Is the West Bound To Self Destruction?

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,828
1,790
Perhaps, links at site:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4467

Jihad begot the Crusades (1)
May 4th, 2005


[Part 2, including end notes, can be read here]

The New York Times’ Alan Riding recently opined that

“…[The C]rusades were waged, [by] European monarchs, lords, knights and their armies of devout followers to fight - and settle - in an area stretching between what is today Syria and Egypt. The Muslims responded [emphasis added] with their own sporadic jihads until finally, by 1291, the Christians had been driven out.”

He further lauds the fact that in Ridley Scott’s new film portrayal of the Crusades, Kingdom of Heaven

“…Mr. Scott and his screenwriter, William Monahan, have tried to be balanced. Muslims are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything.” [emphasis added]

Little wonder then that the jihadist organization CAIR, waxed enthusiastic about the film following an advanced screening. Unfortunately, such ahistorical claptrap has become standard fare for journalistic and even pseudo-scholarly “summary assessments” of The Crusades, with perhaps the most egregious example of the latter being this reductio ad absurdum commentary by John Esposito, the doyen of academic apologists for Islam:

Five centuries of peaceful coexistence elapsed before political events and an imperial-papal power play led to centuries-long series of so-called holy wars [emphasis added] that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and distrust. [1]

In Islam and Dhimmitude, (2002) Bat Ye’or analyzed Esposito’s summary account of the first half millennium of jihad conquests. Bat Ye’or notes how Esposito completely,

“…ignores the concepts of jihad and dar al-harb…” [2], and she highlights the “thematic structure” of Esposito’s selective overview, typical of the prevailing modern apologetic genre: [3]

…historical negationism, consisting of suppressing or sketching in a page or a paragraph, one thousand years of jihad which is presented as a peaceful conquest, generally welcomed by the vanquished populations; the omission of Christian and, in particular, Muslim sources describing the actual methods of these conquests: pillage, enslavement, deportation, massacres, and so on; the mythical historical conversion of "centuries" of "peaceful coexistence", masking the processes which transformed majorities into minorities, constantly at risk of extinction; an obligatory self-incrimination for the Crusades…”

Inundated by such disingenuous apologetics Westerners have remained largely ignorant of jihad—the Islamic war of conquest. Thus the chattering classes, confused all too easily by superficial similarities, equate jihad with the Crusades. In fact, there are many fundamental differences between the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad, and the Crusades, as they derive from widely divergent religions and civilizations.

Jihad, as a nascent ideology, originated from the putative military activities of Muhammad himself, described in the Muslim sacred texts. September 622 C.E. marks a defining event in Islam- the hijra. Muhammad and a coterie of followers (the Muhajirun), persecuted by fellow Banu Quraysh tribesmen who rejected Muhammad’s authenticity as a divine messenger, fled from Mecca to Yathrib, later known as Al-Medina (Medina). Gil notes that Muslim sources described Yathrib as having been a Jewish city founded by a Palestinian diaspora population which had survived the revolt against the Romans. [4] Distinct from the nomadic Arab tribes, the Jews of the north Arabian peninsula were highly productive oasis farmers. These Jews were eventually joined by itinerant Arab tribes from southern Arabia who settled adjacent to them and transitioned to a sedentary existence.

Following Muhammad’s arrival, he created a “new order”, as described by Gil, [5]

…establishing a covenant between the tribes which imposed its authority on every clan and its members, [which] soon enabled him to attack the Jews and eventually wipe out the Jewish population of the town. Some were banned from the towns, others were executed, and their property-plantations, fields, and houses- was distributed by Muhammad among his followers, who were destitute refugees from Mecca. He also used the former property of the Jews to establish a war fund, setting up a well-equipped army corps of cavalry troops the likes of which had never before been seen on the Arabian peninsula. Muhammad evidently believed in the capacity of this army, imbued with fiery religious belief, to perform great and sensational feats of valor.

Richard Bell summarized Muhammad’s final interactions with the Jews and Christians of Medina, and northern Arabia. His analyses, based upon the sacred Muslim texts (i.e, Qur’an, hadith, and sira), authoritative Qur’anic commentaries, and the narratives of Muslim chroniclers of early Islam, also underscored the theological basis for the “Great Jihad”: [6]

His relations with the Jews form a part of all biographies of Muhammad, for they worked out to a bitter and savage conclusion in the course of his first few years residence in Medina…Shortly after the Battle of Badr a Jewish tribe, the Bani Qainuqa, were deprived of their goods, and expelled from Medina. The Bani Nadir were similarly expelled some two years later, and finally the Bani Quraiza were besieged, and, after capitulation at discretion, were slaughtered, their goods confiscated, their women and children enslaved. This bitter hostility was no doubt due to the annoyance which the opposition of the Jews caused him…in Muhammad’s mind there also rankled the old feeling that the Jews had misled him in regard to what the Revelation contained, and having discovered that Jesus had been a prophet to the Bani Isra’il whom the Jews had rejected, he may have in his own mind justified his harsh dealing with them by the reflection that they were renegades who had already more than once rejected the Divine message…But when Muhammad’s power began to spread in Arabia his attitude towards the Christians soon began to cool. Any real alliance or even peaceful accommodation was indeed impossible from the first. Muhammad complains (Q.2:113/114) that neither Jews nor Christians will be satisfied with him until he follows their milla or type of religion. It was just as impossible for him to make concessions…Thus the relationship with the Christians ended as that with the Jews ended- in war...We know that before the end of his life Muhammad was in conflict with Christian populations in the north of Arabia, and even within the confines of the Roman [Byzantine] Empire. What would have happened if he had lived we do not know. But probably the policy which Abu Bakr carried on was the policy of Muhammad himself. There could have been no real compromise. He regarded himself as vicegerent of God upon earth. The true religion could only be Islam as he laid it down, and acceptance of it meant acceptance of his divinely inspired authority…The Hijra and the execution of the Divine vengeance upon the unbelievers of Mecca had given the immediate occasion for the organization of such a warlike community. The victory of Badr confirmed it. This is what it had grown to, a menace to whatever came in its way. Muhammad could bide his time, but he was not the man to depart from a project which had once taken hold of his mind as involved in his prophetic mission and authority. He might look with favor upon much in Christianity, but unless Christians were prepared to accept his dictation as to what the true religion was, conflict was inevitable, and there could have been no real peace while he lived...
 
It seems the Islamists have gotten the last --- or maybe most recent --- laugh at the Crusaders, for Europe is increasingly dotted with minarets. The Muslim call to prayer fills European cities to the far reaches of the north. Islamic radicals feel free to murder their Dutch hosts when they criticize their precious religion. Brown-skinned Muslim toughs ride roughshod through London streets. Muslim radicals plan terror in Hamburg, Germany.

All the while, the white Christians of Europe capitulate, capitulate, capitulate. They rend their garments over their "racism," decry LePen and other European leaders who see the menace for what it is, and make it a criminal act to even speak ill of the Muslims.

So yes, the West is self-destructing. But reversing this trend will be extremely difficult, because it will require renewed white racial consciousness of the sort that 99 percent of white Westerners are convinced is pure evil.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312285485/002-9960016-9839265?v=glance[/ame]

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_07_19/cover.html

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/
 
William Joyce said:
It seems the Islamists have gotten the last --- or maybe most recent --- laugh at the Crusaders, for Europe is increasingly dotted with minarets. The Muslim call to prayer fills European cities to the far reaches of the north. Islamic radicals feel free to murder their Dutch hosts when they criticize their precious religion. Brown-skinned Muslim toughs ride roughshod through London streets. Muslim radicals plan terror in Hamburg, Germany.

All the while, the white Christians of Europe capitulate, capitulate, capitulate. They rend their garments over their "racism," decry LePen and other European leaders who see the menace for what it is, and make it a criminal act to even speak ill of the Muslims.

So yes, the West is self-destructing. But reversing this trend will be extremely difficult, because it will require renewed white racial consciousness of the sort that 99 percent of white Westerners are convinced is pure evil.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312285485/002-9960016-9839265?v=glance&tag=ff0d01-20

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_07_19/cover.html

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/
gonna agree with ya on that one--don't know exactly how and when but if the us white population doesn't get it together SOON, we're dead meat. I'm NOT speaking of killing off all non whites however whites MUST act as a unified race.

I just returned from seeing this movie and it did play Saladin as a somewhat "moral person". I didn't find it so offensive that I could not identify and like the protagonists' goals. A lot here I think will probably hate it because
of it's anti right wing christian slant.
 
William Joyce said:
it will require renewed white racial consciousness of the sort that 99 percent of white Westerners are convinced is pure evil.
Joyce, I agree that your philosophies are "pure evil." I thought Himmler was dead. I guess his ideas live on in people like you. Contrary to your assertion, winning the fight against evil ideologies like radical Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with resurgent racism. Evil cannot be defeated by greater evil.
 
onedomino said:
Joyce, I agree that your philosophies are "pure evil." I thought Himmler was dead. I guess his ideas live on in people like you. Contrary to your assertion, winning the fight against evil ideologies like radical Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with resurgent racism. Evil cannot be defeated by greater evil.

Onedomino, some do not understand that The West is a school of thought and beliefs, they only see race. One would hope that time would work its magic, but for some :dunno:
 
OneDomino and K:

Some might say the West is defined exclusively by the existence of white people --- nothing more. Others say the West is defined exclusively as a set of abstract ideas --- nothing more.

I don't believe either is entirely correct. I think the truth is in the middle. Yes, Western ideals and ways can be taken up by some other races and cultures in limited and modified ways. But no, you cannot simply drop the black population of Haiti into London or Boston and expect them all to become indistinguishable from everyone else. It just doesn't work that way. Races do, in fact, act differently. Race and culture are very tightly woven together.
 
William Joyce said:
OneDomino and K:

Some might say the West is defined exclusively by the existence of white people --- nothing more. Others say the West is defined exclusively as a set of abstract ideas --- nothing more.

I don't believe either is entirely correct. I think the truth is in the middle. Yes, Western ideals and ways can be taken up by some other races and cultures in limited and modified ways. But no, you cannot simply drop the black population of Haiti into London or Boston and expect them all to become indistinguishable from everyone else. It just doesn't work that way. Races do, in fact, act differently. Race and culture are very tightly woven together.

And you could NOT drop a European white into the midst of American behavior and expect they would act the same.
 
Not immediately, but I would modify that somewhat based on the following: In the early 1900s, many European immigrants came over from places like Ireland and Italy. There were differences and there were tensions. Where I live, in NYC, some of these are still raw because this city is probably the "rawest" of the immigration experiences: there are actually Italians here who still speak Italian.

But as these white Europeans spread out over the country and lived here a while, they did begin to blend in and pick up the Anglo-Saxon ways and mannerisms. Part of it was racial: because the immigrants were all from the same continent, Europe, the change was smoother.

Today's immigration flood is different. The racially-different Hispanics are very physically different. There are much higher hurdles to assimilation, partly because there's no pressure to assimilate. But even if there were, it's much harder. An America that is majority-Hispanic will NOT be the same America we once knew.

This is not because whites are "racist" or some other nefarious reason, as the liberals are always insisting. It's just how people are. I think that rather than pretend there are no racial or ethnic differences, we should acknowledge them and let the natural boundaries that evolve STAY IN PLACE. That is really the essence of conservatism, and why it's so bizarre to see the neocons insisting that by filing lawsuits and playing social engineering games, we can make everyone "equal" in the global village.

That does not mean "Nazism" or killing other races. That just means common sense! Nobody is going to be "killed" if we close the borders. Nobody is going to suffer and die if we make English the rule. Nobody is going to be tortured if we don't force whites to hire and live with blacks against their will and vice-versa.

I think that the violence and the mayhem and confusion and hatred come mostly from wrong-headed attempts to forcibly integrate the races, not keep them separate. Separatism has a bad rap, but it's probably the most peace-inducing policy the world has ever known.
 
dilloduck said:
gonna agree with ya on that one--don't know exactly how and when but if the us white population doesn't get it together SOON, we're dead meat. I'm NOT speaking of killing off all non whites however whites MUST act as a unified race.

I just returned from seeing this movie and it did play Saladin as a somewhat "moral person". I didn't find it so offensive that I could not identify and like the protagonists' goals. A lot here I think will probably hate it because
of it's anti right wing christian slant.

But Padesha said it was fair. I'm confused!
 

Forum List

Back
Top