Here is a post I made at my new self hosted, and much improved blog.
Here is a great video to watch and learn about the History of Islam. This is the first episode of the Jesus or Muhammad Show 2010 fall marathon. Host Samar Gorial and apologist/guest David Wood, Pastor Vance, Tom Trento (From The Florida Security Council) talk about THE SPREAD OF ISLAM and the nature of the beast we face. The show was live with Muslim and non-Muslim callers. I called in about halfway through the show with a few comments, and my favorite Islamophobe quote, but wished I would have asked a couple of probing questions instead. This topic has been covered over and over again at ABN and this show is educational and intriguing, as usual. To learn more about ABN, see our ABNsat.com PAGE HERE
You can see the FULL VIDEO HERE. Here is the opening show in 11 YouTubes
SORRY EVERYONE, they did not upload the 12th video so this last one leaves you hanging.
Here is the video trailer and critique of the movie “Kingdom of Heaven” by CRI
This link has a much better history of the crusades film to watch
SOURCE CRI: SYNOPSIS
Kingdom of Heaven, a recent film set in the era of the Crusades, unfortunately perpetuates the false view that fanatical Christians brought war to an otherwise peaceful Muslim world. The film’s hero, Balian of Ibelin (played by Orlando Bloom) essentially represents a Hollywood version of what a Crusader should have been like: brave, concerned about the poor and underprivileged, tolerant, and not much interested in holy places in Jerusalem or in Christian doctrine—except to reject the extremism apparently caused by focusing on either one.
Real Crusaders were quite different, in that they were highly motivated by their Christian beliefs. By the late eleventh century, however, some of these beliefs had moved away from basic biblical and early church teachings. It was not their belief in absolute truth per se, but rather this mix of error with truth, along with the pressures of war, that led to some of the widely cited Crusader atrocities. Any proper attempt to evaluate the Crusades needs to measure their stated goals and actions against pertinent biblical criteria and the historical context at the time. Such an evaluation shows that the Crusades began with several noble and legitimate motives, but that these motives degenerated in practice at times. Even at their worst, however, the Crusades (only the first four are briefly considered) were little different than other wars conducted by Muslims before, during, and after the Crusades.
The recent film Kingdom of Heaven shows conflicts between Muslims and Christians in the twelfth century after the Second and before the Third Crusade, and dramatically culminates with the short siege and fall of Jerusalem to the Muslims in 1187. It is an amazing Hollywood version of the period, but it certainly is not factual history.
Among other things, it portrays Balian of Ibelin (played by Orlando Bloom) as a twenty-first-century, tolerant, sensitive hero who gained some kind of victory in the failed defense of Jerusalem, when, in fact, nearly all Christians at the time considered this loss to be a tremendous disaster.
More significantly, the film’s portrayal of Reynald of Chatillon, the French knight who controlled Karak castle and raided caravans that were going to Mecca, suggests that his actions were typical of most Crusaders who were trying to spread Christianity. The implication is that men like Reynald brought war to an otherwise peaceful, even idyllic, Muslim area. This cinematic image falls short of the truth in important ways, because wars were widespread throughout the Muslim world long before the Crusaders arrived and the Crusaders did not seek to convert Muslims by force.1
Such misconceptions, nevertheless, have contributed to the situation today in which “the Crusades” have become virtually synonymous with supposed Christian cruelty and intolerance. The Crusades actually were motivated in part by the desire of Christians in the West to help fellow Christians in the East. Those who went to the East suffered and often died in their attempts to help. Even if those attempts were misguided, unnecessary, or unsuccessful, there was little cruelty or intolerance in that aspect of the Crusades. Of course, the Crusades did involve warfare—often French, Norman, or other Christians against Turkish, Arab, or other Muslims—and that warfare brought death and destruction to all sides involved, as does war in any era. The Crusading era also included regrettable cases in which Christians and Muslims engaged in criminal, sinful, and wicked behavior apart from the fighting itself.
How can people begin to understand and evaluate this complex historical mix correctly? I believe that to conduct a proper evaluation of it, people should begin with the biblical and theological criteria for a legitimate war that were in use at the time, and then should consider whether the Crusades were conducted in harmony with such Christian teachings and with their own stated goals.
A JUST WAR?
Church fathers such as Ambrose and Augustine argued that such biblical texts as John 18:26; Romans 13:3 4; and 1 Peter 2:13 14 provided justification for governments to use force, including war, as “an agent to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4 NIV). These and other church leaders since the fourth century approved of Christians serving in the military and participating in war, at least under some circumstances, based on such passages as Matthew 8:5 7, Luke 3:14; 6:15; 14:31; and Acts 10 11. Various other views had existed among Christians, to be sure. The spectrum ranged from pacifism or nonresistance to offensive, preventive wars. By the time of the Crusades, however, many Christian writers and thinkers accepted a middle position in this spectrum, which was often called the just-war view. According to Augustine, this view argued that a war was legitimate if it (1) had a just cause (primarily that of defense); (2) had a just intention; (3) was a last resort; (4) was declared by a legal government or proper authority; (5) had limited objectives; (6) was fought with appropriate and proportionate means; and (7) ensured the protection of noncombatants and included proper treatment of the wounded and of prisoners.2 The first five criteria relate primarily to legitimate reasons for going to war in the first place while the last two provide standards for the proper conduct of those who are engaged in war. They can be applied fairly well to the stated motives for the Crusades and to the actual conduct of the Crusaders.
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.
This is a refutation of Arsalan Iftikhar’s CNN Article “Murder has no religion” available here.
Arsalan Iftikhar is an international human rights lawyer and former National Legal Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (the organization named by U.S. Federal prosecutors in 2007 as an un-indicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case involving the Holy Land Foundation). He is a contributing author of an award-winning book and is well-known for his interviews, commentaries and analyses which have regularly appeared in virtually every major media outlet in the world.
In this article we will analyse a piece he had written for CNN, titled “Murder has no religion”. It was written in response to the Fort Hood massacre, in which the “Allahu Akbar” screaming U.S. Army major, Nidal Malik Hasan, murdered 13 people and wounded 30 others at a US military installation.
Most of the world’s 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, “Anyone who kills a human being … it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind. … If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind.”
No, it is not clear at all. It is unfortunate that even his opening sentence is a mistruth. There is no such verse in the Qur’an. What Iftikhar has presented us with is a butchered and out-of-context paraphrasing of Qur’an 5:32 meant to mislead those who have little knowledge of Islamic scripture.
This verse is examined in detail here. In summary; it is written in past tense, and clearly does not apply to Muslims but to “the Children of Israel” i.e. the Jews. When the clause (omitted from the verse by Iftikhar) which allows killing is reinserted and we read it in context with the next two verses, it is in actual fact a chilling warning to non-believers who cause “mischief” in the land.
Accordingly, it should come as little surprise to any reasonable observer that when Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan recently committed his shocking acts of mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas, America’s Muslim community of over 7 million felt an added sense of horror and sadness at this senseless attack against the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces.
Another mistruth. Contrary to the bloated figures provided by CAIR, and accepted by many apologists, media outlets, and even the President of the United States, and in spite of the massive influx of Muslim refugees, a Pew survey carried-out in October, 2009 found there are only 2.454 million Muslims in the U.S. Percentage-wise, Islam represents a minuscule 0.8 percent of the United States religious make-up.
Quite possibly the message he was trying to convey to us was that there are many Muslims in America yet there are so few terrorist attacks on American soil. Unfortunately this is not the case. There have been several terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 and countless foiled attempts.
Furthermore, the relative silence among America’s Muslim community and the worlds Muslim population in general suggests a passive acceptance of violence perpetuated in the name of Islam. There is no way he could possibly know how America’s Muslims felt in regards to the senseless deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of this Muslim terrorist, and his empty words are meant to pull at America’s heart strings.
True to form, many conservative media pundits wasted little time in pointing to reports that Hasan had said “Allahu Akbar” (Arabic for “God is great”) at the start of his murderous rampage. News coverage continuously showed the looping convenience store black-and-white videotape footage of Hasan wearing traditional white Islamic garb.
Another mistruth. The Arabic word kebir means “great,” while akbar means “greater”. These two words are not interchangeable. For evidence of this, we need only look to Qur’an 2:219 which uses both words. The word for “God” in Arabic is “Ilah” not “Allah“, as evidenced in the Shahada.
Therefore we can rightly conclude that “Allahu akbar” does not mean “God is great”, but “Allah is greater“. This is the traditional war cry of Jihadists and was used by Muhammad himself before he launched his attack on the Jews of Khaibar.
And there is no reason why the media should be criticized for reporting the words of a terrorist before his murderous rampage, and there is no reason why video footage of the terrorist in question should be suppressed.
Does Arsalan Iftikhar wish to inhibit reporting on certain criminals based on their own choice to overtly parade their religious affiliation?
Muslims who label themselves as “moderate” need to become assertive against their co-religionists which they refer to as “extremists,” rather than attempt to hide religious extremism from the eyes of non-Muslims by sweeping matters under the carpet.
I’d like you to watch this 23-minute video to see how Islamic media deals with the Jews when it’s not even minimally constrained by having to operate within a Western country. These clips, compiled by the Middle East Media Research Institute, come from various Arab television stations. (If you can’t see the video, the link is here.)
They are sickening, especially so when children are made to parrot the hatreds of their elders. The old saw that Jews mix the blood of goyim into their Passover matzos is given big play (has anyone ever wondered why those matzos never seem to be red?), and even the Holocaust is justified with glee. Peter Singer’s expanding circle of morality seems to have missed some parts of the world.
Can anyone believe that even a two-state solution in the Middle East will quell this virulent anti-Semitism? Several announcers in fact state that wouldn’t happen. As Anthony Grayling has stressed, this is how religion behaves when it’s not on the back foot.
“The true Islamic concept of peace goes something like this: “Peace comes through submission to Muhammad and his concept of Allah” (i.e. Islam). As such the Islamic concept of peace, meaning making the whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war. It was inevitable and unavoidable that the conflict would eventually reach our borders, and so it has.” Vernon Richards
SOURCE: Islam is a religion of peace. Peace and tolerance. Just ask any of its adherents.
Keep that in mind while reading the following stories.
First up, remember Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani? She’s the Iranian woman who has been convicted of adultery. And in Iran, the penalty for adultery isn’t a divorce or a reality show or a photoshoot — it’s death by stoning.
Because that’s what the Koran specifies. Adulterers shall be stoned to death. And it lays out precisely how the stoning is to be carried out. Here is Islamic justice.
To sum it up: you are bound and wrapped in a burial shroud. Then you are buried in the ground — men up to their waists, women to their necks. Finally, the crowd pelts you with rocks (not too big as to kill quickly, not too small as to just annoy — orange-sized is about right) until you are pronounced dead. If you manage to work yourself free, you’re spared. This is slightly easier for men, who aren’t as buried as deeply and have greater upper body strength, but it’s still damned hard. (Hey, here’s a stunt for David Copperfield or Kriss Angel!)
Remember, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.
Next up, we have a case in Pakistan where a Christian woman is accused of blaspheming and insulting Islam. She’s had a long feud with a Muslim neighbor, and apparently in the course of the fighting said something bad about Islam. She denies it, but in Islamic law grants greater weight to the word of a Muslim. So she has been convicted and sentenced to death.
There is a bit of international pressure to let her go, perhaps even let her leave the country. But that is unacceptable to the adherents to the Religion of Peace there. They want to see her hanged.
They held rallies to demand “justice,” shouting that “We are ready to sacrifice our life for the Prophet Muhammad.” Of course, what they are demanding is that the government sacrifice this Christian woman’s life, but don’t confuse them with facts. They’re too busy practicing the peace and tolerance that Islam is renowned for.
After all, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.
Finally, a little bit of Shariah law at home. In Connecticut, a roller rink has a rule for safety: no loose head coverings on the rink. They’re a safety hazard — if they come loose, they can snarl the wheels of others and cause them to fall. So you either lose the head covering, or they’ll loan you a helmet to keep it in place. Simple common sense.
But common sense has no place in Islam. A Muslim woman went there and, when confronted with the policy, denounced it as racist and discriminatory and hateful. Allah demands that she wear a scarf to cover her hair, and the will of Allah will keep it secured to her head while she’s whizzing around the rink. And should she fall and it come loose and send other skaters tumbling, then that’s the will of Allah, too.
So there’s a little bit of news from the world of Islam. Remember, Islam is a religion of peace.
Say otherwise, and they’ll kill you.