ISLAM AND THE BLACK RACE



BLACK AFRICANS . . .



. . . AND THEIR DESCENDANTS



and the SHAMEFUL LEGACY OF THE MOSLEM ARAB SLAVERS

Blacks don’t want to face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white slave trader. The Arab is the true master of the African. Blacks can’t accept the common bond they share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans were slaves under Islam. Blacks like to imagine Islam is their counterweight to white power, not that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.

The Study of Political Islam
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26769


The love affair of blacks--Africans and in past decades of Americans of African descent--is based on a large extent on the perceived "equality" that Islam offers all races.

The true sentiment of the Arabs for blacks can best be encapsulated by

[the]Hadith quoted by Robert Spencer in his lucid, line-by-line exegesis of the Qur'an:

The believers, meanwhile, are exhorted to “obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you” (v. 59). To obey Muhammad today is, many Islamic authorities say, to obey his dictates in the Hadith, which some contemporary Muslims wish to disregard and say that only the Qur’an has authority. And Muhammad himself is quite clear about the necessity to obey earthly rulers: “You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin."

Much has been written about Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism. But even that supremacism that puts Arab above non-Arab Muslim, has its degrees. The blacks of Africa were the staple of the Arab slave trade for a thousand years, while the Atlantic slave trade lasted little more than two centuries. The Arab slave trade was stamped out only by the outside, Christian powers, first by using force. Great Britain through naval power managed in the 19th century to end the Arab slave trade in blacks seized and brought to Arabia, though they did not manage to end the practice of slavery by the Muslim Arabs. The French did the same where their writ ran in North Africa.

Slavery was formally abolished in Saudi Arabia only in 1962, with much protesting and grumbling and, in the case of one Saudi princess, a refusal to comply. And there are many reports of its persistence in Saudi Arabia, including one published just this past week by an Arab from the Maghreb who, in the French press, wrote unequivocally that such slavery still exists in Saudi Arabia, beyond the prying eyes or minds of Westerners.

[emphasis mine. lw]

On September 18, Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV labeled U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a "black snake." -- MEMRI

Foregoing quote from Fitzgerald: Blacks, slavery, Islam


Following is from "The Infidel Revolution"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={BD353E11-0000-4BBB-9617-603119B0BFE6}
By Jamie Glazov

interviewing Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI).

Africans

Thomas Sowell estimates that eleven million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and fourteen million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. [1] David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached the plantation, five others died by being killed in the raid or died on the forced march from illness and privation. [2] So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have the collateral death of about 120 million people. Muslims ran all the wholesale slave trade in Africa. Death toll: 120 million Africans

[Thanks to senatortombstone at Dhimmi Watch - Jihad Watch COMMENTS]

AND

Papa Whiskey adds the following:

“We have seen that Negroes are in general characterized by levity, excitability and great emotionalism. They are found eager to dance whenever they hear a melody. They are everywhere described as stupid.”
– Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), “The Muqaddimah,” trans. Franz Rosenthal, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 63

“Jazz is the favorite music [of America]. It is a type of music invented by [American] Blacks to please their primitive tendencies and desire for noise.”
– Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), cited in John Calvert, “ ‘The World is an Undutiful Boy!’: Sayyid Qutb’s American Experience,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2000): 99

“The Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of the dumb animals.”
– Ibn Khaldun, “The Muqaddimah,” 117


Posted by: Papa Whiskey at Dhimmi Watch - Jihad Watch COMMENTS

From http://www.islamreview.com/articles/neitherblacknorafrican.shtml :

Even in modern times, in Saudi Arabia the homeland of Islam, the common word for "Black" is "Abd" meaning slave

Islam Looks Down on Blacks

Islam is a religion, whose sacred Scriptures contain explicit denigrating remarks about Black people.

Mohammed referred to Blacks as "raisin heads". (Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256).

In another Hadith, Mohammed is quoted as saying that Blacks are, "pug-nosed slaves". (Sahih Moslem vol. 9 pages 46 and 47).


Mohammed was not a Black Man

Mohammed was an Asian-Arab. You can't confuse an Asian-Arab with a Black- African. There are numerous evidences that Mohammed was actually white. The space limitation will allow us to mention only a few:
In Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1 no. 63, we read "while we were sitting with the Prophet, a man came and said, "who amongst you is Mohammed?" We replied, "this white man reclining on his arm..."
In volume 2 Hadith no. 122 refers to Mohammed as a "white person" and in vol. 2 Hadith no. 141 we are told that when Mohammed raised his arms, "the whiteness of his armpits became visible."


My fellow African-American
[quoting the author]

Muslims don't care for your skin color, they are only using that to gain control over you. For if Muslims really care for Africans, why are African Muslims kidnapping their African Christian brothers these days in Sudan, butchering the weak and selling the healthy as slaves? (see State Dept. report: News Network International; May 26,1993)

Consider, on the other hand, that Jesus Christ came to give us eternal life, where everybody stands equal in the sight of God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus". Galatians 3:28

The difference between Islam and the teachings of Jesus Christ is great. The choice is clear, the choice is yours.


Muhammad Owned and Traded Black Slaves
[U Tube]

Islam is more a cult of Mohammad than a religion. Muslims ask WWMD? or What Would Mohammad Do. That Mohammad was an owner and trader in Black Africans, and that Arabic today still refers to them as "Slaves", one can understand why not One Muslim, not One Muslim group, nor One Muslim Country has condemned the genocide of Black Muslims in Darfur. 2.5 Million kicked out of their homes, and...

http://www.darfur.tv/video/66467-muhammad-owned-and-traded-black-slaves.html


From Slave, by Mende Nazer and Damien Lewis:

"I'D STARTED TO BELIEVE that this was how the world was: the Arabs enslaved the blacks.

These could be the words of one of Muhammad's black slaves in Arabia 1300 years ago. But they are in fact the words of a black girl living in slavery in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, just a few years ago. Her name is Mende Nazer and she tells her story in her book Slave.

Mende lived with her family and her tribe in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan until she was twelve. Then one night the Arab raiders, the Mujahidin, came to her village: "I clutched onto my parents' hands and started running, but the raiders were everywhere, dragging people from their huts. There was no Sound of gunfire yet; the raiders were just quietly killing people as if they were animals, with a knife across the throat."

Mende was captured and held under guard in the forest with thirty other children while the raiders continued their plunder through the night. At dawn the raiders began to reassemble in the forest: "all of them were carrying knives. Some had small pistols and others had bigger guns.

Many had blood all up their wrists, others blood smeared around their belts where they carried their daggers. And others had blood all over their loins. They looked crazed with violence and evil." When they had all assembled, the raiders began to chant, "Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!--God is Great! God is Great! God is Great!"

This may strike Western readers as preposterous and outrageous. What kind of men would praise God with the blood of murder and rape still wet on their hands and pants? The answer is, the kind of men who believe that God sanctions such things. And although it seems inconceivable to people whose impression of God has come from Christianity, the God of Islam, Allah, does indeed sanction such things. He sanctions them in the Koran. And more importantly, he sanctions them (via the Hadith) in the example set by his prophet, Muhammad.

What does not fit with Islam, however, is the fact that Mende and her Nuba people were themselves Muslims. The raiders had attacked not an infidel but a Muslim village.

More. Read the whole thing at
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6776738/Black-slaves-in-Sudan-Slave.html



Islam delenda est

A CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IN MADRASSAS

leads to a Caliphate:

1820-1862 El Hadj Umar Tal in Senegal gets his childhood education in madrassa, goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1820, then becomes the Caliph of the Tijaniyya brotherhood, and mounts a jihad that conquers both black unbelievers and other small Islamic states in the neighborhood. 70,000 die in just three of his battles. But in 1862 he finally creates an empire--the Toucouleur Caliphate??--that includes Guinea and Senegal

from http://www.howardbloom.net/militant_islam_timeline.htm

You draw the parallel (if there is any or if you can see any)

MAINTAIN A STRONG MILITARY

When faced with Islamic aggression

excerpted from Islam Watch:
"Humiliation of Muslims and the coming Siege of Vienna"
By Blake Gartner

[italics, emphasis and text in dark blue mine. lw]

[circa 1000 C.E.] Muslims sensed another opportunity to spread their religion and civilization to the "darkness of barbarism and unbelief", when the Byzantine rulers decided to disband most of their military, preferring to pay mercenaries when troubles arose. The Byzantine army consisted largely of the elderly officers and untrained young kids (for centuries after its destruction, the word "Byzantine" was used to mean "effeminate decadence")**.

This weakness opened the floodgates to Islamic successes. But it so alarmed the weakened West that . . .

Faced with the decaying of what was arguably the only stable, viable state in Europe, the West was again on the brink of annihilation. In 1095, Pope Urban II hoped to organize Christendom around a fight for Jerusalem, a tactic frequently used before and after by Muslims.

. . . gave rise to the Crusades.

Victory followed by defeat

The Crusaders established the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099. At its height, the Crusader Kingdom was about the size of Israel and West Bank. For more than a hundred years, Muslims could do little about the new country, fighting occasional wars, mostly to contain the Christians. But in the 12th century, a Jihad on Jerusalem was organized. In 1187, settlers lost Jerusalem – it was now the Kingdom of Jerusalem... without Jerusalem. A small strip of land along the seaside of what is now Israel and the southern half of Lebanon was all that remained. Subsequent Crusades recovered Jerusalem, but all was lost when Sultan Khalil captured Acre, the new capital of the Kingdom, and proceeded to either slaughter or enslave all remaining settlers.

The Crusades were a failure. Islam won, forever reinforcing its sense of invincibility against the infidels. I’ve heard many Muslims say, "It took us 200 years to defeat the Crusader Kingdom. Israel has existed less than 60. We have another 140 to destroy it, and we will.*"

But Islam did not stop at the defeat of the Crusader Kingdom. In the 15th century, the Turks finally destroyed the Byzantine Empire, conquering its capital Constantinople.

At the other end of Europe, much of Spain and Portugal was under Islamic rule for 781 years until 1492. Faced with Arab Muslims threatening from the West and Turkish Muslims threatening from the East, Europe struck back with a vengeance again. Spain and Portugal were won back, pushing Islam back into North Africa. But just like the first time when the West responded to Islamic aggression with violent Crusades, the new European attempt to defend itself and even the genocidal Inquisition fell short of taking back everything that was lost. Constantinople remained part of the Islamic world.

In 1526, Sultan Suleiman conquered most of Hungary, with Bulgaria already under his control. Three years later, the Turks reached all the way to Vienna and laid siege to it. The city stood up only because it was attacked too late by a Turkish force that was too tired from prior battles. In 1532, the Ottomans tried again, but faced stiff resistance in western Hungary.

For 150 years, the Ottomans tried to jump from southeastern Europe into its heartland before the epic Battle of Vienna. This time, the siege began in July of 1683. During the siege, 10,000 Viennese troops were surrounded by 140,000 Turks. They would probably fail, and allow Islam into the center of Europe, but King Jan III Sobieski of Poland sent a 30,000 man army to protect the city, possibly saving the Western civilization. The Battle of Vienna began on September 11. When the battle was over next day, 4,000 Christians had been killed – and 15,000 Muslims. Vienna survived again.

The rest is history. The Enlightenment and later the Industrial Revolution sent the West far ahead of Islam. In the 19th century, Napoleon showed just show dominant Christendom was over Islam. The Caliphate was eliminated when the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. The West stopped fearing Muslims, viewing them as nothing more than "oil cows". And Islam truly ceased being a power.

That, of course, is what the West wanted to believe. Truth is that Christendom still didn’t recover most of the territories lost since the rise of Islam. Constantinople (now Istanbul), Egypt, Syria, Bosnia and Chechnya were all Christian lands in the past.

Islam did not invade the West continuously for a thousand years. Instead, there were many generations of peace, but that peace was eventually always interrupted by Muslim attacks on Europe. Each time Christians lost large parts of their territory, then fought back, but never fully recovered the lost territories.

For two centuries now, the West was strong enough to ignore the threat from the south. But Muslims felt "humiliated" because they did not have the strongest army, the wealthiest economy and the dominant political power.

Islam began to resurge in the 1960s (some say in the 1920s, but Islamists weren’t strong enough until after Israel "humiliated" Arab nationalists in 1967). First came terror. Then global Jihad. In the 1990s, massive Islamic immigration into Europe began to threaten a demographic takeover. Islam is on the move again. Will Vienna be under siege once more?

All of the above from Islam Watch


Blake Gartner's
Humiliation of Muslims and the coming Siege of Vienna


The following two footnotes are mine. Leslie White

______________________________
* Regarding Moslems boasting, "It took us 200 years to defeat the Crusader Kingdom. Israel has existed less than 60. We have another 140 to destroy it, and we will." There is a difference. The Crusaders could "go home." The Jews of Israel "are home;" they have no other place to go. They must either die under an Islamic onslaught or count on the "mercy" of conquering Islamics. Even with incompetents such as Ehud Olmert and his corrupt government, I wager that Israel will not count on the "mercy" of the Mohammedans. The Islamics have been taught by koran and ahadith, by learning about the life of Mahomet, that Jews are subhumans, descended from "apes and pigs (sic);" they hate Jews with a hatred ingested with their mothers' milk.

Israel has a strong military, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), but Israel has a weakness: a hope for "peace" with the Arabs, conjoined with an abyssmal ignorance of Islam and its teachings. In attempting to achieve "peace with Islam, Israeli governments look for approval towards the other Western nations, especially the United States. To show its "moral high-mindedness," Israel cares more for the well-being of its Arab-Islamic enemies than it does for either its soldiers or its citizens. The soldiers must fight house-to-house to "spare Islamic lives," while Israeli citizens must endure rocket barrages, apparently so as not to further enrage their enemies.

The mentally impaired U.S. President has ordered Israel to set up a "Palestinian State." (It was something that he has been dreaming of ever since he gained power, whether to please his Saudi cohorts or to have another "democratic" shariah state ["Palestine"] in the Middle East, besides Iraq, is difficult to distinguish.)

Israeli prime minsiters have always followed Washington's orders and tried to comply in setting up the "Palestinian" state. What no one is saying is that the "Palestinian" Arabs do not want "peace with Israel" or a state alongside the Jewish state. The "Palestinian" Islamics want Israel.

BUT, what is most important, and gives us a valuable insight into the Islamic mind, is the statement:

"It took us 200 years to defeat the Crusader Kingdom. Israel has existed less than 60. We have another 140 to destroy it, and we will"

Why is that important? Because the Islamic revels in the glories of the past. He re-fights those battles of the past--when Mohammedans were victorious. He will base his present-day tactics on battles and Islamic victories of the past.

Or on words in the koran.

Osama bin Laden is of this mindset. He harkens back to the koran. he connects the present with past Islamic victories or humiliations--to either repeat the victories or blot out the humiliations.

Take the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, NY, U.S.A. , for example.

Tower, towers.

"Wherever you are, death will find you, even in the looming tower."

Usama bin Laden used these words from the Koran in a video-taped speech to the 9/11 hijackers: [4]

The video was found on a computer in Hamburg after the attacks.

[4]The Koran, 4th Sura, "The Women" (7.8). In some translations "looming" becomes "lofty." See: Dexter Filken, New York Times, "The Plot Against America," 6 August 2006.

The foregoing material re the Usama bin Laden videotape and the "looming" or "lofty" tower comes from The Intelligence Officer's Bookshelf


The koran warns that wherever you are, even in in a lofty tower, death will find you. This came true for near 3000 of us, near 3000 too many, when a bunch of determined Arab Moslems crashed two planes full of passengers into the twin towers.

What gave Osama bin Laden the idea are the words of the koran originating from the 7th century on or so. Those words suddenly make the connection for us to to 2001 C.E. New York City, United States of America and the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

Koran "towers" in Sura 004.078

Here is the verse--with the three translations from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html

004.078

YUSUFALI: "Wherever ye are, death will find you out, even if ye are in towers built up strong and high!" If some good befalls them, they say, "This is from Allah"; but if evil, they say, "This is from thee" (O Prophet). Say: "All things are from Allah." But what hath come to these people, that they fail to understand a single fact?

PICKTHAL: Wheresoever ye may be, death will overtake you, even though ye were in lofty towers. Yet if a happy thing befalleth them they say: This is from Allah; and if an evil thing befalleth them they say: This is of thy doing (O Muhammad). Say (unto them): All is from Allah. What is amiss with these people that they come not nigh to understand a happening?

SHAKIR: Wherever you are, death will overtake you, though you are in lofty towers, and if a benefit comes to them, they say: This is from Allah; and if a misfortune befalls them, they say: This is from you. Say: All is from Allah, but what is the matter with these people that they do not make approach to understanding what is told (them)?
[emphasis mine. lw]

The Looming Tower is the title of a book about al Qaeda and what led up to September 11, 2001 and the attack on America by Arab Mohammedans who hijacked our airplanes.

The title is based by its author, Lawrence Wright, on a sentence in the fourth sura of the Koran:

"WHEREVER YOU ARE, DEATH WILL FIND YOU, EVEN IN THE LOOMING TOWER."
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/03/plot-against-america-review-by-dexter.html

You want to read the first chapter of Lawrence Wright's "Tower" book? Well, you can, see right here:

The Looming Tower - First Chapter
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/chapters/0806-1st-wrig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

A review of the book The Looming Tower can be found at Central Intelligence Agency Web site


To understand Islamic actions today look to the past.


Therefore, my fellow-Western friends, it behooves us to become familiar with, to study, past struggles against the Mahometans, to see their tactics--whether they can be applied today--to understand how the Islamics were defeated in the past. History is the key to our victory over islam. Islam delenda est.





La Turquie, cheval de Troie islamique?












The Trojan horse rendering is from the European Resistance Blogs to whom a grateful hat tip is due. The Trojan Horse picture is captioned, "Turkey, the Islamic Trojan Horse?"

The Islamic Trojan Horse, however, also refers to the Islamics that are "peacefully" invading our Western countries, whether via the American State Department's "visa express," suicidal "asylum laws" or wide-open borders and lack of internal control of Islamic foreigners--whether visa residents or citizens (whose loyalty is not dual, but always first to Islam, Shariah, and the Koran) .

delenda est Islam

AND . . .

**An Opportunity Missed!

By the Byzantines, with whom we started this post

Had these Byzantines ("weak sisters") had a Strong Military, the could have nipped Islam in the bud--and saved themselves from its horrors.

from History of Islamic Imperialism

Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).


History of Islamic Imperialism

read it



and never forget






delenda est Islam





-30-

IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT AND WIN . . .

against Islam,


You must know it and its followers well

"Therefore I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril."

--Sun Tzu, The Art of War


From
FaithFreedom.Org


[link at end of article]

Islam Warriors Looking For Saladin

This article, superbly explains why the fight against Islamic terrorism without taking into account Islam itself is futile.

Ali Sina

By Ohmyrus

September 11 came as a shock to Americans. It was like a blow from someone in the shadows - someone that they don't know or understand. The Chinese Strategist Sun Wu who wrote the "Art of War" said: "Know thyself and know thy enemy. One hundred battles, one hundred victories."

Well-meaning people in the civilized world still argue what 911 was all about. Some argue that it is about poverty and lack of democracy in the Muslim world. Others say it is about Israel. These may be contributory factors. Yet the Chinese occupy Tibet for decades without provoking suicide bombers. The British occupied Gibraltar for centuries without triggering violence from Spaniards. There is poverty in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Yet these people don't turn to terrorism and suicide attacks.

There is more at work here than just poverty or US Middle East policies. Unfortunately, the politically correct crowd has not followed Sun Wu's advice to "Know thy enemy". They must be made to realize that September 11 was just another chapter of the history of jihad, which began nearly 14 centuries ago.

It was Prophet Mohammed himself who led the first jihad against the infidels. At the crucial battle of Badr, the flame of jihad was kindled. It is a spirit that inspires extraordinary courage that is terrifying to the enemies of Islam.

There are two kinds of jihad - the lower and the higher kind. The lower jihad is fought on the battlefield. The higher jihad is a struggle to improve oneself. But it is the lower jihad that one attains the prize of martyrdom. Militant Muslim scholars argue that it is the duty of Muslims to spread the religion by conversion if possible or by force of arms if military power comes to them.

Ayatollah Khomeini said: "Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of (other) countries that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

At the battle of Badr, the Muslims were outnumbered by the Meccans. The Prophet was worried and prayed fervently. Nine hundred well armed Meccans with seven hundred camels and a hundred horses faced three hundred Muslims.

The Prophet said: “If the Muslims were defeated that day, Allah would never be worshipped again.”

Then he fainted and when he opened his eyes, there was a smile on his lips. He had seen the angel Gabriel in a dream coming to help the Muslims. Then he told his men: “By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain this day fighting against them with steadfast courage, advancing not retreating, but God will cause him to enter Paradise.”

A soldier who heard these words flung away the dates he was eating and plunged into the enemy, fighting till he was killed. When the Prophet was asked what would make Allah joyous with his servant, he replied: “When he plunges into the midst of the enemy without mail.”

At a critical moment in the battle of Badr, a dust storm blew, blinding the Meccans. The angels led by Gabriel galloped in to aid the Muslims. The Meccans lost and fled. The lesson from Badr is that a Muslim’s thoughts should focus on martyrdom and leave it to Allah to secure victory. In the long run, Allah would assure them victory. In the short run, they might suffer defeat. But death even in defeat only hastens their entry into paradise. So, either way they win. Strategy is important but reliance in Allah must take precedence over man made strategies. This is the spirit of jihad. This is the spirit that inspires the members of Al-Qaeda.

This spirit is best summed up in a hadith from Sahih al Bukhari where the Prophet said: "Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords". It is really an invitation to die for Allah.

That is why Holy Warriors from the 7th century to the present day followers of Osama bin Laden are so dangerous. As I argued in my article, "Once were Warriors", Islam was designed to facilitate Arab imperialism. It is a warrior's religion and few ancient armies fighting with swords, bows and spears could defeat them as you will see when I continue my story.

The Prophet's jihad continued and the Muslims were defeated at the battle of Uhud. What happened was that a group of archers disobeyed orders to guard the rear, rushed forward to get their share of booty, thinking that victory was theirs. This allowed the Meccans to launch a cavalry charge into the opening and won the day.

But Muslims found victory in defeat. The Muslims lost because of the sin of greed for gold. The Muslims learned the lesson that sin leads to defeat. Defeat on the battlefield thus led them to victory in the higher jihad - the inner struggle to purify oneself of sin. The Koran said in 3:139: "Lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."

This spiritual renewal will pave their way to eventual victory. Verse 3:166 says: " What ye suffered on the day the two armies met, was with the leave of Allah, in order that He might test the believers."

Thus with the example of Uhud before them, members of Al-Qaeda will not be deterred by defeat in Afghanistan. Instead, they will see it as a test of faith and a lesson from Allah to purify themselves from sin and to rededicate themselves to Allah's cause.

It was this faith that enabled the Muslims to conquer Arabia in the 7th century. At this point they were about to explode into history. In about 628, the Roman Emperor, Heraclius was in Jerusalem. It was there that he received a letter from Mohammed, asking him to become a Muslim. This was in fact an invitation to surrender to Allah and his Prophet. Failure to do so meant war. Mohammed also sent letters to the rulers of Persia, Abysinnia, Bahrain and Oman.

Some things have not changed in 14 centuries. In a letter to America, purportedly written by Osama bin Laden published in the Observer on November 24th, the terrorist leader (or holy warrior depending on which side you are on) said:

"As for the second question that you want an answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."

His confidence in eventual victory is shown from this verse from the Koran (61:9) that he quoted in the letter:
"It is He who has sent his Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it."

Towards the end of the letter, Osama said:
"If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this crusade Bush began, just like the other Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace."

Now, let us get back to the 7th century. Mohammed died in 632 and Abu Bakr became the first Caliph (successor). He told the assembled Muslims:
"Obey me as long as I obey God and His apostle, and if I disobey them you owe me no obedience."

These idealistic words opened the door to rebellion for future rulers of Muslim lands right up to this present day - making Muslims a prickly bunch of people for any ruler to handle. The need for compromise from unbending orthodoxy makes Muslim states vulnerable to charges of disobedience to God.

The Economist (October 13, 2001) reported that an 80 year old cleric, Sheik Hamoud bin Ogla an-Shuaibi issued a fatwa against the ruling Saudi family. When summoned by the authorities to explain himself, he said:
"Whoever backs the infidel against Muslims is considered an infidel."

This sentiment is common in Saudi Arabia and that is why Osama bin Laden is such a hero there. When the King invited the Americans to deal with Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden was furious.

This is because the last injunction that the Prophet gave was: "Let not two religions be left on the Arabian Peninsula."

The Koran (5:51) also says: "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number."

Clearly, it is against scripture to allow the infidel Americans to put their boots on sacred Arabian soil. Trying to explain that they need the military strength of the infidel United States to protect Saudi Arabia from the powerful Iraqi army do not impress men of faith.

Did not Allah grant the impoverished mujahideen victory against the Soviet Union? What is Saddam Hussein compared to a superpower? It was clear to Osama and Sheik Hamoud that the House of Saud preferred to rely on the infidels rather than on Allah. Therefore, can they really be true believers? Osama got angrier when the Americans did not go home after Saddam was defeated.

Jihad, according to moderate Muslims, is permissible only for self-defense. But what is considered as self-defense? To Muslims like Osama, having infidel troops on sacred Arabian soil is an offense to Islam and merits a jihad. The clause of self-defense opens a wide loop-hole for creative interpretation.

Osama is of course not the first to declare jihad against "Christendom". Under Umar, the second Caliph, Christendom lost Egypt, Palestine and Iraq. Byzantine armies weakened by years of warfare against the Persians were no match for the Arab warriors who could hide in the desert where the Romans could not go. The Christians were also weakened by division. The Emperor favored the Orthodox Church and the Nestorians, Monophysites and Copts resented this.

Under Umar, the ancient Persian Empire was also partially conquered. After Umar came Uthman and later Ali (Mohammed’s son-in-law), the last of the Rashidun Caliphs. Ali did not last long and was murdered by one of his followers, a Kharajite, for compromising with Muawiya. Of the four "rightly guided" Caliphs, only Abu Bakr died a natural death. Muawiya was the son of Abu Sufyan, Mohammed's old enemy before he converted to Islam (i.e. submitted to Allah and his Prophet).

Muawiya became a great Caliph. When he died, the Umayyad empire stretched from the Maghreb to the Sind in India. Civil war started soon after he died. In the internecine warfare, Prophet Mohammed's grandson, Husayn (Ali’s son) was killed by the forces of Yazid, the son of Muawiya at the battle of Karbala.

His head was cut off and presented to Yazid and kicked around like a football. Such irreverence to the Prophet's family make me wonder if Abu Sufyan and his family were true believers. More likely, Abu Sufyan (who lost two sons fighting Mohammed at Badr) converted to preserve his life. That is why the Koran and Hadiths recorded that there were many hypocrites who were constantly plotting against the Prophet.

I suspect that Abu Sufyan’s family had a blood feud against Mohammed’s family in which they finally won. Even today, Bedouin families still wage blood feuds. Abu Sufyan and his family may not be true believers but hijacked the Islamic movement for their own purposes. This topic could be the subject of a speculative article on Islam’s early days. But I digress too much. Let’s get back to the history of jihad.

Within fifty years of the death of the Prophet there were three rival Caliphs at each other's throats. Abdal Malik (a son of Abu Sufyan’s nephew) emerged the victor and became a great Caliph. The empire grew larger than before and lasted till 750.

During this time, another attempt was made to take Constantinople in 717. Muawiya had tried and failed because of lack of winter provisions. This new jihad against Christendom was led by Maslama, the brother of the Caliph, Suleyman. The Muslim force comprised of 180,000 Arabs and 1,800 ships. The Byzantines repulsed them with Greek fire and the energetic efforts of Emperor Leo. The Muslims retreated and Constantinople became the eastern gate that shut out the Muslim tide for another eight centuries till it fell to the Turks.

Elsewhere, Muslim forces were more successful. Spain fell and the tide of jihad entered France. Charles Martel stopped them there at the battle of Poitiers. This was the western gate and Christendom was saved. If the Franks had been defeated, Gibbons said:

"Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomed."

Decline set in eventually. The Umayyad Caliphs were irreligious and I suspect some of the Caliphs may not have been true believers. For example, Caliph Walid II stuck a Koran on his lance and shot arrows at it! He said to the Koran:

"You hurl threats against the stubborn opponent. Well then, I am a stubborn opponent myself. When you appear before God at the day of resurrection just say: My lord, al-Walid has torn me up."

His court was full of debauchery. He surrounded himself with poets, dancing girls and musicians. The Umayyads have always been considered “godless” by their opponents and failed to satisfy the pious.

According to noted Islamic historian, Rafiq Zakaria, "it was their betrayal of the concept of Islamic brotherhood, irrespective of race and language, that brought them down."

He is echoing a familiar theme among Muslim historians. Decline will always come when Muslims forget Allah's commandments as had happened in Uhud. Renewal lies in a return to the first principles as taught by the Prophet. This theme will play again and again throughout the centuries right up to the present day. For the Muslim, history is a cycle of rise and fall and then renewal.

In 750, a general, Abul Abbas invited 80 Umayyad nobles to his home for dinner and slaughtered them. This ended the Umayyad dynasty with the exception of Spain. Abbas established the Abbasid caliphate, which reached its peak at the time of Harun al Rashid. Then it too declined and the Caliph was reduced to being a figurehead. The empire was in reality divided up by rival groups.

Now lets fast-forward to the Crusades. By the 11th century, Christendom was strong enough to mount a counterattack. In 1061, Count Roger invaded Muslim Sicily and Sicily returned to Christendom in 1091. In 1085, Frankish knights fought alongside Spaniards to recover Toledo. The re-conquest of Spain had begun. But Muslim power was still potent and made inroads against the tottering Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was defeated at Manzikert and never recovered.

In 1095, Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus I asked the Pope for help. In the same year, Pope Urban II launched the first Crusade to help the ailing empire and to recover the Holy Land, which was originally part of the Byzantine Empire.

By 1099, the Crusaders captured Jerusalem and massacred Jews and Muslims. The loss of Sicily and the Holy Land was a humiliation for Muslims. The third most sacred city, Jerusalem with its Dome on the Rock was under infidel rule and Crusader states were established.

But in 1187, Saladin declared jihad and recaptured Jerusalem after defeating the Christian army at Hattin. The defenders threatened to destroy Al Aqsa and the Dome on the Rock. A deal was struck. In exchange for ransom, the Christians could leave. Saladin kept his word and not a Christian was killed.

To many modern Muslims, the Crusades are still fresh in their memories. The presence of Israel is a humiliation for them. To people like Osama bin Laden, Israel is a modern Crusader State supported by the USA. Muslims are waiting for a modern day Saladin to restore the Ummah to power and glory.

They cannot understand why Allah seems to have deserted them. Muslims are amongst the poorest and least educated people in the world ruled mostly by tyrants who appear to be doing the bidding of the infidel Americans. To them, it should not be this way. Many Muslims still dream of their golden past when their green pennants fluttered proudly from Spain to India.

What makes the humiliation worse is that the infidel west is corrupting the minds of Muslims with their ubiquitous alien culture. Many Muslim women are envious of the freedom that their occidental sisters enjoy, which brings shudders to the conservative. Western ideas about democracy are seductive and are a challenge to the Muslim model of the Islamic state where all laws are made not by man but by God as revealed through the Prophet.

This lament for their low estate can be seen in a poem, called Shikwa, written by Iqbal, an ideologue of the Pakistan movement. The poem asks why Allah is unfaithful to Muslims when Muslims remain faithful to Him. A part of the poem says:

“Your blessings are showered on homes of unbelievers, strangers all.
Only on the poor Muslim, Your wrath like lightning falls.”

To other Muslims, it must be because they have not been faithful enough to Allah. The solution is greater piety and sacrifices. To the members of Al-Qaeda, keeping faith with Allah means martyrdom. Greater devotion will lead to renewal of the Ummah as happened many times in Islamic history. That is why some see Osama bin Laden as the new Saladin coming to restore Muslims to their rightful place in the world. The sad truth is, as I argued in “How Islam failed Muslims”, that Islam retarded their progress.

However, I would like to add that the Islamic world is by no means monolithic. No religion is. Not all Muslims will see things the way I described in this article. But many do. The danger is that political correctness may have blinded many westerners to the dangers. Such people like to insist that Islam means peace. And that Osama’s ideas do not represent the “real Islam”.

The truth is a lot more complex. It does not matter what real Islam is. There is a militant component in Islam and there are many Muslims whose worldview is as I described. For those afflicted with political correctness, let me leave you will a quote for Ayatollah Khomeini:

“But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless. “

If you are one of the politically correct, I think he was referring to you.

Islam warriors Looking for Saladin

HOW THE MUSULMANS WERE STOPPED TWICE AT VIENNA

The First Siege of Vienna by the Musulman Turks

Ottoman Siege of Vienna, 1529

A.) Prehistory of the Siege

In 1526 an Ottoman Army of 100,000 crushed the Hungarian Army of 25,000 in the Battle of Battle of Mohacs. King Louis II. of Hungary fell; the country no longer could function as a bulwark for Christian Europe against the Ottoman Empire.

Vienna was the capital of the Austrian lands, one of the three residences of Emperor Charles V., who because of his many obligations, resided there only temporarily.

B.) The First Ottoman Siege of Vienna

An Ottoman Army of c. 100,000 defeated King Ferdinand's troops off Buda; King Ferdinand, brother of Emperor Charles V., withdrew into Vienna, which was defended by a garrison c. 20,000 men strong. The Ottoman Turks encircled Vienna, inflicted severe damage on her suburbs and on the surrounding vineyards, but withdrew after only 25 days. Ferdinand requested his brother to come to his aid; no action by the Emperor, with the object to relieve Vienna, is documented.

C.) The Legacy

The old city walls proved inadequate; after the Ottoman withdrawal, the fortifications were modernized, turning Vienna into a fortress city. However, 154 years would pass until an Ottoman army would test the city defenses again.

The first Ottoman siege of Vienna was not the great turning point in the history of christian-muslim history, rather a minor event. The Ottoman besiegers lacked determination, breaking off the siege after only 25 days. One major objective - to chase King Ferdinand out of Hungary - they had already achieved. Emperor Charles V. equally gave little attention to the siege. The theory of a Franco-Ottoman understanding, the Ottoman siege merely being intended to draw the Emperor's attention away from his French foe, thus is far more plausible. However, by the time the Ottoman troops arrived off Vienna, Francis had been decisively defeated (see Franco-Habsburg War). The Ottoman side rejected peace offers; a peace treaty was only signed in 1553.

Ottoman army

In spring 1529, Suleiman mustered a great army in Ottoman Bulgaria, with the aim of securing control of Hungary and reducing the threat posed at his new borders by Ferdinand and the Holy Roman Empire. Various historians have estimated Suleiman's troop strength at anything from 120,000 to more than 300,000 men.[10] As well as units of sipahi, or light cavalry, and elite janissary infantry, the Ottoman army incorporated a contingent of Christian Hungarians fighting for their new Turkish ruler. Suleiman acted as the commander-in-chief, and in April he appointed his grand vizier, a former Greek slave called Ibrahim Pasha, as serasker, a commander with powers to give orders in the sultan's name.[11]

Suleiman launched his campaign on 10 May 1529 and faced obstacles from the outset.[12] The spring rains characteristic of south-eastern Europe were particularly heavy that year, causing flooding in Bulgaria and rendering parts of the route barely passable. Many large-calibre guns became hoplessly mired and had to be left behind, and camels were lost in large numbers.

Suleiman arrived in Osijek on 6 August. On 18 August, on the Mohács plain, he met up with a substantial cavalry force led by John Zápolya, who paid him homage and helped him recapture several fortresses lost since the Battle of Mohács to the Austrians, including Buda, which fell on 8 September.[13] The only resistance came at Bratislava, where the Turkish fleet was bombarded as it sailed up the Danube.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

Ottoman Siege of Vienna, 1529

A.) Prehistory of the Siege In 1526 an Ottoman Army of 100,000 crushed the Hungarian Army of 25,000 in the Battle of Mohacs. King Louis II. of Hungary fell; the country no longer could function as a bulwark for christian Europe against the Ottoman Empire. Vienna was the capital of the Austrian lands, one of the three residences of Emperor Charles V., who because of his many obligations, resided there only temporarily.

B.) The First Ottoman Siege of Vienna An Ottoman Army of c. 100,000 defeated King Ferdinand's troops off Buda; King Ferdinand, brother of Emperor Charles V., withdrew into Vienna, which was defended by a garrison c. 20,000 men strong. The Ottoman Turks encircled Vienna, inflicted severe damage on her suburbs and on the surrounding vineyards, but withdrew after only 25 days. Ferdinand requested his brother to come to his aid; no action by the Emperor, with the object to relieve Vienna, is documented.

C.) The LegacyThe old city walls proved inadequate; after the Ottoman withdrawal, the fortifications were modernized, turning Vienna into a fortress city. However, 154 years would pass until an Ottoman army would test the city defenses again. The first Ottoman siege of Vienna was not the great turning point in the history of christian-muslim history, rather a minor event. The Ottoman besiegers lacked determination, breaking off the siege after only 25 days.

One major objective - to chase King Ferdinand out of Hungary - they had already achieved. Emperor Charles V. equally gave little attention to the siege. The theory of a Franco-Ottoman understanding, the Ottoman siege merely being intended to draw the Emperor's attention away from his French foe, thus is far more plausible. However, by the time the Ottoman troops arrived off Vienna, Francis had been decisively defeated (see Franco-Habsburg War). The Ottoman side rejected peace offers; a peace treaty was only signed in 1553. Ottoman army

In spring 1529, Suleiman mustered a great army in Ottoman Bulgaria, with the aim of securing control of Hungary and reducing the threat posed at his new borders by Ferdinand and the Holy Roman Empire. Various historians have estimated Suleiman's troop strength at anything from 120,000 to more than 300,000 men.[10] As well as units of sipahi, or light cavalry, and elite janissary infantry, the Ottoman army incorporated a contingent of Christian Hungarians fighting for their new Turkish ruler. Suleiman acted as the commander-in-chief, and in April he appointed his grand vizier, a former Greek slave called Ibrahim Pasha, as serasker, a commander with powers to give orders in the sultan's name.[11]

Suleiman launched his campaign on 10 May 1529 and faced obstacles from the outset.[12] The spring rains characteristic of south-eastern Europe were particularly heavy that year, causing flooding in Bulgaria and rendering parts of the route barely passable. Many large-calibre guns became hoplessly mired and had to be left behind, and camels were lost in large numbers.
Suleiman arrived in Osijek on 6 August. On 18 August, on the Mohács plain, he met up with a substantial cavalry force led by John Zápolya, who paid him homage and helped him recapture several fortresses lost since the Battle of Mohács to the Austrians, including Buda, which fell on 8 September.[13] The only resistance came at Bratislava, where the Turkish fleet was bombarded as it sailed up the Danube.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna


The SECOND SIEGE OF VIENNA

After the death of Koprulu Ahmed Pasha, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha held the viziership in November 5, 1676. Hungary had revolted against Austria and wanted Ottoman authority again. Mustafa Pasha declared Emeric Thokely king to the central Hungry.

After, Emeric Thokely took the leadership of the Hungarians, he rebelled against the King of Austria Leopold I. Thokely asked for an Ottoman assistance and Mustafa Pasha had besieged Vienna in July 14, 1683.

The siege took 60 days. Mustafa Pasha was waiting for a fatal attack but the Pope sent the King of Poland to Vienna to defend the city.

The Austrian and the Polish armies defeated the Ottoman army. The Ottomans withdrew through Belgrade. With the withdrawal of the Ottomans, Austrians entered Hungary, and invaded Vishgrad, Uyvar and Budapest.

This was the second siege of Vienna and the Ottomans failed to capture the city for the second time.

After, this defeat Sultan Mehmet IV* was dethroned with the decision of council. Prince Suleyman replaced him in November 8, 1687.

http://www.osmanli700.gen.tr/english/sultans/19index.html

A Turkish Legend
(in German - Translation into English follows)

Die türkische Sage von "Der Stadt des Goldenen Apfels" erzählt folgendes: Sultan Süleyman brachte es nicht übers Herz den Stephansturm zu beschießen. Er sagte: "Eines Tages wird dieser Turm ja doch ein Minare für den islamischen Gebetsruf an einem Gotteshaus der Muslims sein. Also soll er auch mein Wahrzeichen tragen!" Der Sultan schickte eine massive zwei Zentner schwere Goldkugel in die Stadt, die an der Turmspitze zu St. Stephan angebracht wurde. http://www.turkin.net/kunst/osmanen_belagerung1.htm

The Turkish tale of "The City of the Golden Apple" is told as follows; "Sultan Suleyman did not find it in his heart to shoot at the steeple of St. Stephen's church in Vienna. He said: "One day this steeple, this towering steeple, will be a minaret from which the muezzin will call to prayer the Faithful to a Muslim mosque. It should therefore bear my sign." The sultan sent a massive golden globe into the city that was fastened onto the the steeple of St. Stephen's.

This did not come to pass; the Turks were repulsed at the walls of Vienna in 1683.

"Return from Vienna" by Józef Brandt, Polish-Lithuanian army returning with loot of the Ottoman forces



Humiliation of Muslims and the coming Siege of Vienna
by Blake Gartner
11 April, 2007

http://www.islam-watch.org/GlobalPolitician/Coming-Muslims-Siege-Vienna.htm

The “Zionist entity” is at the forefront of the clash between the West and Islam. And yet, it is a tiny country, less than half the size and population of Netherlands. World Jewry stands at just 13 million people, so it has never been a titan in global affairs. The two dominant world religions in a constant clash with each other since the 7th century have been Islam and Christianity.

Today’s war between the West and Islam – whether against the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan or against the rioters on the streets of Paris – is an extension of the inevitable clash of titans. When Napoleon marched on Egypt, defeating the Arabs with extreme ease,
Christendom seemingly won. The Ottoman Empire fell as a result of WWI and the West forgot about the Islamic threat. But Muslims did not. Muslims felt humiliated.

The only thing people dislike more than being attacked is being ignored. The West ignored the Middle East, seeing it as an uncultured backwater useful only for its oil resources. But to Muslims, everything from the defeat to Napoleon to the dismantling of the Caliphate by Ataturk is “humiliation”. At times it seems like “humiliation” is the Muslims’ favorite word. They do not lose wars – they get humiliated. They do not suffer from economic stagnation – they get humiliated. They do not compromise on a UN resolution – they get humiliated. Reading Islamic press one sees the word “humiliation” with spectacular frequency.

What Muslims claim to want is “respect”. But what is respect? The Islamic vision of “respect” is to be the dominant global power. It is to have the military power, the economic wealth and the international prestige to get what they want, whenever they want. Any compromise in any forum is immediately condemned as “humiliation” due to their weakness – a humiliation that naturally should be countered by pressing their political and military muscle.

But Islam was indeed a dominant power for much of its history. Today it is hard to imagine Morocco defeating Spain, Tunisia conquering Italy and Turkey marching up to Vienna, but it did happen in the past. Muslims were the dominant power in the world for many centuries, and it is that “Golden Age” that today’s generation, whether Islamists or Nationalists, seek to re-capture.

The first millennium of its existence was an almost unmitigated success for Islam. From its roots in the Arabian peninsula, it first spread its wings to Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and North Africa – all of which were then part of the Christian world, culturally closer to the West than to the Arab states we see there today. Armenians, during the war of 640-652, were among the few able to stop the onrush of Islamic forces, preserving Armenia and Georgia as Christian nations to this day.

With the Middle East under their control, Muslims proceeded to take over Spain, Portugal, Sicily, and much of France, reaching 2/3 of the way to Paris. In the first half of the 9th century, Rome and most of what is now Italy fell to the newly dominant Religion of Submission (islam means “submission”).

Before the rise of water travel enabling countries along the Atlantic Ocean, (England, Spain, Portugal, Holland, France) to set up empires, the dominant military and economic powers were located in southern Europe and Middle East – that being the trades routes where people exchanged not only goods, but information and ideas. Northern and western Europe was mired in what are commonly known as the Dark Ages. These were not the powers that could stop the Islamic invasion.

The ever-shrinking Byzantine Empire struck back in the 840’s, but its limited successes were soon turned back as Muslims sacked Messina in 842, Enna in 859, Syracuse in 878, Catania in 900.

In 904, Thessalonica, the second-largest Byzantine city, was taken over by Arabs from Tunisia. Seven years later, the Byzantines suffered another embarrassing defeat in Crete.

After a brief respite, Muslims sensed another opportunity to spread their religion and civilization to the “darkness of barbarism and unbelief”, when the Byzantine rulers decided to disband most of their military, preferring to pay mercenaries when troubles arouse. The Byzantine army consisted largely of the elderly officers and untrained young kids (for centuries after its destruction, the word “Byzantine” was used to mean “effeminate decadence”).

Faced with the decaying of what was arguably the only stable, viable state in Europe, the West was again on the brink of annihilation. In 1095, Pope Urban II hoped to organize Christendom around a fight for Jerusalem, a tactic frequently used before and after by Muslims. But the first military engagement failed miserably, as the Turks slaughtered almost every man sent into battle. The second battle was much more successful and some of the lands previously lost to Muslims were recovered.

The Crusaders established the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099. At its height, the Crusader Kingdom was about the size of Israel and West Bank. For more than a hundred years, Muslims could do little about the new country, fighting occasional wars, mostly to contain the Christians.

But in the 12th century, a Jihad on Jerusalem was organized. In 1187, settlers lost Jerusalem – it was now the Kingdom of Jerusalem... without Jerusalem. A small strip of land along the seaside of what is now Israel and the southern half of Lebanon was all that remained. Subsequent Crusades recovered Jerusalem, but all was lost when Sultan Khalil captured Acre, the new capital of the Kingdom, and proceeded to either slaughter or enslave all remaining settlers.

The Crusades were a failure. Islam won, forever reinforcing its sense of invincibility against the infidels. I’ve heard many Muslims say, “It took us 200 years to defeat the Crusader Kingdom. Israel has existed less than 60. We have another 140 to destroy it, and we will.”
But Islam did not stop at the defeat of the Crusader Kingdom. In the 15th century, the Turks finally destroyed the Byzantine Empire, conquering its capital Constantinople.

At the other end of Europe, much of Spain and Portugal was under Islamic rule for 781 years until 1492. Faced with Arab Muslims threatening from the West and Turkish Muslims threatening from the East, Europe struck back with a vengeance again. Spain and Portugal were won back, pushing Islam back into North Africa. But just like the first time when the West responded to Islamic aggression with violent Crusades, the new European attempt to defend itself and even the genocidal Inquisition fell short of taking back everything that was lost. Constantinople remained part of the Islamic world.

In 1526, Sultan Suleiman conquered most of Hungary, with Bulgaria already under his control. Three years later, the Turks reached all the way to Vienna and laid siege to it. The city stood up only because it was attacked too late by a Turkish force that was too tired from prior battles. In 1532, the Ottomans tried again, but faced stiff resistance in western Hungary.

For 150 years, the Ottomans tried to jump from southeastern Europe into its heartland before the epic Battle of Vienna. This time, the siege began in July of 1683. During the siege, 10,000 Viennese troops were surrounded by 140,000 Turks. They would probably fail, and allow Islam into the center of Europe, but King Jan III Sobieski of Poland sent a 30,000 man army to protect the city, possibly saving the Western civilization. The Battle of Vienna began on September 11. When the battle was over next day, 4,000 Christians had been killed – and 15,000 Muslims. Vienna survived again.

The rest is history. The Enlightenment and later the Industrial Revolution sent the West far ahead of Islam. In the 19th century, Napoleon showed just show dominant Christendom was over Islam. The Caliphate was eliminated when the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. The West stopped fearing Muslims, viewing them as nothing more than “oil cows”. And Islam truly ceased being a power.

That, of course, is what the West wanted to believe. Truth is that Christendom still didn’t recover most of the territories lost since the rise of Islam. Constantinople (now Istanbul), Egypt, Syria, Bosnia and Chechnya were all Christian lands in the past.

Islam did not invade the West continuously for a thousand years. Instead, there were many generations of peace, but that peace was eventually always interrupted by Muslim attacks on Europe. Each time Christians lost large parts of their territory, then fought back, but never fully recovered the lost territories.

For two centuries now, the West was strong enough to ignore the threat from the south. But Muslims felt “humiliated” because they did not have the strongest army, the wealthiest economy and the dominant political power.

Islam began to resurge in the 1960s (some say in the 1920s, but Islamists weren’t strong enough until after Israel “humiliated” Arab nationalists in 1967). First came terror. Then global Jihad. In the 1990s, massive Islamic immigration into Europe began to threaten a demographic takeover. Islam is on the move again. Will Vienna be under siege once more?

This article appeared in Global Politician and is published here* with mutual consent. *At Islam Watch

http://www.islam-watch.org/GlobalPolitician/Coming-Muslims-Siege-Vienna.htm

[emphasis in red mine. lw]

___________________________
*Re Mehmet (Mohammed) IV, see
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/10/fear.html
___________________________

Islam delenda est


Islamic Danger - Home

HOW ISLAM FAILED MUSLIMS


"Muslims are the most illiterate, unhealthy, poorest of peoples in the world today."
--President Perves Musharaf of Pakistan





quoted from the following article

from FaithFreedom.Org

[link at end of article]

How Islam Failed Muslims

By: Ohmyrus

Why is it that the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) and some idolater nations have overtaken the Muslim world?

President Perves Musharaf of Pakistan recently said that Muslims are the most illiterate, unhealthy, poorest of peoples in the world today. He is right and I might add, very few Muslim countries are democracies including his own.

Muslims at one time were the most powerful, richest and advanced people of the world. From them arose four great empires – the Ummayad Empire, the Abassid Empire the Mogul Empire and the Ottoman Turkish Empire.

Their decline can be traced to about 1700 when the west caught up with the Ottoman Empire, the last great Muslim empire.

A number of reasons were advanced for this decline and more recent failures by the Muslims themselves, including the invasion of the Mongols, the crusades, western imperialism and Israel, the perpetual whipping boy. An idea gaining ground in the Muslim world is that their low estate is due to Muslims turning away from God. The remedy is therefore to become more Islamic.

In my opinion, the most important reason for Muslim failure is Islam itself.
Islam is a complete way of life as Muslims are fond of saying. Islam tells you how to punish criminals, how many wives you can have and even which hand is assigned for toilet duty. No other religion is so detailed as to what you can or cannot do.

But the rules governing this complete way of life were developed for a 7th century medieval desert society. Some of these rules are no longer applicable for the 21st century.

Let me give you four reasons why Islam impedes progress. But first, let me say that I am not interested in making a value judgement on what is right or wrong. I believe that religious ideas can have an impact on economic growth and am only concerned in assessing the impact of Islam on the economy and society.

Imbedded in the Koran is the shariah law. This makes it difficult to separate mosque from state. A good Muslim desires to follow Mohammed’s teachings to the full and this means that he must desire to live in an Islamic state where the shariah law is enforced.

Thus in every Muslim country, there exists a group of people who desires to live in an Islamic state. Pakistan tried it when Zia Ul Haq was president. The economy was ruined in the attempt.

So far, there have been four other attempts at an Islamic state – Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and lately Afghanistan under the Taliban. None of them successfully led their people to sustainable industrialization though oil money in Saudi Arabia and Iran hid their failures.

To make matters worse, out of the Muslims who desire an Islamic state, a minority is prepared to use violence to achieve it. Their reasoning goes something like this.

God’s law is higher than man’s law. Sounds reasonable, right? Democracy is man made. Therefore an Islamic state, which is ruled in accordance to God’s law, is superior to democracy. In fact, democracy is a form of idolatry where you put man above Allah.

This rejection of democracy not only hinders its establishment in many (fortunately not all) Muslim countries but some Muslims feel perfectly justified in using violence to create an Islamic state. They don’t see the need to let the ballot box decide since God is above any man made democracy.

This is due to the nature of Islam itself where its founder, Prophet Mohammed was also a military commander. Thus to a militant Muslim, Al-Qaeda’s attempt to violently create an Islamic state in SE Asia is only doing exactly what Prophet Mohammed did in his lifetime. His words of violence, perhaps uttered in the heat of war, are now forever recorded in the Koran and Hadiths as Holy Scripture. Let me give you a few examples.

Surah 8:39 (or thereabouts) says, “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.”

Surah 8:12 says, “God revealed his will to the angels, saying: “I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!”

Surah 9:39 (or thereabouts) says, “If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men.”

If I am not mistaken, Osama bin Laden said this or something very similar in that famous training video that CNN and BBC kept playing many times after September 11.

While most Muslims are peaceful people who interpret the Koran in a non-violent manner, such verses create the potential for a minority to justify the use of violence for the establishment of an Islamic state. For centuries, Muslims have declared jihad (holy war) against the enemies of Islam.

If they die in a jihad, the reward is paradise filled with fruit trees and the loving company of numerous houris (heavenly virgins) with their “high bosoms”. It is somewhat similar to the ancient Viking belief in Valhalla where the brave warriors go to when they die in battle. None of the other major religions in practice today have this concept.

Even if such people are a small minority, their presence destabilizes countries and frightens away western or Japanese investors. Between India and Pakistan, which country do you think is more attractive to an American investor? I think there is no comparison. Why go to Pakistan where there are people wanting to kill you? Some of these militants think that the killing of an infidel American or Jew will win them passage to paradise.

The presence of violent men not only deters foreign investors but also make it impossible to have a functioning democracy.

The second way Islam failed Muslims is by suppressing its women. Women are considered inferior to man and in a hadith are described as mentally deficient. That is why one male witness is equal to two female witnesses in an Islamic court. Take a look at Surah 4:34 from the Holy Koran which approves of wife beating:

“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart and beat them.”

What is the economic implication of this attitude towards women? Since they are thought of as inferior, there is discrimination in the workplace. Since there is discrimination against women in the work place, parents give a lower priority for their daughter’s education.

If you go the Middle East, you will find that men dominate the work place. Women are expected to be homemakers.

Averroes (1126 - 1198) believed that much of the poverty and distress of his time was due to the fact that women were “kept like domestic animals or house plants for purposes of gratification, instead of being allowed to take part in the production of material and intellectual wealth, and in the preservation of the same.”

Women who stay at home tend to have more children. They tend to see their children as their security in old age. That is why there is a high birth rate in most of the Islamic world. A high birth rate means poverty perpetuating itself, as there are fewer resources to educate everybody. That is why poor third world countries are advised to promote family planning.

Saudi Arabia’s per capita GDP has declined compared to 20 years ago mainly because its population has grown and its oil revenue has not. It has not succeeded in developing manufacturing export industries like the East Asians have.

As a result, Saudi Arabia is actually getting poorer-though still rich. Thus, suppressing women not only deprive a nation of half its work force but also increase its birth rate and hence make them poor.

On the other hand, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, emancipated Turkish women. He banned polygamy, the veil and insisted that women be as well educated as the men. He gave them the vote and allowed them to be elected into parliament. Today, the most advanced Muslims are the Turks as a result of Ataturk’s reforms of which women’s emancipation was one.

The third teaching of Islam that impeded progress was the prohibition of usury – the lending of money for interest. This helped the west to overtake the Ottoman Turks because the west (initially also prohibited from lending for interest) developed banks earlier.

Banks encourages savings which are then pooled together to lend to businessmen. Savings can later be tapped to invest in joint stock companies and business ventures. Companies can be larger and more efficient with greater economies of scale. Savings and investments together with a debt market promote economic growth. London, Geneva, Amsterdam, Milan, Venice were great financial centers from the days of the Renaissance.

I believe the Muslims were late to develop the banking/finance industry because of the prohibitions against usury. Fortunately, today most Muslims ignore these ancient prohibitions. They borrow money from and deposit money into banks and use credit cards. For the pious, there are the Islamic banks. So this is no longer a problem. But the west had a head start in economic development.

Islamic banks are not supposed to charge interest, which is forbidden. But they are allowed to make profits. I am told that for the most part, there is nothing essentially different between Islamic banking and the conventional banking.

Very often, the “profits” they make is fixed and guaranteed. This means that profits are really “interest”. Theoretically, Islamic banks are supposed to share in the profits of the projects they lend to. If it is truly profits, they should earn more in good times and lose money in bad times.

This is difficult to arrange. If the project is promising, the customer does not want to share in the profits. They prefer to pay a fixed sum for the money advanced to them by the bank. If the project looks dicey, the bank wants to be safe and would ask for a fixed guaranteed return for its money.

All this goes to show that it is difficult to operate in the modern business world without usury. Islamic banking is thus an exercise in self-delusion.

The fourth reason is that Islam stifles Science. For Science to flourish, there must great tolerance for new ideas, which is sorely lacking in the Islamic world. Ideas (both scientific and philosophical) need to be freely debated so that good ideas are adopted and bad ones discarded. Islam is not the only religion to stifle Science. Just look at what happened to Galileo when he said that the earth revolves around the sun. But eventually rationality prevailed in Christendom.

This could happen in the west because there is a clear separation between Church and State. The separation was due to these famous words from Christ:

“Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s. Render unto God the things that are God’s.”

The separation was not always perfect. But the principle ran like a golden thread since medieval times till the present. What it meant in practice is that the neither the medieval popes not the kings were as powerful as the Caliphs who possessed both temporal and spiritual power. For the Caliph any challenge to a religious doctrine also meant a challenge of the Caliph’s right to rule. Any challenge to the Caliph’s right to rule is also a challenge to God since the Caliph was by definition Prophet Mohammed’s successor.

To be sure, the Muslim world did produce many noted poets, philosophers and scientists – Al-Farabi, Al-Razi (a famous physician), Avicenna, Averroes etc. After the 7th century conquests of major part of the Byzantine empire and the Persian empire, the Arabs came into contact with more advanced civilizations – Christian, Zoroastrian and Hindu. They were eager to learn and acquire knowledge.

Books were translated into Arabic and the Caliphs were happy to employ non-Muslims, especially Peoples of the Book, to serve them. Greek science and philosophy were taught in schools and there was a fusion of Islamic ideas and Greek rationality. This inevitably led to a clash with the conservative religious scholars.

These scholars believed that all knowledge came from God’s revelation and philosophical and scientific inquiry will ultimately lead to unbelief. Those scientists and philosophers, while not rejecting (at least publicly) Islam believed that truth could also be derived from human reason. Human reason can be reconciled with God’s revelations.

The Mu’tazilites belonged to this rational school that had confidence in human reasoning. They initially enjoyed the protection of the caliphs and persecuted those who disagreed with them. But later they fell out of favour. A theologian, Al Ashari, who subordinated reason to revelation, dealt the rationalist Mu’tazilites a mortal wound.

About two centuries later, Al-Ghazali drove in the final nail thus ending the influence of Greek rationality in Islamic thinking. He wrote, “The source of their infidelity was their hearing terrible names such as Socrates and Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle.”

He opposed the spirit of free inquiry saying that certain of the natural sciences were opposed to religion. He led Muslims back to an unquestioning literal interpretation of the Koran. The traditionalists had finally won. Science lost.

It should be noted that most of the scientists, poets and philosophers in Islam’s golden age (the time of the Abassid Caliphate) were Jews, Christians or Muslims who were suspected of apostasy or blasphemy. Many suffered harassment and even death. Thus if science did flourish during this golden age, it was in spite of Islam and not because of it.

In the Christian world, science managed to eventually triumph because the Pope was not as powerful as the Caliph thanks to the separation of Church and State. In Islam, where there is no separation of Mosque and State, the progressive forces of Greek rationality could not prevail and were ultimately stifled.

These are the many ways in which Islam impeded the progress of Muslims. However, there appears to be an idea sweeping the Muslim world that the path to greatness lies in greater Islamisation. By becoming more pious, they hope to win the favour of God and be restored to their former glories.

It is like a doctor prescribing smoking to cure lung cancer. To sum up, Islam stifles science, women and to a lesser degree in present times the banking industry. All these have a negative impact on economic growth. In addition, its doctrine of jihad and its propensity for violence makes it stony ground for democracy to flower. Let me leave you with a quote from Ataturk:

“The evils which had sapped the nation’s strength,” he declared, “had all been wrought in the name of religion.”

Read other articles by Ohmyrus

How Islam failed Muslims

HOW TO FIGHT THE MOSLEM ASSAULT


From The Challenge of Islam
by Mordechai Nisan


The Muslims’ assault world-wide cannot be expected to die a natural death. Believing their religion to be dictated from Allah on high is not as innocuous as it may sound to other monotheists and believers in revelation. For the Muslims, we are learning, really take their religion seriously. They cull their determination and fire from a source that is exempt from outside influence or interference. At home, in Arab countries, the Muslim fanatics confront repressive state regimes which block their advance to power. This is the case in Egypt, Algeria, and Syria. Foiled and frustrated from grabbing power in the Middle East, as scholar and commentator Fouad Ajami explained, the Muslim terrorists seek with evermore venom to vent their hated for the West on the turf of infidel Christianity itself.

The vocabulary of our era resonates with Islam and its references. We speak of Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad; Israel contends with the Intifada whose shahid martyrs glorify the Palestinian struggle; Ayatollah Khoumeini and Sheikh Nasrallah are on our lips; and even nominal terms like a fatwa (legal decision) and hijab (woman’s veil) fill the public atmosphere. Arafat’s Muqat’aa Ramallah headquarters assumed the glory of a Palestinian stalingrad in the face of Israel’s siege. The Islamic century has made non-Muslims anxious for the future.

Yet remember, that when confronted by a resolute foe, Muslims often withdraw and founder in fear. Their Bedouin heritage has trained them to exploit weakness, but to pull back from confrontation or any real trial of strength. A “hit-and-run” strategy is the perfect Bedouin mode of action; it is also at the core of Palestinian terrorism the last 50 years.

The daring Swiss explorer of Arabia, John Burckhardt, wrote in 1831 that Bedouin stealth is as real as is Bedouin hospitality: there is no contradiction in these traditional desert qualities.¹³ Much of Muslim-Arab success in the early history of Islam was facilitated by the enemy surrendering rather than facing the Muslims in battle. The city of Mecca succumbed to Muhammad in 630, Iran collapsed in the face of Arab armies in the early 640s, Spain was penetrated with ease in 711. Damascus, a Byzantine city, was an exception and resisted the Muslim assaults in 636-37 only to open its gates in the end. Much of Europe today has capitulated, while posing as the repository of democracy, tolerance, and human rights.

The Muslims are masters of bluff and bullying, no less of blackmail and threat, in overwhelming a bamboozled adversary. But when faced in battle, as we saw in Iraq in 1991 and in some Palestinian towns in 2002, the Muslims virtually capitulate. In the spring of 2003, US forces overran much of Iraq with relative military ease; but the typical culture-bound Arab response of terrorism was not long in coming.

Classical, legal, and imperial Islam divides the world by a religious conception: between the Domain of Islam (Dar al-Islam), where the Muslims rule and Islam officiates, and the Domain of War (Dar al-Harb), where the Muslims are subject to foreign rule until effectively expediting the ultimate triumph of Islam. This mental construct is embedded in the minds of Muslims who pray in mosques in Jersey City and Los Angeles, Jerusalem and Beirut, London and Marseilles. Where Muslims reside, they must rule. If Islam will dominate the land of Israel and the lands of Christendom, then the world will more and more become Dar al-Islam. Peace will then be the result of conquest.

The Challenge of Islam