Posts Tagged ‘Umayyad’

Christianity vs Islam – Who Started This Whole Mess?

April 23, 08

It must be the fault of those Imperialist, Colonialist, Zionist, Racist, Apartheid Crusaders!

They are to blame for beginning this inhumane Christian occupation of rightfully Muslim lands that continues today in the form of the Colonial powers, the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the existence of the State of Israel.

That’s what Muslim apologists and hate-ranting imams/national leaders will tell you. And they are obviously totally unbiased and without political motives, so what they say MUST be true and unquestionably factual!

So let’s count the dates up to the Crusades, shall we?


634 A.D. Muslim invasion of Byzantine Christian EmpireArab Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Asia Minor, Crete and Sicily, and attempt to conquer the Byzantine Christian Empire’s capital Constantinople in Christian Turkey, until 1169 A.D. Many of these remain under Muslim occupation up to this very day.

634 A.D. Muslim invasion of Palestine Caliphate Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Palestine. Jerusalem (which is mentioned 154 times in the Bible but exactly ZERO times in the Quran) falls to the Muslim occupiers in 638 A.D., until retaken by the Christian Crusaders in 1099 A.D.

650 A.D. Muslim invasion of Khazar – Arab Muslims attack, invade but fail to occupy Jewish and Christian Khazar (Ukraine and Russia), until 737 A.D.

652 A.D. Muslim invasion of Southern Italy Syrian Arab Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Sicily and Italy, until 1091 A.D.

700 A.D. Muslim invasion of Nubia Arab Muslims attack, invade but fail to occupy Christian Nubia, until 1315 when a Muslim king ascends the throne.

711 A.D. Muslim invasion of South-west Europe Umayyad Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Spain, Portugal, Andora and Gibraltar, and try to invade France but are soundly trashed in the Battle of Tours, until 975 A.D.

846 A.D. Muslim Saracen sacking of Rome Saracen Muslims attack, invade and pillage Rome, the very capital of the Christian church at that time. The unholy, sacrilegeous, disrespectful defilers rob the sacred relics of the Basilica of Saint Peter and Basilica of Saint Paul, but fail to breach the walls of the city. (Kudos to Eric Mudasi for insipiring this addition.)

1064 A.D. Muslim invasion of West Asia Turkish Muslims attack, invade and occupy Asia Minor and Syria, until 1308. However, later events cause them to remain under Muslim occupation today.

1095 A.D. The First Crusade First Crusade begins. Campaign is limited to retaking formerly Christian lands. Today, all the territory reclaimed from Muslim occupiers during the Crusades has returned to Muslim occupation – except for Israel, which has been returned to Jewish rule after 2500 years of occupation by various factions, including centuries of Muslim subjugation.


So according to jihadi apologists, all the suicide bombings, hostage taking, journalist beheading and general terrorism against noncombatants is justified by the Western Christian ‘invasions’ of ‘sovereign Muslim’ lands which began with the ‘illegal Crusades’.

In fact, Rome itself ought to be handed over to the Muslim World Caliphate as recompense for all that Christian Roman Empire-started conflict.

Even though 461 years of unprovoked, unjustified Muslim aggression preceded the Crusades.


Above via Adan Reyes.

And even though 50% of all the Christians in the world at the time of the 7th-century were wiped out in the next three centuries by the Muslim jihadists…:

– The church’s heartland at that time was the Middle East and Northern Africa (now almost completely dominated by Islam)
– 3200 churches were wiped out in North Africa
– 10,000 church buildings were destroyed in the century preceding the First Crusade

And even though the Crusades as a religious war were inspired by and copied the four centuries of Islamic jihad.

Because obviously, the Americano-Zionists used their demonic time-travel spells and godless capitalist technology to warp space-time and make the 1095 A.D. First Crusade happen before Islam was even founded.

Yes, it is obviously all the Western Christian Imperialists Crusaders’ fault. At the behest of their Elders of Zionism masters.

Full list of ‘Western Christian acts of first-aggression’ at this Wikipedia.

Quick background on the First Crusade’s starting here.

In-depth look at the destruction of Constantinople, with video:

On a tip from wits0, Four Myths about the Crusades which are: The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world; Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich; Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives; The crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.

Similar summary as mine, with elaborations (tipped by ZT).


On a tip from hutch:

The Mythistory of the Crusades

by Ibn Warraq

The Crusades were a response to the desecration of the Christian shrines in the Holy Land, the destruction of churches, and the general persecution of Christians in the Near East. A Crusade to be considered legitimate had to fulfill strict criteria; one did not enter into it lightly for self aggrandizement. There had to be a legally sound reason. It was, in other words, waged for purposes of repelling violence or injury and the imposition of justice on wrongdoers. A Crusade was never a war of conversion, rather a rightful attempt to recover Christian territory which had been injuriously seized in the past. Only a recognized authority could formally declare a Crusade, and it had to be waged justly.

…the Crusades were a reaction against over three hundred years of jihad when the Eastern Christians were persecuted, and hundreds of churches destroyed… the conver­sion of the magnificent Byzantine Hagia Sophia into a mosque, (though admittedly this took place after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453—it was a mosque from 29 May 1453 until 1931…

I can only adumbrate the situation in the Holy Land a hundred years before Pope Urban II’s call in 1095 for a crusade to liberate Palestine. The cruelties of Caliph al-Hakim have been recorded by Christian and Muslim historians. In 1003, al-Hakim began the persecution of Jews and Christians in earnest. Historian Ibn al-Dawadari tells us that the first move in a series of acts was the destruc­tion of the church of St. Mark. Al-Musabbihi, a contemporary, recounts that the Christians built this church without a permit—the building of new churches was not permitted. The Al-Rashida mosque was built in its place, eventually extending over, and desecrating Jewish and Christian cemeteries; surely an act of vandalism. The height of al-Hakim’s cruelties was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, also known as the Church of the Resurrection, possibly the most revered shrine in Christendom, since it is considered by Christians as Golgotha, (the Hill of Calvary), where the New Testament says that Jesus was crucified, and even the place where Jesus was buried, and hence, of course, the site of the Resurrection. He ordered dismantled “the Church of the Resurrection to its very foundations, apart from what could not be destroyed or pulled up, and they also destroyed the Golgotha and the Church of St. Constantine and all that they contained, as well as all the sacred grave-stones. They even tried to dig up the graves and wipe out all traces of their existence. Indeed they broke up and uprooted most of them. They also laid waste to a con­vent in the neighbourhood….The authorities took all the other property belonging to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and its pious foundations, and all its furnishings and treasures.”6 According to Muslim sources the destruction began in September, 1007 C.E. “Most of the Muslim sources view the destruction as a reaction to its magnificence and the fact that it was a world centre for Christian pilgrims, among them many Christians from Egypt; to the splendid processions that were held in the streets of Jerusalem, and to the ‘Paschal fire’….”7

Many believe that modern Muslims have inherited from their me­dieval ancestors memories of crusader violence and destruction. But nothing could be further from the truth.18 By the four­teenth century, in the Islamic world the Crusades had almost passed out of mind. Muslims had lost interest, and, in any case, they “looked back on the Crusades with indifference and complacency. In their eyes they had been the outright winners. They had driven the crusaders from the lands they had settled in the Levant and had been triumphant in the Balkans, occupying far more territory in Europe than the Western settlers had ever held in Syria and Palestine.”

Again from hutch:

Surreal and Suicidal: Modern Western Histories of Islam

A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the “Islamic world” — including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China — much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 700 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Constantinople’s Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.

The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island, seizing four hundred captives and selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s “right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.”

In short, for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing — Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.

Were the Dark Ages truly benighted because of the “suffocating” forces of Christianity? Or were these dark ages — which “coincidentally” occurred during the same centuries when jihad was constantly harrying Europe — a product of another suffocating religion? Was the Spanish Inquisition a reflection of Christian barbarism or was it a reflection of Christian desperation vis-à-vis the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who, while claiming to have converted to Christianity, were practicing taqiyya and living as moles trying to subvert the Christian nation back to Islam?

See also God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades and this post, or this summary in response to Obama’s idiotic a-historical pandering to jihadis, and what historians say about it.

Stefan Molyneux offers a verbal recap:

Response to My Letter About Fitna in The Star

April 8, 08

Come and read this ‘reply’ which is de-facto-not-at-all-a-reply to my letter to The Star about anti-Fitna protests.

MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH completely mischaracterizes the message of Fitna as ‘West vs. Islam’. That is not what Fitna and my letter are about. See his letter below.

To find out what the true message is, see the letter to the Star I sent which has not been printed as of yet. It follows MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH‘s letter, and its contents are not exactly 100% Politically Correct for Malaysia, so no surprise if it never sees print.

And then after that, watch me mock his argument and rip his letter to shreds… Intellectually, of course.

Friends of MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH, make sure to tell him that his letter is on my blog, and I’m busy showing him up for all to see.



From MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH to The Star Letters 6 April 2008:

    BlameTheWestAgain1    BlameTheWestAgain2

Vicious cycle must be stopped

I AM having difficulty understanding Scott Thong’s view “Extremists must be taken to task too” (The Star, April 3) that moderate Muslims condone violence because they have never expressed any sense of outrage at the violence committed by the few so-called Muslim terrorists.

Muslims, just like others, do not condone violence committed not only by fellow Muslims but also those committed by others in many parts of the world. The outrage against Geert Wilders, on the other hand, is not by all Muslims because of his propaganda to vilify Islam instead of the terrorists.

The term “moderate Islam” was invented by the West immediately after the Cold War with Russia. Islam suddenly became a new enemy of the West, and a litmus test was set up to establish if a Muslim country or individual could be regarded as moderate.

They are considered moderate if they do not promote or condone violence, do not possess WMDs and adopt a democratic system of government. They know that most Muslim countries could not pass this litmus test, but the same goes for the West.

The term moderate Islam is a convenient jargon to classify Muslims, so that Muslim countries and people are seen to be either with or against them.

Prior to this, I have not heard of this dichotomy of moderate and jihadist and there were no animosities between Muslims and the West. The violence committed by the few extremists in the name of Islam against Western countries was never against Christianity but against Western imperialism.

Radicalisation of Muslims started in the early 19th century in British India when the British imposed their values and religion on Muslims and Hindus.

The British introduced the concept of pre-emptive strike, now adopted by the Americans, against the moderate Mughal and installed a puppet regime, also known as a regime change, which could serve their political and economic ends.

According to William Dalrympl author of The Last Mughal, the jihadists take what they see as an act of self-defence.

It was at about the same period that radicalisation of Muslims also occurred in Egypt, during the construction of the Suez Canal where development was for the benefit of the imperial West.

I believe the most pressing issue now is how to break this vicious cycle, i.e. the provocation by the West and the counteraction by the radical Muslims. The making of Fitna and its circulation do not help matters.

Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.



Scott’s reply to the above letter:

They would kill mefor who I am
As Mohd Shah Abdullah replied to my letter, I wish to reply to him in turn, in order to clear up some misunderstandings.
He seems to have misinterpreted my letter as focusing on what constitutes a ‘moderate’ Muslim, when the clear intent of my letter was simply that those who condemn Geert Wilders for tarnishing Islam with his film Fitna should also condemn the Muslims caught on film tarnishing Islam with their hate-filled rhetoric.
I do not wish to argue about whether the West is to blame for stirring up discontent and anger. I do not condone aggression or warmongering by any nation or philosophy.
But what I would like to point out is this: The radicals shown calling for war and murder in Fitna would kill me.
Me. Scott Thong.
Not just Geert Wilders. Not just George W. Bush. Not just Westerners who mock their religion and invade their nations. But me.
Why? I am a Malaysian of Chinese ethnicity. I am not a Westerner. I am not an American or a Briton or a Dutchman.
What did I ever do to deserve their hatred? I have never taken part in or condoned slander or insult or war or imperialist occupation. I have done nothing to provoke the sentiments of these radicals who call for my murder with full conviction and fervor. Absolutely nothing.
Yet the radicals recorded on film in Fitna would still behead me… Simply because I am a Christian. Simply because I do not share their specific beliefs. Simply because I do not submit to their power and control. Simply because I do not join in their jihad against the West.
They would kill me, simply because I am not a Muslim.
That is what I want Muslim leaders to denounce when they denounce Geert Wilders. That is what I want Muslim groups to protest when they protest Fitna. That is what I want ‘moderates’ to unconditionally condemn and reject.
Strifeful, combative and blood-spilling division between Muslims and non-Muslims – that is what I want my peace-loving, tolerant and understanding Muslim friends, neighbours and national leaders to condemn and reject.
Moderate or radical? I believe that the distinction is very clear to see, Western-invented classifying jargon or not.
Denounce the murderous radicals as well as those who would provoke them. That is all I ask of you.




And now, the pwnage:

1) MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH totally misses the very simple, straightforward and clear message of my letter:

If you’re going to denounce Geert Wilders for his film Fitna, you should be also denouncing the Muslims calling for war on all non-Muslims. – Scott Thong, right here and right now

Instead, he goes off on a red-herring tangent about his skewed view of West-Islam history. Which I dissect below.


2) He says that:

They are considered moderate if they do not promote or condone violence, do not possess WMDs and adopt a democratic system of government. They know that most Muslim countries could not pass this litmus test, but the same goes for the West.

I say that in my understanding, anyone of any religion or culture is considered ‘moderate’ if they don’t want to kill me for offending them, for not submitting to them, for not converting to their religion.

THAT is the core issue here, MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH. Not what the West chooses to label a Muslim nation, but whether a Muslim wants to cut off my head just because of the fact that I am not a Muslim.


3) He says that:

Prior to this, I have not heard of this dichotomy of moderate and jihadist and there were no animosities between Muslims and the West. The violence committed by the few extremists in the name of Islam against Western countries was never against Christianity but against Western imperialism.

I would kindly point him to the following animosities which all happened without just cause on the part of the Muslim aggressors, long before any such notion of ‘Western imperialism’ existed, but during a time when Christians were considered kaffirs (infidels) :

And these animosities also happened way before the Crusades (First Crusade began 1095 A.D., so he can’t blame it on ‘provocation of the West‘)… Which by the way, were restricted to reconquering territories that had formerly been Christian before the Muslim imperialist conquerors came along.

See full list at Christianity vs Islam – Who Started This Whole Mess?.


4) He says that:

Radicalisation of Muslims started in the early 19th century in British India when the British imposed their values and religion on Muslims and Hindus.

I say: What about the Muslims who carried out the invasions I just mentioned in Point 3? Were they radical, or non-radical?

If radical, then how are the 19th-century British to blame for 7th-century ‘radicalization’ of some Muslims?

If not radical, then what are you yourself implying about Islam as a whole?


5) He says that:

According to William Dalrympl author of The Last Mughal, the jihadists take what they see as an act of self-defence.

I say that, according to the Crusaders, their invasion of Jerusalem was ‘just an act of self-defense’ after 400 years of Muslim invasions of the previously Christian Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe.


6) Strangely enough, after dismissing the classifying term ‘moderate’ by saying:

The term moderate Islam is a convenient jargon to classify Muslims, so that Muslim countries and people are seen to be either with or against them.

…He finishes his letter by classifying some Muslims as ‘radical’:

I believe the most pressing issue now is how to break this vicious cycle, i.e. the provocation by the West and the counteraction by the radical Muslims. The making of Fitna and its circulation do not help matters.

And need I point out, to these ‘jargon classified as radical’ Muslims, the rest of the world is already seen to be ‘either with them or against them’. Or haven’t you as a learned Muslim heard of Dar al-Islam vs Dar al-Harb? (Territory of Islam vs Territory of War. The latter includes all non-Muslims, including non-Western me.)


7) He still manages to not condemn the kill-all-non-Muslims-terror-mongers featured in Fitna. Congrats on that, Mr. Moderate (except that according to yourself, Moderate is just a false label).



MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH is the typical one-side-of-the-story wannabe historian who thinks that the West is basically to blame for every problem in the world.

Never mind that if you want to play the ‘Who is first imperialist to blame’ game, expansionism-by-the-sword Islam is clearly the culprit. (Muslims invasions in 632 A.D. Middle East and in 711 A.D. Europe versus 1095 A.D. First Crusade, it’s basic maths, sir).

Never mind that if you go far back enough in history, all these ‘Muslim lands’ that the jihadists use to claim ‘self-defense against the Western imperialists’ were once non-Muslim lands that failed to defend themselves from the imperialistic, warmongering, proto-colonial caliphates of Islam.

Just like Abdullah Badawi, MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH cannot comprehend that the West is not always to blame for everything… And that sometimes, you really should start taking responsibility for a change.

Start taking responsibility now, good sir. Denounce unconditionally the Muslims who call for the death of all Christians, Jews, atheists, polytheists, Muslims of a different sect, Muslims who are insufficiently pious, Muslims who even associate with the former groups…

…You get the picture.




Fitna is not about the West versus Islam. It is about Muslims who claim to follow the Koran and Hadith, and use those scriptures to justify killing me.

Me. Scott Thong. 

Not Geert Wilders. Not Tony Blair. Not G.W. Bush. Not Ariel Sharon. Not the Americans and the Zionists and the Jews.

But me… And all my family and friends. Why?

I am a Chinese Malaysian. I have nothing to do with the West, with America or Britain or the Dutch or Zionist Israel or the Crusaders.

Yet the Muslims shown preaching, chanting, mobbing, killing in the footage of Fitna would still kill me… Because I am a Christian. Because I do not partake of their jihad against whoever their enemies may be. Because I do not bow down and submit to them.

Those Muslims will kill me, because I am not a Muslim.

That is the crux of the argument. That is the point here. That is the message of Fitna (have you even watched it?).

So, MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH , how would you justify the ‘self-defence’ of the jihadis who would kill non-Western, non-imperialist Scott Thong?

%d bloggers like this: