The Crusades: A Response to the Imperialism of Islam

 This post is actually a comment to another commenter, gringoman, in a thread from All Things Beautiful .  gringoman gave a link to an American Thinker article, The Truth About Islamic Crusades and Imperialism, that, imho, turned out to be a gold mine of information that will never be seen in the antique media, so I decided to do a bibliographical listing of the links in the article.  Long story short, the gatekeeper program kept kicking me out as a spammer, so, if anyone is interested, here is the listing, including, last but not least, Jihad begot the Crusades, by the great Andrew Bostom.

My response that made me a spammer 😉  : 

gringoman:  What an absolutely wonderful reference to a great article by James Arlandson with an excellent set of reference links.  I have been on this “crusade” with GD, i.e., that there was a lot of conquering, pillaging, raping and slaughtering going on long before the Christian crusaders got started.  And here you are with Mr. Arlandson’s and Andrew Bostom’s proof that the crusades were a response to islam.  BTW, your link didn’t work- it had an extra backslash in it.  Here’s the working link, and I hope you don’t mind if I do a major cut and paste here because Mr. Arlandson does a much better job than I could hope to do of tying it all together, and the article is from 2005, so it has been a while.  I have never seen it before.  I encourage everyone interested in this to save this article and the references mentioned in it.

The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism, By James Arlandson

Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades.

Westerners—even academics—accept the notion that the West alone was aggressive. It seems that Islam is always innocent and passive. It is difficult to uncover the source of this Western self—loathing. It is, however, a pathology that seems to strike Westerners more than other people around the globe.  This anti—West pathology shows up in Westerners’ hatred for the European Crusades in the Medieval Age

Muslims seem to forget that they had their own, for several centuries before the Europeans launched theirs as a defense against the Islamic expansion.

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.
641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.
644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.
710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.
711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.
831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy
1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia
1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca
1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

It must be noted that Islamic expansion continues until well into the seventeenth century. For example, the Muslims Crusaders conquer Constantinople in 1453 and unsuccessfully besiege Vienna for the second time in 1683 (earlier in 1529). By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Islamic Crusades receded, due to Western resistance. Since that time until the present, Islamic civilization has not advanced very far.

Khalid al—Walid (d. 642), a bloodthirsty but superior commander of the Muslim armies at the time, also answers the question as to why the Muslims stormed out of Arabia…’I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then [you must pay] the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will fight you until God decides between us and you.’
When the Islamic Crusaders go out to conquer, carrying an Islamic banner inscribed in Arabic of the glory and the truth of their prophet, Ibn Khaldun would not deny that the army’s mission, besides the material reasons of conquest, is to convert the inhabitants. Islam is a ‘universalizing’ religion, and if its converts enter its fold either by persuasion or force, then that is the nature of Islam.

Moreover, Ibn Khaldun explains why a dynasty rarely establishes itself firmly in lands of many different tribes and groups. But it can be done after a long time and employing the following tactics, as seen in the Maghrib (N and NW Africa) from the beginning of Islam to Ibn Khaldun’s own time:

The first (Muslim) victory over them and the European Christians (in the Maghrib) was of no avail. They continued to rebel and apostatized time after time. The Muslims massacred many of them. After the Muslim religion had been established among them, they went on revolting and seceding, and they adopted dissident religious opinions many times. They remained disobedient and unmanageable . . . . Therefore, it has taken the Arabs a long time to establish their dynasty in the . . . Maghrib. (p. 131)

It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.

But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect.

Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own.”</i>

References:
 Ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies, By James Arlandson

Martyrdom? What a bargain!  By James Arlandson

The Echo Effect:  For Muslim zealots little has changed since the seventh century, BY ERIC ORMSBY

The  Jews should own the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, By James Arlandson

 Slave-Girls  as sexual property in the Quran, By James Arlandson

The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, by Andrew Bostom

The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine (Part I), By Andrew G. Bostom

The Legacy of Jihad in Historial Palestine (Part II), By Andrew G. Bostom

 Jihad begot the Crusades (1), By Andrew G. Bostom

Jihad begot the Crusades (2), By Andrew G. Bostom

gringoman, in answer to your last question,  psychopathology, and delusion.
 

Update:  I am in the process of adding these references and others, along with short pull-quotes, to the “Islamofascism” category of the In Context References section of the blog.

Published in: on April 9, 2007 at 3:12 am  Leave a Comment  

Convert or Die

Here we go again. The Pope quotes the words of a 14th century Byzantine ruler to his “interlocutor”. When Manuel II composed the Dialogue (which Pope Benedict excerpted), the Byzantine ruler was little more than a glorified dhimmi vassal of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid, forced to accompany the latter on a campaign through Anatolia. Earlier, Bayezid had compelled the Byzantines under Manuel II to submit to additional humiliations and impositions—heavier tribute, which was already onerous—as well as the establishment of a special quarter in Constantinople devoted to Turkish merchants, and the admission of an Ottoman kadi to arbitrate the affairs of these Muslims. So he was answering a question of a theologian of a religion that had conquered and enslaved his world. A religion that, from it’s earliest beginnings has advocated the conversion of non-muslims by the sword, i.e. convert or die.

We have fallen down the rabbit hole. What is, is not, and what is not, is. A false story of muslim bibles being flushed down toilets results in riots and death. A series of cartoons, that initially went by unnoticed, but were fanned into incandescence, again result in riots and death, and threats against the Danish publisher. And now the Pope. This requires more background than I posses, but I have some good reading to help try to explain what is essentially a temper tantrum by a LOT (about a billion) of people. While ridiculous, it is also dangerous. They are acting like the Mafia writ large. Say anything, especially the truth, that they don’t like and you will be subject to their ire. As already discussed previously, we know that the goal is our subjugation, and this is just one more step in the process. Read and pass on to all that will listen and learn:

First, the most important piece of this puzzle: Faith, Reason, and the University, the speech by Pope Benedict XVI that had two or three sentences taken out of context and used by the islamofascist puppetmasters to further their own ends.

From The American Thinker: The Pope, Jihad, and “Dialogue”, September 17th, 2006, by Andrew Bostom. Bostom is the writer that opened my eyes to what radical islam is really all about, and the historical context that is so important to today’s world in a series of articles from Frontpage mag: here, here, here (where it is explained the connections of modern day islamofascism and 20th century nazism), and here. Bostom has written a number of articles explaining the historical context behind what is currently happening, as in Muhammad’s Willing Executioners: “Notwithstanding that he may never have encountered an actual Jew, the 17th century Indian Sufi jurist Sirhindi (d. 1621) expressed an (archetypal) sentiment, whose ultimate origins can be traced to the sacralized behaviors of the Muslim prophet Muhammad himself. Sirhindi wrote: Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.” Sadly, this ugly belief retains widespread legitimacy amongst contemporary Muslims.

All Things Beautiful has a take on this, The apoplectic reaction of the Muslim world, which is barely in first gear of course, couldn’t be a better testament to the continuing verity of the Byzantine Emperor’s observations; no matter whether 1,500 years ago, 700 years ago or at the present day. Lost is the Pope’s powerful call for an urgently needed dialogue between the religions of peace and Islam, and also sends me to Captain’s Quarters, who points out, in An Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI,

If Islam is ever to peacefully co-exist with other faiths in the manner that Christendom finally learned how to do, then it has to start abiding questions and criticisms without resorting to violence. Islam has to learn to persuade and to attract people through reason, not through forced conversions and coexistence through violent supremacy. Muslim leaders around the world still believe that our faith can only exist at their sufferance, and any question of their doctrinal beliefs has to be met with violence or demands for apologies, not with rhetoric, facts, and reason.

In another post, The Pope’s Real Threat, he explains what the islamofascists and even everyday muslims fail to see:

All this has shown is that Muslims missed the point of the speech, and in fact have endeavored to fulfill Benedict’s warnings rather than prove him wrong. If one reads the speech at Regensburg, the entire speech, one understands that the entire point was to reject violence in pursuing religion in any form, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Bahai. The focal point of the speech was not the recounting of the debate between Manuel II and the unnamed Persian, but rather the rejection of reason and of God that violence brings…

…This is really the crux of the argument, which is that argument, debate, and rhetoric are absolutely essential in forming any kind of philosophy, including religious doctrine…requires the ability to challenge and to criticize without fear of retribution, a difficulty that most faiths struggle to overcome. Islam, on the other hand, doesn’t bother to try…Islam practices a form of supremacy that insists on unquestioned obedience or at least silence of all criticism, especially from outsiders, and creates a violent reaction against it when it occurs.

And, in an article in Frontpagemag, Khatami Comes to National Cathedral, this from the “moderate” successor to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Mohammad Khatami: world_trade_center_second_jet_impact.jpgWithout any sense of irony, by him or the cathedral’s Episcopalian masters, Khatami will talk about how the three “Abrahamic faiths” can build peace in the world.

That would be by converting to islam, the “religion of peace”, if you are muslim.

Liberal Christian clerics like Canon Peterson and Dean Lloyd would be roasted on a spit and flayed until crispy brown if they lived under the reign of the Iranian mullahs, few of whom have much time for “dialogue” and “open discussion.” Indeed, Christian clerics have been murdered in Iran, and Christians there, along with other religious minorities, stick to the shadows, lest they gain the unwanted attention of Iran’s religious police. But the National Cathedral has rarely if ever expressed interest in the plight of Christians living under Islamic regimes, in Iran or elsewhere, even though there are even fellow Anglicans struggling to survive under President Khatami’s friends and successors.

NEVER Forget!

flag-wewillnotforget.jpg

Published in: on September 18, 2006 at 12:29 am  Leave a Comment