'Glory of the Crusades' by Weidenkopf is an important book which corrects the Atheist-Marxist-UnEnlightenment propaganda. In revisionist history, the ever-so-educated and peaceful Moslems were tending their goats, when suddenly in 1096 and for 200 years after, hairy, smelly Barbarians from France, who did not know what a bath or a book was, set upon them, slitting their throats, raping their women, skinning their goats, squatting on vast hordes of treasures and silks. The fact that the Levant was quite impoverished, a backwater, and contained no treasures whatsoever, never enters into this myth. Europe was far ahead of 'Islam' or the cult of submission long before Muhammad invented his totalitarian moon-idol cult. This is why Islam spent 1000 years trying to conquer and subdue Europe. You don't wage Jihad from Syria to southern France against a bereft culture.
So as Weidenkopf asks, 'why did they go'? [page 21]. Why did men from Europe march 2500 miles from 1096 to 1292 to fight against Islam and reclaim Jerusalem, the city of Peace. The main reason is of course the cult of Muhammadism or Islam. The Moslem Jihad had devastated Christianity from Arabia to southern France. Millions of Christians were forcibly converted by punishing laws and regulations including taxes and second-class knave status within Moslem lands. Millions more over 400 years, were raped, enslaved, killed, or traded like meat to supply harems, armies or workers for mines and state projects. Moslems had linked up with Vikings in the White-slave trade. Christian pilgrims for 100 years leading up to the Crusades had been killed, robbed, beaten, and sold into slavery. Christian Byzantium had been largely effaced, its Christian empire desecrated and eradicated by Moslems. As the Byzantines told sundry Western Church officials and Princelings, first us, then you. Moslems were effacing the Christian faith and its superior civilization.
Weidenkopf on why did they go?
“Faith is certainly a more reasonable explanation than material gain. If material reasons had been paramount, would it not have been far easier and safer for Western warriors to stay home and fight their neighbors rather than travel 2,500 miles to a distant and completely alien land? It used to be fashionable in academic circles to attribute motivation for participating in the Crusades to second- and third-born sons who, due to the traditions of inheritance in medieval Europe, could not inherit property. Faced with a large population of marauding and landless warriors, it was said, the Church marshaled these forces and sent them to the Holy Land where they could acquire land.
This theory has been thoroughly debunked by examining the actual records of those who went on Crusade. It was not the younger but rather the first-born sons of French families who overwhelmingly participated in the First Crusade. In other words, it was the men who stood to lose everything. And indeed, participating in the Crusade was a bad investment for medieval warriors, the vast majority of whom returned (if they returned) materially poorer for the experience.”
Marxists and Atheists are never good with facts. The Crusades were an attempt to salvage the holy places of Christendom, stem the Moslem advance, safeguard Europe [Moslems after all were still slaughtering and squatting over much of Spain]; and pay a penance for sins real and imagined. To go on Crusade would cost 4 times a nobleman's annual income. Land was mortgaged, property given to the Church for safekeeping, and taxes employed to pay for the costly ordeal. It was a ruinously expensive project, no one in Normandy or anywhere else, became 'rich' from the Crusades. Many were ruined, most would die.
Greed you say? Weidenkopf:
“We know, too, that most of those who survived the expedition and made it to the Holy Sepulchre returned home afterward; they did not stay to acquire feudal land holdings. The Crusade was a pilgrimage, and just like modern-day pilgrims who visit a shrine or church for a period of time and then return home, so did the warriors of the Crusades. After the First Crusade, there were some nobles who stayed in the Holy Land and created what are known as the Crusader States, but these areas always suffered from a lack of military manpower because of the very episodic nature of Crusading and the desire of most warrior-pilgrims to return home.”
Christians controlled large areas of the Holy Lands for 200 years. A deficit of manpower, money and interest doomed the enterprise. No wealth was made or taken, for there was none there to make or take. The enterprise was not a Marxist-colonial attack; nor was it due to 'greed' of the 'landless nobility'. The Crusades relegated much of the elite to penury and killed many of its best young talent. Fitting Marxist-Atheist or Hollywood themes onto such a complicated, granular and faith-based movement is about as intelligent as most pop-culture propaganda issued forth today – that is to say - it is utter nonsense.
Atheists, Marxists, Protestants and unenlightened 'enlightenment' 'geniuses', have long crusaded against the Catholic crusades which are far longer than normally taught. The first 'Crusade' against Muhammadism fascism was at Covadonga in northern Spain, in 722. The Moslem Jihad had wiped out Christianity, its people, churches and civilization from 632 AD to the battle of Covadonga, in a wide arc stretching Arabia to Spain. 10 years after the Spanish Christians stopped the Moslem war of annihilation in Spain, Charles Martel and his heavy infantry did the same at Tours – the site of the richest abbey in Europe and a target of depraved Moslem depredation. The Crusades lasted until 1683 and the siege of Vienna by Moslem Turks or nearly 1000 years.
None of the criticasters of the Crusades would be here opining on the non-existent demonic, lurid atavism of the Crusades, if Catholic Europe had not successfully defeated the Moslem hordes. Period. That is just a simple historical reality. In the past 20 years most real scholarship now acknowledges this fact, and most real historians understand the weight, gravity and unbridled uncivilized fascism named Submission, which almost erased European civilization. Weidonkopf's book, 'The Glory of the Crusades' is a necessary anodyne to the asinine, ahistorical putrid mess spewed out by lovers of Islam, and deniers of historical import and accuracy.
Why the animus against the Church and the Crusades, taught in schools, the media and by grinning, moronic politicians? Weidenkopf on the unenlightenment era:
“If these Reformation-era writers [Protestants] were the first to view the Crusades through the lens of anti-papal rhetoric, seeing the entire effort as nothing other than a vast waste of European resources undertaken by barbaric, superstitious warriors, these themes received increasing nourishment once combined with the new anti-Church hostility of the Enlightenment.
Centered in France and occupying the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the philosophical movement known as the Enlightenment sought to weaken the influence of the Church in European society. Enlightenment thinking affected most areas of life, including the study and presentation of history. Crusade history was used by intellectuals “not as a historical study in its own right but as a tool in conceptual arguments about religion and the progress of civilization.”10 The Crusades would continue to be used in this way by future generations to further their own agenda against society and the Church.11
The main Enlightenment critics of the Crusades were the Frenchmen Voltaire and Denis Diderot, and England’s David Hume and Edward Gibbon. Voltaire (1694–1778) waged a fierce campaign of satire and ridicule against the Catholic Church. In 1751 he published an essay on the Crusades in which he described them as an “epidemic of fury which lasted for 200 years and which was always marked by every cruelty, every perfidy, every debauchery, and every folly of which human nature is capable.”12 He further opined that the Crusades were “wasteful, pointless, ruined by excessive papal ambition for worldly power, an example of the corrosive fanaticism of the middle ages.”13
Diderot (1713–1784) also saw the Crusades in a wholly negative light and criticized them for the despoliation of Europe. Diderot wrote that the consequences of these “horrible wars” were “the depopulation of its nations, the enrichment of monasteries, the impoverishment of the nobility, the ruin of ecclesiastical discipline, contempt for agriculture, scarcity of cash and an infinity of vexations.”14 Diderot also complained that the Crusades were worthless enterprises of savagery in which European knights were sent by the Church to “cut the inhabitant’s throats and seize a rocky peak [Jerusalem] which was not worth one drop of blood.”15
Hume (1711–1776) believed the Muslim world was superior in “science and humanity” and the Crusades were “the most signal and most durable monument to human folly that has yet appeared in any age or nation.”16
The reflections of Edward Gibbon (1737–1794) on the Crusades mimicked the writings of his fellow “enlightened” thinkers principally in the thought that the Crusades brought nothing but negative consequences to Europe. In Gibbon’s mind, the Crusaders were ignorant and superstitious criminals manipulated by the Church.
Gibbon also believed that the primary motivation of the Crusaders was greed, with Western warriors bent on the pursuit of “mines of treasures, of gold and diamonds, of palaces of marble and jasper, and of odoriferous groves of cinnamon and frankincense.”18 This erroneous view of Crusader motivations, still commonly held, may be Gibbon’s enduring mark on the popular history of the Crusades.”
Not one single objection by the aforementioned 'geniuses' has one iota of fact to support them. In fact the exact opposite of their declarations is supported by evidence, history and the barbarity and threat of the Moslem Jihad.
So here we have fat, pompous, periwigged limp wrists such as Gibbon or Voltaire, men who were entirely ignorant of medieval history, commenting on a topic – the Crusades – they knew nothing about! As Protestants or in the case of Hume et al. Atheists, they had little regard for truth, or for civilization and its development. Their main concern was to slander and vilify the Church. Only someone as insipid as Voltaire could regard a Gothic Cathedral, his eyeglasses, a chimney, a massive water mill grinding grain, or the creation of books and printing, artifacts among 1000 one could name which were invented during the Medieval era, as part of a 'Dark Age'. The only aspect of the non-existent Dark Age was the dark cloistered arrogance and stupidity of those too lazy, too blind, too bigoted to see the real world and understand and respect, what had come before.
After conquering Mecca at the head of a 10.000 army – what 'prophet of peace' does not have a personal army ? - Muhammad bribed the Arabs to join Islam. Booty, plunder, rape and sex slavery [for the men only of course], was prescribed as divinely inspired. What 'religion' appeals to such base atavistic impulses? What metaphysics is involved in satiating the demonic appetites of lust, greed and materialism?
Gilchrist, volume 1:
“One really wonders how true faith can be bred in a people firstly by force of conquest and secondly, very soon afterwards, by material inducements. Muhammad is alleged to have told his companions "I have made use of the pelf of this world to gain the love of the people that they may become Muslims" (Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy Prophet, p. 321). There is nothing wrong in principle with the generous bestowal of a gift to gain the heart of a man (Luke 16.9), but it does seem to be a very questionable way of cementing faith in God - especially when most religions teach that the desire for possessions is irreconcilable with a true desire for spiritual riches. Jesus despised any form of ulterior or double-motive in those who flocked to him and, knowing what was in the hearts of all men, would not trust himself to those whose faith could only be obtained through the bestowal of one or other form of material benefit (John 2.24-25, 6.26). Another Muslim writer also has the prophet of Islam say:
"O Ansar, are you angry because I have given away some goods to those whom I sought to win to Islam? Because I deemed their faith confirmable by material goods whereas I deemed yours to be based on solid conviction, to be candid beyond all dissuasion?" (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 427).”
So let me understand the Muhammadan cult. If you don't join they will kill you. If you do join you are rewarded with plunder, pillage, sexual license and Allah's eternal paradise ? If this is not the definition of insanity than what is ?
Pace Gilchrist, one should also wonder about the witless worms of the modern world, who name a Jihadic cult, founded on sex, violence and murder, a 'religion of peace'.
One of the great mistakes in all of history, was the rather incomprehensible charity shown by the Meccans to the ruling tribe's mad poet, Muhammad. Sowing dissension, garbling Judaic-Christian scripture, insulting the Meccan pantheon, disrupting society, fomenting social discord should have earned the mad poet a parting of his head from his sloped shoulders. Instead, the Meccans threw the small cult of Muhammadans out of their city, and on to Medina, and eventual mastery of Arabia they went.
As the historian Gilchrist notes, the Hijra, or flight from Mecca to Medina, was only a preparation for Jihad. This was well understood during the time of Muhammad, and in the early centuries following his murder by fellow-Moslems. The Meccans would eventually see their city conquered by the mad poet at the head of 10.000 men, who smashed their idols, enshrined Arab paganism as divine, and ordered the Meccans to only follow Baal, the family deity of Muhammad, and the Lord or ilah of Mecca.
“In the old Arab law, the Hijra did not merely signify rupture with his native town, but was equivalent to a sort of declaration of war against it. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p. 27)
We have already seen how closely related the Hijrah was to the active policy of jihad which immediately followed it and it comes as no surprise to find the inevitable conquest being pursued two years after the truce [between Muhammad and Mecca]. A small provocation by the Banu Bakr, a tribe allied to the Quraysh, on the Banu Khaza'ah, allied to Muhammad, was all he needed to declare the treaty broken. Abu Sufyan, aware that the balances were now tilted well in Muhammad's favour, went to Medina to restore the treaty but Muhammad refused to accommodate him and he returned to Mecca empty-handed.”
Muhammad out of self-interest of course, spared the population and the city from Jihadic destruction. As Mehmed II would say of his annihilation of Constantinople, he needed a capital, not a corpse. Interestingly, mad Muhammad butchered the Koranic verse scribe writer, who was charged with recording the frequent and quite convenient revelations from Baal to Muhammad. Apparently the scribe knew a fraud when he saw one, and being so close to the mad poet, understood perfectly well the nonsense that was Muhammad's 'prophecy':
“[After Mecca was conquered] A dozen leading opponents were proscribed though only a few were eventually executed. Two were apostates from Islam, one was a poetess who had particularly irked Muhammad with her satires, and the last was one of two Meccans who had assaulted Muhammad's daughter Zaynab as she fled Mecca for Medina. The others escaped either by hiding themselves or by seeking pardon. One case is of particular interest.
One of these men was Abdullah ibn Abu al Sarh who once converted to Islam and wrote down the revelation for Muhammad, but who then apostatized, returned to Quraysh, and there spread tales about his falsification of the revelation. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 410).”
If Muhammad was truly a 'messenger' why would his scribe apostasy and declaim against him?
Islam hates. It does not love. Islam kills. It does not protect. Islam destroys. It does not, and never has created.
Sura 5:33 is the Key to Islam:
Link to a YouTube on What Moslems do not want you to know about Mein Koran.
Jews and Christians are being effaced across the Middle East, where Judaism and Christianity were dominant and civilization was built from Syria to Spain on Judaic-Christian ideals, virtues, efforts and intelligence.
Who again are the Fascists ?
Muhammad hated the Jews. They did not believe that his messed-up, garbled, illiterate decrees and lack of Old Testament knowledge and basic history, made him a 'prophet'. Muhammad desperately wanted the Jews and Christians to follow him, as the incarnation of the last prophetic Old Testament word, the last inspiration of Yahweh, the conclusion of scripture. The fact that he was insane, demonic, and quite illiterate when it came to scripture did nothing to convince the Jews and Christians that his claims were valid.
Once mad Muhammad was expelled from Mecca and forced to flee to Medina, the Koran changes its tone and attitude. Gone is the pleading to Jews, pagans and Christians that Muhammad is an Old Testament prophet. In comes the hate, the bile, the violence and the Jihad against those who did not follow.....
Gilchrist in his book on Islam, recounts why Muhammad so earnestly hated the Jews and Christians:
“Whereas the Meccans had simply ridiculed his message and generally resorted to sheer abuse of their kinsman, the Jews were able to trace many of these teachings to their own folklore and produce more damaging evidence against him. As Muhammad could not read their scriptures they were able to constantly provoke him with their knowledge and often frustrated him with subtle twists of phrases which he could not immediately detect but which entertained the Jewish bystanders. For example, Exodus 24.7 states that the Jews at Sinai answered Moses "All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient", but in the Qur'an we discover that the Jews, when commanded to hearken to God's Law on the Mount, allegedly answered "We hear and we disobey" (Surah 2.93). Muhammad later discovered that his informants had subtly misled him on this point and the Qur'an duly censures them for this particular deception:
Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) place and say: "We hear and we disobey". Surah 4.46
It was too late, however, to rectify the unfortunate error that they had succeeded in introducing into the text of the Qur'an. As Muir continues, "Mahomet evidently smarted at this period under the attacks of the Jews" (The Life of Mahomet, p. 179). Other authors comment in a similar vein:
It was not that the Jews refused to recognise Muhammad as a prophet, nor even that they engaged in political intrigue against him, serious as such attitudes and actions were. Much more serious was the Jewish attack on the ideational basis of Muhammad's preaching. It had been claimed that the Qur'an was a message from God and thus inerrant; and it had also been claimed that there was a large measure of identity between the Qur'anic message and what was to be found in the previous scriptures. If the Jews, then, maintained that there were errors and false statements in the Qur'an (because it disagreed with their Bible) and that therefore it could not be a message from God, they were threatening to destroy the foundations of Muhammad's whole religious movement. (Watt, What is Islam?, p. 102).
Yet, doubtless, the Prophet's ultimate determination to destroy the Jews was due to his secret recognition of their superior knowledge of matters on which he claimed (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 233).
The end result was as predictable as it was crucial to the success of Muhammad's ministry - the neutralisatlon of the Jews as an effective force in Medina. This took place chiefly through the deportation of two of the tribes and the annihilation of the third, but at the same time Muhammad also sought to discredit them in other ways and "the portions of the Koran given forth at this period teem with invectives against the Israelites" (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p.180). Here are a few examples of this trend in the last Surah making up the revelation:
The Jews say: "God's hand is tied up". Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter . . . Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God cloth extinguish it; But they (ever) strive to do mischief on the earth. And God loveth not those who do mischief. Surah 5.67
Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result) that God's wrath is on them and in torment will they abide. Surah 5.83”
In other words, illiterate and dumb Muhammad did not know what he was talking about regarding scripture, the word of the Jewish and Christian god, nor about what the Old Testament and Gospels contained and proclaimed. His ignorance was easily shown up by the Jews and Christians. To neuter the criticism he waged war. He exterminated 2 large Jewish tribes and exiled another. Christians were likewise exterminated once Mecca was conquered. By the time he was murdered by fellow Moslems in 632 AD Muhammad's Jihadic fascism had effectively eliminated the Jews and Christians from Arabia.
There was never a Dark Age in Medieval Christian Europe. But there certainly is one now across the Western world. Marxist revisionism, relativism, and the cult of Islam-is-peace makes Orwell look benign, Goebbels moderate and Lysenko scientific.
Today is a Dark Age. Witness for instance the witless worms and morons excusing Islam.
Hussein Obama's recent declaration that Christianity was 'dark' in the medieval period, and that perforce, this gives modern Islam the right to murder, kill, execute, humiliate, sex-slave and wage war against Kufar Unbelievers, is beyond ignorant and stupid. There was never a dark age in Christendom. There has been however, a 1400 year effort by Islam to exterminate all of Christianity as it did from Syria to Southern France during the first 150 years of its fascistic history.
Raymond Ibrahim sums it up:
I would urge anyone who find a copy of this book to read it. I don't agree with all of what Gilchrist explores and relates, but it is a very valuable guide to the cult of Mecca. Gilchrist explains Islam, its foundation, the texts, and the life of its creator and cult leader, Muhammad. If you receive your news and information from the main-stream media, or the usual array of academics and politicians or 'scientists', you will be utterly ignorant about the Meccan cult.
Islam is a very simple construction: 1) be nice to, support and aid fellow Moslems [these are the very few 'peaceful verses' one might find in Mein Koran that send the multi-culti into orgasms] and 2) Dominate, kill, murder, wage war, attack, or at the very least ignore and marginalize those who are not Moslem [this is the mainstay of Mein Koran, the so-called Medinan verses of Jihad, blood, hate, bile and intolerance].
When the very few followers of the cult of Muhammad were forced on the pain of the death, to leave Mecca and flee to Medina, [where improbably Muhammad was welcomed as a political arbiter between 3 Jewish tribes and 2 Arab clans]; the potential for booty presented itself. Medina lies close athwart to the main caravan routes heading from Mecca north to Christian Syria. It is well known that the Moslems were poor, disadvantaged and generally suffering in Medina, notwithstanding their leader's political position. Raiding, plundering and Jihad would change all of that. Gilchrist:
“This raid [one of the early Moslem raids out of Medina], however, was pursued in one of the four holy months (Rajab in this case) when the caravan crews were unarmed and fighting was prohibited throughout the peninsula. Worse still, the Muslim band had posed as pilgrims by shaving their heads an fell on an unsuspecting Meccan company completely deceive by their appearance.
Moslem deceit. Breaking rules, laws, known mores and cultural ethics. What religion prescribes caravan raiding, killing, stealing and deceit as examples of a higher metaphysics ? Making the claim that Islam was born in peace and prophethood is sheer ignorance. Of course the 'Allah' or Lord was right there to help Muhammad with his bad optics.
“On their return to Medina the whole city was shocked and dismayed at this flagrant breach of Arab custom. Muhammad himself refused to accept the booty at first but then, very conveniently, a "revelation" justifying the raid came from above, one which is now part of the Qur'an:
They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque and drive out its members". Surah 2.217
So don't fight in the holy months of Ramadan, unless of course you are fighting and killing for Muhammad or the Lord of Mecca [Baal, the ilah]. Muhammad's family deity Baal, the ilah of Mecca said so. How convenient that surely is. But the multi-culti will noisily point to 'in the sight of God', sigh and descend into epileptic seizures of one-world joy. However, this phrase when viewed in the original Arabic, presents an entirely different theme. Gilchrist:
“In the original Arabic the verse up to the words "path of God" reads Innallathiina aa-manuu wallathiina haajaruu wa jaahaduu fii sabiilillah. The link between the word "haajaruu wa jaahaduu" is very significant. From the same root letters come the nouns hijrah (emigration) and jihad (warfare). Those who "suffered exile" (haajaruu) are also those who "fought" (jaahaduu) in the path of God. The hijrah was not just a flight from Mecca. It was a preparation for jihad. It was the mainspring of the establishment of an ummah (community) that was to spread its influence through warfare. Muhammad's objective was to create a theocratic Muslim state and community by fighting those who stood in its way and who chose to resist it.
Where Islam is potentially universalized in Hijrah it is inherently politicized in Jihad. The move out of Mecca with the faith presages the move against Mecca for the faith. In that transition, not only is the Hijrah implemented in its prospective relevance, but Islam is defined in its essential character. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur'an, p. 134).
In other words, the flight to Medina was just one phase of the entire Moslem Jihadic enterprise. Muhammad could not convert the Meccans with his garbled theocratic nonsense, plagiarized poetry, or with his demands that his family deity, Baal, the ilah of Mecca, was the only idol worthy of veneration. Forced out of his hometown, characterized by the Meccans as insane, crazy and deranged, Muhammad with his small coterie of cult acolytes fled Mecca, took up residence in Medina and very quickly began attacking caravans, pillaging wealth, and by the allure of gold, money and sex-slavery, attract Jihadis and Ghazi or warriors. We are told that this is the genesis of a 'great religion'. I do imagine that Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 was of a similar caliber.
David Goetz in 'The Only Solution' describes the anti-Christian worship by Moslems of Baal correctly:
“Known originally as Baal, then Sinai or Sin, Allah was vastly accepted as the Arab's primary god of many god's way before Islam was established.....every Arab that worshipped all of these pagan gods, were more likely to accept Allah the Moon god as the ONLY god.'
Entirely correct. Allah does not mean god. It means the Lord. This Lord of Mecca, or Baal, has no connection whatsoever with the Christian idea of God.
Further, Muhammad's family, part of the ruling aristocracy of Mecca, took care of the Allah shrine, which was dedicated to Baal [Hu'Baal] or the Meccan moon deity. Moon worship was rife in the ancient Near East and the Biblical Baal or 'Sky god' is the same deity as the Baal of Mecca. Various tribes and states worshipped Baal in somewhat different forms. The Canaanites submitted to Baal as the god of the Sky, the Hittites the Lord of storms, the Babylonians as Sin or the Moon deity. Celestial worship was the default cult of the Near Eastern peoples. The cults of Baal are rightly attributed in the Old Testament, as societies steeped in the evil of human sacrifice, murder, oppression, slavery, sexual deviancy, dishonesty and violence.
The above characteristics describe Islam perfectly.
David Wood and the top 10 Koranic verses of hate speech against (David Wood and the top 10 Koranic verses of hate speech against 'Unbelievers': Probably the best 8 minute video...
The importance of Christianity in the development of Western civilisation.
Jihad is an obligation to wage war against non-Moslems. This is why the Moslem cult is so violent. (Jihad is an obligation to wage war against non-Moslems.: Jihad is an Arabic word which sends the multi-cult into...
Bukhari (Bukhari's Hadiths: 2nd half of volume 1 - the incitement to violence and supremacism: A list of violent Hadiths... http://t.co/46K72iYUsh)
Bukhari (Bukhari's Hadiths: First half of volume 1 - the incitement to violence and supremacism: A list of violent Hadiths...
Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton delivers the keynote address at the IPA's 2014 Foundations of Western Civilisation Symposium.
Shocking video! An Islamic Muslim woman (a Palestinian from Hamas controlled territory in Gaza), whose child received and needed medical care in Israel, was ...
Critics argue that India does not have Muslims by the name of Sulaiman ibn Ahmad is a last resort to attack his credibility. Now Hebrew word ben or ibn in Ar...
There is nothing new about religious fascism or caliphates. There is nothing new about rape, infanticide, honor killings, genocide, misogyny, slavery -- or headless journalism either.
There is absolutely nothing in the video of Rev. Robby Gallaty's recent sermon that is threatening, hateful, cruel, or the result of ignorance.
The Allah thing - aka Muhammad - hates Christians Koranic supremacism.
Christianophobia – Islam
"Christians must choose "Islam or death," while their women and daughters may legitimately be regarded as wives of Muslims" The enemedia's criminal silence on the relentless and bloody march of Islamic surpremacists on the backs and the bodies...
Answering the cult from a Christian perspective: What to say to Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormans, The New Age and others.
Idiots Guide to Islam http://alrassoolilive.blogspot.com/
Christianophobia – Islam
Christianophobia – Islam
Raping and torturing young girls.....isn't that what all intolerant cults do ?
It's time to wake up. The real muslims are the terrorist who are following the teachings within the quran. We are not the one's who say they are killing in t...
Nearly two years after the “Arab Spring” began in Egypt, the nation’s Muslim Brotherhood president has arrogated to himself dictatorial powers, and is ramming through a new constitution that will effectively extinguish the last vestiges of Egyptian democracy and establish Egypt as a Sharia state. Just as I said back in January 2011, when the uprisings against Mubarak began, for the people in Egypt who had real power to affect change, the “Arab Spring” was never about democracy and pluralism, despite the ululations of the Western press; it was always about imposing Islamic law upon Egypt. And now, with the new constitution, here we are.
These are not the regular beatings and vandalism against Christians, Hindus and Buddhists but religion-oriented attacks in which someone dies at the hand of a member of the”religion of peace.”
Have you done your shopping yet? It’s Hatred and Violence in the Qur’an Awareness Month — what better time to buy a bomb vest for the mujahid you love?
Inspired by a remark from Pat Condell in this video, I have proclaimed December to be Hatred and Violence in the Qur’an Awareness Month. After all, November was Islamophobia Awareness Month, and certainly the hatred and violence in the Qur’an kills many, many more people than “Islamophobia” ever has or ever will, and so it is far more deserving than “Islamophobia” of a month of its own.