Ramadan Day 26 thought for the day from my new book The History of Jihad: in 1064, the Seljuk Turkish sultan, Alp Arslan, besieged the Armenian city of Ani. The thirteenth-century Muslim historian Sibt ibn al-Jawzi recounted the testimony of an eyewitness:
The army entered the city, massacred its inhabitants, pillaged and burned it, leaving it in ruins and taking prisoner all those who remained alive…. The dead bodies were so many that they blocked the streets; one could not go anywhere without stepping over them. And the number of prisoners was not less than 50,000 souls. I was determined to enter the city and see the destruction with my own eyes. I tried to find a street in which I would not have to walk over the corpses; but that was impossible.
Click here to preorder The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, the only comprehensive one-volume history of jihad in the English language, including not just the jihad in Europe but in India, Africa and elsewhere, drawing primarily on accounts of eyewitnesses and contemporary chroniclers. Arm yourself with the truth against the prevailing disinformation. Preorder here now.
Nour says
What about the Sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204 where thousands of civilians got killed and all churches were looted or destroyed, and the nuns were raped by the followers of the “prince of peace”
As you keep claming that the Crusades was a response to the Muslim conquest, I hope you explain the Crusaders killing of other Christians.
Quoting from Wikipedia:
“Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city’s holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared, not even the tombs of the emperors inside the St Apostles church.[10] The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders’ ruthless lust for spoils and glory; thousands of them were killed in cold blood.[11] Women, including nuns, were raped by the Crusader army,[12]which also sacked churches, monasteries”
mortimer says
Nour … MUSLIMS RAPE AND PILLAGE UNDER THE DECREES of ALLAH HIMSELF and following the EXPLICIT ‘IDEAL’ EXAMPLE OF MOHAMMED.
To the contrary, when Christians commit such CRIMES they BREAK ALL THE MORAL LAWS of the Church and the BIble.
Criminal Christians are considered SINNERS AND CRIMINALS by the Church.
Criminal Muslims are considered HEROES and IMITATORS OF MOHAMMED by the mosque.
Nour… you have to do better than that next time. Do you think we are novices?
WE UNDERSTAND ISLAM PERFECTLY. Islam cannot be defended by means of a moral argument, because Islam is opportunistic and AMORAL. Islam has no consistent ethical principle… so it is amoral.
LeftisruiningCanada says
+1
It always comes down the question of who is behaving according to the teachings and example of their leader/founder.
Crusaders sacking Constantinople are obviously not displaying Christ-like behaviour.
Muslims doing the same thing however are perfectly consistent with mohammad’s fine example of tyranny and death loving evil.
mortimer says
LRC, yes, that is the point. Marauding Muslims follow the teachings and example of Mohammed. Compassionate, care-giving Christians follow the example and teachings of Jesus who ‘went about doing good deeds’.
Mohammed said that his greatest desire was to die while fighting and killing in jihad and then return to earth many times to similarly die again while killing disbelievers.
Wellington says
+2 mortimer.
Yes, when Christians have acted badly in the past in the name of their faith, or used their faith as an excuse for bad behavior, they were invariably betraying Christianity. Contra Muslims inordinately so because bad behavior for the sake of Islam is sanctioned all over the place in the Islamic texts.
Hell, a study of the life and character of Mohammed is a revelation in the first degree in and of itself of malevolent, psychotic and narcissistic behavior. The fact that to this day Mo is held up by more than a billion Muslims as the Model Man stands as a condemnation in and of itself of Islam, though many more highly defensible condemnations of Islam could be cited such as death for apostasy and the sanctioning of rape.
And thus, in any case, and so on, etc., this is why weak minds like Nour’s demonstrate their cognitive deficiency again and again by not taking into account this HUGE difference between the Christian theological blueprint and the Islamic one. Ditto for the founder of Christianity versus the reputed founder of Islam. Indeed, it is a heinous thing in its own right how Islam has “appropriated” Jesus as one of its own. And you don’t have to be a Christian to see this; all you need is proper knowledge and common sense, a dearth of which is plaguing Western society today, even by Western leaders such as the present Pope, the present Prime Minister of the UK and the current Chancellor of Germany.
Upside-down world. Never more so.
mortimer says
More valid reasons from Wellington. The MOTIVE of Islam is diametrically opposite to the Golden Rule of Christianity.
Islam’s motive is straight from the Koran:
Koran 60:4 “We have rejected you, and there has arisen between us and you enmity and hatred, until you believe and worship Allaah alone.”
Koran 40:35 “They who dispute the signs (verses) of Allah without authority having reached them are GREATLY HATED by Allah and the believers.” (Note: not just “hated”, but “greatly hated”.)
Nicki Adar says
Except is the CROSSEDS r gone. N it was just 50 to 80 yrs. While “JIHAD” is still alive…..
Remember the 1st Islamic revolution while they took with their swords riding in their horses “COUNTRY AFTER COUNTRY, VILLAGR AFTER VILLAGE forcing them to convert. Whoever refused they slaughtered him/ her. KIDNAPPED kids.
” The Pirates of the SEAS” PRESIDENT JEFFERSON.
mortimer says
No, JB, you did not notice that the Wiki quote AFFIRMED and PROVED that the delinquent Crusaders were BREAKING THE MORAL LAWS, after being threatened with eternal damnation through excommunication. That is the point. The Church CONDEMNED the criminal Crusaders.
Muslims are REWARDED by Allah when they commit crimes against humanity against the KUFAAR.
The mosques commonly PRAISE JIHAD TERRORIST-MURDERERS and MANY MOSQUES are named after Islam’s most SAVAGE MASS KILLERS such as KHALID IBN WALID, the general of Abu Bakr.
james grimord says
Let me just add- without justifying either the actions of the rogue Christian armies, or the jihadists- the TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.
gravenimage says
True, Mortimer. I noted the same thing myself.
Buraq says
@ Nour
You’re a clown, Nour! You don’t know your history, so you speak out of ignorance!
The numbering of the Crusades is a historical convention introduced long after the Crusades themselves. The term “Fourth Crusade,” while applied to the military campaign that ended in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, is actually misleading. The attack on Constantinople in 1203/1204 was not, by any rational definition, a “crusade” at all.
In fact, Simon de Montfort, famous for his Crusade against the Albigensians in Southern France refused to take part in the attack. What’s more, the Pope vehemently condemned the attack on the Christian city of Constantinople. This means that the attack on Constantinople had zero papal sanction and was, therefore, *NOT* a Crusade at all.
I expect a groveling apology from you, you clown! And rather more humility in your attitude in the future. Remember that here at Jihad Watch, you are in the company of your moral superiors!
The European says
@ Buraq
Sorry, but your description of the Fourth Crusade does not fit historical facts.
1. Sure, Pope Innocent III forbade the crusaders to commit criminal acts against other Christians during the crusade, and he even excommunicated those who had taken part in the siege and pillaging of Zara, a coastal town on the Adriatic ( later he went back on his excommunication, excommunicating only the Venetians who had sacked Zara)
2. He did not not excommunicate the Crusaders who sacked Constantinople, he rebuked them, de didn’t approve of their doings,yes, but he did not call off the crusade nor did he prevent the crusaders from continuing their crusade ( and some of them arrived indeed in Palestine).
3. When the crusaders came back to Rome, Innocent III accepted money,gold, and jewels which had been stolen at Constantinople
4. During the Fourth Council of the Lateran Innocent welcomed and recognized Roman-Catholic prelates from Constantinople -thus acknowledging their legitimacy over formerly orthodox Byzance.
To me, that sounds very much like papal sanction, even if it was not explicit, even if he did not say: “I bless your doings, be on a crusade against the Byzantines.”
That crusade and the establisment of the Latin empire which lasted for 57 years, before the Greeks retook their city, did a lot of damage to Christendom.
1.It deepened the gulf between the Latin and the Greek churches
2. It solidified the schism
3 It weakened the Byzantine Empire in a way that it almost ceased to be a bulwark agaist Islam. Still today, when you are traveling through Christian orthodox countries, you san sense their resentment agist the Latin church and their deep Feeling of betrayal.
Of course, the Fourth Crusade was not directed against other Christian empires ( as this ignorant Nour seems to suggest), Pope Innocen III didn’t call for a crusade against the Byzantine Empire, but for the reconquest of the Holy Land and Egypt.
Nevertheless, Christians should recognise their sins, even those that they have committed against each other!
Joe says
Everyone involved in the fourth crusade were excommunicated before they reached Constantinople. Yes, the 4th crusade was awful. The Church has sinners. In Islam those sinners are considered Saints. And all good Muslims aspire to sin as much as they can.
jramsix says
You are right. Many sources will confirm this if someone will give up their bias they learned in school and take off their blinders and do their own research instead of spouting off “non-facts”. I find history is being taught/bent by the omission of facts as a primary tool. After this 4th Crusade army was used, abused, cheated and lied to the the point of total failure and starvation they were stuck in Venice. They were convinced to attack another Christian City with the promise if they did so they would receive passage to go fight Islam. They did that against a Papal Decree that condemned the action/plan before they did it. They went and sacked the City of Zara and they excommunicated themselves from the Christian Church well before they were used again to sack Constantinople.
Avenger says
Nour may have been quoting Wikipedia but why would that be wrong? Numerous western chronicles give the same accounts or even worse.
The fact is that the walls of Constantinople were finally breached, not by Muslim savages but by Christian savages from the west. These alleged Christians raped and murdered the population allowing most of the city to burn to the ground. Byzantium never fully recovered, which finally lead to their defeat by the Ottoman Turks. Pope John II apologized to the Patriarch of Constantinople I think in 2013.
Wellington says
Finally breached? That final breach occurred in 1453, courtesy of the Ottoman Turks.
As for Pope Jon II, he was pontifex maximus in the sixth century. Reigning as Pope in 1213 was Innocent III (1198-1216).
You know, when you get major facts so wrong it does tend to dilute whatever message you are trying to convey.
harold says
The Left celebrates criticism of Christians, males, Western Civilization, heterosexual, etc. They never respond with the criticism of American Slavery with, “Shut up, every other civilization did that, too.”
The Left does not care about the genocidal levels of mass murders committed by non-Westerners such as Muslims, Eastern Block Socialists, Asian Communists, etc. Any mention of the crimes of these groups is immediately condemned hateful and bigoted.
The typical Leftist is so blind in his hatred of Western Civilization, he’ll even use as “proof” a Wikipedia quote which actually counters his own argument.
Ultimately, the Leftist hatred is the hatred of a God that judges us and holds us to standards. I have no other explanation of how very intelligent people can passionately argue such inane positions.
gravenimage says
Firstly, note that the Christians who sacked Constantinople were under threat of excommunication–no Muslim who bloodily conquered the city two centuries later was under any such threat, because raping, sacking, and murder are perfectly Islamic. Moreover, you will find no one lauding this appalling sack of Constantinople. I have condemned this many times here in the strongest terms.
Whereas, note that Nour does not have a single critical thing to say about either the massacre cited above, nor about the vicious Muslim conquest of Constantinople.
Further, Christians have not done such things in centuries, and they were condemned even at the time.
Not so with Muslims. And this is no thing of the past–the Islamic State mass slaughtered Yezidis and Christians, and enslaved the survivors, whom they used as sex slaves–including children.
Does Nour have a problem with any of this? She certainly doesn’t say she does. But then how could she? This is how the vicious “Prophet” of Islam himself acted. Note that Jesus was not a warlord, a slaver, a rapist, nor a murderer.
Does Nour want horrors like this to be the fate of all the Infidels here? This would be the Islamic thing. *Ugh*.
TheOldOligarch says
Most of the sincere Crusaders had already abandoned the Fourth Crusade by the time the army put Constantinople to sack. After the pope excommunicated them for attacking Zara, many knights and soldiers left in disgust, making their own way to the Holy Land.
gravenimage says
Very true.
The Istanbulian says
Nour, we don’t brag out the crusades anymore, or the trail of tears, or the west African slave trade.
I live in turkey and constantly have to hear what great warriors and conquers turks and muslims were and are.
Tayyip isn’t sorry, nour are you.
Shame that you are proud of your cultural genocides and slaughter.
Iyi ramazanlar. Enjoy sleeping on the mounds of corpses you have left in your wake miss woke
Richard says
The sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders was to avenge the betrayal of the preceding Catholic Crusade by the Byzantine Emperor who was Greek Orthodox. It resulted in the slaughter of the former Catholic Crusading army by the Muslims. The First Crusade, which was at the request of the Byzantine Emperor, horrified him because it resulted in Roman Catholic Crusaders setting up Catholic states on lands they had liberated from the Muslims, but which the Byzantine Emperor wanted for himself because it had formerly been part of his empire. You have to remember that while these men called themselves Christians, most were not and very few were saints. There is the famous story of a Catholic about to be martyred in Rome’s Colosseum who was being chased by a lion. The man quickly prayed: “Lord, please make this lion a Catholic!”, at which point the lion knelt down, crossed himself and prayed: “Dear Lord, for these thy gifts which we are about to receive, may be truly grateful.”
The Crusades occurred at a point when the Byzantine Church and the Catholic Church split over the procession of the Holy Ghost. Right before the First Crusade, a Roman army liberated Sicily from the Byzantine Empire. Almost immediately, a Sicilian army under Norman leadership were the only troops in the world to come to the rescue of Pope Gregory VII, who was besieged by the Holy Roman Emperor, who wisely fled when he heard they were coming. – after which the Catholic army looted Rome. The Sicilians were Roman Catholics and were considered the finest troops in the First Crusade, though they fought under the Normans and were thus accounted French, although the Normans themselves were largely of Norse blood. On the other side, you had Saladin, who was not an Arab, but a Kurd. Although a deeply devout Muslim who was known for his generosity and kindness, even toward some of his non-Templar enemies,(whose throats he always slit), he gained power by murdering members of his own family. I am reminded of something a monsignor told me about his church: “We have a lot of people, but very few Catholics”
gravenimage says
None of this internecine fighting was a good or wise thing.
J D S says
One must remember that the crusades were run by the “Church?”of the day…not by Christians…..ask yourself “who” was “the church of the day” at that time..Yet you, Nour, class all Christians in this group.
Now back to the Crusades….Muslims had no business being in the Holy land in the first place….The “promised land” was given to the Jews by God….not to the Muslims or anyone else……end of the story.
The Holy Bible has the FINAL answer on this…..There is no other authority under heaven that overrides this.
BC says
Whether or not they were true followers of the’prince of peace’ as you call him. We know very well from Islam’s own history that Mohammad certainly could not claim that title himself, his crimes are well known
and yet he is presented to Muslims as the ‘perfect man’
BC says
It is also frequently the case that Muslims massacre other Muslims of a different persuasion, whom they think do not meet the correct moral standards, their own that is, men women and children alike. So best not seek not claim moral superiority for Islam as you are on very shaky ground
mortimer says
The DNA of modern Turkey has a small Asian component and a very large component from the conquered Christian nations that were enslaved by Islam. The DNA of modern Turks accounts for the highly European appearance of many Turks. This is because for dozens of generations Turkish children were the offspring of raped Roman and European captive women. Most Turks today are the descendants of raped Christian captives.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Mortimer.
Wellington says
I second, gravenimage, your endorsement of what mortimer asserted in his post and I would note as well how rape and Islam are so very often connected with one another.
Richard says
Mortimer: That is a brilliant and very important point I had never heard before.
somehistory says
That is what the moslim world is wishing for and working for now. To kill and pillage and take captives to rape, enslave and kill until their blood lust is satisfied…or they run out of victims.
Revelation 13 is proof of that. The “wild beast” will not stop on its own. But it will see destruction greater than it has wrought.
gravenimage says
That is *exactly* what Muslims are doing today. This is not a thing of the past.
DHazard says
ISLAM – I Steal, Lie And Murder, which is the purchase price for admission to Paradise. Islam, when practiced with diligence, smothers all the humanity and shreds all the common sense of it’s victims.
mortimer says
Yes, Hazard, the amorality and brutality of jihad is rewarded by eternal sex with slaves. Islam does indeed smother the humanity and common sense in a man.
gravenimage says
True–Islam even tells its adherents to crush their own sense of compassion.
mortimer says
JB, your attempts to slander all Muslims is despicable hate speech. Most Muslims do not want to behave like Mohammed, even though they know his cruel deeds.
It would be too much to expect you to actually DO SOME WORK and LOOK UP A REFERENCE to ISLAMIC TEXTS.
Your SPONTANEOUS, HATE-FILLED COMMENTS are those of an immature person and those of a supremacist bigot.
gravenimage says
How many Muslims condemn the actions of the “Prophet”? How many formally reject his model?
How many would actually stand against their coreligionists violenlty subjugating us?
Damn few.
Pointing this out doesn’t make you a “supremacist bigot”.
J D S says
Spot on somehistory. Satan will continue his pillage till God says STOP and sends him, his minions, and all who follow him, to that awful LAKE OF FIRE and that following includes all the Muslims in the past who failed to repent and all these today who have rejected the TRUE WORD…not just Muslims but ALL who fail….So sad to see so many following Satan.
Wellington says
Mortimer, I respect you a lot but I think you are too harsh on Jay Boo and here’s why: Even the mildest and nicest adherents of an evil ideology are nonetheless compromised by being adherents of that ideology and thus they should still be called out on this.
As an example, during the Cold War the Italian Communist Party produced many folks who enjoyed life in a way that their fellow Italians over the centuries have made into an art form, and kudos to Italians for this, one of the truly great people of all time when cuisine, fashion, good taste, the embracing of life in general, love, et al. is taken into account (N.B., I aver this about the Italians while not having a drop of Italian blood in me and I indicate this because I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I am being ethnically tendentious here). In fact, the Italian Communist Party as a whole actually thought that Communism could be ushered in gradually without the genocide of the upper and middle classes occurring, which genocide pure Marxist theory definitely calls for (and this is why “pure Marxists” looked upon Italian Communists contemptuously because they embraced the gradual implementation of Marxism, which is an oxymoron). But this NEVER made any Italian Communist not at least a confused person whose embracing of Communism was still a mistake, an egregious decision.
Well, ditto for any Muslim like Zuhdi Jasser or Irshad Manji who thinks that Islam can be made into something compatible with such things as democracy, liberty and equality under the law (also the eating of fine pork products and good beer—but I digress).
There’s no good Islam, mortimer, just as there is no good Marxism or Nazism. And thus ALL adult Muslims MUST be held accountable for continuing to support an ideology which is rotten to the core. No exceptions. None. Only the degree of accountability functions as a variable here. I think this is Jay Boo’s overall point and, if so, I am with him completely.
Best to you and yours, mortimer. After all, we are very much on the same side, now aren’t we, even though we may have a different opinion here and there? Take care.
gravenimage says
+1
Ewanda says
Whoa!! Criticizing each other so harshly does no one any good. I can find no veracity for the accusations you use towards JB in his observations of Islamic machinations. We have to work together and recognize that there are actions and solutions to be thought of and we need them quickly.
The bigger issue is that we are dealing with a structure where the “priestly or clerical” segment wields the power …. just like ancient Egypt and the Aztecs, the Mayans .. etc. They dictate and supervise the beliefs, the loyalties, and the punishments. As I stated before. You can get normally passive and peaceful citizens to carry out almost anything if death is the penalty for conscientious objection.
Historians wonder how it was that the Mayan and Aztec civilizations collapsed. They theorize about disease, drought, starvation, climate change, but the truth is that the regimes became so very brutal, life so very uncertain that one day all the people just disappeared into the forests and left the priests holding their instruments of torture and sacrifice abandoned on their pinnacles. The people could not function happily nor life flourish under the regime. Because pendulums keep swinging in one direction until something of significance starts to reverse the momentum, I would suspect that those civilizations just got more and more brutal, the people became less and less secure and finally needed to leave all at once. There were not enough of the priests’ minions to go after everyone to make examples of so the result was no one to rule equals no rulers.
Sad to say that nowadays there are no forests to disappear into to escape the “Imam and Mullah” regimes. There are spy satellites, infra red seeking devices, incursions in every corner of most countries, infinitely more sophisticated torture devices, 1400 years of perfected strategies … We had all better work together on this one and appreciate each other’s efforts in finding solutions.
Carol the 1st says
A little indulgence, please… I wish for Jay Boo to set aside his “slime” story-line and collaborate with me on a short story about BIG VULTURE who sweeps down (Gulliver style) on the teensy people of a free and pleasant little community.
PLOT: Big Vulture traps many wee ones under his big black straggly wings. At first they’re terribly confused and frightened but he tells them bed-time stories (that include their old heroes) and keeps them warm for the night (and only as fancied does he here and there pick one off for a meal). At dawn the unfed wee ones start to get very hungry and Big Vulture urges them to go forth and pillage their old community. He claims he’s best buddies with a Vast Bird up in the sky who says it’s OK and “even if you get killed we’ve arranged that it will all come out in the wash”. When they return from attacking their fellows he displays the munificence of it all by sending thanks to Vast Bird, engorging on the sanctified booty, and leaving behind a few crumbs on his dirty plate for the wee ones to dine on. He tells them to wash up, and then issues a few contented burps and hadaths. Then he takes “roll call”. Heaven help anyone who’s neglected to return as they will be on the next day’s foraging list! Some of the wee ones have trouble sleeping that night as they feel vague guilt and anxiety. The word “cannabalism” keeps flitting through their troubled minds. Some brave ones even try to sneak out from under the big black wings, but Big Vulture will have none of that!- he pounces upon them ferociously and then performs a vanishing act (gobble, gobble) to leave an impression upon the better-behaved ones. They feel very relieved that it’s not yet their turn. And so life goes on; they try to nourish each other and circle the bones with averted eyes; they become submissive and resigned to the rules of Big Vulture. What to do but MAKE THE BEST out of living under his wings? By this time they have their own little fledglings to consider. And so, before long, they become “institutionalized” and inured to the creepiness of Big Vulture. And there are very few escape attempts anymore since their old community has become very mistrusting and even hostile toward them. Big Vulture adds to these fears by filling them with horror stories and he tells them their only hope now lies in Vast Bird’s oddly-functioning magnanimity. They must deal with the hostile, “not-yet-subdued-and-encompassed ones” with great and ruthless ferocity (prefaced of course by a pleasant offer to band together).
They wee ones have come to understand that only Big Vulture and Vast Bird understand them and are worthy to be their friends. They solemnly pledge to stay together “until death do us part”….
To be continued…
gravenimage says
“I tried to find a street in which I would not have to walk over the corpses; but that was impossible”
…………………………
*Horrifying*. This is Islam in action.
Debi Brand says
“This is Islam….”
Roger.
Coach Martin says
God can turn a desert into a land flowing with milk and honey . . which God did in Israel . . . twice. Christians in America first died and then turned America into the most productive nation that the world has ever seen.
Satan can turn any land flowing with milk and honey into a desert . . . a desolation if you like. A mosque is therefore the idolatry of desolation . . . an obomination of desolation if you like. When you have an obomination of desolation standing on the Temple Mount, you have an Abomination of Desolation standing where it should not be since 691. Now read Daniel as Jesus suggested in Matthew 24.
Where does that place us?
JM says
“The Jew turns a desert into an oasis, while the Arab turns an oasis into a desert.”
(paraphrased)
Debi Brand says
So-called “Good Muslim,” what are you leaving in your wake?
Is it the works such as those above, as well as the deeds of countless others–that mirror those above– highlighted in your “sacred text” as exemplary believers?
If it is not, and if you, in brief, lack the stomach to commit or sanction such acts, leave the fold of Islam.
You do not belong therein.
Step out of Islam. Oppose it.
(Opposing Islam
Exposing its tenets :
http://www.debibrand.org/)
Richard says
Debi: The problem is everything you so abhor (and I do, too), Muslims look on as wonderful. They have been raised to think that way and it is a part of their conscious and subconscious worldview. There is no reason for them to change it because their (warped) reality formed by their religion and the beliefs of all their friends and families forms and re-enforces everything we find so atrocious. To them, killing a non-Muslim is no worse than our stepping on a black widow spider. To quote the line in True Grit; “You can’t reason with a rat, baby sister. You have to kill him or leave him alone.” To them, we are the rat.
gravenimage says
Pious Muslims don’t try to reason with anyone. They just want to dominate.
TWG says
JayBoo, Indeed……. A moslem will behead you. A “moderate” moslem will hold you down while the “real” and “good” moslem sharpens their knife.
“There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” ~recep tayyip erdogan
JM says
Islam is the only religion where latent violence is proportional to piety.