact, then of course they need to be openly discussed.
Here in NZ we have had and still have problems with our colonial past that we try to face and work through, European, Maori, Moriori and more recent immigrants.
This site is about facing facts, isn't it? Our call to muslims is to face facts, isn't it?
Posted by: Lili at March 13, 2006 8:08 PM
I do not have the quote from the Koran in front of me, but is there not the idea propagated in it that Allah is not "bound" by anything, with regard to having a character, or the laws of nature that have been set in motion since creation? Is this idea not the very stumbling-block that caused Islamic stagnation in terms of its "progress" in science, art, and societal evolution?
If I am understanding this teaching regarding who Allah "is," then could not this teaching become the achilles heel that brings down the whole rotten edifice? I mean, if Allah is not "bound" by laws, regardless of who originated them, then by what holds him to provide the endless sexual pleasures that supposedly come to "martyrs" who blow themselves up "for him?"
If I understand this correctly, then everything that a Muslim holds as "true" can be utterly false, simply because it can be argued that NOTHING is true, because "truth" is something binding to Allah, and thus ALL TRUTH IS A LIE.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 13, 2006 8:28 PM
Interested--
Quite a time has been had by all today. Arranging for such a straight man, and even doing it more than once.
Now I've gone and done it myself.
at March 13, 2006 9:22 PM
Hey Yohann - ????????????????????
_________________________________________________
Special_guest - thanks for the summary on the Fox program, and I'm shocked at their conclusions about Islam. Everyone knows that Mo started out as a peaceful dude; but that all changed once he received his "new revelation" and launched his "jihad" on the world.
more later......
at March 13, 2006 9:46 PM
I'd like to add that when asked whether an apology for the Crusades would be forthcoming while the late JP11 was in the Middle East, his Secretary said something to the effect that "history did not begin with the Crusades". A clear slapdown to the Muslims who were all so upset that the Pope had apologised to the Jews for the failings of the Catholic Church during the period of the Holocaust. In addition to all his other merits the late JP11 was a great Polish and European patriot and he would never in a million years piss on his own heritage which included Jan Sobieski, to satify the PC whores.
at March 13, 2006 9:57 PM
Hey champ...I'm talking about a part of Islamic dogma. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then your proof of ignorance is not needed.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 13, 2006 10:03 PM
The hobbyhorse, or hobby-horse, can only be ridden by the Beltane King or the Queen of the May. Neither are personages that mortal man or woman would wish to encounter. Like so much of our frightening mythology these stories have bowdlerised almost to the point of extinction.
The Beltane King demands all of a man's sexuality, even to death, to add to his own so that he may finally defeat the Queen of the May (the green, the life, the planet, gaia, whatever) by begetting upon her his issue, forcibly if necessary.
The Queen seduces men into pointless wanderings in the greenwood looking for her with longing until they die of starvation so the King may not have them, but she gathers to herself any of woman-kind who wander into the forests as handmaidens so that the King expends his seed needlessly on them when he comes calling to try to find her in her chamber. The Queen protects her handmaidens from pregnancy by magically expelling the King's seed from them onto the frozen earth of winter by blowing her warm breath into them. Her warm breath and the King's seed combine magically to form the springtime renewal of the earth. The removal of the seed from the handmaidens, however, means their death also, and their remains are sent to fertilise the growth of spring.
Between them, the King and the Queen have a horse - a small, muscular, chunky, black, sleek mare, the hobbyhorse or hobby horse - which will always carry the King to the Queen's latest hiding place when he calls it. It will also carry the Queen away around the green of spring when she calls it after the King has dismounted and started on the handmaidens.
This mare eats only human flesh and, naturally, it is reckoned to be extremely unlucky to hear it pass - and unluckier still to hear it stop beside you or outside your home. Later ages often confuse the hobby horse with the night mare but in English mythology the two are not related.
The 'hobby' in 'hobbyhorse' comes from the Old French 'hobin' meaning a small horse as opposed to the cataphractic horses. If the King's seed were to be left in a handmaiden and she were to give birth then the offspring would be a hoyden - an evil creature of the heath and margins who steals away at dusk lone men and women in order to eat their sexual parts and their hearts and souls, keeping the rest of the body to feed to the hobbyhorse. Only hoydens can look after the hobbyhorse and keep it groomed and fed.
The confusion with the night mare arises because hoydens also tend the night mare and send her on her way every night. The night mare's job is to steal all that is good and joyful from the human's thoughts whilst he or she sleeps; to give the human a bad night's sleep so that he or she has little concentration the next day and is more likely to wander off to where the hoyden can capture him or her for food.
The Morris Men dance the teaching and warding dances of the hobby horse and the night mare. If the Morris Men don't dance in your village then the Night Mare and the Hobby Horse will come and get you. You have been warned. It is dangerous to laugh about Morris Men. The Maypole dances are the warding dances for the Beltane King and The Queen of the May. One appoints a beautiful young virgin as May Queen to flatter the real one and confuse the King - but she must lose her virginity on May Night before the King finds her or the Queen gets jealous. Better yet, she must lose her virginity and die on May Night thus helping the Spring fertility.
English mythology can be really bloodthisty - can't it?
Posted by: Certiorari at March 13, 2006 10:44 PM
Yohann -
Hey I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you.
You obviously gave this a lot of thought, and I commend you for attempting the impossible - trying to figure out the 'basis of truth' for this mysterious bunch!
Friends?
Posted by: champ
at March 13, 2006 10:52 PM
Ivan, you may not be aware that your pope JP actually kissed the Koran when visiting a mosque. Or are you?
Is that not worse than any 'apology?'
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
at March 13, 2006 11:27 PM
To 'ride a-cockhorse' [correctly], in modern usage, is to ride exultingly or with pride and arrogance.
The words of the Banbury Cross nursery rhyme are said to be usually sung in connection with a visit (problematic) by Queen Elizabeth the First (the fine lady) to Banbury apparently to see a huge white stone Cross which had just been erected. The words 'With rings on her fingers' is supposed to relate to the fine jewellery which would be worn by a Queen. The words 'And bells on her toes' refer to the fashion of attaching bells to the end of the pointed toes of each shoe - this fashion actually originated in an earlier era of English history and wasn't practised any more by the high nobility in Queen Elizabeth's time.
Banbury is situated at the top of a steep hill and in order to help carriages up the steep slope a cock (male) horse (usually said to be white) was supposedly made available by the Town Council, or the Town Guilds in some versions, to provide additional pulling power. When the Queen's carriage attempted to go up the hill a wheel broke and the Queen chose to mount the cock horse and ride to the Banbury Cross, so it is said. The people of the town had decorated the cock horse with ribbons and bells and provided minstrels to accompany her - "she shall have music wherever she goes". The massive stone Cross at Banbury is said to have been destroyed later by anti-Catholics opposed to the notion of pilgrimages. In fact the Cross was a Merkat (market) Cross and simply didn't survive into the modern era - indeed, was probably gone by good Queen Bess's time anyway.
It is highly unlikely the the lady in the rhyme was Queen Elizabeth I. This rhyme surfaces all over England and probably refers to the Queen of the May and a much darker and more bloodthirsty mythological past. The rhyme bears all the hallmarks of a teaching and warding chant. Morris tradition still uses it like that, I am told.
It is also possible that the rhyme refers to the Lady who must not be named and later, by Christian takeover, the Blessed Virgin Mary. If it refers to the Lady one should not name then a particularly bloody myth attaches to that; it would also account for the very strong warding characteristics of the rhyme.
at March 13, 2006 11:31 PM
I am just wondering if we are missing a point or two here or is my take on history wrong. As far as I am aware what is now called Palestine was originally inhabited as a Holy Land by Judeo/Christians. Then the Mohammedans invaded and most of the Jews and Christians fled or were masacred or in the case of the women raped and masacred. The Crusades which took place almost 400 years later were not European Christendoms aggression against Islam but a belated response to those 400 years of Islamic invasion and barbarity. Their purpose was to save Europe and to eject Muslims from European territory and RECOVER the Holy Land for the Judeo/Christians ( I know mainly for the Christians but you get my point). In this they were mostly succesful in ejecting the INVADERS from Spain and the Balkans but were never able to consolidate the RECOVERY of the Holy Land despite taking it a few times. So my point is how does this land now become OWNED by Palestinian Arabs? Does Islam dictate when history starts and thus who owns territory?
Posted by: Realist at March 13, 2006 11:47 PM
1) Cruzado...mea culpa...you are correct...I went from memory and was too tired to check but yes part of north Africa was reconquered. but not enough.
2) What I tried to say above was that Islam was directly responsible for the prolongation of the Dark Ages in southern europe well past the time of the barbarian invasions and to such an extent that only in the north could strong kingdoms develope as here they were out of reach. In other words, far from being a source of civilisation's remants by not burning all of the books they found in conquered cities, they were an equal factor in the cause of the dark ages and THE factor for its prolongation.
3) The problem with the crusades, is not recent western leftist apologists but islamic disinformation. To Muslims truth has no relevance, unless it is viewed through islamic eyes. What this means in fact that if a historical event does not concur with the islamic view of history then it is perfectly acceptable to modify the record of it until it is acceptable. So Islamic history is a potpourri of truths(events concur) and falsehoods(do not concur) made to look like truths. This is NOT recent and has been standard operating procedure for 1500 years. The Luxemberg studies show that this "modification" of the truth probbaby extends back to the Koran and the hadith as well(?hagarism) into the 7th and 8th centuries.
What we often fail to understand is that in the intense madrassa education that most Muslim children are forced(literally) to endure, these untruths are hammered into them, so that they grow into adults with massive resentment already built in. It is not hard to see a parallel between the suicides of brainwashed islamic youth and that of the equally brainwashed hitler youth who often fought to the end in hopeless situations. They too were indoctrinated by constant lies and false history.
The poor"defender of islam" above is a typical example of just how ignorant these people are, and yet with absoluely NO idea of how false is their stance and their views. They are NOT allowed to learn the truth by Islam and by the time that they are adults are cynicised into believing that any western view which differs from their own, is simply judeao-christian propaganda designed to seduce them.
Even those born and educated in the west are still at the mercy of their madrassa teachers and can graduate from western universities totally educated in all areas bar History which they only see from the Islamic point of view and any attempt to show them the error of their ways is often met with an absolutely violent response, as the infidel is simply trying to corrupt them.
They really do believe in all the misinformative bulls*it that their imams scream out from their mosques. They really do believe that the west is totally evil and that islam is hard done by and thatb all of the isalmic world's problems stem for the west. This indoctrination is so deep that it takes and exceptionally strong mind and equally strong willpower to overcome it and thus for 90% of Muslims apostasy is impossible.
This is why even that will-o-the-wisp called the "moderate" muslim is just as much of a risk as the more radical ones. Just because he does not practise the violence does not mean that he does not agree with it or does not agree with the point of view of the perpetrators.
Once you realise this you see that appealing to the "better selves" which supposedly exist in Muslims is a total waste of time unless you get them from birth and can educate them with the truth, in which case none of them would still be muslims anyway.
In addition, lying to nonMuslims being perfectly acceptable if it helps islam, further undermines this as, not only can you not trust what they know but also what they say or promise.
So, as you cannot reason with them, there is only ONE way of dealing with them, and unfortunately it goes totally against the judaeo-christian grain to have to do so. But as the future of western civilisation is at stake here, (and probably the future of mankind as they cannot even feed themselves let alone the whole planet) what choice do we have?
So, get the grain-ethanol oil weapon into mass production as soon as possible and restart shale and coal oil distillation (for plastics etc) to back up the heavier chains, and be prepared.
Posted by: Zathras at March 14, 2006 12:15 AM
Interested,
I wouldn't touch your sub-thread with a ten foot pole.
Posted by: special_guest at March 14, 2006 12:25 AM
Geez o peetz
Posted by: AMartinez at March 14, 2006 12:26 AM
Sheikh,
I am not too happy about the Koran kissing episode myself, but you know this took place in Syria home to many Arab Christians. John Paul11 would have had to take into consideration the Muslim reaction worldwide had he not made that gesture. You are aware of the difficult situation of Christians in Muslim countries. What do you think would have happened had he simply brushed the Koran aside, given the many compromises that would have been made in order to make his trip possible ?
If it makes you happier the present Pope who is JP11's close confidant, has given every indication that such a gesture will never be repeated.
Posted by: ivan at March 14, 2006 12:56 AM
Defenderofislam: You are in disagreement with some of your fellow Muslims. In the book "The Great Religions of the World" Author Mrs. Ulfat Aziz-Us-Samaad declares, with some pride I might add, that Islam took over most of the known world through strenght of faith and ARMS! A Muslim declared this to be true.
at March 14, 2006 1:20 AM
Ivan, you may not be aware that your pope JP actually kissed the Koran when visiting a mosque. Or are you?
Is that not worse than any 'apology?' Posted by: sheik yer'mami
For a picture of that - go to http://palestinename.com/smilingfaces.htm and scroll down the page.
My question to the whole house called Vatican:
"How is it acceptable to kiss that which calls the Son of God an abomination?" They have yet to explain.
Concerning the endless debates over the history of the 'Crusades' I can't help but think of something that Jesus said:
Luk 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.
The real power in taking down Islam - is to go after the god of Islam. Period!
The Koran is his mouth-piece - and it is causing many to be slaughtered here and now - in the present, no matter who did what when.
Endless finger-pointing at the past - is the Muslim world's only defense for protecting the present teachings of beheadings 047.004, rape 033.052 and cucifixtions 005.033.
Another very popular tactic is to say that Christianity is not any better.
The carefully preserved letters of the apostles which make up the New testament will prove them liars - on a level that a child can understand - thereby putting Islam right back into the spotlight where it belongs:
Upon the international table of the self-professing ''''humanitarian kings'''' with the question -
"What do you kings plan on doing about this ''''''''present''''''' problem that promises vicious bloodshed for the many?"
beheadings 047.004, rape 033.052 and cucifixtions 005.033 {{{Since when did such teachings become acceptable to them? enough to put aside international laws that already exist?
at March 14, 2006 2:03 AM
Only hoydens can look after the hobbyhorse ....It is dangerous to laugh about Morris Men.
Certiorari - I'll treat these pieces of advice as Holy Writ. (No pun on your name intended. No puns ever intended. All puns accidental or in the mind of the reader.)
Posted by: Interested at March 14, 2006 6:52 AM
Realist:
Contrary to popular belief, the Romans didn't quite exterminate the Jewish population of Judea although they certainly did devastate it. And nobody knows how many converted to Christianity in the period between the advent of Christianity and the Muslim invasions. And I don't think there are any authoritative figures to establish a Muslim majority either. There's a big difference between being under Muslim rule and a defined geographic area actually having a plurality of Muslims within its confine. You don't have to look far to see all sorts of examples in the middle east of minority sects dominating over a majority. Certain urban areas, Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed and, I think it was either Beersheva, were always predominantly Jewish and Bethlehem became predominantly Christian. The Muslim population may never have been very stable within the confines of Judea, but rather nomadic, and with lots of foreign ownership of real estate, either by Syrians or Turks, until European Jews started to immigrate in the late 1800s.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 14, 2006 8:05 AM
So, get the grain-ethanol oil weapon into mass production as soon as possible and restart shale and coal oil distillation (for plastics etc) to back up the heavier chains, and be prepared.
Posted by: Zathras at March 14, 2006 12:15 AM
--------------
Agreee......Prepare, be armed, be ready. Also,
Ethanol is a good part of the answer, what we don't burn we can drink.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at March 14, 2006 12:08 PM
Zathras -
Thanks for your informative post. I'm new to JW, and I found it especially eye-opening!
Beth -
I've seen this picture before, and it always makes me wonder 'what was he thinking?'....like you said....the Quran says that Jesus Christ is nothing more than a prophet - what blashemy.
And it's one thing for a Muslim to make this claim, but not the Pope!
Posted by: champ at March 14, 2006 12:24 PM
The religious scholar I talk to say the Koran taught that you cannot forcely convert people to Islam. Islam wasnot in the majerity in the Holy Land until about the late 10th century or early 11th cenutry and then they only make from 50 to 60 percent of the population. The people who did convert to Islam did so of they owm free will and when the Roman Church got the idear of converting the moslim to Christian it didnot work as the people who convert to Islam from Christian where not going back to than religion they didnot believe in anymore. There is very little of what Christ said in Christian belief today. Almost all of Christian belief come one one man Saint Paul thom Christ warmed about the Wolf in Sheep Clothes. After Christian became the State Religion of the Roman Empire Roman legions where use
to convert nonbeliever of the trinity that Christ was the son of God into believer of trinity by either make then believer at sword point or murder than at sword point. Before Christian became the State Religion only afew Christian believe that Christ was the Son of God, many early Christian believe that Christ was than Prophet of God only like over 100,000 Prophets that God sent to man in
the history of the whole world.
at March 14, 2006 11:06 PM
Defender: Your scholar is most likely Muslim. You simply have to read the New Testament YOURSELF and see that other writers besides Paul call Jesus not only son of God but also God. For example:
John 1:1-3 (NIV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He was with God in the beginning.
[3] Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1:14 (NIV)
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
There are many other examples, I have debated this point before with other Muslims.
Did you know that the Koran calls Jesus "word of God" and "spirit of God" ,sinless and born of a virgin. Who can make a virgin pregnant besides God? No God did not have physical relations with Mary!! God can do all things, right? Jesus is the only man ever to be born of a virgin.
In the book of ACTS you will find examples of how many thousands came to faith in Jesus through the Holy Spirit no sword was involved.
Paul met with the original followers of Jesus, after converting, before going out on his ministry. He was killing Christians prior to his conversion.
I doubt you can find any eveidenc that there has been 100,000 prophets sent from God.
Even your Koran says Mohammed was a sinner and had to ask for forgiveness from God. Jesus forgave peoples sins.
You may like this website.
http://www.islam-101.org/
Salam Alikum
at March 15, 2006 12:46 AM
Please post any web sites with the correct history of the Crusades on Jihad Watch.
Posted by: Christian at March 15, 2006 1:28 PM
Christian try this link.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html
Posted by: disciple at March 16, 2006 12:12 AM
The religious scholar I talk to say the Koran taught that you cannot forcely convert people to Islam. Islam wasnot in the majerity in the Holy Land until about the late 10th century or early 11th cenutry and then they only make from 50 to 60 percent of the population. The people who did convert to Islam did so of they owm free will and when the Roman Church got the idear of converting the moslim to Christian it didnot work as the people who convert to Islam from Christian where not going back to than religion they didnot believe in anymore. Posted by: DefenderofIslam
And why should they DOI???
Why should they return to a religion that claims to be ''''Christian'''' - and yet ties yokes upon the necks of men? The Truth sets us free...
1Jo 2:27 ye need not that any man teach you {{{Out of the mouth of God
Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail {{{ What?... Did God lie?
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD
Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
The Truth sets us free from the masters of this world. It is commanded that we study His Word 2 Tim 2:15 - and then defend it Mat 5:16 - 2Cr 4:6.
And so - I will - with Power that does not come from me - but the Word of God:
The God of the Bible ondemned Palestine for end time. It's in the song of Moses Exd 15:14 Isaiah and Joel confirmed the prophey
Isa 14:31 Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his appointed times. {{{Future yet
Joe 3:4 Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine?
Now here's the catch:
A True God leaves nothing undone - espeially an issue as hot as the Palestine issue.
The god of the Koran forgot to mention Palestine. {{{The True God would not have done so, simply beause of how important it has beome to this world....enough to slaughter and be slaughtered for.
These are the Truths - and they existed long before any of us were born.
As for the so called '''''scholars''''???? who say the Koran does not teach Muslims to FORE others into the religion of Islam? Woe be unto them!!! What's the punishment for Muslims who call their own Allah a liar?
Out of the mouth of allah....
009.030 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; in this they but imitate what '''the unbelievers''' of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! {With that being said - everyone can see who '''the unbelievers''' are - according to the Koran, Islam's god
004.101 When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear '''the unbelievers''' May attack you: For '''the Unbelievers''' are unto you open enemies.
008.039 And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah {Throughout the earth} 004.101
008.067 It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war [slay them first] until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. {Treason - in all non-Muslim nations]
004.104 And slacken not in following up the enemy: If ye are suffering hardships, they are suffering similar hardships.
047.004 Therefore, when ye meet '''the Unbelievers''' in fight, smite at their necks. {Behead them! and the Muslims are commanded to initiate the fight} 002.216 009.039
009.039 Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.
So says '''''allah'''''
Woe unto the Muslims who put words into their own Allah's mouth!...
002.078 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but see therein their own desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.
002.079 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
There is no mercy - none whatsoever - when it comes to punishments that the Koran teaches
DefenderofIslam? I didn't write the New Testament - nor did I write the Koran.
You either love the good and hate the evil - or you love the evil and hate the good.
It's that simple.
I believe there is a Judgment Day - where God - and not men - is the Judge as to whether a man should be killed or not.
Your allah - teahes the opposite.....and that is a fact that no man can deny....because allah ....already spoke for himself.
at March 16, 2006 6:06 PM
What I would like to know DefenderofIslam
How is it possible - to take a life that you did not give - nor an replae - and not be onsidered a murderer? nor a blasphemer of God?
Since God is the ONLY One Who can resurrect a person back to life - what gives a simple piece of flesh called 'man' the right to take that which he did not give?
Aren't we ALL headed for the grave? Yes we are. Why? Because God Already ordained it!
Woe unto those who feel themselves worthy of filling them!
And if you say 'Allah' agrees - your own 'Allah' will call you liar!
002.191 Slay them wherever ye catch them {{{That is a sikening disgusting command - one where there are no ands ifs or buts that can be offered
Much discrepency?
Yes
Posted by: Beth at March 16, 2006 6:26 PM
Eternal Life is at stake.
Take your pick - while you still tick
beause our deeds do followus to the grave
Posted by: Beth at March 16, 2006 6:58 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)