W/VIDEO: Hollywood versus History – Kingdom of Heaven and the Real Crusades

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

BEST HISTORY OF ISLAM DOCUMENTARY: JIHAD – FROM Mecca to WW2

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.

Advertisements

BEST HISTORY OF ISLAM DOCUMENTARY: JIHAD – FROM Mecca to WW2

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.

W/VIDEO: Front Page Magazine interviews Bill Warner about how many died in Jihad over the last 1400 years

Number of Deaths because of Islam

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.

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5145/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2

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.

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5146/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2-2

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.

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5147/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2-3

THIS VIDEO SHOWS IT REALLY IS THEM AGAINST US (Everyone else).

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5149/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2-4

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.

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5150/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2-5

For more info on the Conquest of India see the last two videos in this other very important video series

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5151/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2-6

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.

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5152/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2-7

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5153/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2-8

This video touches on the alliance of Islam and Hitler in WW2. See our Islam and Nazis category for more information on that.

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5154/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2-9

This video carries on and shows how WW2 got started but it does leave you hanging.

http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/5155/jihad:-from-mecca-to-ww2-10

I will be adding more information and links to this post, so please bookmark it and come back.

W/VIDEO: The Cause and Purpose of the Christian Crusades by Thomas F. Madden

SOURCE: In our time, there is much conversation and commotion about the Crusades. There are two reasons for this.

First and foremost is the Crusades are a “bone in the throat” to Islam. Muslims continue to blame all Christianity for these Holy wars that the Roman Catholic Church commissioned to retake the “Holy Land” from Islam.

Second, many western Christians and non-Christians follow the same Islamic idea that the Crusades were only for bloodthirsty plunder by poor “Christian” adventurers. Some were that but Crusade leaders were not.

In the USA, often this is anti-Catholic sentiment has been generated and repeated by “Christians” with anti-Catholic sentiments.

Strangely, even the Roman Catholic Church has adopted this myth to chastise itself. Its’ Pope has publicly apologized to all Islam for the Crusades. Why and why now?

Philip Jenkins in his book on the coming of Global Christianity, (The Next Christendom, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2002, pp 24,24), writes:

“In recent years, a powerful social movement has demanded that the West, and specifically the churches, apologize for the medieval crusading movement. In this view, the Crusades represented aggression, pure and simple, against the Muslim world, and nobody can deny the resulting wars involved their share of atrocities. Underlying the movement for apology, though, is the assumption that religious frontiers are somehow carved in stone, and that Muslim states of the Near East must always and infallibly have been destined to be part of the world of Islam. An equally good case can be made that the medieval Middle East was no more inevitably Muslim than other regions conquered by Islam and subsequently liberated, like Spain and Hungry.

“Nor, curiously, do Westerners suggest that Muslims apologize for the aggressive acts that gave them power over those various lands in the first place. Westerners have simply forgotten the [brutalization and conquest of these] once great Christian communities of the Eastern World.”

(Ed. Note: Muslims never apologize for anything. They claim all their acts are by Allah’s will and direction through Muhammad as recorded in the Qur’an/Koran. So, for them, no apologies are due for the 9/11World Trade Center bombing or anything else.)

The fact is that the Crusades were a “jihad” in reverse is easily proved by early Christian History. Muslims insist that Christians willingly converted to Islam. Three indisputable facts contradict that claim.

1. For the first 300 years of Christianity. the followers of Jesus would accept torture and death from the Roman Empire rather than forsake their commitment to Jesus. They believed any revocation of their declared faith would earn them a ticket into Hell. There is no reason they would have willingly changed their faith from Jesus to Muhammad except by force. Islam does not promise paradise for believers, as does Christianity. Even Muhammad said he did not know his final reward. That would only be determined on his judgment day.

2. Next, Islam had conquered Spain in addition to North Africa and the Middle East. When the Moors attempted to extend their empire into Europe, they were met at Tours by Charles Martel and were soundly defeated. From that point forward, Islam was pushed out of Spain. So, if Christians willingly converted to Islam, why did they resist it at Tours and push it out of Europe?

3. Christians never would have willingly given up their “holy” cities of Jerusalem and Alexandria.

* * * * * * * *

The following is a excerpt from an article in Crisis Magazine. Credit is given at its end.

* * * * * * * *

“So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression–an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

“Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity–and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion–has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

“With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt–once the most heavily Christian areas in the world–quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

“That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be consumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

“Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were not just a front for darker designs.

“During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to “store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt.” They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love.

“Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.”

http://www.christian-community.org/library/crusades.html

—————————————————————————————————————————

THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST VIDEO SERIES ON THE ISSUE

Islamic Crusades: An Introduction

Islamic Crusades 2: Before Islam… Egypt, Iran, Iraq

Islamic Crusades 3: The Co-Option of Jerusalem

Islamic Crusades 4: Lessons From the Thai Jihad

Islamic Crusades 5: Why did they hate us in 1783?

Islamic Crusades 6: India’s Millennial Burden

Islamic Crusades 7: India’s Modern Struggle

MURDER HAS A RELIGION: A Refutation of Arsalan Iftikhar’s CNN Article “Murder has No Religion”

This is a refutation of Arsalan Iftikhar’s CNN Article “Murder has no religion” available here.

SOURCE: Murder Has A Religion

INTRODUCTION

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).^[1] He is a contributing author of an award-winning book^[2] 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^[3] U.S. Army major, Nidal Malik Hasan, murdered 13 people and wounded 30 others at a US military installation.^[4]

ANALYSIS

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.”^[5]

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.^[5]

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.^[6] 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.^[7]

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.^[5]

Another mistruth. The Arabic word kebir means “great,” while akbar means “greater”. These two words are not interchangeable.^[8] 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.^[8]

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.

VIDEO DEBATE: Robert Spencer vs Dinesh D’Souza – Is Religious Extremism or Secular Extremism the problem?

In the debate BELOW with Spencer, D’Souza says somethings that just are not true. The most glaring is he claims that for every “kill the infidel” verse in the Koran there is one in the bible. But there is not a single verse in the bible where God command anyone killed on the bases of their unbelief. It is true that there are “violent verse” in the Bible. The Spencer video below will deal with some of them.

But first here D’Souza contradicts himself, in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, and admits Islam is more violent than other faiths

Maybe Dinesh D’Souza should actually read Spencers book Religion of Peace – Why Christianity is and Islam is not.

1001Phoenix COMMENTS: Almost any liberal pundit will tell you that there’s a religion bent on destroying our Constitution, stripping us of our liberties, and imposing religious rule on the U.S. And that religion is . . .Christianity! About Islam, however, the Left is silent–except to claim a moral equivalence between the two: if Islam has terrorists today, that’s nothing compared to the Crusades, inquisitions, and religious wars in Christianity’s past.

But is this true? Are conservative Christians really more of a threat to free societies than Islamic jihadists? Is the Bible really “just as violent” as the Qur’an? Is Christianity’s history really as bloodstained as Islam’s? In Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer not only refutes such charges, but also explains why Americans and Europeans must regain an appreciation of our Christian heritage if we ever hope to defeat Islamic supremacism. In this eye opening work, Spencer reveals:

* The fundamental differences between Islamic and Christian teachings about warfare against other religions: “Love your enemies” vs. “Be ruthless to the unbelievers”

* The myth of Western immorality and Islamic puritanism and why the Islamic world is less moral than the West

* Why the Islamic world has never developed the distinction between religious and secular law that is inherent in Christianity

* Why Christianity has always embraced reason–and Islam has always rejected it

* Why the most determined enemies of Western civilization may not be the jihadists at all, but the leftists who fear their churchgoing neighbors more than Islamic terrorists

* Why Jews, Christians, and peoples of other faiths (or no faith) are equally at risk from militant Islam

Spencer writes not to proselytize, but to state a fact: Christianity is a true “religion of peace,” and on it Western civilization stands. If we are not to perish under Islam’s religion of the sword–with its more than 100 million active jihadists seeking to impose sharia

The Enemy at Home was published in 2007, and the controversial arguments in it led to a fierce debate between conservatives & Dinesh D’Souza and this debate with Spencer.

VIDEO: Islam is a Religion of Peace (Is It Really?)

This video is not about hate or lies to make Islam look bad. Quran, Muhammad & his life, his deeds & his acts of terror are enough to show what Islam is truly about.

VIDEOS: The God of Hate and the Religion of Peace By Allan Erickson

SOURCE: Whoopi Goldberg insists Bill O’Reilly is wrong when he asserts we have “a Muslim problem.” She will acknowledge there is a contemporary problem with Muslim extremists, insisting it is only a passing phenomenon. She claims ‘white’ terrorism in days gone by was equivalent, referencing Oklahoma City, supremacists in the hills and so on.

Like so many devotees to the secular religion of political correctness, a fundamentalist like Whoopi would have us embrace the notion, ‘they’re not bad, just different.’

Would anyone dream of saying this about Nazis? Would anyone dare say it about child molesters or mass murderers?

Why then do so many people insist we believe it about Muslim terrorists? There is only one explanation. They insist we live in fantasyland. They insist on calling illusion real. They deny reality, perhaps because it is too painful. Obviously, this kind of thinking takes moral relativism to mind-numbing heights.

Furthermore, Whoopi would have us weigh equally Timothy McVeigh with 16,000 deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11, all perpetrated by Muslims. [INSERT standard disclaimer: not all Muslims are terrorists, but all Muslims worthy of the name say they support terrorist tactics.] Source: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

No doubt Whoopi would tell us there is equivalence between a handful of so-called Christians who bomb abortion clinics or shoot abortionists and thirteen centuries of Muslim aggression. Of course such comparisons are ludicrous. Let’s crunch a few numbers.

There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world today. How many are terrorists? Daniel Pipes is a noted authority on Islam and terrorism. He posted this analysis in 2006, referencing Prophet of Doom:

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/65537Excerpts:

“The overwhelming preponderance of terrorist acts are conducted by young Muslim men 15 to 30 years old. This age bracket covers about half of the male population of the Islamic world, leaving us with a potential jihad pool of 25% of all Muslims – approximately 300 million people.

“The most logical way to determine the percentage of Muslims who are salafi/fundamentalists – a precondition to jihad – is to consider the most recent elections in Islamic countries.

“Therefore, based upon the most objective data available to us, at least 60% of all Muslims have the potential to be jihadists by way of their fundamentalist voting patterns. That is to say, Islam has grown substantially closer to its salafi, and thus terrorist, roots over the past decade. It is safe to say that 750 million Muslims are fundamentalists trying to follow Allah’s orders and Muhammad’s example. And as fundamentalists, they are potential jihadists.

“If the 60% response levels derived from polling data is an accurate reflection of the current state of Islam, then sex and age criteria further reduce Islamic terrorist candidates down to a maximum of one in every seven Muslims – 25% of 60%. That means that no more than 15% of the total Islamic population of 1.2 to 1.5 billion people has the potential to be a terrorist should the opportunity arise. That equates to a minimum of 180 million potential jihadists and a maximum of 225 million.”

Even if we face 90 million jihadists who take their marching orders directly from the Koran and the traditions, we most certainly face “a Muslim problem” which bears no resemblance to the McVeigh’s of the world. Only a mind insisting on fantasy would seriously promote such comparisons.

In reality, be they 90 million or 180 million, the threat is much greater, much more insidious than that presented by violent terrorism. The real threat is the steady and enormous force of Islamic domination accomplished via infiltration, immigration, and influence, what many have rightly called Creeping Sharia.

Looking at Europe we see a fore shadow of what America will look like unless Americans take a stand. A sober assessment of factual evidence demonstrates rational people have reason to fear Islam. Take into account the words of British commentator Pat Condell: “Sharia is barbaric,” videos here.