The sole basis for this absurd article is that Henry II wrote a letter to Pope Alexander in which he said that he “would sooner accept the errors of Nur al-Din [the Sultan of Aleppo] and become an infidel, than suffer Thomas [Becket] to hold sway in Canterbury Cathedral any longer.”
Yes, that’s it. That’s the entire weak reed on which the BBC bases this entire flight of fancy about Henry II converting to Islam and compelling all of England to do so as well.
The BBC should know, and probably does, that Henry’s statement is an example of what is known as hyperbole. It does not in any way actually mean that Henry was thinking of converting to Islam. In fact, it makes it clear that he considers that possibility inconceivable, and so he uses the prospect of his conversion as a rhetorical device to emphasize how his putting up with Becket was even more inconceivable.
It’s like this. If I say, “I would rather have my teeth pulled out with rusty pliers than see a Star Wars movie,” this does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I am considering having my teeth pulled out with rusty pliers. It means that I would never under any circumstances see a Star Wars movie.
Is the BBC really this stupid, or just intent on normalizing Islam for its captive audience, no matter how much it has to stretch the truth to do so?
This is just another example of the British intelligentsia’s ongoing efforts to compel Britons to believe that Islam is part of their own culture and heritage, so that they will be shamed into fearing to oppose mass Muslim migration into Britain, as well as jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women and others. It’s just more of Britain’s continuing cultural suicide.
“King Henry II: the Muslim monarch of medieval England?,” by Claudia Gold, BBC History Magazine, April 6, 2020:
In the spring of 1168, Henry II, King of England, wrote to Pope Alexander III. While correspondence between monarch and pontiff was a matter of course, this letter was notable for the menace it projected. For Henry was threatening to convert to Islam.
It was not unusual for Henry to issue threats: they were fundamental to his arsenal of kingship, as vital as his carefully calculated thunderous outbursts, his diplomacy, the legendary speed at which he drove his armies and his unsurpassable siege warfare in inspiring awe among his adversaries. Henry did not discriminate between the recipients of his threats, from the pope to the lowly electors of Winchester, whom he once ordered to “hold a free election” but forbade “to elect anyone but Richard my clerk”.
But this was of a different order altogether. Since 1097, European crusaders had been fighting the forces of Islam in the Middle East and tenaciously hanging on to their conquests: the kingdom of Jerusalem, the principality of Antioch, the counties of Edessa and Tripoli. Muslims were seen as Christendom’s enemies.
Moreover, Henry was not simply King of England: he was also the Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Count of Maine, Anjou and Touraine, master of vast swathes of France. One of the world’s most powerful men, he held sway from the Scottish borders to the Middle East, where his uncles ruled the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. If Henry was serious, the ramifications across 12th-century Europe would be seismic.
Could this, then, have been more than Henry’s characteristic bombast? Is it possible that he meant what he said?
Henry was familiar with Islam. He would have studied the works of Petrus Alfonsi, physician to his grandfather Henry I, who wrote the earliest credible account of Muhammad, as well as Peter the Venerable, who ordered the first translation of the Qur’an into Latin. Although he saw Islam as a heresy, Peter thought it the greatest of all heresies – the one that most deserved to be answered.
Alongside Islam, Henry also developed an admiration for Arabic learning from an early age. He had received an outstanding education from scholars versed in the ‘new’ knowledge that was exploding out of Sicily, Spain and the Middle East. Western Europe had never experienced such an intellectually exciting period as the 12th century – later dubbed the 12thcentury renaissance – fed by a rediscovery of the classical thinkers of Greece and Rome (particularly Christian Rome after Constantine’s conversion), and by contact with the Arab world and its rich intellectual tradition in astronomy, medicine, music, architecture and mathematics….
So much for the king’s high regard for Islam and Arabic culture. But what was it that provoked Henry to make the threat in the first place? The answer is to be found in Henry’s letter, where he tells Pope Alexander he “would sooner accept the errors of Nur al-Din [the Sultan of Aleppo] and become an infidel, than suffer Thomas [Becket] to hold sway in Canterbury Cathedral any longer”.
Now things become a little clearer: it is 1168, and Henry’s row with his erstwhile friend Thomas Becket is in its fifth weary year. Henry had raised Thomas high, appointing him to the position of chancellor soon after his accession. He was “considered second only to the king”. Henry had such faith in Thomas to do his bidding that after Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, died in 1161, he strong-armed a reluctant Becket into taking up the dual position of chancellor -archbishop, despite warnings from Henry’s mother, the Empress Matilda, and from Thomas himself. Thomas thought it was ludicrous, protesting that Henry and he knew “for certain that if I am ever promoted to that dignity, I will have to forfeit either the king’s favour or… my service to God Almighty”.
Henry ignored all objections, paying no heed to his mother and even threatening the monks of Canterbury (who did not want Thomas as their archbishop) with his anger if they failed to elect his candidate. Henry’s primary concern was to ensure the succession by crowning his eldest surviving son in his lifetime. It was his bid to avoid another blood-spattered race to the throne when he died – as had happened at the death of every monarch except Stephen since the Norman conquest. The right to crown the kings of England was the prerogative of the archbishops of Canterbury, and Henry expected Thomas to accede to his desire.
Instead, Henry discovered that he had installed a zealot, a soldier now for the eternal Christ instead of his temporal king….
Henry’s conversion would presumably have required the mass conversion of all the different peoples in the lands under his rule, from Northumberland to Aquitaine. The administrative implications alone would have been immense. What would have become of the thousands of bishops and priests? Would Arabic have replaced Latin as the lingua franca? Would there have been a new curriculum in the universities? Would Henry have developed Arabic rather than English law? With which caliphates would he have forged his new alliances? What would have been the effect on the crusades?…
Dude says
More likely Henry VIII, the perv. Only pervs can be attracted to that ‘religion’. For them, using religion to get sex, is the only good of it.
Boromir's Horn says
Yes, with Henry VIII, the BBC could point to the relationship of raping and beheading between the two parties.
revereridesagain says
Good thing the old rakehell died before some sultan could offer to send him one.
DiploNerd says
I would sooner believe in the Easter Bunny than believe that Muhammad was a Prophet of God. BBC NEWS FLASH: DiploNerd believes in the Easter Bunny! (How much does the Muslim Brotherhood pay them to publish such drivel?)
Roger Woodhouse says
This is just another example(as if we havent had many before)of the BBC and its machinations at work to soften or remove any objections we the British people have toward further Islamisation of this country.
mortimer says
Typical SPONTANEOUS, self-invented ideas stated as ‘FACT’ by the unread, unstudied, blabbermouth ‘Dude’ … I think he should remove an ‘e’. ‘E’ as in ‘failed history’.
Henry VIII, a man with an explosive personality, was nonetheless a sincerely pious Christian, and a student of theology, whatever one thinks of his excesses. Henry thought himself as more moral than the Medicis who ruled Italy and whose Pope Clement VII had an illegitimate black son, and thought he was more moral than Pope Alexander VI (Borgia) who as pope had several children from his mistresses and whose son Caesar Borgia murdered his own brother when he was a teenager
Henry at least married all the women he slept with. Henry’s chief concern in marrying so many women was not ‘SEX’ as Dud spontaneously pontificates, but to produce a male heir who could keep the realm stable upon his death. Henry’s concern was a valid one, for there was more than a decade of instability from 1547 until Elizabeth’s coronation in 1559.
It is fatuous to have shallow canards about Henry bandied about, when he was a moral man when compared to many of his Italian contemporaries.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, you are right that Henry VIII was very much a Christian, although one can of course argue about how good a Christian he was, both personally and later as self-proclaimed head of the Church of England. He was definitely committed to Christianity, though, without doubt.
But, with all respect, you are mistaken in believing that he did not have sex outside the bonds of marriage. He in fact had a slew of mistresses, including Elizabeth Blount, a lady in waiting for his first wife Catherine of Aragon, who was the mother of his acknowledged but illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond; and Mary Boleyn, sister of his second wife Ann.
That Dude has a different view of Henry VIII’s moral standing than you do does not make him a “dud”.
gravenimage says
second wife Anne
Wellington says
Fine and accurate post, gravenimage. Henry VIII actually functioned in JFK mode.
Henry II, the subject of this article, did too. My favorite rascal of a monarch, though, still remains Charles II (1660-1685) who had, at minimum, 14 bastard children, though on his death bed he converted to Roman Catholicism. Guess it’s never to late, a la religion, to ask for forgiveness—hedging one’s bets and all that.
mortimer says
Alright, I am corrected: Henry acknowledged one illegitimate child, Henry FitzRoy, as his own, but is suspected to have fathered several illegitimate children by different mistresses. The number and identity of these is a matter of historical debate.
mortimer says
GI is correct. While I have recently been upset by the lies of a number of Islamist operatives of late, I should not take out my outrage on correspondents at JW. I have behaved badly, and commit myself to focus on what we want to achieve, namely, to expose jihadism. I believe we can be more effective at JW if correspondents here try not to be distracted by trivia and stick to the subject of jihad. We are up against a number countries with combined billion dollar propaganda budgets focused on whitewashing jihad-terrorism. We must be smarter and avoid trivializing this topic with venting and facetiousness. I myself have vented on others and will try to reform this tendency. Thanks to GI for the deserved admonishment. I am grateful to be corrected.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, thanks for your reply.
Please know that I generally consider your posts to be among the best that Jihad Watch has to offer, and have learned a great deal from you.
James Lincoln says
mortimer,
Your knowledge of Islam is encyclopedic and your posts are highly valued. You could likely be hired as a feature writer for this website.
I, personally, can put up with a few of your edgy comments directed at JW readers.
That being said, I appreciate your introspection. We should all strive to improve our posts.
Best wishes!
w says
What on earth are you talking about?
Boromir's Horn says
I may have mentioned to my ex at one time that I would sooner dance with the devil than get back with her. Lucky for me, neither one of them held me to it.
gravenimage says
🙂
pfwag says
Maybe… that’s what sex-crazed in-breds with syphilis do.
CogitoErgoSum says
Henry just thought of the most odious thing he could imagine to make putting up with Becket seem all the worse. Yes, you have to be stupid not to understand that Henry had a very low opinion for Islam — and that his opinion of Becket was even lower than the other lowest thing he could imagine.
gravenimage says
Spot on, CogitoErgoSum.
No Muzzies Here says
May as well have. The UK is on the road to Islam, and there seems to be no stopping it.
R Russell says
Whilst I agree with you that (without divine intervention) the UK is on the road to Islam, the article is about England and not the UK.
gravenimage says
Actually, Henry II *did* have a presence in Wales, Scotland, and parts of Ireland at the time.
Moreover, if–God forbid!–England became Islamic now, then Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland would have little chance.
skai says
No Muzzies Here. Agree with you, Also don’t forget if it ever happens it will be with the help from Liebore Party and muslim sympathisers lefties. See how many local councils are infested by musses and they call the shots . Prime example Tower Helmet , Rotherham , Luton to name the few . Claudia Gold have to have her head examined .
Wellington says
The BBC needs to go. The Labour Party too. Ditto for the Democratic Party here in America and the MSM.
A lot of useless institutions have become something far worse, i.e., harmful institutions.
The descent of the West continues.
JMB says
Getting rid of either the BBC or your Dems won’t really solve the problem. Britain has had an Islamic influx, The USA has ever increasing numbers of Muslims. They use our human rights and equal opportunities laws to get into positions of influence. I am sure that there are now many Muslims on the board of the BBC and also in their production departments. The same in the USA, you have them in your congress, not to mention a certain former president. Sadly it is all about demographics. I don’t know what the answers are.
Wellington says
“Getting rid of either the BBC or your Dems won’t really solve the problem.”
No it won’t but it would still be a great start.
And I do think we have to keep matters in proportion and not despair too much, understandable though this is at times. Muslims still make up only a very small amount of the population of the UK and America. Yes, I know they breed like rabbits but were Islam to be very publicly and broadly identified as iniquitous, this would be the single greatest move in the right direction. Thereafter, Muslim immigration (finding whatever legal pretext available) could be stopped, obloquy, derision, marginalization and scorn would set in as it has, for example, with an organization like the KKK, Muslims would be on the defensive which is where they should be, and so on.
Ain’t over yet. Not by a long shot. And don’t forget that more and more people in the West have a negative view of Islam with each passing year. Just think about the percentage of Westerners who thought negatively about Islam thirty years ago compared to now. So, I remain cautiously optimistic, but Islam overwhelmingly seen as a giant negative is THE step that has to occur and this has not happened yet. Better.
Paul J says
They might be a small % in terms of numbers but they have a very large % of the native population who actively ( unknowingly or otherwise) assist and promote islam’s conquest of the world. That is the real problem, the enemy within.
Roger Woodhouse says
All true Wellington but I would just add that the average Brits ‘view’ on Islam 30 years ago would have been non existant.9/11 brought Islam into the consciousness of the Brits.and the BBC have been doing everything since then to make Islam acceptable.The truth needs to be told re.that so called religion.Most muslims are only taught the sanitised version of Islam and ate in denial about its violent sexist content.This all needs exposing so that the average Brit when given the choice will know just what lies in store .
Wellington says
Paul J: I agree. The enemy within, i.e., non-Muslim apologists for Islam, is the ultimate problem.
mortimer says
Agree with the thought. The Dems and Labour and other globalist parties are working to undermine and then destroy the philosophies that made the West unequaled in the exploration of all that we previously did not know. In the 1960s, the Western world decided to turn against itself by deciding that the Third World contained the answers (even though it certainly had the formula for backwardness) … hence the current fascination with Islam as the exotic house pet of the Left. They are like the owners of a potentially vicious fighting animals with long teeth and a strong jaw able to crush bones. If you ask them, ‘Does your animal bite?’, they answer, ‘What? My little pookie? Of course not. He is gentle would never hurt a fly. You must be PREJUDICED against this breed of animal … or phobic !’
I was bitten by a massive dog like this ‘pookie’ in the story and my life has also been threatened by Muslims for speaking about Islam. I know the motive that make Muslims want to destroy the West: Allah hates kafirs and the philosophy that creates their successful way of life.
Wellington says
Fine post, mortimer.
Dio Genes says
Well said. But I think it is this: islam has become a tool for the Left in their battle with Capitalisme, Christendom, white males and Western culture in general. This is their weird view on things, a kind of masspsychosis. This can turn out totally insane and destructive and a lot of the Western world will follow Lebanon going from prosperity into chaos. Or some kind of Reconquista emerges, kicking islam out, deport muslims, but this needs highly motivated people.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
An excellent and accurate post, my compliments.
As you have said before, leftism destroys everything – or something to that effect.
Believe it or not, I can actually remember – back in the day – when the BBC was a trusted news source.
No more…
Wellington says
Thanks, James. The BBC began to be destroyed by that “phenomenon” that destroyed so much, i.e., the 1960’s. Tragic decade beyond almost all measure. A few good things like civil rights advancement and the NASA space program occurred, but the negatives of this decade, which sadly influence Western societies to this day, far outweigh its positives.
Ordinary Joe says
That’s the BBC for you. From the great institution it once was, it’s turned into anti British leftist filth. You only have to look at the overpaid numpties that they’ve put into the top jobs that you realise how it’s been swung.
The good thing is, most Brits know this already.
JMB says
Agree with you completely. I think the BBC is often referred to as the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. Very sad for such a (once) great broadcaster.
Phil Copson says
“…I think the BBC is often referred to as the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. Very sad for such a (once) great broadcaster….”
————————————————————————————————————–
I was once a regular listener to BBC Radio 4, but I increasingly find that I can’t go beyond 30 seconds or so without being so annoyed by some slanted comment that I have to turn it off again.Their presenters seem utterly incapable of being impartial, adding snarky remarks of their own against anyone of whom the chattering classes disapprove, and praising anyone left-wing or muslim: Anything and everything is to be blamed on “Brexit”, and any item of good news is always “despite Brexit”.
This is especially true of news/current affairs programmes where no opportunity of sneering at Donald Trump – (“obviously a very unpleasant man”) – is to be missed; coverage of how countries are responding to the Chinese virus included uncritical acceptance of Chin’a claims about it’s supposedly low infection rates, but America’s was characterised as “speaking in a monotone from the White House, Donald Trump responded in his usual fashion with a travel-ban…”
Tommy Robinson performing a “citizens arrest” on a man who groped TR’s 8-year old daughter in a swimming-pool and holding him until the police arrived, was reported as Tommy Robinson having been involved in a fight and arrested, with no mention of the circumstances: contrast this with their coverage a couple of weeks later, when TR stopped his car and single-handedly took on three muslim teenagers attacking an elderly white couple – the BBC declined to say that their rescuer was Tommy Robinson, covered-up the identity of the attackers – (at least one of whom was an illegal immigrant) – and covered-up the nature of the assault, saying that the three had “coughed in the faces” of the elderly couple, somehow “forgetting” to mention that these cowards had punched a defenceless 70-year old woman in the face and given her a black eye….
This approach leaches into everything they do; a programme on the history of technology will fawningly tell us how some Arab was “a muslim engineer” without feeling any corresponding need to mention that Brunel, Stephenson, Newcomen, Watt, Whitworth or whoever were from a Christian country.
Similarly, on several occasions they’ve described how dementia patients who may have stopped speaking, can nonetheless still sing songs from their childhood: When yet another programme on this phenomenon started, I naturally wondered why they were flogging this story to death, but all soon became clear – they were going over the same ground again, but this time claiming that “music therapy was practised hundreds of years ago in Islam” and crow-barring in references to “Andalusia” and “the Prophet Mohammed”.
Conversely, anyone who contributed to preserving society and freedom has to be denigrated; Margaret Thatcher was referred to recently as “the notorious Margaret Thatcher”, and at the weekend, the presenter of an interview/music programme described her guest as an actor who’d “played villains and heroes from Churchill to Sir Matt Busby” !
Not content with smearing Sir Winston Churchill as a “villain”, she took care to leave out his knighthood – (for merely saving his country) – whilst making sure that Matt Busby – (knighted for superintending eleven young men kicking a ball about) – got his full honorific.
Roger Woodhouse says
Phil.You forgot to mention that TR was only referred to ‘as a passer by’ in the article ln which Tommy had come to the rescue of that elderly lady.The BBC is beyond the pale now and must have its licence fee revoked.
Wellington says
Thanks for that narration, Phil Copson. The BBC is now rot, much like most of our media here in America.
Emilie Green says
But Hank himself states, rather clearly, that Islam is errant to his way of thinking. His stating that he “would sooner accept the errors of Nur al-Din [the Sultan of Aleppo]” cinches that deal.
jpattitude says
Pure poppycock. Ms. Gold must have been desperate for something to write about. She is obviously what we call a “pseudo-intellectual,” writing books with important sounding titles but lacking the actual knowledge to back those titles up, and at the same time lacking the analytical ability to comprehend what she does know. It’s a dangerous combination.
James Lincoln says
An accurate analysis, jpattitude.
And unfortunately, many of her readers are likely very gullible…
FYI says
Hyperbole.
There is a herd of elephants in the Room of islam:islam is the religion of peace,muhammed is a prophet,muhummad was the perfect man,the koran has no mistakes in it,islam is a tolerant creed,there are no contradictions in the koran…so many elephants in the Room…
And also,in the Room of islam,there is a Winged Flying Donkey with a woman’s face and a peacock tail called buraq:the one muhammed rode, on his wondrous magical Journey{koran 17;1} flying from mecca to Jerusalem to visit that mosque…that couldn’t possibly have existed in muhammed’s time as there was no mosque in Jerusalem at that time.
gravenimage says
BBC claims, without evidence, that English King Henry II considered converting to Islam
The sole basis for this absurd article is that Henry II wrote a letter to Pope Alexander in which he said that he “would sooner accept the errors of Nur al-Din [the Sultan of Aleppo] and become an infidel, than suffer Thomas [Becket] to hold sway in Canterbury Cathedral any longer.”
Yes, that’s it. That’s the entire weak reed on which the BBC bases this entire flight of fancy about Henry II converting to Islam and compelling all of England to do so as well…
It’s like this. If I say, “I would rather have my teeth pulled out with rusty pliers than see a Star Wars movie,” this does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I am considering having my teeth pulled out with rusty pliers. It means that I would never under any circumstances see a Star Wars movie.
……………………
Yes, exactly. I’m familiar with this letter. This is merely Henry expressing to what extent he is displeased with Becket, who would in fact later be assassinated due to Henry’s animus (although not, perhaps, on his explicit orders).
In fact, far from indicating how much he’d like to convert to Islam, he is using Islam as a rhetorical device, using it as an example–like having your teeth pulled out with rusty pliers–of showing how much you hate Becket, or Star Wars movies, by contrasting them with something *else* you hate.
Exactly the same, author Hilary Mantell in her Wolf Hall series, set during the period of Henry II’s later successor Henry VIII, has several characters say things like “I’d rather turn Turk than follow a heretic like Martin Luther”. Again, this doesn’t mean they are contemplating converting to Islam–they are just emphasizing their animus to Protestantism by comparing it with a creed they know all their listeners will hate and despise.
Far from expressing a fondness for Islam, they are emphasizing that they very much *do not*.
So–the question is, is Claudia Gold of the BBC *really* this stupid, or is she just hoping that her readers are? Will she do anything to paint Islam in a positive light? What a dhimmi fool.
elee says
King John is said to have offered to convert to Islam in a letter to a Muslim monarch. King John feuded with the Pope of his time. It is also said that when he died, he was turned away from Hell, because it was too good for him.
revereridesagain says
Absolutely no harebrained scheme that King John could come up with would surprise me. As for Henry, he was rather put out with Becket but he did manage to less than subtly suggest an alternative solution for the problem to appropriate parties.
And I wholly sympathize with Spencer’s preference for tooth extraction with rusty pliers over being forced, pun intended, to sit through a “Star Wars” movie especially one of those “prequels”.
Patrice Ayme says
The Franks were both cautious and relax about religion in general, and Islam in particular. Jokes were allowed. Emperors could employ Muslim bodyguards, and speak Arabic (as Barbarossa did)…. And then go on a Crusade. Even a Catholic fanatic such as Saint Louis toyed with the idea of becoming Sultan of Egypt.
Being an “apostate” was not a crime under the Franks: the state was agnostics. When Clovis and thousands of his bodyguards converted to Catholicism, that was not mandatory.
The Franks had fought with Pope Gregory the Great, in the Sixth Century, when the Pope threatened to burn bishops who allowed secular teaching. Ultimately the Franks obliged all and any religious establishment (including monasteries, synagogues) to teach secularly the entire children population. The Franks sent spies to nascent Islam in the Seventh Century. They viewed the “Sons of Sara” (Saracens) as a Christian heresy, but most dangerous because most militarized.
Ultimately, the Muslim invasion of Western Europe turned into a bloodbath: invading Muslims killed 25% of catholic Spain… Although their fight was against the ruling Visigoths. Then the Umayyad Caliphate launched three massive invasions of Francia but the “Europeans” (as the Franks called themselves then), rejected them and the caliphate fell (750 CE). In the following four centuries, the Franks led a reconquista of not just Northern Spain, but Southern Italy and islands such as Sicily.
One has to understand that, initially, the Franks took over a disintegrating Late Roman empire wrecked, and led, by “Cahtloic Orthodox” with did, or threatened to, kill everybody who was not considered to be a proper believer… others, emperor Theodosius I had decreed in 381CE, were “madmen”.
The Franks, led by king, imperator and consul Clovis, imposed a gentle form of Catholicism not adverse to Pagans or Jews… Or even, it turned out later, Muslims. This tolerant Catholicism ruled until 1026 CE… When the Catholic church bared its fangs again, and started to burn “heretics” again. What happened? Some European plutocrats (self described “nobles”) got the idea, coming from the Late Roman empire, to use Catholicism as a pretext to kill and oppress people.
Thus Catholicism became more powerful, extremist and fanatical, just after 1000 CE, relaunching the Inquisition. In particular, the marriage of clerics was discouraged. Intellectuals, who had been church employees, technically, because of the three centuries old law pushed vigorously for independence from the church… that’s how the university system was born. And of course a battle started inside Catholicism between pacific tolerance and furious fanaticism.
The most famous battle was that of the hyper famous philosopher and songwriter Abelard against Saint Bernard. Saint Bernard, more influential than the Pope, pushed for the Second Crusade. Excommunicated, exasperated, Abelard did threaten to go to Spain among the Muslims, claiming they looked more hospitable than fanatic Catholics. His sponsor and protector Peter the Venerable sojourned in Muslim controlled Spain to overview the translation of various Islamist text, including the Qur’an.
The point of all this was that education, politics, the military, and the law were all independent of religion during the five centuries of Frankish control. Whereas in the Late Roman empire, Catholicism was the state religion, it was not the case under the Franks. In reconquered areas the Muslim had invaded, the Franks’ didn’t force-convert Muslims, nor were they ejected.
The Franks were not against conversion out of Catholicism, they enabled Catholics to convert to Judaism. And sometimes entire villages did.
This is completely different from Islam. If you convert out of Islam, the holiest texts of Islam tell you, you die. Under Islam, education, politics, military, law are all one under God (“Allah”). Islam learned everything from the Late Roman empire. It’s quite similar, just worse: at least under the Roman empire, nominally, most of the law was independent of religion.
Confronted to all this, the partisans of Islam bleat that Islam had a “Golden Age”. True, in appearance. But the reality is the exact opposite of what they believe. An immense empire had been conquered in a few years, and those huge populations found themselves mostly free, because of the Muslim conquest.
The brutality of Muslim conquest (a few years), and its ferocity (killing all arm bearing males in Syria), followed by a hands-off policy (40,000 conquering Muslims left the millions they had conquered alone, as long as they paid taxes and let Muslims rule), paradoxically avoided destruction of cities, and freed the populations from the fanaticism of the precedingly ruling “Catholic” tyrants. So for a while the many millions living in the areas conquered by those 40,000 warriors found themselves to be much more free than before. They were still Christian and Jews. Many thinkers and their books had escaped earlier to Persia, just before the Arabic conquest. The appearance of Islam’s rich intellectual tradition won plenty of admirers in medieval Europe.
But this was secular, not religious admiration. The attitude of all leaders of parts of the Frankish empire was that the church could do its own thing, as long as it respected secular law.
This is what happened with Henry II Plantagenet. He found himself confronted by a fanatic he had himself appointed, to the objections of many.
Oppressed by their non-Muslim status, those populations converted to Islam over the next few centuries, and then it became clear, to the Muslim leaders themselves, that Literal Islam was adverse to civilizational progress. So many Muslim leaders took anti-fundamentalist measures. Saladin, for example passed a law rewarding those who interpreted I slam literally with the death penalty… Exactly what Wahhab did, five centuries later, enabling the Saud family to use Islam the way Late Roman emperors used that Catholicism they had invented… And the way early Muslim leaders did.
Man was born free. Man thinks best, free. Democracy enables us to be as free as possible while enjoying civilization. All this is impossible following only what is in one 80,000 words book… especially when it’s full of orders to kill all sorts of people, many of them because of how they were born.
somehistory says
The BBC is rife with moslims. What else would one expect than to hear lies that promote the filth of the wild beast from satan, a.k.a. islam?
After all, moslims claim that everyone from Adam, to Moses, to Jesus Christ, Lord of Heaven and earth, Eternal Father of Christians, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, were moslims and they have absolutely no proof….and there is none because to say they were moslims is to lie, so a search for any proof would be a total waste of time.
But, moslims don’t need proof in order to make a claim. They just say it and expect everyone to believe it, no questions asked. They do this with the claim of people all being moslims and all land belonging to moslims and oh, so many other lying claims. islam is a stomach turner and a filthy, lying wild beast from the father of lies, satan.
Lilith Wept says
They believe something because Mohammed said it…..oh they say he had a reputation for being extremely honest and trustworthy in his job as a camel driver! Wonderful qualifications for believing such outrageous things that someone said!
!
Islam is true because Mohammed said that Gabriel told him that Allah said it was true. It all devolves on Mohammed, with no other proof or verification.
And Mohammed tried to use the stories and characters from the Torah and Gospel ( as well as pagan stories) to borrow the authority and authenticity of the Torah and Gospels for his invented ideology. Yet being ignorant of both the Torah and Gospel , he got the stories all wrong….
Islam , IMO, is a combination of Mohammed’s retaliation on his family for his supposed rejections as a child and his not being included in the profitable management of the pilgrim supply business that his tribe was involved in.
And Mohammed’s revenge on the things that he hated hated, women , dogs, music , people making fun or mocking him.
And Mohammed wanting to have power over people , to be able to control them , . Mohammed wanted to be seen and treated as someone special , set above all others.
And he elevated himself to the position of a God, Allah was just a rubber stamp on what Mohammed wanted, his sock puppet.
Just look at the shahada…” There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet “…Not just “ There is no god but Allah” but you also have to believe in Mohammed too.
And the Koran emphasizes this over and over , with too many verses to post here…..
And look how outraged moslems get when Mohammed is drawn , or “insulted” . Yet Allah is insulted and criticized and there isn’t much response at all.
Rob says
The late Prof Bernard Lewis referred to the West’s ‘pre-emptive cringe’ when dealing with Islam.
Battle says
Robert Spencer hits nail on head. Good.
Battle says
Claudia Gold needs to stop reporting like an arse.
Wellington says
Perhaps that’s because she is an arse.
Gray says
The BBC author clearly didn’t even read Henry ll’s statement very closely. The King purportedly said he would sooner ‘accept the errors of (the Sultan of Aleppo) and become an infidel than …’ If Henry was so entranced by Islam that he was considering becoming a Muslim himself, why did he accuse the Sultan of being in error? In any event, History seems to record that Henry was a man given to loud rhetorical flourishes, especially as he gave vent to his frustrations with Thomas a Becket. Surely, the King did not always expect to be taken literally? To take the most extreme (as well as the best known) example of Henry’s temper: When Henry shouted out angrily ‘Will no one rid me of this turbulent Priest,’ would the BBC seriously argue that Henry was instructing all loyal subjects within earshot to rush off and kill Thomas, even if the Archbishop happened to be in the middle of celebrating mass at Canterbury Cathedral? And yet, that is exactly what happened. Seems to me Henry is already being judged too harshly by History. One of the main disputes between the two men was over ‘benefit of clergy’, where ecclesiastics could claim the right to trial in special ecclesiastical courts. Henry considered all his subjects should be subject to the same laws, and be tried in the same courts. Thomas disagreed. In this, Henry was clearly right, and Thomas was wrong. And yet Henry seems to have been the one judged harshly by History. So maybe its not surprising that Henry, on top of everything else, should now be effectively accused of being a Muslim sympathiser.
gravenimage says
Good post. One small point, though–clerics having the right to being tried in ecclesiastical courts was actually quite common in Europe at the time.
Gray says
Thank you. I know nothing of the situation in Europe back then. However, my understanding is that, in Twelfth Century England, only the clergy were literate. In those days, the only way to obtain an education was to take out some form of Holy Orders. So, if a person was literate, by definition, that person was presumed to be an ecclesiastic, and entitled to trial in the Church courts (where the penalties were much lighter). Apparently, the accused would prove he was literate by reading a passage from the Psalms – and it was always the same short passage! Hope the situation in the European ecclesiastical Courts wasn’t as ridiculous as it evidently was in England.
Owen Morgan says
“Is the BBC really this stupid, or just intent on normalizing Islam for its captive audience, no matter how much it has to stretch the truth to do so?”
Yes. Both.
OTTER says
In JW, we often notice the role of Western enablers and collaborators to further the Islamisation of Western societies. I want JW to think specifically about the role of white, western, liberal women in this enterprise. The question is: why do they do this and seem to succumb without a protest and indeed gladly to Islam’s brutality towards women?
My answer: White men have lost control of white women and have allowed Islam to gain a crucial ally within their societies. When white women are not normatively controlled by white men (as Muslim women are by Muslim men) they start yearning for strong men and thus turn to Islam, because if it not strong with women, it is nothing. I think Jordan Peterson had some observations along these lines.
My advice: White men, get control over your white women for if you don’t you will not have soldiers to fight Islam when the war starts. Or maybe, you don’t care in your hedonistic, all accepting ideology?
James Lincoln says
OTTER,
Instead of using the word “control” which has a negative connotation, I would substitute “strong positive influence.”
Other than that, your post is “spot on”.
The transformation you are describing is particularly striking in countries like say, Sweden…
Brian Hoff says
Islam doesn’t allow woman to be mistreat.
gravenimage says
If “Brian Hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–believed this, then why wouldn’t he try to prevent his savage coreligionists from genitally mutilating, beating, raping, “Honor Killing”, and stoning women to death? What about child marriage and forced marriage?
Because this is all orthodox Islam. He can’t go against that.
So he is either lying to us–Taqiyya–or else he doesn’t consider this barbaric abuse to be “mistreat”.
Wellington says
Brian Hoff: Bull shit. I would start with “captives of the right hand” to disprove your lie.
gravenimage says
Good lord–if OTTER wants men to have control over women, why doesn’t he just convert to Islam right now?
I’m a white woman, and I have no desire to be brutalized by Muslim thugs. What crap.
James Lincoln says
gravenimage,
I always treat women with dignity and respect and believe that they should be treated with FULL equality in, for instance, the workplace if they can perform the essential functions of a job with or without reasonable accommodation, etc.
This FULL equality would also apply to ALL other areas of public life.
My own personal marriage is a little bit different… And I hope I’m not opening up a powder keg…
Major decisions , where to live, which house to buy, may come down to the husband (or wife) being the “tiebreaker”. Throughout our marriage, my wife respects – and has always encouraged – my position as husband and “head of the household” with a 51% voice for that very very rare occurrence to act as a “tiebreaker’. Without this very very rare “tiebreaker” option, I’m certain that our marriage would not have lasted. I’d like to point out that this option has only been used a couple of times in 30+ years.
I use this “authority” very very sparingly – and we have enjoyed a wonderful, very cooperative marriage for 30+ years. I very highly value my wife’s input and we can work out a compromise well over 99% of the time. I love her dearly and have immense respect for her opinions and intellect.
I guess that’s how I came up with the phrase “strong positive influence”. I do not attempt to “control” my wife in any way – and she does not attempt to control me.
Just hoping that the women who read Jihad Watch still like me…
Wellington says
You’re a very brave man, James. Lots of luck, pal.
P.S. I agree with you but I don’t count because I’m male.
OTTER says
James Lincoln,
Yes the word control can have negative connotations. But it all comes down to who is expected to play the role of a leader. Now that white men have relinquished their claim to be normative Leaders of their women, this is opened up one of the greatest breaches in our defense systems and will allow Islam to penetrate far more easily.
gravenimage says
Some of us believe in freedom and equality–clearly OTTER does not. Very disturbing.
OLD GUY says
Why would the BBC attempt to dig this shit up? And who the hell care’s what King Henry II thought about islam in the year 1168.
It appears to me that we need to think and deal with what islamic ideology is doing to the world now. The answer to that is world domination in the form of a “religious” dictatorship where you are either a follower of islam or a slave to it. If you oppose islam in this new world order you loose your head. BBC needs to write that story not bullshit about past kings.
gravenimage says
Many are doing everything they can to present Islam as both positive and normative in the West.
jca reid says
Disgusting! The slow, constant, drip, drip of Islamic ‘Apologists’ is unending. Trying to spew more of their utter bilge, taking advantage of the ‘lockdown’. All we get are Muslim lies & more lies. If one tries to put the actual FACTS, one is deemed “Racist” or, “Islamophobic”. If one corrects a Muslim on a social web site, you never hear from them again. They still won’t accept the Truth! What is making it worse is the collaboration the receive from various various Institutions, in this case the BBC, with their utter garbage. There is need of a serious rethink by the Free World how it conducts business/interactions with Muslims & Islam, otherwise it won’t be FREE for much longer.
OTTER says
After the complete collapse of Christianity in the west and a total disintegration of the family, the intellectuals in the West are yearning for the return for strong force. Paradoxically they seem to have found it in Islam. Nothing can stop their determination to surrender which is actually a yearning for a return to order, except in this case they have opted for suicide by the worlds most demonic faith.
gravenimage says
Actually, most intellectuals I know are in denial about Islam being about force.
Brian Hoff says
The letter the King wrote to the pope is proof the King was thinking about convert to Islam If he said the words that make you than Muslim then he is than Muslim.
CogitoErgoSum says
But, of course, he did not become a Muslim …. although the manner in which he solved his problem with Becket leads me to believe he would have made a very good Muslim.
gravenimage says
Of course the witless “Brian Hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–would claim this. He wants to pretend that referring to Islam being in error and its followers to be Infidels is high praise. What a moron.
Lorensacho says
Henry VIII was contemplating adopting Islam as the state religion. His new name was to be Mohammad The First. It’s better to be the first rather than the eighth.
gravenimage says
No, he wasn’t. Citations, please.
Jack Holan says
Since much of the BBC is programmed by Muslim emloyees, this doesn’ come as any huge surprise
WithPurpleAbandon says
“The BBC should know, and probably does, that Henry’s statement is an example of what is known as hyperbole.”
Quite so. Another typical form of historical hyperbole was used by the Dutch mercenary protestant naval forces (the “Sea Beggars”) in their fight against Catholic Spain during the Eighty Years’ War.
They used the slogan “Liever Turks dan Paaps” which means “Rather Turkish than Papist”. They also made Crescent Moon medals depicting the defiant slogan.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Liever_Turks_dan_Paaps