|
1,400 Years of Islamic Aggression: An
Analysis
By Richard C.
Csaplar, Jr.
Guest Columnist
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/Commentary/IslamHistory0212.asp
Mr. Csaplar, a member
of
the Regent University Board of Trustees, writes in response to a recent
article on the Crusades in U.S. News & World Report.
-------------------------------------------------------
CBN.com – I was very
disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article,
adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the
Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views
under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash
Between Christianity and Islam."
Let me explain.
The opening heading
states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in
error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East
and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.
To give just a few
examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the
fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of
Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the
east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody
military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies
in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.
A different type of
bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the
east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the
Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China
respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from
northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very
moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were
one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other,
perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern
empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.
But let's give the
writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the
Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally
false.
Let us review the
Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan
caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the
death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by
Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through
approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests
were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the
U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the
Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in
632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of
continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of
others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.
You will note the
string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They are used
because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC
thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word
separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between
the Christian west and the Islamic east.
Imperialistic
The Muslim wars of
imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of
nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than
the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from
southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central
Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy
and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of
weaker countries."
Colonialist
The Muslim goal was
to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad -- later at
Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and
other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off
colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by
the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers' language, and the
local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established.
The native residents paid a tax that their colonialist
rulers did not have
to pay.
Although the law
differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which
colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years:
• Christians and Jews
could not bear arms
-- Muslims could;
• Christians and Jews
could not ride
horses -- Muslims could;
• Christians and Jews had
to get
permission to build -- Muslims did not;
• Christians and Jews had
to pay certain
taxes which Muslims did not;
• Christians could not
proselytize --
Muslims could;
• Christians and Jews had
to bow to their
Muslim masters when they paid
their
taxes;
and
• Christians and Jews had
to live under
the law set forth in the Koran,
not
under
either
their
own religious or secular law.
In each case, these
laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was allowed the
conquering colonialist rulers. Even non-Arab Muslim inhabitants of the
conquered lands became second class citizens behind the ruling Arabs. This is the classic
definition of colonialist -- "a group of people who settle in a distant
territory from the state having jurisdiction or control over it and who remain under the
political jurisdiction of their native land."
We will talk about
"bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the
Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not
describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody
conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq,
Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.
In any event, because
it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area
invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and
subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called
Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was
Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern
Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were
despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and
Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist,
and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist,
colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made
easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of
Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist
bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or
"bloodless." This statement is simply not true.
The Muslim
imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a
battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took
part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the
Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but
had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims
began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months
before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not
sack the city, and
the Arab
soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No
destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if
imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was
at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began.
The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the
colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist,
bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its
empire to provide the
Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.
The Muslim conquest
of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North
Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt.
The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim
imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost
complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The
Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody
(revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim
imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and
through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at
the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the
middle of France.
I believe that if I
had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist,
colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the
Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.
But let us return to
Jerusalem.
Jerusalem
The U.S. News article
states that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem, "the victorious Saladin forbade
acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence." True, as far as
it goes. The article goes on to say, "…most Muslims [will] tell you about
Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred."
Thus, the PC people and the Muslims ignore 450 years of prior Muslim aggression and
approach the Crusades as being Christian or Western aggression against Islam,
beginning out of the blue, without any prior history. Let us go back to the
Muslim colonialist occupation of Jerusalem.
When we left our
truthful history of Jerusalem, the Muslims, headquartered in Arabia, had just
captured Jerusalem. For approximately 100 years, chiefly under the Umayyads,
Jerusalem prospered under Muslim rule. Under the succeeding Abbasids, Jerusalem began
to decline -- beginning at approximately 725 A.D. The occasion, among other
things, was the decline of the central Muslim government, the breaking
away from Arabia of far-flung provinces, the growth of warlike revolutionary
groups, the growth of extremist Muslim sects, and, perhaps
most important, the
decision (relatively new) that Muslims had an obligation to convert all Christians and
Jews (and "other pagans") to Islam. Thereafter, the true colonial nature of
Jerusalem became more apparent. The Abbasids drained wealth from Jerusalem to
Baghdad for the benefit of the caliphs, and Jerusalem declined economically. The
language of the government became Arabic, and forcible conversion to
Islam became the Muslim policy.
In approximately 750,
the Caliph destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, leaving it defenseless (they were
later rebuilt, in time to defend against the Crusaders). The history of
the following three hundred years is too complex and too tangled to describe in a
single paragraph. Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered
greatly during alternating periods of peace and war. Among the happenings were
repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of
Jerusalem; the wholesale destruction by the
Muslims of Christian
churches -- sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by
Muslim mobs; the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the
early 1020s; building small mosques on the top of Christian churches;
enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches; attacking and
robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe; attacking Christian processions in
the streets of Jerusalem; etc.
Why the change after
nearly 100 years of mostly peaceful Muslim rule? From what I read, there is a
general view among the historians that the caliphs had begun to add a religious
importance to their conquests, setting conversion to Islam as an important
priority; their later caliphs had no first-hand remembrance of Mohammed;
the vast distances of the empire led to independent rulers being established in Spain,
North Africa, Cairo, Asia Minor, etc.; and the instability of the
caliphates and resulting civil wars.
The point about
conversion to Islam I find particularly interesting. Many historians believe that the
first one hundred years of Muslim conquest were imperialist and colonialist
only with little significant forced conversion
content. With respect
to
Jerusalem, there was a particular problem in the fact that generally the Christians
and their churches (and to a lesser degree, the Jews) were significantly
wealthier than the Muslims. This was largely because beginning in the early 800s
with Charlemaigne, Europe adopted a sort of prototype "foreign aid" program for
the churches located at the holy places in Jerusalem, where, to the embarrassment
of the Muslims, Christian churches and monasteries outshone their Muslim
rivals. Many of these churches and monasteries were run
by western religious
orders
reporting directly to Rome under western leaders appointed by Rome (more
were subject to Constantinople). Literally thousands of European Christian
pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from such places as Germany, France, and
Hungary (particularly in the years 1000, 1033, 1064, and 1099). Finally, Muslim
rulers and European rulers frequently sought to enter into treaties of
support with each other. As a result, Christian churches became the target of
Muslims when enemies of those with whom there were European
ties were victorious
in a
civil war. From time to time, Christian churches were rebuilt with Muslim
funds when pro-western rulers came to power.
So much for the PC,
U.S. News, Muslim outright lie that begins with the statement, "During the
Crusades, East and West first met," and that later in the article called the
Crusades, "…the first major clash between Islam and Western Christendom." What about
the long, prior conquest by Islam of Spain and Portugal? What about the
battle of Portiers?
The following is just
an aside, which I cannot prove, but I have noticed that PC and Muslim
statements frequently cut off history when it is not in their favor. Thus, the article
gives credence to the widespread belief in Islam that east-west history began
with the Crusades. See also as an example of this tendency to begin history
where it is convenient, today's Muslim description of the current Israeli
occupation of the West Bank without mentioning the fact that the current occupation
was caused by the widespread cold-blooded murder of
Israeli civilians by
Muslims.
But let us move on to
the Crusades themselves.
The Crusades
First, a word about
my personal view of the Crusades. I believe that the murderous and pillaging
acts of the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem were barbaric, unchristian, and
evil. This is particularly so as those barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts
were carried on in the name of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness. I
believe that the vast bulk of thinking Christians agree with me. I cite as evidence
the large numbers of Christians who have recently taken long pilgrimages in
the footsteps of the Crusaders, repenting for the
Crusader's acts,
seeking
for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Crusader's barbaric, unchristian, and
evil acts.
A question occurs to
me here. How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the
footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving
penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine,
Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as
the U.S. News article claims, "For [Muslims] imperialism is a dirty word…" Where is
Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history,
which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism
a dirty word?
Let us rewrite the
beginning of the U.S. News article as follows: "In 1095, after suffering from the
murderous invasions of Muslim conquerors who killed tens of thousands of
Christians through four-and-one-half centuries of Muslim imperialist, colonialist
conquest, made slaves and eunuchs of Christians for the pleasure of the
caliphs, burned down or sacked the holiest churches in Christendom, robbed and
killed thousands of Christians on holy pilgrimage, brutally sacked and pillaged
Jerusalem, and pillaged the countryside of Israel, western Europe, under the
leadership of the Pope, decided to free the people of the Holy Land from their brutal
masters and reclaim Christianity's holiest places for free Christian worship."
Now, I fully realize
that the previous paragraph is one-sided, that the six centuries of Muslim
colonial, imperialist occupation were more complex than are shown in the previous
paragraphs, and that the Christians were not always blameless, little babes.
However, the previous paragraph has the benefit of not being an outright lie,
which is more than I can say for the U.S. News article.
To beat the dog one
more time, you may have noted that I stated above that Muslim imperialism has
continued until the present. Muslim imperialism has continued without any
let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.
Consider the Ottoman
invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the
west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania,
Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider
also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Of
course! In the 20th century alone:
1. Muslim Turkey has
expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced
them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and
replaced them with Turks in the west.
2. Muslim Turkey has
invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.
3. Muslim northern
Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and
pagan population.
4. Indonesian
imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into
Indonesia.
5. Muslim Indonesia
has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.
6. This very day,
Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the
Celebes.
7. A half-dozen Arab
countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to
destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the
attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57
Islamic nations.
8. For no good
reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.
9. Muslim Iraq, in an
imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.
10. Muslim Iraq, in
an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some
estimates say) death of 2 million people.
11. Muslim Albania,
this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's
expense.
12. Muslim Northern
Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.
13. Muslims expelled
approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.
14. During Jordan's
occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to
make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000
Christian inhabitants.
Yes, I know that the
reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred
Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect
the Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an
international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan
with respect to southern Sudan?
Question: What is the
title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: "The list of Muslim nations who
have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S.
protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim
imperialism."
Yes, I also know that
in the 20th century the west fought two of the bloodiest wars in history.
But in the past more than 55 years, the west has developed methods that have led to
peace among the west, and all but totally ended western imperialism and
colonialism. With former colonies having a large majority in the UN, and the example
of the west before it, Islam has continued its imperialist, colonial,
bloody wars unabated.
One final point.
Muslims
base their claim to the city of Jerusalem upon the belief that Jerusalem has
been a Muslim city for centuries. It may be that Muslims were never a
majority in Jerusalem. We cannot prove this for all time periods, but we know that
Muslims were a minority in the first several centuries after the Muslim
imperialist conquest and during the century of Christian occupation during the
Crusades. And we know that in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem was not considered important to
the Muslims, but it was to the Christians and Jews. The Muslims made
cities other than Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian colony.
Many Caliphs never
even
visited Jerusalem. Therefore, there was a steady stream of Jewish and
Christian (but not Muslim) immigrants into Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages,
including a major immigration of Karaite Jews in the late eighth and early ninth
centuries, and a steady stream of Armenians for hundreds of years, until
there were so many Armenians that an Armenian Quarter was established in Jerusalem.
Finally, we know that for at least more than the last 160 years, Muslims were a
clear minority in Jerusalem. The Muslim Ottomans, and then the British and
Israelis, kept careful census record showing the following percentages of
Muslim population in Jerusalem:
1844 -- 33%
1896 -- 19%
1910 -- 13%
1922 -- 22%
1931 -- 22%
1948 -- 24%
1967 -- 21%
1972 -- 23%
1992 -- 25%
Learn more at
CBN.com's Understanding Islam section
Richard C. Csaplar,
Jr., is a member of the Board of Trustees of Regent University and an attorney
with Day, Berry, and Howard of Boston, Massachusetts, where he specializes in
financial law.
|
|
|
|
|