See our write up on ABN
PLEASE CLICK PICTURE LINK
FROM JIHADWATCH: When Oklahoma passed its anti-Sharia law, Muslims in the U.S. indignantly characterized as “Islamophobic” the notion that they would ever, ever, under any circumstances at any time, want to bring Islamic law to this country. Islamic supremacist pseudo-moderate Reza Aslan has claimed falsely that “no American Muslim, zero, absolutely none, not a single one has ever, ever called for the imposition of Shariah in America.” In reality, Honest Ibe himself, Ibrahim Hooper of Hamas-linked CAIR, has said he would like to see the U.S. Government become Islamic sometime in the future, and the Washington, D.C. imam Musa has called for Muslims to work for the establishment of an Islamic State of America by 2050.
And in saying such things, they reflect a view confirmed by this new poll: that Islam is inherently political, and its political aspect cannot be separated from its religious aspect.
“Majority of Muslims want Islam in politics, poll says,” by Meris Lutz for the Los Angeles Times, December 6 (thanks to Twostellas):
Reporting from Beirut — A majority of Muslims around the world welcome a significant role for Islam in their countries’ political life, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center, but have mixed feelings toward militant religious groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.According to the survey, majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion. About 85% of Pakistani Muslims said they would support a law segregating men and women in the workplace.
Muslims in Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Jordan were among the most enthusiastic, with more than three-quarters of poll respondents in those countries reporting positive views of Islam’s influence in politics: either that Islam had a large role in politics, and that was a good thing, or that it played a small role, and that was bad.
Turkish Muslims were the most conflicted, with just more than half reporting positive views of Islam’s influence in politics. Turkey has struggled in recent years to balance a secular political system with an increasingly fervent Muslim population….
Despite an overall positive view of Islam’s growing role in politics, militant religious organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah spurred mixed reactions. Both groups enjoyed fairly strong support in Jordan, home to many Palestinians, and Lebanon, where Hezbollah is based. Muslim countries that do not share strong cultural, historical and political ties to the Palestinian cause, such as Pakistan and Turkey, tended to view Hezbollah and Hamas negatively.
Al Qaeda was rejected by strong majorities in every Muslim country except Nigeria, which gave the group a 49% approval rating….
Conversation with Pamela Geller and Colleagues – Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer
Vodpod videos no longer available.
How did the world get from just Mohammad to well over 1 billion Muslims in the world? This is the question every Westerner should have to answer. These videos and additional references will help you do that.
While I feel this is the best video representation of the history of Islam I have seen yet, there are a few things that need correcting and highlighting, I will try to do that as we go along. I believe that if you watch these videos and this other very important video series, you will have a good grasp on the history of Islam. And if you absorb all the info in the links provided, you will be able to give a great 10 minutes summary of how this world got to where it is.
Here are two articles to put the broad context of Jihad into perspective.
Mahomet established a religion by putting his enemies to death; Jesus Christ by commanding his followers to lay down their lives. Blaise Pascal
THIS QUOTE on a shirt PROVOCATIVE ISLAM APPAREL: Christianity & Islam – The Difference (Pascal quote) T-Shirt
This first video claims that Mohammad was “confused” when he first started receiving his revelations. the fact is the he thought he was demon possessed.
This next video shows that Islam’s neighboring civilizations where the Byzantine and the Persian empires. It should be noted that one reason the Muslims where successful in totally defeating the Persians and eventually successful in defeating the Byzantines (the eastern leg of the Roman Empire) was that the Byzantine and the Persian empires where in a weakened state from fighting each other when Islam exploded onto the scene.
The story of the Persian empire, in my opinion, is one of the strongest evidences that Islam is not a religion of peace and is bent on making all religion the religion of Allah. Persia is modern day Iran and how it became Muslim is very important because it shows the almost total annihilation of the religion Zoroastrianism at the hands of Islam. Zoroastrianism was the official religion of 3 successive Persian Empires and was one of the worlds largest religions when Islam was born but there are now less than 200,000 Zoroastrians in the world and less than 0.1 % of the Iranian population is Zoroastrian. In effect, the subjugation of Zoroastrianism by Islam has almost resulted in its extinction. Today Iranians barely remember that they where once Persian and Zoroastrian. AND THIS IS THE RELIGION OF NO RELIGIOUS COMPULSION?
For more info about Zoroastrianism and Islam see the first video in this other very important video series, this Wikipedia page called the Persecution of Zoroastrians and The History of Jihad Against Persia.
To fill in an important gap in this video, before Muhammad invaded Mecca he had been raiding Meccan Merchant Caravans. There was some important battles that happened before Muhammad invaded mecca. This video also mentions the apostasy, it should be noted that at this time Caliph Abu Bahker standardized his version of the Koran and burned all the opposing text, so do Muslims really have the words of Muhammad?
This video may also prompt you to learn more about Jizya and Dhimmitude because it falsely claims that the treatment of Non-Muslims by Muslims was “oppressive by modern standards but tolerant by medieval standards”. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE. Non-Muslims where not allowed to even maintain there places of worship, to openly practice their religion, or teach it to their children. Overall the system of subjugation almost ensures the subjugated religions will nearly vanish as did the Zoroastrians. No other religion has a systematized program of subjugation written into a legal code, instead all other religions have at least some form of the golden rule and are truly pluralistic.
See our Dhimmitude catagory for more information.
THIS VIDEO SHOWS IT REALLY IS THEM AGAINST US (Everyone else).
The War between Christianity and Islam. There is just so much that could be said about this that is not said in the video that I suggest you read some of the articles and view some of the videos from the Christianity peace/conquest category about the Crusades and learn the real reason and purpose of the crusades. If I’ve learned anything studying Islam it is that PEOPLE NEED TO STOP APOLOGIZING FOR THE CRUSADES. The whole ordeal infuriates me so I will just say “LEARN ABOUT ISLAM or learn to say “Allāhu Akbar” (Allah is [the] Greatest)”. There is no other option.
BE PROUD OF OUR WESTERN CIVILIZATION for a change, damn-it – or go learn Arabic. If it where not for the crusaders, we would all be Muslim, subjugated or put to death by now!!! I, for one, THANK GOD for the Christians who said….
……..OR TWO, OR THREE, OR HOWEVER MANY IT TAKES.
ThIS video states that when the crusaders arrived in the foreign lands they where “amazed to find an Islam society that was vastly superior to European culture”. Some clarification is in need here. The Muslims push the idea of the conquered Spanish civilization as being an advanced society. But reality is that it was not advanced because of Islam but in-spite of Islam. Like the conquered Istanbul (Byzantine Constantinople), Spain was the product of the Dhimmi, not Muslims. The Christian societies where already far advanced compared to Arabian culture from which Islam came. Islam conquering these lands always resulted in a cannibalizing of the conquered cultures and additional advancements come from the Dhimmis, not the Muslims. And once the Dhimmis are subjugated to insignificance and the numbers are greatly reduced the result is a backslide of the culture to the 7th century Arabian culture from which islam came, which has not really contributed anything significant to modern society, even though Muslims may say otherwise. LOOK INTO IT.
For more info on the Conquest of India see the last two videos in this other very important video series
These two videos do a good job on the decline of Islam. But one point that is not covered is the genocide of the Assyrians. Another important point is not covered is the Young Turk Revolution and the over throw of the Caliphate.
This video touches on the alliance of Islam and Hitler in WW2. See our Islam and Nazis category for more information on that.
This video carries on and shows how WW2 got started but it does leave you hanging.
I will be adding more information and links to this post, so please bookmark it and come back.
The reports against Israel by the UN Human Rights Council should be framed and posted in every political science class in the world: It would be an advanced lesson on diplomatic cynicism and the broken UN dream.
Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s worst human rights violators. It is not an electoral democracy and political opposition is forbidden. Freedom of speech is heavily restricted. The government maintains control of the media and responds harshly to criticism or deviation from its strict Islamic dogma.
How can a country with virtually not connection to human rights be a member of a formal body dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights around the world?
Is that not similar to putting a wife-beater in charge of a women’s shelter?
The UNHRC is dominated by third world countries, in most of which democracy and human rights are nothing more than theoretical concepts. More than half of the Council’s members are not free democracies; on top of Saudi Arabia and Iran, it includes some of the world’s most oppressive dictatorships, such as Libya, Qatar and China.
Incredibly, about 80%, 34 out of 40 of the Council’s censures were devoted to Israel. This is an unbelievable figure: Meanwhile, tyrannies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, China and others were never condemned by the UNHRC.
Israel, a democracy that grants freedom, civil rights and human rights to all of its citizens, including minorities that belong to a people with whom Israel is involved in bitter conflict — is supposedly the worst human rights violator on earth, and in fact one of the only human rights violators altogether.
“a whole month before the FBI met him”. SO WHERE THE ENTRAPMENT?
HERE IS AN AMAZON REVIEW OF THE BOOK and then the Q&A session with Stark.
Michael P. McHugh: I strongly recommend God’s Battalions to anyone interested in current affairs or history. In this timely and important book Rodney Stark cogently and persuasively makes “The Case for the Crusades” as his subtitle states. He begins with some galling indications of the current popular and apologetic misunderstanding of the Crusades today. Then he proceeds to tell the whole story from the perspective of the Crusaders.
Stark reminds the reader of the basic fact that Christians were in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria long before the Muslims. The Arabs, united under banner of Islam entered with great violence and they imposed oppressive rule. They did not stop their invasion into Christian territory until they conquered North Africa, Spain, and were finally beaten in southern France. This is all familiar history, but somehow ignored by critics of the Crusaders.
Stark reminds the reader of some less familiar history as well. For example, the Arabs attacked Sicily and the Italian mainland. The story of who stopped them there makes fascinating history. The Arabs also attacked Constantinople twice without success. This is often forgotten since their expansionist Muslim successors, the Turks ultimately captured that great Roman and Christian city.
After demonstrating that aggressive Islamic expansion into Christian territories triggered Islamic-Christian warfare, the author shatters many of the myths of the Crusades one by one with historical fact. These myths are exploded, for example:
-The Christians were more brutal than the Muslims.
-Islamic culture brought technological advancement to the Middle East.
-The Crusades were primarily motivated by economic expansion.
-Famed Muslim Saladin demonstrated a more enlightened leadership than his European counterparts.
Stark lays out the historical facts that the cynical critics selectively ignore.
Stark’s explanation of the ultimate failure of the Crusades will intrigue readers as will his many other insightful observations. For example, he cites the popular and oddly inconsistent notion that while Muslims could understandably be religiously motivated, Westerners would have to have ulterior motives. This book explains with excellent examples the evidence of religious motivations among Crusaders as I have seen nowhere else. Stark traces criticism of the Crusades to Western enemies of the Catholic Church as far back as the 18th Century.
General criticisms of this book fall flat. As for accusations of Western bias, Stark simply argues that the Crusades have been mischaracterized and the Crusaders maligned. He does not attribute to Crusaders complete moral superiority. He does not deny their brutality. It is true that he paints an ugly picture of the Byzantine role in the Crusades, but I saw nothing that has not been accepted as the general history of that Empire. Ironically, Byzantine self-absorption during this period matches Western Roman behavior during the decline of that entity. He does lump Arab Muslims and Turks into a monolith at times, but as I read I realized that to the Crusaders, the strategic threat each posed was not worthy of distinction.
I was disappointed that my edition of this book had no index. I was also disappointed that on one page Stark casts allusion to knights being hoisted to their saddles with small cranes. I have read that there is no evidence that this hoisting was ever needed or used.
Overall, Stark more than makes his case with a clarity and directness that most popular historians seem to avoid these days lest they offend someone with the truth. He introduces very little that is new or controversial by itself. He simply lays out the facts to make a case that no one else dare make for so long. He explains that the logic of security stoked by religious inspiration drove the Crusades more than other factors.
It remains a mystery to me why Westerners often make themselves and their ancestors out to be the bad guy even when it’s plainly not appropriate. Perhaps that is a matter for social psychologists to investigate. It seems lost on many Westerners that while we bathe in self-critique as a matter of course, our Muslim friends have never shared any such cultural compulsion. But it is this very psychology that makes this book timely and important.
SOURCE: Q&A with Rodney Stark, author of God’s Battalions: A Case for the Crusades
A: I focused on this portion of history (the conflicts between Christendom and Islam for control of the Holy Land, between 1095 and 1291) because the story has been particularly distorted over the past decade. Popular authors such as Karen Armstrong and world leaders such as Bill Clinton have helped popularize the idea that the Christian Crusades were an unprovoked attack on Muslims for the purpose of religious conversion or material gain. As a result, many Americans believe Muslims have been stewing in bitterness against Christians and the West for centuries. Many believe we owe Muslims an apology and that modern-day terrorism is payback for the Crusades. This is simply not the case.
Q: So what sparked the Christian Crusades in the Holy Land?
A: This time in history was a brutal and intolerant age on both sides–Muslim and Christian. Western knights were very violent, very sinful and very religious. Mohammed’s followers could be described in the same way. The Christian Holy Land had been conquered by Muslims in the seventh century, and Christians had been oppressed for several centuries, but the West did not intercede. Eventually Western pilgrims to the Holy Land found themselves targeted for violence, even massacred, and news reached Europe of the Muslim desecration of Christian sites in Jerusalem. The call went out for knights who would stop the desecration and re-open the pilgrimage routes for Christians. Quite simply, the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations: by centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places.
Q: How were Roman Catholic popes and clergy involved in Crusades? Were they seeking the religious conversions of Muslims?