• Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression

E-mail Print PDF

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.

Comments (60)Add Comment
Yes the Crusades.
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 19, 2010
This has always been the rallying point by Muslim apologist to discredit the peaceful nature of the Christian faith that Islam is not the only aggressors when it comes to holy War (Jihad). The crusaders were more barbaric than the Muslim hordes. In as much as I do'nt support the Christian response in this way I equally have no apology for the Muslim victims because they taught the Christian that it was good to fight for one's religion which was a strange thing for the Christian, because is unbiblical. It is not an indictment on the divinity of God for the mortal man to fight for Him. If God wanted to use force since he called Abraham for more than 5 thousands years wont he have conquered the world by now? The truth is that there was nothing like holy war anywhere in the Bible. The Battle that was fought in the Bible was to create and keep the theocratic state of Israel as a model for the world it was not was not proselytising for souls as it was for Islam. Human are made with freedom to make of whom to obey and before God can give you his commandment he will first of all call you and prove to you that he was the almighty God that is worthy of obedience before ye can command you to do so. This Allah did not prove that he was almighty instead he required human the mere mortals give their lives for him. Even when Yahweh sent his Son the Messiah to die for us in order to demonstrate his love for man he did not require to do the same in return but die to sin and self indulgence and be absolutely obedience to his commandments.
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.

The PC brigade will hand the west over to islam
written by BillyBloggs , February 19, 2010
The pinko apologists will hand the west over to islam on a plate, as it suits the globalists purpose to have illiterate compliant obedient serfs to do their bidding.
written by Healer_999 , February 19, 2010
Clement, Don't you think you should calm down a bit. This website is not for glorifying Christianity.

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
The pinko apologists will hand the west over to islam on a plate, as it suits the globalists purpose to have illiterate compliant obedient serfs to do their bidding.

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.
We the plebs
written by Mule , February 19, 2010
The ruling leeches in Brussels, Westminster, Elysee, Berlin will probably start converting to Islam when they see a downgrading dhimmi status waiting for them at the end of the tunnel. This way these power hungry chameleons can hold on to power and continue with their utopia building agenda but the blueprint will be Mohammed's instead of Marx's.
sick of saying sorry
written by Kohi , February 19, 2010
Every part of the myth that muslims where just minding there own business when these horiable folks came and started killing them for NO REASON! What a load of CRAP 460 YEARS after the first christian city was over run did ANY THING get done! say sorry to a muslim? kiss my ass! NEVER
written by vbv , February 19, 2010
It is the proverbial case of pot calling the kettle black! Do you mean to say that the pre-islamic christian hordes were just benign creatures who went about harvesting pagan europeans' souls with "showing the other cheek if struck by the 'barbaric pagans'"?? That's a joke. Christianity was forcibly shoved down the throats of the pre-christian populace in Europe by force and violence by the pope and his minions in connivance with kings and fuedal lords for the own vested interests in consolidating all the power and pelf within their own circles. Christianity then burned books of konowledge in the name of christendom and took Europe to the dark ages. Muslims atleast preserved the works of greeks ,romans and other pagans ,perhaps unknowingly, and this found its way back to Europe and started the 'renaissance' that has resulted in the flowering of science,and knowledge thereafter - the end result is we have a modern secular and progressive world. Both islam and christianity are proselytsing cults and two sides of the same coin. Both have bloodshed ,violence and intolerance in their organic growth over centuries. Islam, unfortunately is trapped in its hate dogma ,whil christianity today is trying to present itself (rather deceptively) with a benign face. Christianity with its clergy upheld the socalled 'divine-rights' of the kings and fuedal lords to oppress the masses ,which was as bad as the mullahdom/sheikhdom/califdom of the muslims which exists in islamic world even today ,for example in Iran,Saudi Arabia,Afghanistan,Iraq,etc. where the muslim clergy rule the roost. The author may fool some trying to justify the so-called 'crusades' but it is a big lie. Both islam and christianity are responsible for all the violence and wars in the world till date , apart from other intolerant idealogy like communism,Maoism,fascismetc, but the major blame lies with these two barbaric ,intolerant cults-islam and christianity.
Tribal unity versus individualism
written by Demsci , February 19, 2010
From the Muslims point of view; they have the truth, a message from God Almighty, and they think they HELP mankind in the long run by conquering the world for Islam. They are still enthousiastic and proud of their religion and it's well-being and proliferation. And they can unify on essential issues, on crucial moments, sacrificing their individual will to their artificial tribe.

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.
Were the Christians nice towards pre-christian Europeans?
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
TAKE A LOOK AT THE BRUTALITIES OF CHRISTIANS ON PRE-CHRISTIAN EUROPEANS before the arrival of Islam in Europe. Both these religions derive their brutal nature from Old Testament (OT).

* 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.
Relationship between Christians and Jews
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
Were the Christians nice towards Jews? They treated Jews in the same way Muslims treat Jews. Didn't Mohammad (PssBUH) learn this pious deed from his contemporary christians? Pray read the following facts

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.
smilies/cool.gif 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.

Where did the concept of "Holy war" originate from?
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
Author says: 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....

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.
vbv and Wagamama: You should be fair to the Bible
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 20, 2010
Agreed, there are violence against the pagan in the Old Testament, they were necessary for the possessions of land but not for prospecting for souls.It was a political war necessary for the creating a new Israelis State, for they had no state own their being slaves to the Egyptians and it was of necessity to fight if you want to possess people land for the purpose living not for business for the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof. They were not tagged holy war because there is nothing holy in war. What happened in the case of Israel foreshadow what God wants to do in our individual lives that haven't been delivered us from bondage of the Egyptians (in our case sins) we should live as a holy nation (all those who are delivered from theirs sins and are born again) Luke:74-75 1Pet 2:9
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.
To vbv and Wagamama
written by Mule , February 20, 2010
Muslims atleast preserved the works of greeks ,romans and other pagans ,perhaps unknowingly, and this found its way back to Europe and started the 'renaissance' that has resulted in the flowering of science,and knowledge thereafter - the end result is we have a modern secular and progressive world.

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
You guys make a great case for atheism...Christians are bad, Muslims are bad, Zoroastrians are bad, Hindu's are bad...every one is bad except atheists who's only 'sin' is not believing any of it...

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...

To Mule & Clement
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
Mule, note that I have used the terminology "so called Pagans". Hope you get the intended meaning. What I am saying is that both Christians and Muslims were equally horrible towards their pre-islamic or pre-christians cultures. Regarding your claim about the persecution of christians in India, it is big joke. Have you heard of Jerusalem subsidy given to christians in the state Andhra Pradesh to go on annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem? Who is the Chief of the ruling congress party in India? It is Antonio Maino, a Catholic Christian from Italy. Who is the Defence minister of India? AK ANTHONY. Billions of dollars pours in from western countries to 'harvest' the souls of HEATHENS in India. Christians want to convert the 'heathens' because they don't believe in 'heathen' religions. Saviors of souls!!! ha ha what a holy concept!

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)

To duh_swami
written by Wagamama , February 20, 2010
I perfectly understand that this site is meant for scruitinizing Islam. However, the author of this article has made some basic blunders. To rectify it we need to revisit European history and Bible. I have highlighted the facts so that those who follow true history will separate wheat from husk to unearth truth. Please note I have not said anything against present christians.
written by Andrew,X , February 20, 2010
It is a nauseating disgusting article. The real terrorists are such authors and mission who do not let the wounds heal. The above comments is the harvest of the seeds of hatred sowned.
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.
Muslims recognize UN charter.
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 20, 2010
If UN charter and human rights are to be respected, give no room for religion to come into public sphere ... I mean any and all religion. No decision,political or otherwise, should placate or pander tyo any religious belief .It should be purely secular. No tax cuts and concessions should be given to any religion,religious organisations ,religious instititutions,,including any individual or group propogating any so-called religion. Religion and religiousity should be ruthlessly suppressed if it tries to enter any public sphere or in politics. A person may or may not follow a religion but that should be personal and within himself/herself and not to influence any decision that affects the society ,or state. Only then we will have less differences, no hate-mongering and peace and sanity.
written by duh_swami , February 21, 2010
From above.... Did Adolf Hitler killed for christianity.

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...

Compare Muslims not to Christians but to Democrats
written by Demsci , February 21, 2010
Thanks Duh-Swami for that great post, it comforted me.

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.
To. Wagamama: In those your quotes Yahweh was still humanistic than Allah
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 22, 2010
In those political battles to possessed the land Yahweh still told his victorious Army to allow the captives women one month to mourn for their beloved before taken them for wives for those who are interested in them but it is not the case with Allah even his prophet can sleep with the captive women the very night their husband and fathers were slaughtered by the jihadist. The story of Safiyah the Jewess beauty comes to mind. It was the very night he killed her husband that Mohammed banged that woman all night, which kind of wickedness was that?
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?
40 days of mourn
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.
version française du "guide politiquement incorrect de l'islam" par Robert Spencer
written by julien , February 23, 2010

un chapitre sur les croisades. En effet, il est temps de briser le mythe
to Clement-pastor
written by Wagamama , February 24, 2010
So, one month mourning is enough to start the bedding ceremony? Practially, both Yehweh and Allah are asking to enjoy war booty. Clement, there is a hair-line difference between Yehweh and Mo's Allah. Both are EVIL and DIKHEADS
Wagamama : There is a thick-line difference between Yahweh and Allah
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 24, 2010
Yahweh believes in progressive revelation, Allah believes in regressive revelation, Yahweh progressed from what appear like hate towards none Jews in the Old Testament to love to all men in the New Testament but Allah preached what appear like peaceful religion in Mecca to violence and hate to all unbelievers in Medina as his New Testament. Yahweh did not count sin where there is no Law. Abraham Cain, Seth, could marry their sisters but after the law it is sinful to marry a near-kinsman. Mohammed in Mecca married only one wife but in Medina he could marry as many as he likes including his aunties, daughters in-laws and can bang his slaves any day any time even on the day their husband were slaughtered by his men.
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.
Clever parallel
written by Machmoed , February 24, 2010
Yahweh progressed from what appear like hate towards none Jews in the Old Testament to love to all men in the New Testament but Allah preached what appear like peaceful religion in Mecca to violence and hate to all unbelievers in Medina as his New Testament.

Now you're being sincere. the above as you wrote it is very strong and true. Thanx Clement!
written by Wagamama , February 24, 2010
Here is the proof for hairline difference between Yehweh and Allah: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2171...ristianity ; Read this carefully. Don't deny just because you don't like it. Mind you I have never told anything against majority of current christians or Jesus. All I have found is that Yehweh is similar to Allah in many aspects. Most importantly, Mohammad had learnt about Bible through his cousin. He knew what Yehweh had taught in OT.

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?
To Mr. Wagamama
written by Mule , February 24, 2010
Whatever mankind's concept of God is they will always make war against each other. Is that the fault of the deity? At the end of the day one side has lost and the other has won which means those who were previously the subjects of the vanquished become the subjects of the victors. This is the nature of war. All men are subject to whoever rules over them. We do not exist in a political vacuum. In this sense they become de facto the "booty" of the victor. I prefer the words spoils or captives as in KJV; spoils referring to material things and captives to persons. One important question to me is should there be nothing to lose or gain by those who make war against each other? At the end of the second world war did not the Russians take many German soldiers and put them to forced labour in return for the destruction that Germany wrought on Russia? This was a kind of reparation. Your arguments would imply that the Russians treated the German soldiers as "booty" and this is always and under all circumstances wrong. The Arabs have tried to destroy Israel in three wars and each time they demand a return of all they have lost after they have had their asses kicked. How do Hindus regulate this or did they never go to war with each other or an invader? It is a question of how the defeated should be treated by their captors. Concerning this Islam and the Bible are very different and not a "hairs-breadth" apart as you claim. The Israelites were not allowed to make sex slaves or concubines from those women captured after war. In your example from the Bible the man was allowed to take the woman for his wife but not his sex slave or concubine. She gained her freedom through marriage although it seems to me other captives of war did lose their freedom. She was also allowed a period of one month perhaps to be with her family before they were separated perhaps for the rest of her life. If they divorced she was free. She was not the property of her husband. If there is nothing to be lost by war in terms of freedom or property there is also no deterrent to go to war in the first place. This shows that there are many fundamental differences between Allah and Yahweh, the Bible and the Islamic holy books.
To Mr. Wagamama
written by Mule , February 24, 2010
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) ;

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.
To Wagamama
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 25, 2010
Please My friend Understand my own point of argument I am not saying that there are no similarities in the two books after all the Bible preceded the Quran for at least 600 years ,even if Mohammed copied all the content of the Bible into his book does that bestow divinity to the Quran. If that was the case then all books of history are divine. It is true that Mohammed plagiarized the Judeo-Christian scriptures but it did not take anything of substance out of it. The central message of forgiveness of sin through the Blood Atonement and the final sacrifice for sin as offered by the Messiah Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection as provided in the New Covenant, were both denied in Islam. The main message of love God and love your neighbor as your self was replaced by fear God and hate your neighbor who does not believe in Mohammed as a prophet even if he believes in God. I have given you how regressive the revelation of Allah was in comparism with the progressive nature of Yahweh‘s revelation in the Bible. Can you disprove these facts?
Good God.
written by James Hammond. , February 26, 2010
To Clement. No dear the Yahweh of OT is Yahweh1 and of NT is Yahweh2.
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.
2 Mule
written by Machmoed , February 26, 2010
Do you really think this is God speaking as you wrote it?

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
To Clement you are telling Wagamama that 'even if Mohammed copied all the content of the Bible into his book does that bestow divinity to the Quran'. Why sir? If Bible is divine, its reproduction is also divine. Bible is not protected under intellectual property rights laws. Is it Christian's monopoly? Can they only sell the divine guidance?
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?
To James Hammond
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 26, 2010
If you read the post under reference very carefully you will discover that I answered almost all your questions. What is the essence of recalling previous scriptures if you are not using it to bring something New. You could as well anex it to your scriptures as the Christians did. They only refered to OT in as far as it explained scriptural fulfilment or what new thing christ brougth and they annexed the Old Testament as their Scripture. Mohammed did not do that he only took that parth that help his course that is to terrorise his people to submission or they will face the wrath of Allah whom he said is same as Yahweh who destroyed Noah world, and pharoh but he never show practicall example of how that God was backing him with the same divine power.At the end he rejected the Ten commandment and replace with 5 rituals pillars, preached hatred to all mankind other than muslim and instituted Jihad as his means of evangelism and made the message of love, mercy and grace of God of no effect. Tell me which Divine substance did he take from the Bible? Even those five pillars are pagans legacy. Let me not repeat what I posted before. Cheers
No Mourning in Quran.
written by Reed Wilson , February 26, 2010
Machmoed , You told Clement that "Only in the beginning before the so-called verse was sent by Allah it was allowed to have sex with war booty". How you say that? From Bukhari, whom you believed to be authentic? Which so called verse? You further say that 'But after the verse women of non-muslims could mourn for 40 days before marrying someone else. No such verse in Quran. You continue saying 'qor'aan it says 40 days of mourn'. Where in Quran?
I can vehemently say that there is no mourning, whatsoever, in Quran.

Ten Commandments.
written by James Hammond , February 26, 2010
To Clement. You are telling that 'At the end he rejected the Ten commandment and replace with 5 rituals pillars'. You are grossly mistaken. There is no rejection of 10 commandments in Quran. The pillar concept is also not quranic.
You are expected to give responsible remarks.Cheers.
Ten Commandments.
written by James Hammond , February 26, 2010
To Clement. You are telling that 'At the end he rejected the Ten commandment and replace with 5 rituals pillars'. You are grossly mistaken. There is no rejection of 10 commandments in Quran. The pillar concept is also not quranic.
You are expected to give responsible remarks.Cheers.
written by Reed Wilson , February 26, 2010
Duh-swami. There are evidences that Hitler was a hardcore Christian.
Is it the Pope's intention to warn us?
written by lw1 , February 26, 2010
In the seventh conversation .... the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war . Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels', he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the CENTRAL QUESTION about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying : 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached.'
To Machmoed
written by Mule , February 26, 2010
Yes, I do believe that the Bible is the true and infallible Word of God from beginning to end; also that God has preserved his Word so that it has not been corrupted as the Muslims claim. The only other alternative is a collection of writings about a supreme deity which is just a product of the human imagination. These writings may or may not contain the truth and there would be no way to know what is true or not true within it's pages. Having said that I offer a kind of answer to your other questions: an intro to the book of Joshua: "The book describes the conquest and division of the land of Canaan and is set against the background of the corrupt and brutal features of Canaanite religion, depicted clearly in the Ras Shamra Tablets. Prostitution of both sexes, infant sacrifice, and religious syncretism were some of the evils for which God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the inhabitants of Canaan." The borders of the land promised by God to Abraham were the wilderness of Arabia in the south, Lebanon in the north, the Euphrates river in the east and the Mediterranean Sea the western border. It was the mission of the Israelites under Joshua to conquer this territory and all the peoples within it. Some of the inhabitants were commanded to be completely eradicated, Deuteronomy 20:17; some were allowed to become tributaries to Israel, Deut 20:15. Some were left in the land to test the faith of those who followed Joshua. The aim of all this was to create a nation whose king would be God Himself; a people which would worship and obey Him within the land which God had delivered into their hand.
Show me the evidence
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...
To:James Hammond
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 26, 2010
1. To James Did you say Mohammed did not reject the ten commandment? Any proof for your claim? See below proofs that Mohammed rejected the ten commandments

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
2 Reed
written by Machmoed , February 27, 2010
Reed, I'm sorry....it must be the jinn who made me wrote that....after all 40 used to be thought holy)
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.

"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.
Ten Commandments.
written by Reed Wilson , February 27, 2010
Dear Clement. Thanks. You have proved the rejection of Ten Commandments through Hadith, which unfortunately, I can never ever believe. Abraham preferred dying, Jesus preferred dying, and Socrates preferred dying rather than compromising on truth. Forgive me. 'Arjouk'.
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
Reed...I am not even a conventional muslim.

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...
No Mourning, No Tears.
written by Reed Wilson , February 27, 2010
Yes Machmoed. It is for the widows. They cannot marry before 3 months and 10 days. Or they can remarry after 3 moths and 10 days. So that their offspring's parenthood is determined. Elsewhere in the book it is written that a pregnant woman can remarry immediately after after delivery.It can be one day after death of husband. This is not mourning.
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.
Reed Wilson
written by Clement- The Islam-Watch Pastor , February 27, 2010
Thanks for attempting to explain how the ten commandment are enshrined in the Quran, unfortunately you could not impress m. I could imaging difficult it was to fish out those phrases that appear to you as if they commandments of God even at then all put together could win a pillar in the five pillars of the Islmic Lists of important obligation that could gurantee paradise. Besides they were not made to be obayed. The chairman Mohammed personally broke all of them at the approval of his Allah. This is very strange especially by somebody who claimed he was the mouth piece of Allahwhom he said inspired the ten commandment of the Old Testament. You can see why muslim can kill, rape the infidels, tell lies,bear false witness without any guilty concience as long as keep the five the 5 daily ass ups facing the shrine in Mecca,pay the zakat, fast and visit the shrine once in his life time he is ok.The basis of personal relationship with the God of the Bible is the ten commandment. How one said he knew him if he has no regards for his commandment. Can you see how the Identity of Allah was not hiden to an understanding mind. Besides Allah was known by the pagan long before Mohammed knew him as the only god of the Quyrash a moon god with three daughters before Mohammmed wrapped him in the garment of Yahweh the Almighty God but in reality he was an idol or at best agent of Satan who was knonw for opposing God in everything
Plagiarizing Vedas.
written by Reed Wilson , February 27, 2010
Clement. Idea is not to impress you. Now it is between God of Bible and Mohammad who according to you plagiarized Bible.Chapter112 of Quran may be from Bible. It is same to same in Rig Ved. Would any one blame God of Bible to plagiarise Vedas?
I have given you the dictionary meanings of Plagiarization. If you insist on plagiarization, you have your own dictionary.
To Reed What is the connection between Mohammed rejecting the ten commandments and plagiarisation?
written by Clement- The Islam- Watch Pastor , February 27, 2010
What was the essence of repeating the same law if you are not going to obey them. Especially when you disobay them and said your God gives you the approval to disobay them.Here you see the purpose of mentioning the them was for fancy.The Bible says to obay is better than sacrifice. The letter killeth but the spirit geveth life. It does not matter what you plagiarised from the previous scriptures or what was revealed in the past for as long as you don't say how it relate to new revelation or how it fullfiled the new or how we should obay it, it becomes irrelevant information because we have it already.Mohammed dit not take anything relevant from the Bible despite all the plagiarisations. To him paganism is more relevant to him than the Bible since all his five Pillars are from the polytheist and pagans even though he condemned them. The 6th and the most important Pillar in Islam is the Jihad it is the best of all deeds both the Quran and hadeeths agreed on that so you have no execuse. This was the only new thing that I can say was the creation of Mohammed which use as an instrument to plunders people goods , lives in order to established his cult religion and it was the first of its kind that a suposed deity to use violent, and war as a means of winning people to his religion.Tell me which of the ten commandments that finds its way as Pillar in Islam?
written by duh_swami , February 28, 2010
written by Reed Wilson , February 26, 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?
To duh_swami ,
written by Clement- The Islam- Watch Pastor' , February 28, 2010
Please my friend you better forget it, Reed cannot prove it, he is used to raising issues that he cannot defence. See what he wrote above trying to say that Mohammed enshrine the ten commandment in the Quran but he could not show Mohammed obey the commandment. Instead he quote his Q112 which basically talks of the oneness of God which the Bible says even the devil knows that so what is the big deal if even a con artist mention it million times does that bestow divinity to the Quran? The oneness of God in the Quran is even more complex than it behold the eyes. Mohammed had to attach his name along with Allah making himself one with Allah. You cannot believe in the unity of Allah without believing that Mohammed was his massager. This is blasphemy to almighty God to yoke his name of a mere human being. Muslim think Allah is different from Allah when a casual reading of the Quran will show it clearly that Allah and Mohammed are the same, they are inseparable. This was very important to Mohammed because his name cannot standard alone and attracts any faith from any rational being.
written by duh_swami , February 28, 2010
written by Clement- The Islam- Watch Pastor' , 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 , February 28, 2010
Let me be the first to declare WW III on Islam and its Nazi style ideology. We can either confront these supremicist, racist thugs head on now with overwhelming use of public opinion and free speech leading to a world wide change in how the world treats Muslim nations or we can fight them with guns later. Every Friday for 1,400 years, Muslim are the best, kill the infidel, - Islam must DIE!!!
2 Reed
written by Machmoed , March 01, 2010
Yes Machmoed. It is for the widows. They cannot marry before 3 months and 10 days. Or they can remarry after 3 moths and 10 days. So that their offspring's parenthood is determined. Elsewhere in the book it is written that a pregnant woman can remarry immediately after after delivery.It can be one day after death of husband. This is not mourning.

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.
Human Being
written by kablammm , March 02, 2010
Every 24.5 years Islam conquers another country . # 58 , 59 an so forth an so on will be soon . Convert or die . The dead body count with Islam is in the tens of millions , an growing . Get your heads out of your rear end vents . Islam started with the sword . Islam continues with the sword . Take year trip to the most ''hard core christian area'' you can think of an be yourself , THEN try the same thing in a ''moderate muslim area'' . Good luck .
the worst conquest in History
written by Arab Christian , March 02, 2010
am an arab Christian... and i know about Islam more than reading about it... I live within it... sinve 14 centuries Moslems occupied our countiries ( what is called the arab world ) in fact these countries were not arabs. ( Palestine, Jordan Syria, Lebanon were arameans... Iraq was chaldeans.. Egypt was for sure not arab... north afrrican countries were Berber tribes : till now they cant speak or understand the real arabi .. what they speack is their own dilect mixed with funny arabic ).... The army of Muhammad arrived and occupied us because of the weakness of the Bysantine empire... then they dominated us and it wsa the wprst conquest in the history ! why ? because it changed our culture, our languages, our history and our faith !!! no conquest didi this ever never !!!!
... 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
Dear Machmed. Sorrry I dont get your problem in your first Feb. post.

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!
Sex with slaves
written by Reed Wilson. , March 16, 2010
To Machmoed.
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.
re: sex with slaves
written by James , October 09, 2010
The Koran supports the conversion, rape and marriage of infidel women captured as bounty during Jihad.

[4:3] And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.

The Hadiths are worse.

Malik's Muwatta:Book 2, Number 2.23.90:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that the slave girls of Abdullah ibn Umar used to wash his feet and bring him a mat of palm leaves while they were menstruating.

If both sisters are slaves (or captives) then you may or may not have sex with them depending on the interpreter-(Malik's Muwatta 28.14.34)

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.


About the book || Reviews by: Steven Simpson | Abul Kasem | Prof Sami Alrabaa | Ibn Kammuna


'Islamic Jihad' in Bangla
Aasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."

Editor: M A Khan | Site design: Dan Zaremba
Founded on 20 November 2005


Sign petition:  Grant Imran Firasat Asylum in the USA


Proxy Server: To view blocked websites, use this: iwebproxy