Categories: Christian extremism, Islamophobia, Utterly idiotic
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Categories: Christian extremism, Islamophobia, Utterly idiotic
Blogging Theology 
He wants a holy war, what a sick man!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Littlejohn has been radicalised by the likes of Wood and Spencer the dark lords of Christian extremism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This should be no surprise to anyone here. When you hang around filthy and poisonous persons like Scam-Moon, Woody, Spencer and Morey, you get this. The true Christianity of that was practised by Crusaders comes out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
paul , while richard zetter have experiences, this guy has his experiences too
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bamboo Neil is at it again? This guy is dangerous.
In regard to his perceived “Clue” in Russian crosses, it can only be one of two things. It highlights the shameful disrespect for other religions, and specifically the desecration of Islam and its symbols by an intolerant and spiteful Christianity, an insult that is not returned in kind or indulged in by Islamic symbols. OR more likely, it is completely misunderstood by the likes of Neil and other wishful thinkers:
Orthodox churches in Moscow built before 1700 feature crosses with a Muslim crescent moon on them, a feature not found on any Orthodox church in Kyiv and an indication, Andrey Bulgarov argues, that “the Muscovite variant of Orthodoxy is much closer to Islam than it is to Christianity.”
http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/12/01/why-there-are-muslim-crescents-on-orthodox-crosses-in-moscow-but-not-in-kyiv/#arvlbdata
“B.A. Uspensky offers another view, stating that in pre-Christian times, the ‘Cross over Crescent’ symbolized the sun and the moon, and that in the Christian Era, the cross is a symbol of Christ and the moon is a symbol of the Virgin Mary.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
It is interesting how some Christians seem to approve the denigration of the symbols of Islam. Crescents under Crosses, Churches carpeted with crescents designs for people to trample upon, even the sweet pastry “Croissant” symbolizes a Christian victory over Islam. Not to mention destruction of Mosques desecration of the Qur’anic text and symbols by non-muslims.
While the star and crescent are not official symbols, they are associated in the minds of many with the religion of Islam. The symbols of all faiths, religions and peoples should be treated with mutual respect and not abused.
Catholic-Muslim statement against desecration of religious symbols
https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26209
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 2 people
What a lying little pest. This is what spencer and other extremists said, when Andres Brevik used their material to murder people in Sweden, few years back.
They poison little minds, and when some nutter goes around hurting innocent people, these extremists claim to have no involvement in radicalising people.
LikeLiked by 3 people
now he is “parabolising” his own terroristic heart.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Such people are reflecting what is actually in their own dark hearts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He wrote the word moderate between brackets which implies he doesn’t believe that there’s a such thing.
That man is a psychopath.
Ya Allah, Ya Rabb deal with David wood, Sam, Nabeel, Spencer, and Niel in any way you like. Save us from their filthy works by any way you like. Allahumma expose them by any way you like. Ameen.
اللهم اكفناهم بماشئت ياقوي ياعزيز .
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ameen
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 4 people
when apostate piece of dung like him posting pictures like that and revealing his dream, what else do we call it but
hate
[heyt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), hated, hating.
1.
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest:
LikeLiked by 2 people
And to add insult to injury, he shamelessly posts such hate while deceptively wearing the clothing and headdress of an Islamic Imaam in a buffoonish and transparent attempt to pass himself off as something he is not!! Such is the deceit that Christian apologists like him are engaged in!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
This poor fellow seems to be consumed by hatred.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, he really seems to be. His conversion to an extreme form of Christianity suggests it is more about his psychological needs than an authentic spirituality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
His own ego has misled and blinded him from the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Kill for peace’,the phrase that has been used to justify war since the start.
LikeLike
How long would it be tolerated in Muslim countries if Christians, or Jews or Hindus where assassinating leaders, driving trucks into crowds, or randomly shooting and stabbing people?
And while we are on the subject what came firs the Jihad or the Crusades?
LikeLike
What do you think jihad means?
LikeLike
Kmac: How long would it be tolerated in Muslim countries if Christians, or Jews or Hindus where assassinating leaders, driving trucks into crowds, or randomly shooting and stabbing people?
Considering that Muslim rulers didn’t expunge their Christian, Jewish and Hindu subjects in the 1400 years of Islamic rule, despite uprisings at various times, they’d be tolerated well? I don’t know.
Now let me ask you the following, how many Muslim countries have bombed the shi’t out of Christian countries in the past 20 years? How many Muslim countries have caused coups in Christian countries? How many Muslim countries support dictators in Christian countries? How many Muslim countries have interfered in the elections of Christian countries?
Kmac: And while we are on the subject what came firs the Jihad or the Crusades?
If by Crusades you mean Christian holy wars, then since Byzantine empire predates Islam and the Byzantine empire was based on holy warfare, definitely the Crusades came first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If by Crusades you mean Christian holy wars, then since Byzantine empire predates Islam and the Byzantine empire was based on holy warfare, definitely the Crusades came first.”
Good answer!!!
This is why some scholars have described Islam as an early faith based social justice movement which liberated much of the world from the tyranny, aggression, violence, and unjust oppression of the Byzantine and Persian Empires.
LikeLike
Kmak wrote…
“Considering that Muslim rulers didn’t expunge their Christian, Jewish and Hindu subjects in the 1400 years of Islamic rule, despite uprisings at various times, they’d be tolerated well? I don’t know. ”
My response really? So I guess the following has never happened
Egypt
Pakistan
Iran
LikeLike
YouTube videos. The best form of historical analysis ever.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So Kmak had no response for the evidence. Ok then.
Kmak maybe you can answer me this? You said “Considering that Muslim rulers didn’t expunge their Christian, Jewish and Hindu subjects in the 1400 years of Islamic rule, despite uprisings at various times, they’d be tolerated well? I don’t know. ”
First can you name any of these alleged rebellions by Christians?
Second if there ever was such a thing can you tell me why Christians rebelled in an Islamic paradise? We here all the time from Muslim that living under the Caliphate was such a great time for Christians and other minorites. That Muslims treated Christians and minorities with such respect and dignity, and the Jizya tax was so low etc…
Why would they rebel?
LikeLike
A question for the Muslims in this thread. You condemn the idea of Christians taking Istanbul back from the Muslims by force. Fair enough. Do you condemn how Sultan Mehmed II took Istanbul from the Greek Christians by force?
LikeLike
Allan good question but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an answer lol.
LikeLike
Allan come to think of it, Muslims like to claim that the Jihad was just because some Roman governor allegedly killed the ambassadors of Mohamed.
Kind of funny you now have cold hard facts of a Muslim killing a Russian ambassador and they cry foul lol.
LikeLike
Allan,
There were many things that happened in the distant past which, if we were to project our own modern biases we would condemn according to todays equally modern standards. This is true for any civilization, religion or peoples, times were different etc. I do not excuse atrocities or injustice, but we must put them into context.
The site of Istanbul/Constantinople has been a site of human settlement for over 3000 years, whereas the Thracian’s only arrived between the 13 and 11th centuries, most likely displacing the original inhabitants of the area. The Greeks arrived from Greece even later in the 7th century and were not the original indigenous inhabitants of Anatolia. The Greeks (Greco-Romans) were only the most recent foreigners to claim and usurp the land by conquest, or hold it by oppressive force of arms.
It is known that, of the original peoples of Anatolia, the Hittites are the most ancient known indigenous inhabitants of the area dating back to 1600 BCE. Given the above, one may be able to argue, that after the demise of their empire, the loss of their homeland remained in the collective memory of those remnants of the indigenous population who later mixed with Phonecians, and Syro-Arabs, Seljuk Turks, and other indigenous and non-indigenous peoples who later, over time, accepted Islam and returned along with the Turkish Ottomans, empowered to reclaim their rightful property from the Greeks who had stolen it from them so long before. Again, not to justify any injustice, but one must realize that the long and complicated course of history didn’t just begin yesterday with Sultan Mehmed II.
Now, in regard to the anachronistic idea of Christians taking Istanbul back from the Muslims by force today – it must be roundly condemned by all people in accordance with the modern standards, including international law, that are so often touted by the modern world establishment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ibn writes…
“There were many things that happened in the distant past which, if we were to project our own modern biases we would condemn according to todays equally modern standards.”
My response: are any of those things that Mohamed did or Muslims did? Like for instance slaying all the male jews who had pubic hair, or taking Constantinople in the first place?
You wrote…
“Now, in regard to the anachronistic idea of Christians taking Istanbul back from the Muslims by force today – it must be roundly condemned by all people in accordance with the modern standards, including international law, that are so often touted by the modern world establishment.”
My response: Why? Unless you are willing to Condemn anything that Mohamed or his merry band of followers did if it where done in this day and age, then I see no reason to condemn the just liberation of Constantinople from 100’s of years of Islamic occupation.
LikeLike
Ibn one more thing you wrote…
“it must be roundly condemned by all people in accordance with the modern standards, including international law, that are so often touted by the modern world establishment.””
My response: Why is it that Muslims always appeal to modern Kuffar Laws why can’t you appeal to your Islamic laws?
LikeLike
Kmac,
As a Muslim I would condemn any act of injustice, even if committed by fellow Muslims. The Qur’an exhorts Muslims to be honest witnesses:
O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah , even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted. ~Qur’an 4:135
However, the accusation you raised regarding the Jews has been refuted ad naseum and possibly never even happened, as among other things, there are no historical reports from the Jews themselves to corroborate the event.
See this article:
http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muhammad=prophet-muhammad-sa-murdered-700-innocent-jews
And here is a Jewish study:
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/jewish-mythson-islam/muhammad_900_jews_notkilled.htm
In regard to taking “Constantinople in the first place,” you apparently did not fully digest my above comment, which lays out a long view of history and attempts to explain who took what first. Furthermore, by condoning a Christian assault on Istanbul, you are advocating an attack on an allied member of NATO and sovereign state, which has nothing to do with Islam except that Tukey is coincidentally a Muslim majority population. I stated that such violence should be condemned “in accordance with the modern standards” which would include modern Islamic standards which have, by majority and scholarly consensus, also condemned the violence we see in the modern middle east and world in general..
You are on thin ice as you have now placed yourself in the position of being a Christian who is arguing against peaceful relations with others, by calling for a violent Christian led crusade, armed invasion, and overthrow of a sovereign nation, and NATO member, that is allied with U.S. and Britain as well.
While I am a Muslim who is simply calling for peace.
I think that speaks volumes.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ibn writes…
“As a Muslim I would condemn any act of injustice, even if committed by fellow Muslims.”
My response: Ok name me one? Name me one act of Islamic injustice that you condemn
So far you have failed by not condemning the collective punishment committed on innocent Jewish boys and young men something that you would definitely condemn if Zionist Jews had done to Palestinians.
You continue slipping on the thin ice by making this statement…
“you are advocating an attack on an allied member of NATO and sovereign state”
My response: What does NATO have to do with ISLAM? Second I am one of many Americans who believe Turkey should be thrown out of NATO so appealing to NATO does you know good.
You continue to fail….
” modern Islamic standards which have, by majority and scholarly consensus, also condemned the violence we see in the modern middle east and world in general.. ”
My response: Modern Islamic standards LOL. So that means that the Islamic standards change? That means that the the things Islam did in the first place would be wrong today?
So tell me what Islamic Standard that was given by allah and his messenger is no longer valid today?
LikeLike
Kmac,
Open Letter to Al-Baghdadi
http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/
The Executive summary on page 1-2 of the following letter sets clear Islamic Standards.. It condemns any and all unjust acts of violence committed by Muslims, or people who falsely claim to be, or portray themselves as Muslims when acting contrary to these standards.
70,000 Muslim Clerics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-clerics-condemn-terrorism_us_566adfa1e4b009377b249dea
I don’t believe that your personal opinion about Turkey’s status with NATO holds much weight in the international community.
I am done with this conversation with you, since all you can do is deflect, distort, accuse, and spew hatred.
Thank you for sharing your Christian Love.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ibn Ibn Ibn you must be one of those Revert Muslims.
So you site the Letter to Caliph Al Baghdadi. Have you read it? I have and it’s a self refuting document lol.
Point number 4. “It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.”
What are the “FUNDAMENTALS of religion that all Muslims must know? Is sharia law and its implementation and execution of law the “fundamentals”? If not then the scholars can disagree on ISIS which means that document is completely worthless.
Anyway what ISIS does or does not do and who condemns it and who does not has nothing to do with the topic and my question. Name me one thing that Mohamed and his merry band of followers did that would be wrong by todays “modern Islamic standards” lol.
As far as Turkey and Nato is concerned yes my weight does not carry much however Turkey was almost thrown out of NATO a year or so ago. Because Turkey denied NATO access to NATO bases in its fight against ISIS.
So and with TRUMP in the white house there days in NATO are numbered.
LikeLike
Ibn Issam,
Interesting answer though I must say, when Sultan Mehmed II conquered Istanbul, I don’t believe that he thought that he was doing anything for the partial blood or ancestry of the the Hittites that assimilated into his culture 2,000 years before(if that’s what even happened). I may be wrong about this but I believe that he was fulfilling a hadith of Muhammad? Btw, did the Hittites ever own Istanbul? I’m not sure if they did.
Also, Istanbul is not Anatolia. Istanbul is part of the European continent. Anatolia is Asia minor.
I don’t think Sultan Mehmed II cared about getting this land back for the descendants of the Hittites since he then tried to conquer Rome which was never Hittite land. He wanted to take over the last Christian strongholds.
Christians never conquered Istanbul. The pagans slowly converted throughout the 4th and 5th centuries until it became a Christian city. The Hagia Sophia was built entirely by Greek money for Greek Christians until it was stolen by the Turks along with many churches in the city.
What Sultan Mehmed II did to Istanbul is similar to what the Israelis are doing to the Arabs in the Holy Land. Jews hadn’t lived there(with small exceptions) for 2,000 years and now they feel that this is their land and they can take any land they desire because they have military might and can’t be opposed. One could even say that what Sultan Mehmed II did was worse because he stole many churches and converted them to mosques while the Zionists to their credit don’t steal the Dome of the Rock or Al Aqsa.
What Neil Littlejohn is proposing is an attitude that comes straight from the Devil. This same attitude was the attitude of Menachem Begin and Sultan Mehmed II. What it boils down to is a complete disrespect for human life and for fellow human beings. Whatever happened to loving our neighbour which Jesus preached. Christians and Muslims both claim him as Messiah so we need to follow His teachings. If Christians and Muslims both followed this then there would be so much less bloodshed in this world.
LikeLike
Allen,
I was not attempting to give an explanation of the personal reasons that motivated the actions of Sultan Mehmed II , but only trying to explain the longer view of history. There were most certainly indigenous peoples living in Anatolia, and the area in and around Constantinople, who did not identify with the Greco-Roman culture. These people may have then felt more aligned culturally with the Turkish and ethnically with syro-Arabs, and may have therefore been easily absorbed into the Ottoman Armies which they used as a springboard to assist in regaining (in whatever small way) what they felt had been stolen from them. Contrary to popular Christian belief, the Byzantine Empire was not appreciated by everyone who lived within its boundaries, and regardless of how you want to frame history, (slow and peaceful conversion or brutal oppression of dissenters) it was still a foreign conquest, and occupation of Anatolia, by Greek and Roman outsiders. Sultan Mehmed II organized the resistance to that occupation and he defeated it. His attempt to sack Rome, can be understood not only as an attack on Christianity but also as recompense for a thousand years of Roman torment, occupation, violence and brutality, and imperial thievery visited on middle easterners (including Jews) over the centuries. In regard to Hagia Sophia, the Greeks should not have spent their hard earned money to build it on stolen and occupied land. However, I think the Turkish Government has recognized past errors, and have now maintained the Hagia as a cultural heritage site and not dedicated for the worship of any one religion.
You criticize the Ottoman conquest of Anatolia and Constantinople, but would you also equally criticize the brutal and violent Christian conquest of the Philippines, and their hateful and prejudiced effort to fully eradicate Islam from the Islands, destroying thousands of Muslim Masjids, holy sites, and Islamic culture there as well. Or what about Christian conquest of the Americas? Or Christian supported western colonialist Imperialism in the Muslim countries (not to mention Africa, India, and other places). It seems that Christians always apply a double standard when it comes to Islam, the past historical conquests of Christianity are happily excused while Islam is dragged through the mud and taken to trial for its past offenses.
In regard to your comparison with Israel, you fail to mention the hundreds of Palestinian cities that have been literally erased from the map, along with their Mosques and churches.
I can agree with the sentiment in your last paragraph. I think most Muslims today would prefer peaceful relations as well.
FYI –I have been to Turkey, and I can tell you that Istanbul geographically straddles the Bosporus strait, part of the city is in Europe and part in Anatolia which is often considered to be synonymous with Asian Turkey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really think your analogy is a stretch that indigenous peoples of Asia minor though that it was a reconquering of their land from 2,000 years before.
Also, can you please give some evidence for your theory that these non-Greeks around Constantinople were trying to do a reconquest of the hittite homeland? Sultan Mehmed II was purely motivated by religion. That’s why the Ottomans kept advancing into Europe and all the way to Austria. Sultan Mehmed II(and the majority if not all Turkish Sultans) never said they wanted to take back ancestral land. If I’m wrong, perhaps you can give me some evidence to the contrary.
Please tell me who the Greeks took Istanbul from. I’m interested to hear this. To my knowledge, they were the ones who originally built the city. If not, please tell me when they conquered it and who they conquered it from. I do believe that today Istanbul goes into Anatolia but I don’t know if that was always the case. I could be wrong. Either way, I want some evidence that the Greeks stole that city from some other people. Give me the year, the battle, etc.
Regarding the Philippines, last I checked, the Philippian people own that country. The Spanish left. Obviously I don’t condemn muslims buildings being attacked or people being harassed. The Christian policy is always to preach the truth to them. Regarding North America(Where I live), many indigenous people still live here. Those of European background live side by side with them. The city I live in is 100 years old. No city was torn down or conquered. No Indigenous temples were stolen and converted into churches. The ethnic Europeans and the indigenous people live in peace together.
Also, if you study the Spanish conquests of Central America, you need to realize that the Church often protested the Monarchy in Spain on how they treated the indigenous people. They said that they have souls and they need to be converted, not treated like garbage like the Monarchy sometimes did. This was discussed at Salamanca in Spain in the 16th Century.
Let me wrap up with your quote. You said:
“It seems that Christians always apply a double standard when it comes to Islam, the past historical conquests of Christianity are happily excused while Islam is dragged through the mud and taken to trial for its past offenses.”
All I brought up was Constantinople(the city discussed by Neil) which is as far as I can understand was a Greek city and has always been(unless you can prove otherwise). I only talked about it because Neil brought it up. And btw, you know that I disagree with Neil that it should be recaptured by military force and Christianized by force. The Russians have no more right to that city than the Turks did in 1453.
Also, regarding your quote, I have a whole blog about religion at allanruhl.com. I never talk about how muslims are evil for conquering Christian cities. I’ve always said to focus on the real issues which is theology and religious truth.
Yes, I didn’t bring up every Palestinian city. I can’t bring up every atrocity that the Zionists have done to the Arabs unless you want a 1,000 page response. A lot of their towns and mosques were destroyed. A very good friend of mine is an Arab refugee from Gaza. His ancestors are from the town of Yavneh. It doesn’t exist anymore because of the Zionists. To their credit, the Zionists did preserve the Islamic holy sites although they sometimes restrict access to them. Those buildings belong to Muslims just as the Churches in Istanbul belong to Christians and should be returned.
LikeLike
Allan,
I don’t mind admitting that my theory is a stretch, but it is one possibility. I am nothing if not honest.
In regard to the Greeks, there may have been no battle but over a long period of time they must have surely displaced the indigenous population. A foreign invasion does not always require a pitched battle. There were never any large battles to mark the British invasion and colonization of Australia, but that doesn’t mean that there was not aboriginal resistance.
I think you spin a very white washed description of Christian conquest of Americas. I too live in America and it is definitely not the version I have heard from Native American Indians, and Hispanics whom I have spoken with, nor is it the version I have read about in honest historical accounts. Of course indigenous people live side by side with their conquerors in America….they have been forced into that situation, what else can they do? You said no city was torn down or conquered, but that is a red herring, since most Native Americans did not have great cities. Although, I will ask what became of the great South American Indian Cities? Mostly destroyed by Christian conquest, and disease, slavery, etc. Did you know that your kind and benevolent and loving Christian policy towards the natives included hanging them in groups of 13 to symbolize the 12 Apostles and Jesus? So much for not treating people like Garbage.
While I realize religion played its role, I think your statement that Sultan Mehmet Fetih was purely motivated by religion is a misportrayal which presumably serves your effort to malign Islam and its history. Most importantly, it ignores other factors which may have motivated the actions of the Ottoman state. By the 1440’s the Byzantine Empire had been reduced to a shadow of its former self. It had been beleaguered by constant raids from Seljuks, and other tribal marauders, along wars and the costs of administrating a crumbling Empire. By the time of the Ottomans, it was virtually defenseless and had been reduced to a vassal state. But Byzantium was not a loyal vassal and had gathered a coalition of Christian states and launched a crusade against the Ottomans. The Crusade almost destroyed the Ottomans but it was ultimately crushed at the battle of Varna in 1444 by Mehmet’s father Sultan Murad II, whom the Byzantines had also betrayed previously by supporting a pretender to the Ottoman throne, which had also caused a civil war. So it can be seen that the Byzantines had entered into a political relationship with the Ottomans, but had grievously betrayed that pact. The Byzantine betrayal, and constant plotting threatened the Ottoman’s western boundaries, which required a defensive response from Sultan Mehmet Fetih. This resulted in the conquest of Constantinople 1453. The subsequent incursion into Europe may have been in recompense for the initial crusade of Varna against the Ottomans, who needed to secure their Northwestern boundary and guard it from further Christian assault. Therefore, as you can see the Turkish actions were not simply motivated “Purely by religion” as you would like to think, but also by the same concerns that any modern country takes into account, rational political concerns, internal and external threats, and national defense.
In regard to your statement that the “Zionists did preserve the Islamic holy sites.” It is more accurate to state that the Zionists preserved only SOME of the Islamic holy sites which were too sensitive to destroy without a care as they did with so many other Muslim and Christian holy sites. You seem to have a problem with stating the whole truth, without trying to spin it.
I appreciate the fact that you disagree with Neil. Thanks for that. I also agree that what is needed more than ever today is Peace-Salaam-Shalom between Muslim, Christians and Jews, along with all other peoples in the world.
FYI again – I have been to Istanbul, and backpacked through a great portion of Turkey. The Hagia Sophia stands on the Asian side of the Bosporus. The ancient city of Byzantium also existed there as well, and is evidence by the Greco-Roman Hippodrome which still exists near the Hagia Sophia, and the Roman Aqueducts and Roman Cistern which lies underneath the city on the Asian side Istanbul. I will tell you that the Hagia Sophia is very beautiful, but I think it is truly outshined by the much more awesome and aesthetic beauty of the nearby Sultan Ahmed Mosque, and the Sulamaniya Mosque both of which were built by the Muslim architectural Genius Mimar Sinan, who has been described as the Muslim worlds Michelangelo!
PS – Thanks for inviting me to your blog, but if I want unbiased information about Islam, theology, and religious truth, I prefer go elsewhere to find it!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Admission of error: Hagia Sophia is on the European side, not the Asian side. This may affect my initial and admittedly weak theory. But it does not affect my brief analysis in regard to political motivations of the Ottoman actions.
LikeLike
Ibn Issam
You admit your theory is a stretch. You admit that “over a long period of time they must have surely displaced the indigenous population”. Basically you can’t provide any evidence for this claim. “They must have surely…”
Remember, you accused them of building the Hagia Sophia on stolen land. If you accuse someone of a mortal sin, don’t you think you’d better have some evidence. Something better than “they must have surely…” because that’s not solid ground to stand on. If I accused you of such a crime of stealing land, wouldn’t I be obligated to provide evidence of that claim? What if I simply said: “You must have surely….” Would you accept that? I hope not.
My analysis of Sultan Mehmed is correct. You think I’m trying to malign Islam and its history? I think if Sultan Mehmed II were alive today, he would think you’re maligning him because he was motivated by Islam and a hadith that he read that predicted a Muslim would capture Constantinople. You said other factors “may have motivated the actions of the Ottoman state.” May have? Again with the uncertainty.
Let me recommend a book to read:
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Turk-Sultan-II-Conqueror-Constantinople/dp/1590202481/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482641889&sr=8-1&keywords=the+grand+turk
In response to my initial question that I asked at the beginning, which was:
“A question for the Muslims in this thread. You condemn the idea of Christians taking Istanbul back from the Muslims by force. Fair enough. Do you condemn how Sultan Mehmed II took Istanbul from the Greek Christians by force?”
You obviously don’t condemn him at all…..although your reasoning seems to change from a reconquering of the ancestral land to solving a political crisis in mid 15th Century Asia Minor. Although your reasoning changes, your conclusion does not and I’m happy you’re at least consistent in that regard.
Merry Christmas
LikeLike
I think your analysis of Sultan Mehmet Fetih is lacking. Neither you nor I, know what was truly in his heart and mind and what his true intentions were. As I said previously, I do not discount the influence of religion, which affected the politics of all people in that day and age, Christian, Muslim and other. But your portrayal of his actions as being only motivated by Islam alone is naïve and misleading. It would be more accurate to say that the Crusades were purely motivated by a violent form of Christianity, since it was the Pope himself who called for the invasion of the Arab heartlands and heartless slaughter of its inhabitants both Muslim and Jew. However, I am sure any honest historian might mention that there were other factors involved such as the failure of feudalism, poverty, a dearth of economic opportunity and lack upward mobility, and an exploding population, among other things. But you don’t grant the same measured analysis of the Ottomans, who were actually waging a “Counter-Crusade” in response to initial western aggression as well as in response to Byzantine political betrayals, treachery, and the Crusade of Varna which was aimed at destroying the Ottomans. Instead of honestly taking these things into account you offer the simple soundbite answer that you and your fans like to hear, “It’s all because of Islam.” I think that Christians are ashamed of their own violent and bloody history, and therefore feel the need to portray Muslim history as being just as aggressive and violent as their own in order to equal the playing field. But it seems that the Christians were the initial agitators, and if that is the case then why should Muslims condemn the Ottoman state for engaging in what could easily be described as self-defense against Christian aggressions?
If you insist on demanding that Muslims condemn past grievances, then we can also demand that Christians condemn their own violent history as well. Do you condemn the Byzantine conquest and oppressive rule of Syro-Arab lands, and North Africa? Do you condemn the Crusades, all nine of them? Do you condemn the occupation and brutal rule of Muslim lands for over 200 years by Christian Crusaders? Do you condemn the Crusade of Varna? Do you condemn Christian backed colonialist Imperialism of the past. Do you condemn the rape and slavery of Non-Christian peoples who were victims of that imperialism? Do you condemn the modern western and incursions into Muslim lands and countries? Shall I go on….?
Now, Do I condemn religious based violence today?? Yes of course!!! As a Muslim I prefer peace with all peoples and I pray for that daily. We each have our own views of history and our heroic past which we can argue about all day, but that History is past, and today we must engage in building a better more inclusive and tolerant future, which is why I think we both disagree with Neil’s sentiments, and in that sense I hope we have more to agree on than disagree.
LikeLike
I honestly don’t know why we’re still arguing. You’ve responded to my initial question that you obviously believe it was justified(even though you changed arguments when you couldn’t back it up). I’m not even condemning you for it. I just wanted an opinion.
You put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. You said: “If you insist on demanding that Muslims condemn past grievances……”
Source? Where did I say that? All I said is that if you condemn Neil, do you condemn Mehmed? I didn’t demand you to condemn him. I just wanted to see if you did. The whole point of my question was to see what standards the people on this website(who are mostly muslim apologists) use.
You then list a bunch of events giving no examples or context. We honestly could have had a serious and productive conversation about this if you we able to simply follow the argument and not bring up these red herrings.
I just want to point out one thing that you said. I don’t even want to respond to it. I just want everyone to see it. It’s my favorite quote of yours. The emphasis is mine btw. Here it is:
“I think that Christians are ashamed of their own violent and bloody history, and therefore feel the need to portray Muslim history as being just as aggressive and violent as their own in order to equal the playing field. But it seems that the CHRISTIANS WERE THE INITIAL AGITATORS, and if that is the case then why should Muslims condemn the Ottoman state for engaging in what could easily be described as self-defense against Christian aggressions?”
There you have it. What a great quote. Have a happy new year and a blessed 2017 Ibn Issam.
LikeLike
Allan,
Don’t play at being coy, you know that you implied that Muslims should condemn past grievances, in specific regard to Constantinople and Mehmet II. That is fine. Just know that I am not putting words in your mouth, but rather simply describing what you asked.
You asked this question: “You condemn the idea of Christians taking Istanbul back from the Muslims by force. Fair enough. Do you condemn how Sultan Mehmed II took Istanbul from the Greek Christians by force?”
It should be pointed out that the phraseology of your loaded question is slanted, biased, prejudiced, highly suggestive, and has historical implications that are not equivalent.
The suggestion that modern Christians today should take back Constantinople cannot be equated with the past actions of Mehmet II in 1453 given that there were extenuating political factors and national self-defense at play, things were different in the ancient world and times have changed, and most importantly Turkey has not aggressed against any Christian-Western state recently in any way that would justify such a drastic action.
The more applicable, appropriate and respectful question you should have asked is this: If one is to condemn Christians retaking Constantinople, do modern Muslims condemn Muslims taking a Western-Christian Majority city by force in this day and age? And the answer is a resounding “YES of course Muslims would absolutely condemn that.”
You seem to criticize me for saying that 1425 was really about the Ottomans acting in self-defense against Christian aggression. But when your co-religionists, like Ken Temple (in comments below), characterize the violent, unjust, and brutal Crusades as Christian self-defense I don’t hear any words of protest from the likes of you. Which tells me that you are not really interested in engaging in a truthful and honest dialogue. You say that you prefer to just focus on the real issues which are theology and religious truth, but you seem to have no problem with scoring a couple of polemical points by resorting to cheap loaded questions.
If you want to make the comparison, between modernity and the past, then I am free to do the same. You failed to answer any of my questions to you. Do you condemn the violent and unjust history of Christianity. Do you condemn the Byzantine conquest and oppressive rule of Syro-Arab lands, and North Africa? Do you condemn the Crusades, all nine of them? Do you condemn the occupation and brutal rule of Muslim lands for over 200 years by Christian Crusaders? Do you condemn the Crusade of Varna? Do you condemn Christian backed colonialist Imperialism of the past. Do you condemn the spread of Christianity by the Imperialist gun and sword, in Africa, Asia, and Western Hemisphere? Do you condemn the rape and slavery of Non-Christian peoples who were victims of that imperialism? Do you condemn the modern western and incursions into Muslim lands and countries?
LikeLike
Bambi Neil dreams of becoming Kung Fu Panda
LikeLiked by 3 people
Lol !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does anyone know if this plagiarist in Imam disguise was able to obtain the undergraduate degree in Islamic studies he was pursuing a while ago?
LikeLiked by 2 people
shall i ask him?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you like. I didn’t think I should ask him because he might mistake a question for an Islamic plot on his life.
LikeLiked by 2 people
true
LikeLiked by 1 person
Allan Ruhl made a lot of good points.
The Ottomans were just following Islam and the Qur’an in Surah 9:29 to conquer the world and subjugate Christians and Jews, take Jiziye and created Dhimmi communities.
LikeLike
And the Seljuk Turks before the Ottomans were also following Islam and the Qur’an and Surah 9:29 and many Hadith.
Sahih Al Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”
LikeLike
quote:
Another reason is equally circular, namely , that jesus is recorded to have preached ‘unqualified love’ elsewhere. but how did the fellows determine that it is the loving jesus that is authentic rather than the more violent one? if this saying is so starkly contraposed to the love sayings, then why does the redactor not see that? denying that jesus uttered this logion because it alludes to MIC 7.5-6 is also circular. given that QUOTING, or ALLUDING to, the HEBREW BIBLE was common in jewish exegesis of the time, how did the fellows determine that jesus could not allude to that passage?
However, perhaps the most common strategy is to misread jesus’ purpose clause, (‘for i have come to set a man against his father…’) as a result clause, which is not what the grammar of jesus’ language indicates at all. the relevant clauses in mt. 10 .34-35 are PURPOSE clauses, as indicated by the infinitives, in the greek expression…
‘ do not think that i have come to bring peace on earth; i have not come to bring peace, but a sword. for i have come to set a man against his father….’
As daniel wallace notes purpose clauses can be expressed by a [s]imple or “naked” infinite (usually following an [intransitive] verb of motion . A close parallel to the use of the infinitive in mt. 10:34 is found in mt 5.17
‘think not that i have come to abolish the law and the prophets; i have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them’
jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent
the bad jesus
page 93-94
quote :
Augustine devoted his life to being a cult leader, one of the earliest, loudest and most listened to when it came to arguing that heretics must be compelled/forced to enter or re-enter the fold of the one true Catholic Church. He set forth the principle of Cognite Intrare (“Compel them to enter,” based on Luke 14:23). Cognite Intrare would be used throughout the Middle Ages to justify the Churchʼs suppression of dissent and oppression of difference.
https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/quotations-from-augustine-of-hippo.html
LikeLike
Ken,
Funny how you ignore the Crusade of Varna, and revert back to “blame it on Islam” mode. You ignore other factors which were at play other than religion. Not everything that happens in the world is motivated purely by religion alone. And Islam is not the great evil that you think it is.
LikeLike
Crusades are Roman Catholic wrong doings of the Middle Ages. But some of it was self-defense, because the Muslims are the ones who started all the wars in the 630s after Muhammad died. Islam kept attacking and kept attacking. They were stopped at the Battle of Tours in 722 from taking more of France. It was unjust to conquer N. Africa, the Middle East, Spain and Portugal, Persia, Anatolia, Constantinople, etc. – totally unjust.
LikeLike
The Muslims started all the wars long before the Crusades. beginning in 634-636 with Omar, and they would not stop until they were stopped. In many ways, the Crusades were self-defense and they were responses to what the Muslims had first done; although they were wrong to mix religion in with it; (getting out of Purgatory – very bad theology); and some of the over-kill was bad; but also a lot of revisionist and political correctness history is taught today in schools.
LikeLike
“totally unjust”
Why? I can’t understand your point of view about that?
LikeLike
Ken,
You seem to write the crusades off as a Catholic affair, which had nothing to do with protestant Christianity. Fair enough, but remember that all Christians were pretty much Catholics or Orthodox at the time of the Crusades, as the protestant reformation had not yet begun. Either way, the Crusades were clearly were a Christian affair and religiously motivated event.
You reduce Muslim history and military action down to one verse 9:29, and ignore all other political and historical causational factors (national self-defense against outside threats, and extenuating circumstances, etc.) If that is how history is to be analyzed then we can say that the Christians were just carrying out Luke 19:27 as they waged their bloody Crusade and indiscriminately slaughtered innocent, Jews, Muslims, and others in the middle-east. Is that a fair analysis? Unlike your simple minded, biased analysis of Islamic history, I would say no.
You Characterize the Muslims as “totally unjust” in entering Christian held areas. But you describe the violent and brutal religiously motivated Christian Crusades as “self-defense.” The lands you mentioned were ruled by Imperial Christian dictate, oppression, occupation, tyranny and threat of violence. So if you want to describe the Christian interest in preserving their own decrepit, corrupt, unjust, imperialism and oppression of other people’s as “self-defense” than that may be accurate. But the people who were ruled by the Christians most often viewed the coming of the religious based social justice movement of Islam as a justified action which liberated the lands of N. Africa, the Middle East, Spain and Portugal, Persia, Anatolia, Constantinople.
LikeLike
quote:
You seem to write the crusades off as a Catholic affair, which had nothing to do with protestant Christianity. Fair enough, but remember that all Christians were pretty much Catholics or Orthodox at the time of the Crusades, as the protestant reformation had not yet begun. Either way, the Crusades were clearly were a Christian affair and religiously motivated event.
ken , your response to this :
quote:
In the near future, I also plan to challenge more thoroughly one of the most important myths in Christian historiography—Constantine the Great (ruled 306-337) was where imperialism began in Christianity. Constantine, therefore, represents a corruption of Jesus’ teachings in this view.
The placement of the start of Christian imperialism in Constantine’s reign has served to deflect attention from the fact that imperialism is inscribed in the New Testament itself. Constantine only put into effect an ideology that was already there from the beginning of Christianity and one that reaches back into what Christians call “The Old Testament.”
LikeLike
Wrong; Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. This is a common error repeated a lot. Theodosius I from 380-392 AD made Christianity the state religion, not Constantine.
Constantine just made Christianity legal, and no longer persecuted, among other religions. (312-313 AD)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken is right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Heathcliff,
“The placement of the start of Christian imperialism in Constantine’s reign has served to deflect attention from the fact that imperialism is inscribed in the New Testament itself. Constantine only put into effect an ideology that was already there from the beginning of Christianity and one that reaches back into what Christians call “The Old Testament.” ”
Great statement!! I think this would explain a lot of Christian history.
LikeLike
Augustine was wrong on that; he was arguing against the Donatists in North Africa. (400s AD)
But before that, earlier Christianity was peaceful and won the Roman Empire by evangelism, godliness, holiness, and love and kindness and justice. (0-380 AD)
Many Baptists consider the Donatists as a similar early church movement in principle.
Babinski is an atheist who would turn his polemics on Islam also; so it is inconsistent to use his material.
LikeLike
Below are quotations from Augustine:
“In Luke it is written: ‘Compel people to come in!’ By threats of the wrath of God, the Father draws souls to his Son.”
“There is no salvation outside the church.”
—City of God
“…there is a righteous persecution, which the Church of Christ inflicts upon the impious.”
“…many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching.”
—Treatise on the Correction of the Donatists
“The king serves God in one way as a man, and in another as a king; as a man, he serves Him by living in fidelity to His law, and since he is also a king, he serves by promulgating just laws, and forbidding the opposite, and by giving them a fitting and strong sanction; just as Zecharias served by destroying the shrines and temples of the idols; just as King Josias served by himself doing like things; just as the King of the Ninevites served by compelling the whole State to appease God; just as Darius served by giving the breaking of the idols into the power of Daniel; just as Nebuchadnezer served by forbidding by a terrible law all those dwelling in his kingdom to blaspheme God.” And in the same place he adds: “Who, being in his right mind, will say to kings: ‘In your kingdom have no care as to that by which the Church of your Lord is supported or opposed,’ ‘In your kingdom it is not your affair who wishes to be devout or sacrilegious,’ to whom it cannot be said: In your kingdom it is not your affair who wishes to be virtuous or who does not?”
LikeLike
hate
So the reason the fourth Gospel does not include Jesus’ teaching that one must love one’s neighbor (and even one’s enemy) and that loving one’s neighbor is “the law and the prophets” (as in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount) is that your neighbor might not share your “beliefs” about Jesus, and the most important thing according to the author(s) of the fourth Gospel is to “believe” the right things about who Jesus was… or else. It is a lesson the author of the fourth Gospel repeats ad nauseum, “Anyone who does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.” (a verse that came in handy during the Inquisition). “Those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only brother/twin of god.” You must even believe the right liturgical things concerning the Lord’s Supper, because “Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Speaking of right belief, the Gospel says it was composed “that ye may believe,” and starts off telling everyone what to believe about jesus, and has the disciples call jesus the messiah and much more the instant they meet him, and even has John the Baptist declare what one must believe about Jesus right from the start (a line of the Baptists’ found in no other Gospel), namely that Jesus is “The lamb/brother/twin of god who takes away …,” something one “must” believe per John 3.
quote:
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ” ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law– a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ Mt.10:34-36.”
“I did not come to bring peace.” That means what it says: he is not preaching peace. Hence in the parallel passage in Luke (12:49-53) he says: “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! … Thus, the passage pertains to something he wishes to happen, not anything that saddens him or that he wants to stop
“Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two > against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-
law.
“(diamerizo), which means divide, distribute, create disunity, and in
context, where the word is explicitly contrasted with peace (eirene),
and the word epi + accusative (“against”) follows, the meaning is
obviously intrafamily war. ”
LikeLike
ken, how many natures were born on 25th december?
1 or two?
LikeLike
Jesus Christ, Al Masih المسیح is One person who has two natures. His divine nature was always from all eternity past, as John 1:1-5; 1:14; 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews chapter 1, Colossians 1:15-20 shows us. Also Micah 5:2-5 shows us. “His goings forth are from long ago, from all eternity past.
But He was probably not born on Dec. 25; they just chose that day to celebrate His birth in order to take over and replace the pagan holiday of Saturnalia.
LikeLike
“born on Dec. 25; they just chose that day to celebrate His birth in order to take over and replace the pagan holiday of Saturnali”
While christians think that they won over Roman empire, Roman empire, indeed, had won by romanizing the true message of Jesus.
When Roman empire adpoted christianity, Christianity had already adopted the Roman paganism.
This should make us wonder & ask what christians have done to the original message of Jesus.
Personally, it makes me wonder why protestants keep accusing Catholicism about paganism while Catholicism has the same excuse of Protestants for justifying christmas!
LikeLike
“But He was probably not born on Dec. 25; they just chose that day to celebrate His birth in order to take over and replace the pagan holiday of Saturnalia.”
ken, how many natures came out/born ?
can you answer the question please?
LikeLike
I already answered – Merry Christmas!
http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-word-was-made-flesh
LikeLike
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !!
http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-reason-the-son-of-god-appeared-was-to-destroy-the-works-of-the-devil
LikeLike