History has been slanted in favor of Islam
Yes, we are commanded to love our enemies but also to be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove. Considering that there will be a national prayer gathering of Muslims on the west front of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., from 4:00 AM until 7:00 PM. on September 25, it might be timely to consider the true character, history, and identity of the religion of Islam. * They are expecting 50,000 people. They have a website set up for this event: islamoncapitolhill.com. Islam by some accounts is the fastest growing religion in Western Europe.
But the central purpose of this message is to request that the entry on the timeline for 1248 be edited by removing the condemnation of the Christians and the portrayal of victimized Muslims. Perhaps something like, continuing the entry (after “This was the last crusade.”) Muslim jihads grew in strength and effectiveness until, in 1291, the last remnants of the crusaders in Palestine and Syria were wiped out forever. Islamic states continued to expand in size and power until by the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire encompassing all of North Africa, the Near East, Arabia, and Asia Minor, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Croatia, and Serbia. (I am pasting in direct quotes from two sources listed below, so as not to be accused of plagiarism!) [1]
Just briefly, in your entry of 1248 in the Middle Ages, you are assisting in a widely held misunderstanding, stating that Christians are the bad guys, and the Muslims are the victims. It’s true that many European crusaders wandered off from their Christian origins when they committed violence and injustices. But Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. [2]
If the Muslims won the crusades (and they did), why they angry now? Shouldn't they celebrate the crusades as a great victory? The answer is that, until the nineteenth century, the Muslims did happily celebrate their victory. From then on, it was the West that taught the Middle East to hate the crusades. During the peak of European colonialism, historians began extolling the medieval crusades as Europe's first colonial venture. By the 20th century, when imperialism was discredited, so too were the crusades. They haven't been the same since. The truth is that the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression. They were a desperate and largely unsuccessful attempt to defend against a powerful enemy. The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.[2]cccccccc
A careful survey of scholarly historians’ writings will back up this view. One book,"God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades," by Rodney Stark, professor of social sciences at Baylor University, says the Muslims asked for it, that the Crusades were the first military response to Muslim terrorists and their looming, advancing Islamic empire.
But just as an offering, here’s two websites for starters.
[1] Anything by Thomas Madden, whose written much on the crusades.
http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/thomasmadden.html
[2] http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html
by James Arlandson
[3] at http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-encyclopedia-westerners-need-to-know-list.htm
A quote from [2] website:
Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus. [2]
In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622—632), he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double—crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace. [2]
It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. [2]
But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect. Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own. [2]
It’s tragic that the West has promoted this misinterpretation of the character of Islam. Even Wheaton College caved into the notion of a victimized Islamic history when it changed its nickname from Crusaders to Thunder, so as not to offen, when in reality authentic Christian faith has from its very beginning and does and always will offend.
Muslims often strongly deny that their Quran instructs them to kill people. But in truth the Quran is filled with instructions on killing. It commands Muslims to slay down those 'infidels' from amongst the polytheists. The Jews and Christians, “who are of the Book,” on the other hand, because they belonged to monotheistic faith, were to be fought against until they became politically subservient to Muslims. (You can read some direct quotes for yourself at http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-encyclopedia-westerners-need-to-know-list.htm. Or better yet, talk to any Christian missionary who has lived in a Muslim country, such as Iran, and you will be convinced of the danger of rejecting Muslim religion. ) [3]
* Concerning the September 25 National Prayer Gathering of Muslims, the gathering will take place by the site where U.S. Presidents have been inaugurated since 1981. The organizers say that it was Obama's inauguration speech in January and his speech broadcast from Egypt in June that gave them the idea for this prayer gathering on Capitol Hill. They have a website set up for this event: islamoncapitolhill.com
Lee
|
