Islamic conquest after the death of the prophet of the Muslims, Mohammad, was probably the most bloodiest in the history of mankind. One of the greatest historians who wrote the Story of Civilization, Volume 4: The Age of Faith (Our Oriental Heritage) in a multi-volume series, Will Durant, wrote objectively as he wrote about the dark history of Christianity during what is called the medieval period:
The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.
For you bleeding hearts out there who do not understand what is happening daily around the world, specifically in Europe and/or those who think that his essay is just anti-Muslim: you are misinformed and/or not paying attention or refusing what is reality. This is not a treatise against Muslims like those dear friends I made in Turkey while serving the United States at the command headquarters of LandSouthEast (LSE) NATO in Izmir, Turkey for 4.5 years. There are Muslims that want to exercise their faith, yet live in harmony under the People of the Book doctrine described by Mohammad in their Holy Qur'an. The People of the Book are the people who are Jews and Christians who study the scriptures of the Old Testament and those who are aware of and obey Mosaic law. Unfortunately these people are fast becoming a minority for various reasons. However, the biggest rift between Christians and the other two religions is that they deified Jesus and declared a spiritual Trinity (after death of Jesus the Prophet/Messiah of Nazareth/Jerusalem) and church doctrine (rules) were made up along the way declaring what was accepted and what was not; typical of organization of any type.
When objectively looking at the history of both the three major religions of today, we can say that during the various periods of theological history, Judaism (Hebrew tribes), Christianity, and Islam all have elements of brutal periods in their religious histories.
Daniel Pipes has written many articles about the threat of Islam to world peace and free nations. He is considered to be a senior scholar who has focused upon radical Islam and its agenda of world domination. Mr. Pipes has shared the goals and supported the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who, tired of his country who had been tolerant to Muslims, had joined the crusade to fight against Muslims whose agenda is intolerance (while demanding tolerance) and violence toward all religions and people who speak out about their hateful intolerant doctrine.
Fundamentally, Daniel Pipes is trying to protect free speech for ALL – not just Muslims, but also the right of Christians to denounce the hate doctrine and violent actions against Jews and Christians preached by Muslims who insist upon desecrating the People of the Book that Mohammad the Prophet mentions in his writings. Indeed, all of this discussion would have been moot and just a paragraph in history if it were not the fact that a Christian king that had been intrigued with Mohammed and discussing his theological thought had been impressed enough to refuse to turn over the Prophet in chains over to the emissary and militia sent by the bureaucracy of Mecca in order to condemn him and put him to death in a public execution. Therefore, Mohammad was protected by a Christian ruler, while Muslims and Islamic clerics are out to repeat the butchery of the Crusades (on both sides) all in the name of enslaving the world under theocratic rule – Sharia Law – where state and religion are NOT separated, but instead one and the same.
Yet, too many Americans (and Europeans) seem to be afraid to see or admit to this reality. They instead make up a Willy Wonka world that has nothing to do with the true intentions of those who think nothing of killing masses of people, including children; all the while preaching how evil the Jews are because they do despicable things like kill Muslim children and drink their blood (in the textbooks of Islamic schools in Palestine and certain Islamic periodical propaganda material). None of this would you ever find in the mainstream politically controlled media.
|News Stories like this are ignored|
For too many Americans who follow the liberal-socialists, who demand appeasement to enemies of the free nations of the world, but condemn and persecute those who exercise tolerance only to a certain degree – they are afraid to stand up to the evil doctrine and mandates of Islamic Jihadism. In the case of the Dutch politician, aforementioned, Geert Wilders, the Muslims have, according to him, not practiced tolerance while demanding it from others. It is true, but anyone thinking in that line of thought are "Islamophobic". Their long-term agenda has made them unwelcome by European people who have been generally open-minded about Islamic immigrants; while their world domination is made known to the world (for those who listen and watch) in public speeches by their clerics leadership.
Do all Muslims feel this way or follow this doctrine?
No, however, too many are either frightened or feel it wrong to counter the wishes of their religious leadership; despite not agreeing to the violence and hatred of Sharia Law. Indeed, that is why they emigrate; however, the fanatics follow them seeing it an opportunity to use various subtle and not-so-subtle methods of subversion, to not become assimilated immigrants enjoying the freedom of that nation, but instead through subversion mold it to their theocratic domination. Besides, if this is all you have known since birth - what else would one believe?
Daniel Pipes wrote of Wilders and Islamic Threat Watch bloggers:
We're in the same trench but we have different views of what the problem is. We both see an attempt to impose Islamic law, sharia, in the West. We are both against it, and want to maintain Western civilization. But we understand the nature of the problem differently.
|Yasser admired Hitler for his "Solution" concerning Jews|
The Palestinian former terrorist leader and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (how, like BH Obama that came to be makes no sense) was Arafat. He kept a copy of Mein Kampf in his library because he admired Hitler for his concept and action against the Jewish problem.
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was an Austrian-German who became the leader of the Socialist German Workers Party that is most infamously known as the Nazi Party. He wrote several passages against Christianity, despite his Catholic upbringing …
- You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness? [Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, Albert Speer, p. 115]
- The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science... The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! ...Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline. [Hitler's Table Talk, translated by N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)]
Alexis de Tocqueville, (1805-1859) an open-minded French philosopher and historian who advocated rights and freedom everywhere and studied/admired and wrote about the unique system of the American new republic in the 19th century, (Democracy in America and The Old Regime and the Revolution) wrote:
I studied the Qur'an a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself. [The Tocqueville Reader, Olivier Zunz and Alan S. Kahan (2002), Blackwell Publishing]
If Christians, for example, preach or provide a doctrine of hate and violence, of which certain Christian cult/sects have and do, then they are as wrong as Islamic jihadism. In the concept of a constitutional republic, for which the United States was created to be so, NOT a democracy or any other form of government – freedom of religion can only apply to religions that are tolerant and that the state must never decree that any one particular religion be an official state religion. Thereby, such a system encourages tolerance, but should not be obligated to take action against a religion whose doctrine is hate and violence and intolerance. And, yet, just as the First Amendment protects the right to exercise one's particular beliefs, at the same time it protects those who believe in no religion; for that, in a sense, is their belief.
In reality, and generally speaking, most of us believe, as far as religion goes, much of what our parents believe because we are raised in the shadows of their beliefs and the doctrine of any church, synagogue, temple, or mosque of our parents choosing. As one grows older, or at least progresses through the trek of higher education, this may change or develop into a splinter or entirely different philosophical way of thinking. It truly depends upon the concept of the individual and the choice between blind faith or logical thinking or a combination of both.
The violence toward other religions, specifically against the People of the Book, an accurate account was given by Apostolos Euangelou Vacalopoulus:
Of course, the history of Christianity is not without its periods of violence and hateful insanity; but it has, for the most part, transcended into what it is today. Indeed, the disciples that became apostles after the death of their master teacher, had been instrumental in founding religious institutions/churches and organizing the religion they had named after their theological leader; becoming fishers of men as Jesus had stated they would become. However, despite that Jesus was bound by Mosaic law and Jewish traditions, the followers of Christ soon turned away from their Hebrew roots with Gentile converts as their mainstream entity; the first organized church whose seat was in Rome that had changed to a Christian state, the Roman Catholic Church, its leadership deciding that Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, was deified and the Trinity theological concept was born. It was also a time when Christianity had to decide out of the myriad of scriptures that circulated the ancient world at the time what was to be canonized and what was to be rejected as they added gospels, letters and scriptures to the text (books) of the Old Testament, a Judaic collection of history, poetry, theological philosophy and Mosaic law (Ten Commandments) as part of what became the Holy Bible, King James version.At the beginning of the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks forced their way into Armenia and there crushed the armies of several petty Armenian states. No fewer than forty thousand souls fled before the organized pillage of the Seljuk host to the western part of Asia Minor. From the middle of the eleventh century, and especially after the battle of Malazgirt [Manzikurt] (1071), the Seljuks spread throughout the whole Asia Minor peninsula, leaving error, panic and destruction in their wake. Byzantine, Turkish and other contemporary sources are unanimous in their agreement on the extent of havoc wrought an the protracted anguish of the local population…[The Greek chronicler] Kydones described the fate of the Christian peoples of Asia Minor thus:‘The entire region which sustained us, from the Hellespont eastwards to the mountains of Armenia, has been snatched away. They [the Turks] have razed cities, pillaged churches, opened graves, and filled everything with blood and corpses…Alas, too, they have even abused Christian bodies. And having taken away their entire wealth they have now taken away their freedom, reducing them to the merest shadows of slaves. And with such dregs of energy as remain in these unfortunate people, they are forced to be the servitors of the Turk’s personal comforts.’
“From the time the Ottoman Turks first set foot in Thrace under Suleiman, son of Orchan, the Empire rapidly disintegrated…. From the very beginning of the Turkish onslaught under Suleiman, the Turks tried to consolidate their position by the forcible imposition of Islam. [The Ottoman historian] Sukrullah [maintained] those who refused to accept the Moslem faith were slaughtered and their families enslaved. ‘Where there were bells’, writes the same author, ‘Suleiman broke them up and cast them onto fires. Where there are churches he destroyed them or converted them into mosques. Thus, in place of bells there were now muezzins. Wherever Christian infidels were still found, vassalage was imposed upon their rulers. At least in public they could no longer say ‘kyrie eleison’ but rather “There is no God but Allah; and where once their prayers had been addressed to Christ, they were now to ‘Mohammed, the prophet of Allah. [Origins of the Greek Nation – The Byzantine Period,1204-1461; A.E. Vacalopoulus; 1970, pp. 61, 68; 72-73.]
Islam has remained to be, throughout its history, a medieval theocracy that accepts growth of civilized technology and scientific discovery; but remain in the throes of an archaic government system that refuses the basic concept of natural laws, natural rights, and tolerance.
Even Pope Benedict XVI (2005-2013) wrote:
Islam has a total organization of life that is completely different from ours; it embraces simply everything,...There is a very marked subordination of woman to man; there is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society. One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a pluralistic society. [Washington Times, September 20th, 2006]Bernard Lewis, a British-American historian specializes in Oriental Studies, also provides intellectual and political commentary, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University; considered an expert in the history of Islam, especially the history of the Ottoman Empire – wrote:
Bernard LewisHistorians in free countries have a moral and professional obligation no to shrink the difficult issues and subjects that some people would place under a sort of taboo; not to submit to voluntary censorship, but to deal with these matters fairly, honestly, without apologetics, without polemic, and, of course, competently. Those who enjoy freedom have a moral obligation to use that freedom for those who do not possess it. We live in a time when great efforts have been made, and continue to be made to falsify the record of the part and to make history a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements, political parties, and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have been, as they would like their followers to believe that it was. All this is very dangerous indeed, to ourselves and to others, however we may define otherness - dangerous to our common humanity. Because, make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future. [Islam in History; B. Lewis; Oxford University Press, NY, 1993; p. 130]
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a British philosopher, mathematician, historian, social critic and considered the founder of analytic socialist philosophy; who knew and understood the history of Islam …
Immediately after his death [Mohammad the Prophet] the conquests began, and they proceeded with rapidity … Westward expansion (except in Sicily and Southern Italy) was brought to a standstill by the defeat of the Mohammedans at the Battle of Tours in 732, just one hundred years after the death of the Prophet. … It was the duty of the faithful to conquer as much of the world as possible for Islam. … The first conquests of the Arabs began as mere raids for plunder, and only turned into permanent occupation after experience has shown the weakness of the enemy. … The Arabs, although they conquered a great part of the world in the name of a new religion were not a very religious race; the motive of their conquests was plunder and wealth rather than religion. [The History of Western Civilization, Book Two, Chapter X: Mohammedan Culture]
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), a French mathematician, inventor, writer and recognized Catholic theological philosopher, wrote:
Mahomet [Mohammad] established a religion by putting his enemies to death; Jesus Christ by commanding his followers to lay down their lives.
Oddly, Americans are more apt to speak out or stand up against a Christian rather than a Muslim; despite Islam being a religion that puts its enemies to death while Christians are provided examples of martyrdom where Christians have become sacrificial lambs. Therefore, which religion is predominately one of peace? In any religion there are exceptions to the rule, especially within Christianity because of its splintering throughout its history into sects and cults, either falling far behind the actual philosophical ideology of Jesus the Christ (recognized by Mohammed as a “chosen” prophet) or ignoring it all together.
Islamism has continued its development of genocide of any religion, especially Jews, that does not conform/recognize their Sharia Law.
Indeed, as Carl Gustav Jung, Swiss psychologist and philosopher, described Adolf Hitler when he was rising to power:
We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god. [Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings (Volume 18), Routledge, 1977; p. 639]
Historical evidence found in classical and modern works on the subject of the practice of jihad is the gist of Islamic civilization and is one of the major factors in the astounding success of the faith of Islam. [Understanding Jihad, David Cook, University of California Press, 2005; -. 163.]
I think one of the best accounts of or description of Islam during the 7th century in its infancy of expansion, is that written by Jacobi in a tract entitled Doctrina Jacobi … [volume 16, 209; p. 57]
When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) was an English historian and member of Parliament whose work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has been an historical masterpiece in quality of its information sources and still used in great extent today as a source of information. He also wrote some commentary concerning the prophet [Muhammad] and comparing the Greek classics like Iliad of Homer or the Phillipics of Demosthenes or the Roman treatises on philosophy.
Frank Miller, is an American comic book artist, writer and film director and who compares the Middle East, wrapped in medieval theocracy not being represented for what it truly is, and at the same time, discounting the United States paying more attention to its failures than its accomplishments:
Frank MIllerWe're constantly told all cultures are equal, and every belief system is as good as the next. And generally that America was to be known for its flaws rather than its virtues. When you think about what Americans accomplished, building these amazing cities, and all the good its done in the world, it's kind of disheartening to hear so much hatred of America, not just from abroad, but internally... For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people's heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I'm speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I'm living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built. [NPR, Talk of the Nation; January 24th 2007]
Fatalistic teachings of Muhammad, wrote George S. Patton, in observation of contact with Muslims in World War II; and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. [The War As I Knew It, General George S. Patton, 1974; p. 49]
John Wesley (1730-1791), theologian and founder of the English Methodist Christian denomination studied Islamism as impartial as possible, and wrote:
An ingenious writer, who a few years ago published a pompous translation of the Koran, takes great pains to give us a very favourable [SIC] opinion both of Mahomet and his followers. But he cannot wash the Ethiop white. … It may suffice to observe in general, that human understanding must be debased to an inconceivable degree, in those who can swallow such absurdities as divinely revealed. And yet we know the Mahometans [SIC] not only condemn all who cannot swallow them to everlasting fire; … That these men then have no knowledge or love of God is undeniably manifest, not only from their gross, horrible notions of him, but from their not loving their brethren. But they have not always so weighty a cause to hate and murder one another, as difference of opinion. … It is not therefore strange, that ever since the religion of Mahomet appeared in the world, the espousers of it, particularly those under the Turkish emperor, have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations; rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth: that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining: that many countries which were once as the garden of God, are. now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished away from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of humankind! [The Doctrine of Original Sin, John Wesley, 1817; p. 35]
Muhammad Sven Kalisch is a Professor at Münster University, one of Germany's oldest and respected universities, who became Germany's first ever professor of Islamic theology in 2004:
I said to myself: You've dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed? ... The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable. [Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims delivers a Jolt; Andrew Higgins interview; Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2008]… My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven. I, however, lean towards the non-existence but I don't think it can be proven. It is my impression that, unless there are some sensational archeological discoveries -- an Islamic "Qumran" or "Nag Hammadi" -- the question of Muhammad's existence will probably never be finally clarified. [Wall Street Journal, Excerpt: Muslim Academic Questions Muhammad's Existence; November 15, 2008]
|Mustafa Kemal Ataturk|
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938) was a Turkish army officer who became a revolutionary statesman, writer and founder of the Republic of Turkey, and as its first president separated the affairs of religion from the affairs of state by outlawing theocracy and the traditional Islamic Sharia Law – the discrimination against women and arranged for the Turkish language and its educational books to be written in Turkish using European alphabet instead of Arabic. He wrote:
Turks were a great nation even before they adopted Islam. This religion did not help the Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians and others to unite with Turks to form a nation. Conversely, it weakened the Turks’ national relations; it numbed Turkish national feelings and enthusiasm. This was natural, because Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities. [Yenigan Haber Ajansi, 1997, p. 18]
Sam Harris, Ph.D, is an American non-fiction writer, who wrote observations about religion in general:
Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am extremely critical of all religious faiths. I have argued elsewhere that the ascendancy of Christian conservatism in American politics should terrify and embarrass us. And yet, there are gradations to the evil that is done in name of God, and these gradations must be honestly observed. So let us now make sense of the impossible by acknowledging the obvious: there is a direct link between the doctrine of Islam and Muslim terrorism. Acknowledging this link remains especially taboo among political liberals.
. . . While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization. The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world. … Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death. … As a matter of doctrine, the Muslim conception of tolerance is one in which non-Muslims have been politically and economically subdued, converted, or put to sword. [Bombing Our Illusions, Sam Harris, The Huffington Post, October 10th 2005.
Yes, the Bible contains its own sadistic lunacy—but the above [Qur'an] quotations [taken from The End of Faith, pp. 117-123] can be fairly said to convey the central message of the Qur’an—and of Islam at nearly every moment in its history. The Qur’an does not contain anything like a Sermon on the Mount. Nor is it a vast and self-contradictory book like the Old Testament, in which whole sections (like Leviticus and Deuteronomy) can be easily ignored and forgotten. The result is a unified message of triumphalism, other-worldliness, and religious hatred that has become a problem for the entire world. And the world still waits for moderate Muslims to speak honestly about it. [Honesty: The Muslim World's Scarcest Resource?; SanHarris.com; March 01, 2012]
There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe. [What Obama Got Wrong About the Mosque, Sam Harris; The Daily Beast, August 13th 2010]
Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt(1858-1919_ was the 26th President of the United States from 1901 to 1909, among other things, is rated as the top five American presidents of all time, who wrote [Fear God and Take Your Own Part, 1916; p. 70] …
Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight. Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated. Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor... The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today, nobody can find in them any "social values" whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influences are concerned. There are such "social values" today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do — that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.
Thomas Aquinas, sainted influential philosopher and theologian (1225-1274), considered the father of modern theological philosophy, wrote his observation of Islam …
On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly. [Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 6.4]
Tony Blair is a Labour Party politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007. He sided with President GH Bush in curtailing the aggressive behavior of Saddam Hussein and a major ally in Operation Desert Storm, who stated:
There is not a problem with Islam... But there is a problem within Islam, and we have to put it on the table and be honest about it. There are, of course, Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu ones. But I am afraid that the problematic strain within Islam is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view of religion – and of the relationship between religion and politics – that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies. At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the worldview goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So, by and large, we don’t admit it. This has two effects. First, those who hold extreme views believe that we are weak, and that gives them strength. Second, those Muslims – and the good news is that there are many – who know the problem exists, and want to do something about it, lose heart. [The Trouble Within Islam, Project Syndicate, June 10th, 2013]
William James Durant (1885-1981) was a prolific American writer, historian and philosopher who wrote The Story of Philosophy in 1926 and as Will Durant wrote the multi-volume History of Civilization with Volume 4 (The Age of Faith)and Volume 1, (Our Oriental Heritage). Half way through the volumes, his wife, Ariel (left) joined him as a team historical writing staff.
The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. [Our Oriental Heritage, Volume 1; p. 459]
Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965) was a British politician who is chiefly known for getting the United Kingdom through World War II, but also as a prolific writer who wrote several volumes on history; regarded as one of the greatest wartime leaders in the modern world and voted as the greatest Briton of all time – respected by many. The River War – An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan, 1902 …
Fanaticism is not a cause of war. It is the means which helps savage peoples to fight. It is the spirit which enables them to combine--the great common object before which all personal or tribal disputes become insignificant. What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith was to the Arabs of the Soudan--a faculty of offence or defence.
As you can see there is prolific writing concerning the intolerance and hateful doctrine of Islam before and after the Age of Reason, something that the mainstream media and American/European politicians are either afraid or refuse to address. The bad publicity and public impression of Islam is not a phobia, but is a real threat to the civilized world and any efforts of nations and people living in peace and harmony as best as humanly can be done.
Islamophobia is a world devised by those who believe that issues are resolved by capitulation and that real-world bullies can be subdued by giving what they want. Strangely, those that promote such a preposterous ideology are the same people who have fallen prey to the delusions of democratic socialism and communist mantra, thinking that such things are better than a constitutional republic and a society who maintains reasonable tolerance without being deprived of the key moral ideology and philosophy that makes for great civilizations; and indeed, its continued existence of exercised freedoms and liberties.
Pathetic, especially in terms of old fashioned common sense and logic.