One of the most potent myths of our age is that the Crusades were little more than an unprovoked attack by a barbarous Europe against a quiescent and cultured Islamic world.
According to conventional ideas, the seventh and eighth centuries constitute the great age of Islamic expansion. By the eleventh century – the time of the First Crusade – we are told that the Islamic world was quiescent and settled and that, by implication, the Crusaders were the aggressors. Indeed, the Crusaders are routinely portrayed as a horde of barbarians from a backward and superstitious Europe irrupting into the cultured and urbane world of the eleventh century Near East.
This at least is the populist language often employed on television and in newspaper articles. In my recent book Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, I have shown however that before the advent of Islam Christians had no concept of “Holy War” at all, and that it was from the Muslims themselves that Europeans took this idea. I showed too that the Crusades, far from being an unprovoked act of aggression on the part of Christian Europe, was part of a rearguard action aimed at stemming the Muslim advance which, by the start of the eleventh century, was threatening as never before to overwhelm the whole of Europe.
Notwithstanding the evidence presented in Holy Warriors, the consensus among the majority of medieval historians is that the threat from Islam had very little, if anything, to do with the Crusades; the Muslims were simply the convenient targets of a savage and brutal Europe, mired in a culture of habitual violence and rapine. The “energies” of Europe’s warrior-class, it is held, were simply directed by the Papacy away from internal destruction onto the convenient targets of the Islamic world. This, for example, is the line taken by Marcus Bull in his examination of the origins of the Crusades in The Oxford History of the Crusades. In an article of almost ten thousand words, Bull fails to consider the Muslim threat at all. Indeed he mentions it only to dismiss it:
“The perspective of a Mediterranean-wide struggle [between Islam and Christianity] was visible only to those institutions, in particular the papacy, which had the intelligence networks, grasp of geography, and sense of long historical tradition to take a broad overview of Christendom and its threatened predicament, real or supposed. This is a point which needs to be emphasized because the terminology of the crusades is often applied inaccurately to all the occasions in the decades before 1095 when Christians and Muslims found themselves coming to blows. An idea which underpins the imprecise usage is that the First Crusade was the last in, and the culmination of, a series of wars in the eleventh century which had been crusading in character, effectively ‘trial runs’ which had introduced Europeans to the essential features of the crusade. This is an untenable view.”(Marcus Bull, “Origins,” in Jonathan Riley-Smith (ed.) The Oxford History of the Crusades, p. 19)
With what justification, we might ask, does Bull dissociate the earlier Christian-Muslim conflicts of the eleventh century in Spain, Sicily, and Anatolia from the First Crusade? The answer can hardly be described as convincing. “There is plenty of evidence,” he says, “to suggest that people regarded Pope Urban II’s crusade appeal of 1095-6 as something of a shock to the communal system: it was felt to be effective precisely because it was different from anything attempted before.” (Ibid) Of course it was different: the Pope had called a meeting of all the potentates and prelates of Europe to urge the assembly of a mighty force to march to Constantinople and eventually to retake the Holy Land. It was new because of its scale and its ambition. But to thus dismiss the connection with what went before in Spain and Sicily – and Anatolia – is ridiculous. Such a statement can only derive from a mindset which somehow has to see the Crusaders as the aggressors and to thereby detach them from the legitimate defensive wars which Christians had been fighting in Spain and throughout the Mediterranean in the decades immediately preceding 1095.
The fact is, in the twenty years before the First Crusade, Christendom had lost the whole of Anatolia, an area greater than France, and a region right on the doorstep of Europe. In 1050 the Seljuk leader Togrul Beg undertook Holy War against the Christians of Anatolia, who had thus far resisted the power of the Caliphs. We are told that 130,000 Christians died in the war, but that, upon Togrul Beg’s death in 1063 the Christians reasserted their independence and freedom. This was however to be of short duration, and no sooner had Togrul Beg’s nephew Alp Arslan been proclaimed Sultan than the war was renewed. In 1064 the old Armenian capital of Ani was destroyed; and the prince of Kars, the last independent Armenian ruler, “gladly handed over his lands to the [Byzantine] Emperor in return for estates in the Taurus mountains. Large numbers of Armenians accompanied him to his new home.” (Steven Runciman, The History of the Crusades Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1951) p.61) Indeed, at this time, the entire Armenian nation was effectively transplanted hundreds of miles to the south and west.
But the Turkish attacks continued. From 1065 onwards the great frontier-fortress of Edessa was assaulted yearly. In 1066 they occupied the pass of the Amanus Mountains, and next spring they sacked the Cappadocian metropolis of Caesarea. Next winter the Byzantine armies were defeated at Melitene and Sebastea. These victories gave Alp Arslan control of all Armenia, and a year later he raided far into the Empire, to Neocaesarea and Amorium in 1068, to Iconium in 1069, and in 1070 to Chonae, near the Aegean coast. (Ibid.)
These events make it perfectly clear that the Turks now threatened all the of Empire’s Asiatic possessions, with the position of Constantinople herself increasingly insecure. The imperial government was forced to take action. Constantine X, whose neglect of the army was largely responsible for the catastrophes which now overwhelmed the Empire, had died in 1067, leaving a young son, Michael VII under the regency of the Empress-mother Eudocia. Next year Eudocia married the commander-in-chief, Romanus Diogenes, who was raised to the throne. Romanus was a distinguished soldier and a sincere patriot, who saw that the safety of the Empire depended on the rebuilding of the army and ultimately the reconquest of Armenia. (Ibid.) Within four months of his accession, Romanus had gathered together a large but unreliable force and set out to meet the foe. “In three laborious campaigns,” writes Gibbon, “the Turks were driven beyond the Euphrates; in the fourth, and last, Romanus undertook the deliverance of Armenia.” (Decline and Fall, Ch. 57) Here however, at the seminal battle of Manzikert (1071), he was defeated and captured and all of Anatolia was irretrievably lost.
Any honest reading of these events leaves us in no doubt whatsoever that the aggressor was Alp Arslan and his Turks, and that Romanus Diogenes’ march into Armenia was a last-ditch counter-attack by the Byzantines to prevent the loss of all of Anatolia. Yet observe how the battle is described in the recently-published Chambers Dictionary of World History: “The Byzantine Emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes (1068/71), tried to extend his empire into Armenia but was defeated at Manzikert near Lake Van by the Seljuk Turks under Alp Arslan (1063/72), who then launched a full-scale invasion of Anatolia.” (Bruce Lenman (ed.) Chambers Dictionary of World History (London, 2000) p. 585)
We see in the above a graphic example of the disinformation disseminated by the mentality of political correctness, where the victim is transformed into the aggressor and the aggressor portrayed as the victim.
Alp Arslan was killed a year later, and the conquest of Asia Minor, virtually all that was left of Byzantium’s Asiatic possessions, was completed by his son Malek Shah (1074 – 1084). These conquests left the Turks in possession of the fortress of Nicaea, on the southern shore of the Sea of Marmara, and the survival of Constantinople in question.
These then are the major political events which prefigured the First Crusade. Within a space of thirty-five years the Turks had seized control of Christian territories larger than the entire area of France, and they now stood poised on the very doorstep of Europe. We are accustomed to think of the Crusades as first and foremost an attempt by Christians to retake the Holy Land and Jerusalem; but this is a mistake. The Emperor Alexius Comnenus now made his famous plea to the Pope, not to free Jerusalem, but to drive the Turks from his door, to liberate the huge Christian territories in Asia Minor that had so recently been devastated and annexed by the followers of the crescent. It is true, of course, that the Turks, who had also assumed control of Syria/Palestine, now imposed a barbarous regime in that region; and that the sufferings of Christian pilgrims as well as native Christian populations in that region, described so vividly by Peter the Hermit and others, provided a powerful emotional impetus to the Crusading movement among ordinary Europeans; but the relief of pilgrims was not – to begin with at least – the primary goal of the Crusaders. Nonetheless, the barbarous nature of the Turkish actions in Palestine was a microcosm of their behavior throughout the Christian regions which they conquered, and the nature of their rule in the entire Near East is described thus by Gibbon in his usual vivid manner:
“The Oriental Christians and the Latin pilgrims deplored a revolution, which, instead of the regular government and old alliance of the caliphs, imposed on their necks the iron yoke of the strangers of the north. In his court and camp the great sultan had adopted in some degree the arts and manners of Persia; but the body of the Turkish nation, and more especially the pastoral tribes, still breathed the fierceness of the desert. From Nicaea to Jerusalem, the western countries of Asia were a scene of foreign and domestic hostility; and the shepherds of Palestine, who held a precarious sway on a doubtful frontier, had neither leisure nor capacity to await the slow profits of commercial and religious freedom. The pilgrims, who, through innumerable perils, had reached the gates of Jerusalem, were the victims of private rapine or public oppression , and often sunk under the pressure of famine and disease, before they were permitted to salute the holy sepulcher. A spirit of native barbarism, or recent zeal, prompted the Turkmans to insult the clergy of every sect; the patriarch was dragged by the hair along the pavement and cast into a dungeon, to extort a ransom from the sympathy of his flock; and the divine worship in the church of the Resurrection was often disturbed by the savage rudeness of its masters.” (Chapter 57)
The ordinary peasants of Europe may not have been fully cognizant of the danger from the east, but the ruling classes and the Church could not have been anything but alarmed. Yet even if the peasantry and artisans of Europe knew little about Anatolia, they would certainly have had some knowledge of the Muslim threat. It is Marcus Bull’s suggestion that they did not which is untenable. The advances of Abd er-Rahman III and Al-Mansur through northern Spain in the latter years of the tenth century would have sent a flood of Christian refugees into southern France; and the raids even into southern France which continued well into the eleventh century would have sent refugees from there fleeing into central and northern France. These people would have spread knowledge of the danger throughout western Europe. Granted, peasants and manual laborers would have had a very imperfect understanding of Islam and what Muslims actually believed; but that is not the point: They knew enough to know that Muslims were enemies of Christ; that they waged war against non-combatants and enslaved women and children, and that they had conquered all of Spain and threatened France.
And this is a point that needs to be stressed repeatedly: The reality is that, far from being quiescent and peaceful, by the latter years of the tenth century Islam was once again on the march. Muslim armies waged wars of conquest against non-believers from one end of the Islamic world to the other; from Spain in the west to India in the east; and this new aggression was not confined to the eastern and western extremities, but proceeded along the entire length of Islam’s borders. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Georgia and Byzantium were threatened with extinction, and Muslim armies fought with Christians in Sicily and other Mediterranean lands. Many aspects of this new Islamic thrust, particularly those which occurred around the beginning of the eleventh century in Spain and India, are strangely reminiscent of the earlier Islamic expansion in the eighth century, so reminiscent indeed that they might even cause the casual observer to wonder whether the birth of Islam has been somehow misdated and moved into the past by several centuries. So, for example, we are told that the main Islamic invasion of India began with the conquests of Mahmud of Ghazni, a Turkish-speaking prince based in Afghanistan, who launched a series of 17 campaigns into Northern India. These began in 1001 and ended in 1026, just four years or so before his death; a series of campaigns, we should note, which caused immense destruction and loss of life in the country. By the 1020s Mahmud ruled an empire that included much of the Indus Valley, Afghanistan and Persia. Yet these conquests, at the start of the eleventh century, seem to echo those of Muhammed bin Qasim, three centuries earlier, who created an Islamic Empire in roughly the same region (circa 710).
It is strange too that Mahmud of Ghazni’s name differs but little from that of his predecessor. Only the “n” in Ghazni differentiates it from Qasim, a word which could equally well be written as Qasmi.
In the western end of the Islamic world we encounter the same phenomenon. “In the tenth century,” says Runciman, “the Moslems of Spain represented a very real threat to Christendom.” (Runciman, op cit. p. 89) Under Abd er-Rahman III (912-961) the followers of Muhammad found a leader who promised to repeat the successes of the eighth century. As founder of the Cordoba Caliphate, he presided over a new age of splendor and military power. His forces battled the Christians to the north, and the boundary between the two religions was marked by the battles he fought. The most decisive of these were at Simancas (939), between Salamanca and Valladolid on the Duoro River, where he was stopped. These were areas that had been overrun by the Muslims two centuries earlier, though the Christians had apparently retaken them in the interim. In many ways then Abd er-Rahman III resembles his ancestor and namesake Abd er-Rahman I, who conquered these areas in the eighth century. And this new conquering impulse continued under Al-Mansur (980-1002), whose career was to see Muslim power once again enveloping all of Spain, including the far north. He burned Leon, Barcelona and Santiago de Compostela, and, copying his Muslim predecessors almost three centuries earlier, advanced over the Pyrenees. We are told that in Al-Mansur’s time, “Never had the Christians found themselves in such a critical position.” (Louis Bertrand, The History of Spain (2nd ed. London, 1945) p. 57)
It was the attacks of Al-Mansur that finally roused Christian Europe into undertaking the Reconquista, which commenced with the campaigns of Sancho III (called the Great) of Navarre and the Norman Baron Roger de Tony in the 1020s. Yet these events recall the earlier beginning of the Reconquista with the victory of Don Pelayo at Covadonga around 718.
The reader might well wonder why this “revival” of Islamic conquest in the eleventh century seems so uncannily to resemble the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries. That indeed is a moot point: one to be discussed in a future article. For the moment, all that needs to be emphasized is that, contrary to popular belief, the tenth and eleventh centuries constitute a period of massive expansion by Islam, an expansion felt all along Islam’s boundary with Christendom. The Crusades were clearly part of an attempt to stem this aggression.
John J. O’Neill is the author of Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by BillyBloggs , February 19, 2010
written by Healer_999 , February 19, 2010
I always liked reading and knowing about Crusades. But I agree with the author that Islamic conquest has not slowed down. It is very depressing to know that how self criticism turned in to self loathing, which in turn is leading the people to dissociate from duty towards civilization. We can only hope some group or groups arrest this trend.
written by Mule , February 19, 2010
Well said but the ruling leftist liberal elites will end up holding the shitty end of the stick as they are reduced to serfs with dhimmii status as a thankyou for services rendered.
written by Mule , February 19, 2010
written by Kohi , February 19, 2010
written by vbv , February 20, 2010
written by Demsci , February 20, 2010
The people from democratic countries cherish their individual freedom, pursue all sorts of careers, relations, hobbies, passions but often forget to unite. They like to think independently, so they don't like to choose sides. So that when Islam and Muslims are discussed many democratic people wish to be independent from their own side. Own side, in the sense of all the people being in favor of freedom. Ending up fighting it, on relative unimportant issues, to the benefit of the totalitarian Muslims.
But in a situation where parts of humans unite in tribes and other parts divide in individuals the tribal thinking people have the advantage of numbers and this endangers the freedom of the individuals. This is the blind spot of sooooo many Democratic people. Because they cannot imagine that other people think so differently from them.
But in order to think free and independently, to be some sort of enlightened, unprejudiced individual, first democratic people must rely on other individuals with whom they together must keep on fighting defending this freedom against tribal and totalitarian thinking people.
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
* After the council of Nicea in 325 AD, upon Constantine's orders the temple of Asclepius in Aigeai Cilicia and other temples of the goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, and Mambre were destroyed in 326 AD.
* In 335 Constantine sacks many pagan temples in Asia Minor and Palestine
*353 An edict of Constantius orders the death penalty for all kind of worship through idols
* In 364 Emperor Jovian orders the burning of the Library of Antioch (because the books in the library do not contain anything that exists in Holy Bible)
* In 375 The temple of Asclepius in Epidaurus, Greece, is closed down by the Church orders
* In 381,throughout the Eastern Empire the pagan temples and libraries are looted or burned down. Theodosius outlaws visits to Hellenic temples. In the same year the temple of Aphrodite is turned into a brothel and the temples of the Sun and Artemis to stables.
* In 384, Theodosius destroys the temples of the pagans in Northern Greece and Minor Asia.
* In 385 to 388 Prefect Maternus Cynegius scour the countryside and sack and destroy hundreds of Hellenic temples, shrines and altars.
* In 393 The Pythian Games, the Aktia Games and the Olympic Games are outlawed as part of the Hellenic “idolatry”. The Christians sack the temples of Olympia. HAIL OLYMPICS HAIL PAGANISM
* In 401 The Christians of Carthage lynches non-Christians and destroy temples and “idols”. In Gaza too, the local bishop “Saint” Porphyrius demolishes the remaining nine still active temples of the city.
* In 406 John Chrysostom of the Catholic Church orders the destruction of the famous temple of Artemis.
* In 429 The temple of goddess Athena on the Acropolis of Athens is sacked
*From 440 to 450 The Christians demolish all the monuments, altars and temples of Athens, Olympia, and other Greek cities.
* In 528 Emperor Justinian orders the execution—by fire, crucifixion, tearing to pieces by wild beasts —of all who practice magic or idolatry and prohibits all teachings by the pagans.
* In 580 the Christian inquisitors attack a secret temple of Zeus in Antioch. The imprisoned pagans are are thrown to the lions or crucified. (God save Xians)
The only good thing they did was stopping the Muslim hooligans from capturing Europe. Renaisance was brought by intellectuals who separated the Church from the State. They saw the church punishing Bruno, Galeleo, Survetius, and other greats.
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
1) In 306 AD the church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews.
2) In 325 AD in the council of Nicea it was stated "let us have nothing in common with this odious Jews...We desire dearest brethren, let us separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."
3) In 337 AD Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death. (Jew-Christian bhai bhai)
4) Between 367 and 376 AD St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.
5) 379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose
6) In 415 AD The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.
7) 489 - 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne and Ravenna.
535 AD: The Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians. 9) 561 AD: The bishop of Uzes expelled Jews from his diocese in France.
10) 692: Cannnon II of the Quinisext Council stated: "Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off."
11) In 722 AD, Leo III outlawed Judaism. Jews were baptized against their will.
12) 1050 AD: The Synod of Narbonne prohibited Christians from living in the homes of Jews
13) In 1078 AD The Synod of Gerona forced Jews to pay church taxes (sort of Jeziya).
14) 1096 AD : About 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed in the first Crusade alone.
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
Wagamama: This is absolutely rubbish. What do you call the destruction of Greek, Roman and other pre-christian worship places, libraries, and other monuments? The HOLY WAR concept adopted by both Crusaders and Jihadis can be seen in Old Testament. Yehweh calls for holy war against so called "pagans" in Dueteronomy 12: 2-4, which was later gulped by Mohammad (PssBUH)
Deuteronomy 12:2-4: You must demolish completely all the places where the nations whom you are about to dispossess served their gods, on the mountain heights, on the hills, and under every leafy tree. Break down their altars, smash their pillars, burn their sacred poles with fire, and hew down the idols of their gods, and thus blot out their name from their places. You shall not worship the Lord your God in such ways.
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 20, 2010
As I have explained in my first post here and unless you quote the Bible out of context there is nothing in those war that will support the action of the Crusaders or Islam in the way it was carried out. Besides the fullness of Grace has come in the New Testament which supersedes the Law. In the New Testament rule it is faith which works through love. There is no single verse of violence or inspiration for violence in the New Testament. If there was I will be glad to know that.
written by Mule , February 20, 2010
Who believes this ? Not me for sure. The muslims as preservers of non-Islamic knowledge? More likely it was the Christians who continued to live under the thumb of muslims who preserved pagan knowledge which played a key part in the developement of scientific thought. We have the muslims to thank for the renaissance and a modern and progressive world? Thats a joke too. Why has there never been a renaissance in the Islamic countries so they too become "modern, secular and progressive" or don't they want to bestow this wonderful blessing upon themselves, only upon others? How selfless of them! I see Mr. Wagamama is using the word pagan. It seems only he has permission to use this word. If anyone else uses it he flys off the handle. As far as the Crusades go the "Christian" empire did not do everything PC in response to Islamic aggression but they had the right to defend the lives and property of their citizens against the sword-wielding adherents of the so-called "religion of peace". The state as opposed to the individual is not under any obligation to "turn the other cheek" but rather the opposite, to return violence with violence in defence of the lives and property of it's citizens. This is it's sacred duty. Of course it is right of both commentators to condemn the persecution of the Jews under "Christian" emperors and kings. Please remember which church was in power at the time this was going on. Please do not forget how many Christians have died during the reigns of pagan emperors and also the modern day persecution of Christians by Hindus in India.
written by duh_swami , February 20, 2010
Your constant haggling about Christianity does not for one second excuse Islam for any of its misdeeds which are in the multitudes...The old excuse 'Christians do it too'...Is nothing but obfuscations...Lies and distractions...This is ISLAM WATCH...Not Christian watch...
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
Clement, if it was a political war, it should have been fought in the battlefield. God shouldn't ask his followers to vandalize worship places, kill male captives, and sleep with women prisoners of war. Here is are abnoxious verses from OT where Yehweh (the Father of Jesus) is commanding his followers to screw people in the name of religion.
When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20: 13-14) ; When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, discard her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house
for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14); They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30)
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
written by Andrew,X , February 20, 2010
Crusades were fought for 200 years. It is a stigma on humanity. No matter who was responsible. People are trying to forget that stupidity. Later so many wars were faught. The reasons were purely of sharing the cake. Invariably religious color was given. These are satanic plans. Did Adolf Hitler killed for christianity. When Muslims fight, the blame is given to Islam. This article is against the UN Charter. The life is for love and friendship which should not be wasted in hatred and enmity.
written by Healer_999 , February 20, 2010
I can tell that, its likely, you are not living in a Muslim country. Not a single Islamic country respects UN charter. But when Muslims are in minority they do point out
UN charter. So typical of being a Muslim.
written by vbv , February 21, 2010
written by duh_swami , February 21, 2010
No he didn't...There is no recorded history of Hitler ever shouting 'Jesus saves'. or attending any churches...Hitler was a despot out for himself...His brutalities had nothing to do with him being a Christian...which we all know, he was not...
Wagamama...It's fine to correct errors, but that's not the extent of it...
Wagamama...Here is are abnoxious verses from OT where Yehweh (the Father of Jesus) is commanding his followers to screw people in the name of religion.
By this remark you make Christians responsible for what the ancient Hebrews were doing...You implicate the Son for the sins of the 'father' (guilt by association)...There are lots of 'obnoxious' verses in the bible, mostly in the OT...Except for research purposes, no one takes them seriously, or acts on them in the present day...
My observation and opinion, after reading, and hearing, years worth of these religious exercises, is that atheism becomes more attractive...
The 'Church' in the old days was brutal, and exploitive...but that was not 'because of Christianity'...It was in spite of it and extra to it...Certain men found out there was power, and wealth in religion and then perverted that power to their own evil ends...Popes like Rodrigo Borgia were certainly NOT practicing Christianity...Mohammad was just the Rodrigo Borgia of Arabia...He wasn't practicing Christianity either, his form of exploitive self promotion was called Islam, and his evil verses are still alive and acted on to this day...
written by Demsci , February 21, 2010
To me we are now in the phase of human history where the choice is between Democracy and Theocracy, which is an important issue for mankind now, among others of course.
and to me the Christians are now on the side of democracy and a substantial part of the Muslims is on the side of theocratic dictatorship, while the rest of them are really not to be trusted to choose for the democratic side, AGAINST the theocratic side. With that in mind, the comparisons to be made should not be Muslims versus Christians, but Muslims versus Democratically minded people and governments.
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 22, 2010
Ishaq:517"When the Apostle took Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, 'I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people."
And mark you the spirit be hide the killing was not political it was not just to create a theocratic state for the Arabs like that of the Jews it was to call people by force to Islam or loose their heads or properties. Can you see where the difference lies?
written by Machmoed , February 22, 2010
Only in the beginning before the so-called verse was sent by allah it was allowed to have sex with war booty. But after the verse women of nonmuslims could mourn for 40 days before marrying someone else. So the sentence that the prophet slept the same day/night with other captive women is not the whole story. In the qor'aan it sais 40 days of mourn. I know the arabs stole this idea from the jews...like a whole bunch of ideas.
written by julien , February 23, 2010
un chapitre sur les croisades. En effet, il est temps de briser le mythe
written by Wagamama , February 24, 2010
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 24, 2010
Secondly Yahweh proved that he was omnipotent, omnipresence and omniscience but Allah has none of those attributes even he could not empower his lone prophet Mohamed with any power to prove his divinity. He could torture his perceived enemy to death for information to steal their wealth without divine knowledge of where the wealth was hidden Allah dependent on the ferocity of the jihadist to spread his demented doctrine of Islam. Yahweh spread his message of love through divine power demonstration and persuasive reasoning. Those nations who follow the Judeo-Christian principle of freedom of choice and reasoning are progressing all over the world we can see with our eyes but those who follow the tyrannical rule of Islam without choice or reasoning are regressing and poverty –stricken all over the world we can see with our eyes. Wagamama on what basis do you say there is hair-line difference between Yahweh and Allah? I thought you are rational persons who can differentiate between P and b. Please make an intelligent contribution and we will not oppose you.
written by Machmoed , February 24, 2010
Now you're being sincere. the above as you wrote it is very strong and true. Thanx Clement!
written by Wagamama , February 25, 2010
Please don't harp on religious freedom in the west. It is due to free-thinkers who separated the church from the state. Do you remember the Pope opposed the use of condoms? Give him the reigns of Europe or to someone like Patterson, who said God cursed Haiti. It will clock back to dark ages again. No progress took place between 4th century to 17th century in Europe when Christianity ruled there. So much talk on freedom, hey?
written by Mule , February 25, 2010
written by Mule , February 25, 2010
Please note the preceding verses here. Deuteronomy 20:10-12 "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And if it shall be , if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and the they shall serve thee. AND IF IT WILL MAKE NO PEACE WITH THEE , but will make war against thee ...... thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword". You always seem to lift the verses out of their context which distorts the meaning of what they are saying.
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 25, 2010
written by James Hammond. , February 26, 2010
Glory to God. Yahweh improved. Changing for benefit of His sons. The Jews believed primitive Yahweh. Let them. We are concerned with the present day Yahweh. The Yahweh of Joy, peace and Love.
written by Machmoed , February 26, 2010
Deuteronomy 20:10-12 "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And if it shall be , if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and the they shall serve thee.
"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it......Why would any human come in to a city to fight it?
if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.......Why tributaries and serve humans (prophets)...for what?
Why would God say that if people are not buying his story they shall be put to the sword. Is this a way to show his almightiness, compassion, wisdom to the created (meaningless in comparison). I don't know...i have difficulties with (devine) scriptures as being true/from God!
written by James Hammond. , February 26, 2010
You say that ' If that was the case then all books of history are divine'. Your argument is fallacious.
You write 'It is true that Mohammed plagiarized the Judeo-Christian scriptures but it did not take anything of substance out of it'. Why? You are blaspheming that Judeo-Christians scriptures don't have any substance. Do you know the meanings of plagiariazation? Plagiarism means presenting the words, phrases, ideas or work of another, including certain facts and statistics, as if they were your own. Did mohammad claimed authorship of Koran?
Where is stoning to death in Koran?
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 26, 2010
written by Reed Wilson , February 26, 2010
I can vehemently say that there is no mourning, whatsoever, in Quran.
written by James Hammond , February 26, 2010
You are expected to give responsible remarks.Cheers.
written by James Hammond , February 26, 2010
You are expected to give responsible remarks.Cheers.
written by Reed Wilson , February 26, 2010
written by lw1 , February 26, 2010
written by Mule , February 26, 2010
written by duh_swami , February 26, 2010
written by Reed Wilson , February 26, 2010
Duh-swami. There are evidences that Hitler was a hardcore Christian.
Maybe you can enlighten me as to which church he attended regularly, and site some of his Bible quotes...That's a challenge...get to work...
Hitler was the same kind of 'Christian' as was Rodrigo Borgia...Totally morally bankrupt...There is NOTHING Christian about that...I did read a book on Hitlers life that stated that He (Hitler) thought he was Jesus reincarnated...This delusion was the closest he ever got to Christianity...Otherwise, as most people know, he was a demon posing as a human...
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 27, 2010
2.Mohammed is made a partner with God in matter of Sha’adah the confession of faith. You cannot believe in the oneness of God without believing in Mohammed as messenger of Allah. So the monotheism taught by the Jews and Christians is set aside. Allah and Mohammed are inseparable, Mohammed is Allah Q 4:150-151 Q4:80 Tabari (contains Islamic hadith chronologically) IX: 187 states “Bakr saw that Umar would not listen. He went forward. ‘Those people who formerly worshipped Muhammad must know that the deity you worshipped is dead.’ ” He command pilgrims to go around Ka’aba as Pagans did before Islam. Q2:158 This is not monotheism. This is against the first Commandment of God Ex 20:2 ‘ thou shall have no other God before me ‘
3.Mohammed command his followers to prostrate and bow down to a black stone facing ka’aba in the daily prayers Q2:144 This is against Gods commandment No 2 Ex 20:4-5 ‘thou shall not make graven image in heaven or earth or bow to them’
4.In Sha’adah Mohammed said the name of the Almighty God is Allah after the name of a moon god of the kuraish tribe being represented by the black stone in the corner of the stone house kaaba in Mecca instead of Yahweh the God of the Jews whom he claim they are the same. Thereby taking the name of the God in vain Ex 20:7 which is against God Commandment No 3.
5.Mohammed despised the Sabbath of rest EX 20: 10 and commanded his followers to have only about one hour Prayers on Friday Thereby breaking the 4th Commandment of God.
6.Mohammed commanded his followers to despise their unbelieving parents and separate with them Q5:23,9:23,29:8,Q25:52,58:22 This is against the 5th Commandment of God ‘Honour their father and Mother’ Ex20:12
7.Mohammed order several assassination of critique and kill thousands of unbeliever to manifest the religion of Islam as against God Commandment No.6 “ thou shall not kill”Ex 20:13
8.Mohammed ordered multiple marriage at least 4 wives but he himself was not bound by it. He permitted temporary marriage (Prostitution) Q 4:2-4 Permitted raping captives women Q4:24 , 33:50 as against God’s commandment No.7 “thou shall not commit adultery” Ex 20;14
9.Mohammed raided several Meccan Merchants on business trips and call it war booty even in the month of Ramadan the holy month of the pagans. This is against Gods Command No 8“thou shall not steal” Ex 20:15
10.Mohammed permitted deceit and lies and false witness against unbelievers in order to destroy them, called Tagiya. This is against God’s Commandment No.8 “ thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbour Ex 20;16.
11.Mohammed coveted and lusted after the wife of his Adopted son(Zaid) until she was divorced and he committed incest with her (Zainab) in the name of marriage. This is against the Commandment of God No 10 “ thou shall not covet your neighbours wife, maid, servants or goods” Ex 20:17
written by Machmoed , February 27, 2010
it's four months and 10 days....sorry!
Al Baqarah 2:234 If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days: When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner. And Allah is well acquainted with what ye do. (Yusuf Ali)
But this is only for married women. Look at this verse below.
FROM THE QURAN - 4:24
"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you.
Married women unlawfull, slaves/captives lawfull made by Allah. Besides what if a slavegirl wasn't married? What waiting time has she from the capturing time till performing intercourse with the captive or slave? 40 seconds?
Qor'aan is a reaction to the environment during maybe hundreds of years, even the use of words (consistently) and style show differences! If this is true as i think it is, then no human can survive this period to receive it in one lifetime.
written by Reed Wilson , February 27, 2010
Moreover, all the commandments are retained (plagiarized) in Koran. You can call them. I mention verses17:23-38 below:
•Your Lord orders that you worship none but Him.
•Be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor.
•And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: "My Lord! Bestow on them Mercy even as they cherished me in childhood
•Your Lord knows best what is in your hearts: If you do deeds of righteousness, verily He is Most Forgiving to those who turn to Him again and again.
•And render to the kindred their due rights, as to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not in the manner of a spendthrift. Verily spendthrifts are brothers of the evil, and the Evil is ungrateful to his Lord.And if you hast to turn away from them in pursuit of the Mercy from your Lord which you expect, yet speak to them a word of easy kindness.
•Make not your hand tied to your neck, nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach, else, you will become blameworthy and destitute.
•Verily your Lord provides sustenance in abundance for whom He pleases, and He provides in a just measure. He does know and regard all His servants.
•Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.
•Do not go near to adultery: for it is a shameful and an evil, opening the road to other evils.
•Do not take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority: but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped.
•Come not near to the orphan's property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength;
•Fulfill promises, for there would be question regarding promises.
•Give full measure when you measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination.
•And pursue not that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of the heart will be enquired into.
•Do not walk on the earth with insolence: for you can not rend the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height.
•Of all such things the evil is hateful in the sight of thy Lord.
Clement, I am not a clergy. I am not even a conventional muslim.They have professional perfection of expression. I don’t even have that vocabulary. Pls. consult yourself. The above verses I could find at one place. The commandments are spread over entire book.
The issue raised by you at 11 in your post,requires an explanation, which I will try in separately.
written by duh_swami , February 27, 2010
It's probably not a good idea to tell that to someone who is a conventional Muslim...
If you attend Mosque I would urge you not to stand up and say anything unless you have an irresistible Allahu Akbar moment...
written by Reed Wilson , February 27, 2010
I don't grudge telling what I know about Quran.
Actually I am not qualified to reply such questions.No muslim clergy comes. I am not either.
You refer 4:24. This is about marrying I repeat marrying. After all, they are destitutes and can not be left at the mercy of society. Mohammad was made to declare in Quran that if I disobey the Lord, I fear the day of judgement. Similarly when Pharoah enquired from Moses. what about the people who have died? He replied that 'my master has full account of them'. We should not worry much about the deeds of others.
The widow can marry next day of her husband's death after delivering the child!! Don't force her to mourn.
written by Clement- The Islam-Watch Pastor , February 27, 2010
written by Reed Wilson , February 27, 2010
I have given you the dictionary meanings of Plagiarization. If you insist on plagiarization, you have your own dictionary.
written by Clement- The Islam- Watch Pastor , February 28, 2010
written by duh_swami , February 28, 2010
Duh-swami. There are evidences that Hitler was a hardcore Christian.
Reed...I'm still waiting for your 'evidence' that Hitler was a 'hardcore' Christian...
Again Reed...What church did he regularly attend? Who was his pastor? How much hardcore time did he spend reading the Bible? What were his favorite Bible quotes?
Did he shout 'Jesus saves' while he was roasting Jews in the ovens???
Come on Reed show your proof...I am anxiously awaiting your reply...
Or is this just a matter that you're making charges you can't back up?
written by Clement- The Islam- Watch Pastor' , February 28, 2010
written by duh_swami , February 28, 2010
Please my friend you better forget it, Reed cannot prove it, he is used to raising issues that he cannot defence.
I know he can't prove it, but he should not go unchallenged...Reed can be wrong, and that's his right, I have not accused him of being a liar, but I'm altering my opinion...
written by nojizyatax , March 01, 2010
written by Machmoed , March 01, 2010
I'm not concerned about marrying or remarrying. I'm concerned about captives and slaves. These people seem to have no right. It's not fair of Allah to think slaves are different. Only people in certain times believed it and acted to it. It's all human. It's only because we evolved that we believe slavery is not lawfull anymore (moral and ethic standards of today).
You wrote: The widow can marry next day of her husband's death after delivering the child!! Don't force her to mourn.
Ofcourse she could/can. But we all know that a woman is not the one to want something. She has to wait for men to ask for her hand. Women were and still (most of them) are dependants of their husbands or in case of slaves of their masters. Also it's different when a husband died a natural death or in battlefield (outside the sight of women and children). But when the husband is killed in front of her eyes...even a mourn of thousands of years would not be enough.
P.s. It's 4 months and 10 days, not 3 months and 10 days.
written by kablammm , March 02, 2010
written by Arab Christian , March 02, 2010
... the religion of PEACE is still dealings with us with the nicest way as they didi during the past 14 centuries ... am afraid that we are going to disappear from these countries with a few years... and Islam will continue to shout ALLAHU AKBAR !!!
Wake up u all ... they will arrive to your countries and repeat the same peaceful history with yopu all !!!!!
written by Reed Wilson , March 04, 2010
Moreover I may not be mistaken as Islams Official Spokesman. I dont know as much as you know. And you know Hadith and History also!
I will not grudge telling what I know or what I feel. Not a verdict!
written by Reed Wilson. , March 16, 2010
Once you wrote that Islam allows sex with slaves or something like that.
What do you mean by slave? He slave or she slave? Where are the slaves? Pls. don’t mind my asking all this before replying.
I refute it on basis of my reading Quran. Please tell me where you find it.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Another thing that is worth noting is that while the Muslim can use their scriptures can use their scriptures to defend their violence and aggressive nature, the Christians have no such scriptural support for the Crusades or any such aggression in the past or in the future. For now Jesus says we should separate the state from the Church until he comes. Give to Ceazas that which belong to Ceazas and God that which is for God. Any nation which wants to do otherwise will suffer the consequences there will be chaos and backwardness. See the Islamic nations for Example, and the Theocratic Europe in the Dark Age. Only Jesus can be both Priest and King at the same time and he will demonstrate that when he comes to rule the earth for 1000 years. Cheers.