Gjesteskribent

Picture; Bysantine ship defending itself with greek fire.

Recently I’ve met up with two old friends, both British, on different occasions – and they both suffer from the same misunderstanding of religions. They think all religions are equal, and that you can read as much evil out of the Bible as you can from the Quran.

This is easily proven wrong by pointing out the diametrically opposite histories of Christianity versus Islam for the first three hundred years of their respective existences. Christianity from 36 AD to 336 AD was mostly suffering, with multiple persecutions (Decius, Diocletian) while slowly spreading by word of mouth, often among the lowest in society – like women and slaves. Islam from 632 AD to 932 AD was a never ending list of massacres and brutally conquering new lands, while continuously terrorizing the conquered populace.

Not quite the same – wouldn’t you agree?

Fake news media lie about Islam using the rhetorical trick of omission – they leave out unpleasant facts proving their whitewash of Islam is wrong. For example, at the famous battle of Hattin, all western “historians” leave out the fact that Saladin massacred the Christian knights he captured. Giving people this information would put this Islamic hero in a bad light, and we can’t have that.

This article examines two facts never mentioned about Islamic history – yet they show us how horribly inhumane the Islamic writings actually are. Fratricide is one fact, and the other – what was their actual strategy in war? Was it like the Greek phalanx, something similar to the maniple system of the Romans, or was is something more sinister – something you haven’t really been told – as it would lessen your admiration of the Islamic conquests?

The Ottoman Sultans and their Fratricide

In the wake of the Manchester Arena bombing it is interesting to – again – see all the “true muslim” believers point out to the journalists that this bomber was not a “true” muslim. They will say that the Quran cannot be used to defend the deliberate murder of innocent children.

There is just one catch with this statement.

It’s not actually correct.

The question journalists do not ask – due to ignorance or cowardice – is this: Have the leaders and religious scholars of a muslim nation ever used verses from the Quran to defend the murder of innocent children?

The answer is – yes.

One specific example is a period of the Ottoman empire, starting with Sultan Mehmet II – famous as the sultan who conquered Constantinople in 1453 AD. He introduced the Mehmed the Conqueror’s Law of Fratricide:

«Whichever of my sons inherits the sultanate, it behooves him to kill his brothers in the interest of world order. Most jurists have approved this; let action be taken accordingly.

He instigated a practice we call fratricide, i.e., the murder of all one’s own brothers and half-brothers upon taking the throne. The idea was that this would eliminate the possibility of future family quarrels over who should be sultan (and avoid costly civil war). The gruesome practice continued for several generations of sultans, and the muslim scholars defended this practice from the Quran, using among other verses from the Quran the story of the Prophet Moses following a wise man in chapter 18, verse 65 onwards. Here, this wise man murders multiple innocent people, including a boy, stating he will “explain later”. The murder of the child is about 18:70, the explanation around 18:80.

The explanation was that the child would have committed something wrong in the future, hence it is legal to kill the child now. Mehmet III has the record in killings of siblings – he murdered 19. Needless to say – some of the murdered infants would have been breast-sucling babies. The murders were apparently carried out using strangulation. I’m not sure if the more modern ways of getting blown up, shot, knifed to death, or run over would be better.

So here is in clear daylight the total lack of morality in Islam – you can kill anyone you like, if you think they will “do something wrong” in the future. This basically gives Muslims carte blanche to kill everyone they want (or hate, or dislike, or may profit from said person’s death and so on). Which is precisely what we see all over the world. They murder in the West because they hate us, and they gain heaven and 72 virgins, they murder anyone they like in North-Africa and the East because it benefits them and their tribe/clan.

Islam is a religion of “peaceful co-existence” according to Saudi king Salman – his message to the world this Ramadan 2017. It may seem different for the relatives of the Manchester victims, or the London killings, and I think Cairo killings were in between.

How did Islam conquer half the known world in a few decades?

The Neo Assyrians

After what is called the Bronze age collapse, ca. 1200 BC, several countries went into decline (like Egypt). Others resurfaced, one interesting being the Neo Assyrians of what would today be northern Iraq / Syria. The show started with the ruler Ashurnasirpal II (ruled 883 BC – 859 BC). He expanded his inherited kingdom considerably, but of interest to us is not what he conquered – but how.

The Neo Assyrians strategy of conquest was one we seldom hear of – yet one very effective – especially against weak opponents.

Their strategy was TERRORISM.

“Major cities would be approached with massive forces. Surrender demanded, and if refused, other nearby cities and villages that presented easy targets would be attacked. Conquered peoples were severely brutally punished as examples. Tortured, raped, beheaded and flayed, and with their corpses, heads and skins publicly displayed. Houses were demolished, fields sown with salt, orchards chopped down. If the [original] target city still held out, only then would the Assyrians besiege it.” (The Ancient World, #11)

Needless to say, when a city refused surrender, if it fell – it would be leveled to the ground, all men massacred and women and children enslaved – if they were lucky.

A 2800 year old quote from Ashurnasripal II himself  is perhaps fitting here:

“their men young and old I took prisoners. Of some I cut off their feet and hands; of others I cut off the ears noses and lips; of the young men’s ears I made a heap; of the old men’s heads I made a minaret. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burned in flames; the city I destroyed, and consumed with fire”. (From cuneiform found in Ashurbanipals library at Niniveh).

Does anyone recognise ISIS?

Muhammad’s gift to his people

We have many names of great military leaders through history, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Gaius Marius, Pompey Magnus, Julius Caesar, or more modern ones like Napoleon, Wellington, Eisenhower, Rommel and Patton. For many of these leaders, their skillfully executed battles and campaigns have resulted in volumes of written material. Caesar has his battles of Alesia and Pharsalos for example, Hannibal his Cannae, Napoleon his battles of Jena and Auerstedt.

And even more significant – these generals did not invent their own skills – they build on their predecessors, military knowledge improved over generations, Hannibal learned from his father Hamilcar, Scipio from Roman knowledge (and he stole some tricks from Hannibal too), Caesar from hundreds of years of written military history (as well as from his uncle, Gaius Marius).

Yet, for the Arabs who conquered half the known world in a few decades after 632 AD, they had as far as we know nothing to build on. No written history to learn from, and no known conquests. From the  Islamic conquests themselves, what we know best is that Charles Martel stopped them on the France/Spain border, and that they couldn’t conquer the East Roman Empire at Constantinople for another 800 years.

Why do we learn nothing about their war strategy? Was it because – like the Neo Assyrians – it was not really impressive? A primitive and brutal strategy for an illiterate and brutal people?

Was Muhammad’s gift of the Medina verses quite simply a war strategy? One very primitive, yet enormously effective against weak opponents?

Until recently my suggestion about their strategy might have been seen as speculation. However, things have changed. A book was published in February 2016, my copy is already the third print, dated September 2016 (available from Amazon). The title is:

“The MYTH of the Andalusian Paradise”, subtitle “Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain”, by Dario Fernandez-Morera.

The book describes the conquest of Spain (named then Spain, not Iberia), and how the Muslims ruled, using contemporary Muslim, Christian, and Jewish written sources, as well as archeological findings.

The muslim Arabs used Neo Assyrian terrorism to conquer Spain.

They called it consistently Jihad – a religious duty to wage terrorism on the infidels at least once every year. All contemporary sources regard “Jihad” as a militant war against infidels – not a single source ever considers as anything but real war.

This was Muhammad’s gift passed down in the (Medina) Quran. An effective strategy to conquer new land and subjugate its citizens – turning them into dhimmis – forced to pay tax so their Muslim overlords could live in luxury. The book describes the strategy as a “carrot and stick” strategy: First some cities are conquered, population slaughtered (or if lucky, women and children enslaved), and then neighbouring cities are offered a peace treaty – “submit to our rule, or we will massacre you too”.

Our western “scholars” describe this as a “mostly peaceful” endeavour. By the way, this book has numerous quotes from western “scholars” on islam, including Barack Obama. It’s shocking to  read and see how horribly wrong they were about basically everything. The trick is of course to omit the massacres in their histories, and only mention the “peace treaties”.

Al-Andalusia at its “peak” is best compared to Raqqa under ISIS rule.

Indeed, the book has a wealth of footnotes and bibliography, and footnote 87 of Chapter 1 deserves to be quoted:

Chapter 1, footnote 87: “M.C. Diaz y Diaz, ‘Noticias historicas en dos himnos liturgicos visigoticos,’, in Los visigoticos: Historia y civilization: Antiguedad y Christianismo (Murcia) 3 (1986): 443-56. See also Garcia Moreno, Espana 702-719, 190. One is tempted to compare these terror tactics and their quick results with the ruthless tactics and similarly swift conquests of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria during the twenty first century.

The book describes the horrors of living under muslim rule, the destruction of churches, the enslavement of the original spanish Christian population, and later under the Almoravid and Almohad regimes it got worse – the Christians were expelled from their own country to North-Africa. Some fled from this terror to the northern Christian regimes. Marxist historians call this migration.

For those historians who admire and and constantly point to Al-Andalusia as the prime example of multifaith paradise on Earth, their high point is apparently the Umayyad ruler Abd al-Rahman III. I will know quote some history about him and his predecessors from this book (Chapter 4: The Myth of Umayyad Tolerance) – it should not surprise the reader that it sounds like I’m describing a certain al-Baghdadi – todays leader of the Islamic State.

“According to al-Maqqari, when the defeated Abbasid general and his men were brought before Abd al-Rahman, the Umayyad ruler had the men’s hands cut off, then their feet, and finally their heads.”

Above is al-Rahman I – “The enhanced beheading activity under Abd al-Rahman III was notorious.”

The Arab historian Ibn Hayyan wrote this about this ruler: “… the Perfect Caliphs .. who keeps the norms of the Sunnah … fought all innovation … by means of spies whom he ordered to penetrate the most  intimate secrets of the people … and carry out an Inquisition against them … terrifying them and punishing them severely.”

“This ‘Gate of al-Sudda’ or ‘Gate of the Threshold’ was one of the arched entrances to Abd al-Rahman III’s renowned palace of Medinat al-Zahra. Modern admiring scholarly accounts of this palace omit the fact that [the ruler] routinely exposed … to the awed Cordoban people the crucified bodies and severed heads of his enemies.”

(I’m shortening longer quotes here – but the understanding is not out of context).

“[one of the officers of Abd al-Rahman III] chose the 100 most important [christians] and sent them to … an-Naura … all the prisoners, one by one, were decapitated there in his [al-Rahman III] presence and under his eyes, in plain sight of people …”

The following quote should tell us all we need to know about this “paradise” in Al-Andalusia.

“Ibn Hayyan describes a witness’s horror at this mass crucifixion, a reaction which was undoubtedly Abd al-Rahman’s intention to provoke: ‘I was caught in the midst of the crowd .. I turned away my eyes, almost fainting with horror at the sight … and such was my state, that a thief stole my pack [without me noticing it] … It was a terrible day that scared people for a long time afterwards’”

Welcome to Al-Andalucia under the Caliph Abd al-Rahman III – or have I described todays Raqqa under the Caliph al-Baghdadi? I can’t tell the difference .

Islam is terrorism

Siege of Vienna

Islam is not a religion of peace, the Medina verses combined with rest of Sharia law are teachings in terrorism. Terrorism is what made the illiterate and brutish Arabs conquer so much land in such a short time.

Even the descriptions of “infidels”, the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians from the Quran are strikingly similar to the Nazi descriptions of the “untermensch” they were about to annihilate. Such derogatory descriptions of the “infidels” makes killing them so much more – humane? This makes terrorism easier – you’re not killing humans – you’re killing subhumans.

Why do Western scholars literally lie to us about islam’s history? Well, Fernandez-Morera points out that not a few of them are in Arab/muslim pay! Universities receive oil money from the Gulf states and hires useful professors to maximize their income. Realistic scholarship is thus not welcome. Much like CNN driving the Trump-Russia fantasy as it pays off better than say – real news.

A couple of days ago this same CNN went totally mental – and blackmailed some poor internet user into submission by threatening to publicize his name worldwide. His crime was to publish an entertaining video of Trump beating up a guy with CNN logo over his head. The footage was from an American TV show where all violence is fiction. In the internet backslash countless of new videos were made, portraying Trump beating up CNN.

One of them is pure magic – as the villain (CNN) says the words explaining CNN and all the politically correct establishment with perfection- namely what they think of themselves, and what they think of the rest of us (Loki to the Hulk): “I am a God you dull creature!”.

My personal impression of media, academia, and politics in later years is that this is not media, academia, or politics: it is religion. In this religion there is one basic “truth”: Everyone is born perfectly identical, and every aspect of you is created by the world around you.

Hence, you can chose your sex – not happy being a boy? Just wear girls clothing from seven years old onwards – sex is a social construct. In this insane world a child can chose to change his or her sex, chose to receive steroids to delay puberty – but cannot chose to actually have sex.

If a group of people, say inner-city blacks in USA, utterly fails in society, that’s due to “institutional racism” – because they can’t be ruining their own lives with a culture of disrespect for education and stable families – two factors known to have got many asian and white families out of poverty.

When it comes to failing states in the world, it has to be western colonialism to blame. White (Christian) westerners are to blame for all evils on this planet. This is rather puzzling, given that 90 % of the people alive today are alive solely because of western Christian inventions such as penicillin, vaccinations, and mass production of food, and well, everything else.

Comparative … whatever

There are several studies in universities with titles along the lines of Comparative “something”. It is typical for example to compare famous generals like Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Scipio, Caesar and Napoleon – which one was best?

But some comparisons are never done, like how does Christianity or Buddhism compare to Islam?

It is thus interesting that I can make an original comparison – one that to my knowledge has never been made before – namely of that between the Vikings and the Arabs.

The Vikings of old were respected warriors and brilliant seafarers. They were also brutal thugs who massacred quite a lot of people in their quest for gold and slaves.

Their behaviour was not too different than that of the Arabs coming out of the peninsula 632 AD onwards.

And these two people, they both had a conversion into a new religion.

The Arabs went from – whatever – into Islam, and started massacring their way through the outside world for the next 1400 years.

The Vikings converted to Christianity – and became peaceful people never heard from again.

The Vikings followed a man who made water into wine, pardoned a sinful woman with the words “let he among you without sin throw the first stone”, and never hurt a soul.

The Arabs followed a different man.