Until the advent of materialism and 19th c. dogma, Western Civilisation was superior to anything Islam had developed. Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam. Proof of this resides in the 'modern' world and the unending political-economic and spiritual poverty of Muslim states and regions. Squatting on richer civilisations is not 'progress'. Islam is pagan, totalitarian, and irrational.
'Glory of the Crusades' by Weidenkopf is an important book which corrects the Atheist-Marxist-UnEnlightenment propaganda. In revisionist history, the ever-so-educated and peaceful Moslems were tending their goats, when suddenly in 1096 and for 200 years after, hairy, smelly Barbarians from France, who did not know what a bath or a book was, set upon them, slitting their throats, raping their women, skinning their goats, squatting on vast hordes of treasures and silks. The fact that the Levant was quite impoverished, a backwater, and contained no treasures whatsoever, never enters into this myth. Europe was far ahead of 'Islam' or the cult of submission long before Muhammad invented his totalitarian moon-idol cult. This is why Islam spent 1000 years trying to conquer and subdue Europe. You don't wage Jihad from Syria to southern France against a bereft culture.
So as Weidenkopf asks, 'why did they go'? [page 21]. Why did men from Europe march 2500 miles from 1096 to 1292 to fight against Islam and reclaim Jerusalem, the city of Peace. The main reason is of course the cult of Muhammadism or Islam. The Moslem Jihad had devastated Christianity from Arabia to southern France. Millions of Christians were forcibly converted by punishing laws and regulations including taxes and second-class knave status within Moslem lands. Millions more over 400 years, were raped, enslaved, killed, or traded like meat to supply harems, armies or workers for mines and state projects. Moslems had linked up with Vikings in the White-slave trade. Christian pilgrims for 100 years leading up to the Crusades had been killed, robbed, beaten, and sold into slavery. Christian Byzantium had been largely effaced, its Christian empire desecrated and eradicated by Moslems. As the Byzantines told sundry Western Church officials and Princelings, first us, then you. Moslems were effacing the Christian faith and its superior civilization.
Weidenkopf on why did they go?
“Faith is certainly a more reasonable explanation than material gain. If material reasons had been paramount, would it not have been far easier and safer for Western warriors to stay home and fight their neighbors rather than travel 2,500 miles to a distant and completely alien land? It used to be fashionable in academic circles to attribute motivation for participating in the Crusades to second- and third-born sons who, due to the traditions of inheritance in medieval Europe, could not inherit property. Faced with a large population of marauding and landless warriors, it was said, the Church marshaled these forces and sent them to the Holy Land where they could acquire land.
This theory has been thoroughly debunked by examining the actual records of those who went on Crusade.It was not the younger but rather the first-born sons of French families who overwhelmingly participated in the First Crusade. In other words, it was the men who stood to lose everything. And indeed, participating in the Crusade was a bad investment for medieval warriors, the vast majority of whom returned (if they returned) materially poorer for the experience.”
Marxists and Atheists are never good with facts. The Crusades were an attempt to salvage the holy places of Christendom, stem the Moslem advance, safeguard Europe [Moslems after all were still slaughtering and squatting over much of Spain]; and pay a penance for sins real and imagined. To go on Crusade would cost 4 times a nobleman's annual income. Land was mortgaged, property given to the Church for safekeeping, and taxes employed to pay for the costly ordeal. It was a ruinously expensive project, no one in Normandy or anywhere else, became 'rich' from the Crusades. Many were ruined, most would die.
Greed you say? Weidenkopf:
“We know, too, that most of those who survived the expedition and made it to the Holy Sepulchre returned home afterward; they did not stay to acquire feudal land holdings. The Crusade was a pilgrimage, and just like modern-day pilgrims who visit a shrine or church for a period of time and then return home, so did the warriors of the Crusades. After the First Crusade, there were some nobles who stayed in the Holy Land and created what are known as the Crusader States, but these areas always suffered from a lack of military manpower because of the very episodic nature of Crusading and the desire of most warrior-pilgrims to return home.”
Christians controlled large areas of the Holy Lands for 200 years. A deficit of manpower, money and interest doomed the enterprise. No wealth was made or taken, for there was none there to make or take. The enterprise was not a Marxist-colonial attack; nor was it due to 'greed' of the 'landless nobility'. The Crusades relegated much of the elite to penury and killed many of its best young talent. Fitting Marxist-Atheist or Hollywood themes onto such a complicated, granular and faith-based movement is about as intelligent as most pop-culture propaganda issued forth today – that is to say - it is utter nonsense.
Atheists, Marxists, Protestants and unenlightened 'enlightenment' 'geniuses', have long crusaded against the Catholic crusades which are far longer than normally taught. The first 'Crusade' against Muhammadism fascism was at Covadonga in northern Spain, in 722. The Moslem Jihad had wiped out Christianity, its people, churches and civilization from 632 AD to the battle of Covadonga, in a wide arc stretching Arabia to Spain. 10 years after the Spanish Christians stopped the Moslem war of annihilation in Spain, Charles Martel and his heavy infantry did the same at Tours – the site of the richest abbey in Europe and a target of depraved Moslem depredation. The Crusades lasted until 1683 and the siege of Vienna by Moslem Turks or nearly 1000 years.
None of the criticasters of the Crusades would be here opining on the non-existent demonic, lurid atavism of the Crusades, if Catholic Europe had not successfully defeated the Moslem hordes. Period. That is just a simple historical reality. In the past 20 years most real scholarship now acknowledges this fact, and most real historians understand the weight, gravity and unbridled uncivilized fascism named Submission, which almost erased European civilization. Weidonkopf's book, 'The Glory of the Crusades' is a necessary anodyne to the asinine, ahistorical putrid mess spewed out by lovers of Islam, and deniers of historical import and accuracy.
Why the animus against the Church and the Crusades, taught in schools, the media and by grinning, moronic politicians? Weidenkopf on the unenlightenment era:
“If these Reformation-era writers [Protestants] were the first to view the Crusades through the lens of anti-papal rhetoric, seeing the entire effort as nothing other than a vast waste of European resources undertaken by barbaric, superstitious warriors, these themes received increasing nourishment once combined with the new anti-Church hostility of the Enlightenment.
Centered in France and occupying the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the philosophical movement known as the Enlightenment sought to weaken the influence of the Church in European society. Enlightenment thinking affected most areas of life, including the study and presentation of history. Crusade history was used by intellectuals “not as a historical study in its own right but as a tool in conceptual arguments about religion and the progress of civilization.”10 The Crusades would continue to be used in this way by future generations to further their own agenda against society and the Church.11
The main Enlightenment critics of the Crusades were the Frenchmen Voltaire and Denis Diderot, and England’s David Hume and Edward Gibbon. Voltaire (1694–1778) waged a fierce campaign of satire and ridicule against the Catholic Church. In 1751 he published an essay on the Crusades in which he described them as an “epidemic of fury which lasted for 200 years and which was always marked by every cruelty, every perfidy, every debauchery, and every folly of which human nature is capable.”12 He further opined that the Crusades were “wasteful, pointless, ruined by excessive papal ambition for worldly power, an example of the corrosive fanaticism of the middle ages.”13
Diderot (1713–1784) also saw the Crusades in a wholly negative light and criticized them for the despoliation of Europe. Diderot wrote that the consequences of these “horrible wars” were “the depopulation of its nations, the enrichment of monasteries, the impoverishment of the nobility, the ruin of ecclesiastical discipline, contempt for agriculture, scarcity of cash and an infinity of vexations.”14 Diderot also complained that the Crusades were worthless enterprises of savagery in which European knights were sent by the Church to “cut the inhabitant’s throats and seize a rocky peak [Jerusalem] which was not worth one drop of blood.”15
Hume (1711–1776) believed the Muslim world was superior in “science and humanity” and the Crusades were “the most signal and most durable monument to human folly that has yet appeared in any age or nation.”16
The reflections of Edward Gibbon (1737–1794) on the Crusades mimicked the writings of his fellow “enlightened” thinkers principally in the thought that the Crusades brought nothing but negative consequences to Europe. In Gibbon’s mind, the Crusaders were ignorant and superstitious criminals manipulated by the Church.
Gibbon also believed that the primary motivation of the Crusaders was greed, with Western warriors bent on the pursuit of “mines of treasures, of gold and diamonds, of palaces of marble and jasper, and of odoriferous groves of cinnamon and frankincense.”18 This erroneous view of Crusader motivations, still commonly held, may be Gibbon’s enduring mark on the popular history of the Crusades.”
Not one single objection by the aforementioned 'geniuses' has one iota of fact to support them. In fact the exact opposite of their declarations is supported by evidence, history and the barbarity and threat of the Moslem Jihad.
So here we have fat, pompous, periwigged limp wrists such as Gibbon or Voltaire, men who were entirely ignorant of medieval history, commenting on a topic – the Crusades – they knew nothing about! As Protestants or in the case of Hume et al. Atheists, they had little regard for truth, or for civilization and its development. Their main concern was to slander and vilify the Church. Only someone as insipid as Voltaire could regard a Gothic Cathedral, his eyeglasses, a chimney, a massive water mill grinding grain, or the creation of books and printing, artifacts among 1000 one could name which were invented during the Medieval era, as part of a 'Dark Age'. The only aspect of the non-existent Dark Age was the dark cloistered arrogance and stupidity of those too lazy, too blind, too bigoted to see the real world and understand and respect, what had come before.
After conquering Mecca at the head of a 10.000 army – what 'prophet of peace' does not have a personal army ? - Muhammad bribed the Arabs to join Islam. Booty, plunder, rape and sex slavery [for the men only of course], was prescribed as divinely inspired. What 'religion' appeals to such base atavistic impulses? What metaphysics is involved in satiating the demonic appetites of lust, greed and materialism?
Gilchrist, volume 1:
“One really wonders how true faith can be bred in a people firstly by force of conquest and secondly, very soon afterwards, by material inducements. Muhammad is alleged to have told his companions "I have made use of the pelf of this world to gain the love of the people that they may become Muslims" (Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy Prophet, p. 321). There is nothing wrong in principle with the generous bestowal of a gift to gain the heart of a man (Luke 16.9), but it does seem to be a very questionable way of cementing faith in God - especially when most religions teach that the desire for possessions is irreconcilable with a true desire for spiritual riches. Jesus despised any form of ulterior or double-motive in those who flocked to him and, knowing what was in the hearts of all men, would not trust himself to those whose faith could only be obtained through the bestowal of one or other form of material benefit (John 2.24-25, 6.26). Another Muslim writer also has the prophet of Islam say:
"O Ansar, are you angry because I have given away some goods to those whom I sought to win to Islam? Because I deemed their faith confirmable by material goods whereas I deemed yours to be based on solid conviction, to be candid beyond all dissuasion?" (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 427).”
So let me understand the Muhammadan cult. If you don't join they will kill you. If you do join you are rewarded with plunder, pillage, sexual license and Allah's eternal paradise ? If this is not the definition of insanity than what is ?
Pace Gilchrist, one should also wonder about the witless worms of the modern world, who name a Jihadic cult, founded on sex, violence and murder, a 'religion of peace'.
One of the great mistakes in all of history, was the rather incomprehensible charity shown by the Meccans to the ruling tribe's mad poet, Muhammad. Sowing dissension, garbling Judaic-Christian scripture, insulting the Meccan pantheon, disrupting society, fomenting social discord should have earned the mad poet a parting of his head from his sloped shoulders. Instead, the Meccans threw the small cult of Muhammadans out of their city, and on to Medina, and eventual mastery of Arabia they went.
As the historian Gilchrist notes, the Hijra, or flight from Mecca to Medina, was only a preparation for Jihad. This was well understood during the time of Muhammad, and in the early centuries following his murder by fellow-Moslems. The Meccans would eventually see their city conquered by the mad poet at the head of 10.000 men, who smashed their idols, enshrined Arab paganism as divine, and ordered the Meccans to only follow Baal, the family deity of Muhammad, and the Lord or ilah of Mecca.
“In the old Arab law, the Hijra did not merely signify rupture with his native town, but was equivalent to a sort of declaration of war against it. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p. 27)
We have already seen how closely related the Hijrah was to the active policy of jihad which immediately followed it and it comes as no surprise to find the inevitable conquest being pursued two years after the truce [between Muhammad and Mecca]. A small provocation by the Banu Bakr, a tribe allied to the Quraysh, on the Banu Khaza'ah, allied to Muhammad, was all he needed to declare the treaty broken. Abu Sufyan, aware that the balances were now tilted well in Muhammad's favour, went to Medina to restore the treaty but Muhammad refused to accommodate him and he returned to Mecca empty-handed.”
Muhammad out of self-interest of course, spared the population and the city from Jihadic destruction. As Mehmed II would say of his annihilation of Constantinople, he needed a capital, not a corpse. Interestingly, mad Muhammad butchered the Koranic verse scribe writer, who was charged with recording the frequent and quite convenient revelations from Baal to Muhammad. Apparently the scribe knew a fraud when he saw one, and being so close to the mad poet, understood perfectly well the nonsense that was Muhammad's 'prophecy':
“[After Mecca was conquered] A dozen leading opponents were proscribed though only a few were eventually executed. Two were apostates from Islam, one was a poetess who had particularly irked Muhammad with her satires, and the last was one of two Meccans who had assaulted Muhammad's daughter Zaynab as she fled Mecca for Medina. The others escaped either by hiding themselves or by seeking pardon. One case is of particular interest.
One of these men was Abdullah ibn Abu al Sarh who once converted to Islam and wrote down the revelation for Muhammad, but who then apostatized, returned to Quraysh, and there spread tales about his falsification of the revelation. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 410).”
If Muhammad was truly a 'messenger' why would his scribe apostasy and declaim against him?
Muhammad hated the Jews. They did not believe that his messed-up, garbled, illiterate decrees and lack of Old Testament knowledge and basic history, made him a 'prophet'. Muhammad desperately wanted the Jews and Christians to follow him, as the incarnation of the last prophetic Old Testament word, the last inspiration of Yahweh, the conclusion of scripture. The fact that he was insane, demonic, and quite illiterate when it came to scripture did nothing to convince the Jews and Christians that his claims were valid.
Once mad Muhammad was expelled from Mecca and forced to flee to Medina, the Koran changes its tone and attitude. Gone is the pleading to Jews, pagans and Christians that Muhammad is an Old Testament prophet. In comes the hate, the bile, the violence and the Jihad against those who did not follow.....
Gilchrist in his book on Islam, recounts why Muhammad so earnestly hated the Jews and Christians:
“Whereas the Meccans had simply ridiculed his message and generally resorted to sheer abuse of their kinsman, the Jews were able to trace many of these teachings to their own folklore and produce more damaging evidence against him. As Muhammad could not read their scriptures they were able to constantly provoke him with their knowledge and often frustrated him with subtle twists of phrases which he could not immediately detect but which entertained the Jewish bystanders. For example, Exodus 24.7 states that the Jews at Sinai answered Moses "All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient", but in the Qur'an we discover that the Jews, when commanded to hearken to God's Law on the Mount, allegedly answered "We hear and we disobey" (Surah 2.93). Muhammad later discovered that his informants had subtly misled him on this point and the Qur'an duly censures them for this particular deception:
Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) place and say: "We hear and we disobey". Surah 4.46
It was too late, however, to rectify the unfortunate error that they had succeeded in introducing into the text of the Qur'an. As Muir continues, "Mahomet evidently smarted at this period under the attacks of the Jews" (The Life of Mahomet, p. 179). Other authors comment in a similar vein:
It was not that the Jews refused to recognise Muhammad as a prophet, nor even that they engaged in political intrigue against him, serious as such attitudes and actions were. Much more serious was the Jewish attack on the ideational basis of Muhammad's preaching. It had been claimed that the Qur'an was a message from God and thus inerrant; and it had also been claimed that there was a large measure of identity between the Qur'anic message and what was to be found in the previous scriptures. If the Jews, then, maintained that there were errors and false statements in the Qur'an (because it disagreed with their Bible) and that therefore it could not be a message from God, they were threatening to destroy the foundations of Muhammad's whole religious movement. (Watt, What is Islam?, p. 102).
Yet, doubtless, the Prophet's ultimate determination to destroy the Jews was due to his secret recognition of their superior knowledge of matters on which he claimed (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 233).
The end result was as predictable as it was crucial to the success of Muhammad's ministry - the neutralisatlon of the Jews as an effective force in Medina. This took place chiefly through the deportation of two of the tribes and the annihilation of the third, but at the same time Muhammad also sought to discredit them in other ways and "the portions of the Koran given forth at this period teem with invectives against the Israelites" (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p.180). Here are a few examples of this trend in the last Surah making up the revelation:
The Jews say: "God's hand is tied up". Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter . . . Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God cloth extinguish it; But they (ever) strive to do mischief on the earth. And God loveth not those who do mischief. Surah 5.67
Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result) that God's wrath is on them and in torment will they abide. Surah 5.83”
In other words, illiterate and dumb Muhammad did not know what he was talking about regarding scripture, the word of the Jewish and Christian god, nor about what the Old Testament and Gospels contained and proclaimed. His ignorance was easily shown up by the Jews and Christians. To neuter the criticism he waged war. He exterminated 2 large Jewish tribes and exiled another. Christians were likewise exterminated once Mecca was conquered. By the time he was murdered by fellow Moslems in 632 AD Muhammad's Jihadic fascism had effectively eliminated the Jews and Christians from Arabia.
There was never a Dark Age in Medieval Christian Europe. But there certainly is one now across the Western world. Marxist revisionism, relativism, and the cult of Islam-is-peace makes Orwell look benign, Goebbels moderate and Lysenko scientific.
Today is a Dark Age. Witness for instance the witless worms and morons excusing Islam.
Hussein Obama's recent declaration that Christianity was 'dark' in the medieval period, and that perforce, this gives modern Islam the right to murder, kill, execute, humiliate, sex-slave and wage war against Kufar Unbelievers, is beyond ignorant and stupid. There was never a dark age in Christendom. There has been however, a 1400 year effort by Islam to exterminate all of Christianity as it did from Syria to Southern France during the first 150 years of its fascistic history.
Raymond Ibrahim sums it up:
“The problem is that those who condemn things like the Crusades—including “mainstream” academics, journalists, movie-makers, and politicians—do so without mention of historical context. Worse, they imply “we” already know the context: evil popes and greedy knights exploiting Christianity to seize Muslim lands and wealth. Or as Karen Armstrong put it, “the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam.”
The exact opposite is true. The Crusades were a 400 year delayed reaction against the Moslem Jihad which exterminated Christianity from Syria to Southern France.
Ibrahim on the Christian states wiped out by the Moslem Jihad of the 7th and 8th centuries:
“Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.
In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 600 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently. (Till this day, Turkish Muslims celebrate the sack of Constantinople, which saw much rapine and slaughter.)”
Why are we collectively so stupid about Moslems and Islam?
“So here we are, paying the price of being an ahistorical society: A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11—merely the latest in the centuries-long, continents-wide jihad on the West—Americans elected (twice) a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president; a man who condemns the Crusades while openly empowering the same Islamic ideology that Christian warriors fought for centuries.”
Cult of Relativism and historical Marxist rewriting:
“Thanks to the West’s ignorance of history, Muslims are flooding Europe under the guise of “immigration,” refusing to assimilate, and forming enclaves which in modern parlance are called “ghettoes” but in Islamic terminology are the ribat—frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.”
Moslem Jihad – all the time, everywhere. Moslems murder 10.000 of their own daughters each year, in the annual daughter-slaughter. Last year Moslems in Nigeria alone killed over 11.000 Christians. By contrast the Inquisition may have killed at the hands of the secular state, some 3.000 over 250 years..... The Inquisition [if one was to take up that usual objection by the witless worms that Islam is peace and what about the Inquisition?] was in large part a reaction against Moslem and Jewish converts to Christianity who whilst professing conversion, were in some cases actively working against the Christian state and supporting Islamic desires to recapture Spain for the Caliphate. In many cases the Inquisition, which killed 1/4 of the annual Moslem daughter slaughter, was necessary to safeguard Christian and secular interests. But such history will never be taught or disseminated in the Dark Age of the modern Western world.
I would urge anyone who find a copy of this book to read it. I don't agree with all of what Gilchrist explores and relates, but it is a very valuable guide to the cult of Mecca. Gilchrist explains Islam, its foundation, the texts, and the life of its creator and cult leader, Muhammad. If you receive your news and information from the main-stream media, or the usual array of academics and politicians or 'scientists', you will be utterly ignorant about the Meccan cult.
Islam is a very simple construction: 1) be nice to, support and aid fellow Moslems [these are the very few 'peaceful verses' one might find in Mein Koran that send the multi-culti into orgasms] and 2) Dominate, kill, murder, wage war, attack, or at the very least ignore and marginalize those who are not Moslem [this is the mainstay of Mein Koran, the so-called Medinan verses of Jihad, blood, hate, bile and intolerance].
When the very few followers of the cult of Muhammad were forced on the pain of the death, to leave Mecca and flee to Medina, [where improbably Muhammad was welcomed as a political arbiter between 3 Jewish tribes and 2 Arab clans]; the potential for booty presented itself. Medina lies close athwart to the main caravan routes heading from Mecca north to Christian Syria. It is well known that the Moslems were poor, disadvantaged and generally suffering in Medina, notwithstanding their leader's political position. Raiding, plundering and Jihad would change all of that. Gilchrist:
“This raid [one of the early Moslem raids out of Medina], however, was pursued in one of the four holy months (Rajab in this case) when the caravan crews were unarmed and fighting was prohibited throughout the peninsula. Worse still, the Muslim band had posed as pilgrims by shaving their heads an fell on an unsuspecting Meccan company completely deceive by their appearance.
Moslem deceit. Breaking rules, laws, known mores and cultural ethics. What religion prescribes caravan raiding, killing, stealing and deceit as examples of a higher metaphysics ? Making the claim that Islam was born in peace and prophethood is sheer ignorance. Of course the 'Allah' or Lord was right there to help Muhammad with his bad optics.
“On their return to Medina the whole city was shocked and dismayed at this flagrant breach of Arab custom. Muhammad himself refused to accept the booty at first but then, very conveniently, a "revelation" justifying the raid came from above, one which is now part of the Qur'an:
They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque and drive out its members". Surah 2.217
So don't fight in the holy months of Ramadan, unless of course you are fighting and killing for Muhammad or the Lord of Mecca [Baal, the ilah]. Muhammad's family deity Baal, the ilah of Mecca said so. How convenient that surely is. But the multi-culti will noisily point to 'in the sight of God', sigh and descend into epileptic seizures of one-world joy. However, this phrase when viewed in the original Arabic, presents an entirely different theme. Gilchrist:
“In the original Arabic the verse up to the words "path of God" reads Innallathiina aa-manuu wallathiina haajaruu wa jaahaduu fii sabiilillah. The link between the word "haajaruu wa jaahaduu" is very significant. From the same root letters come the nouns hijrah (emigration) and jihad (warfare). Those who "suffered exile" (haajaruu) are also those who "fought" (jaahaduu) in the path of God. The hijrah was not just a flight from Mecca. It was a preparation for jihad. It was the mainspring of the establishment of an ummah (community) that was to spread its influence through warfare. Muhammad's objective was to create a theocratic Muslim state and community by fighting those who stood in its way and who chose to resist it.
Where Islam is potentially universalized in Hijrah it is inherently politicized in Jihad. The move out of Mecca with the faith presages the move against Mecca for the faith. In that transition, not only is the Hijrah implemented in its prospective relevance, but Islam is defined in its essential character. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur'an, p. 134).
In other words, the flight to Medina was just one phase of the entire Moslem Jihadic enterprise. Muhammad could not convert the Meccans with his garbled theocratic nonsense, plagiarized poetry, or with his demands that his family deity, Baal, the ilah of Mecca, was the only idol worthy of veneration. Forced out of his hometown, characterized by the Meccans as insane, crazy and deranged, Muhammad with his small coterie of cult acolytes fled Mecca, took up residence in Medina and very quickly began attacking caravans, pillaging wealth, and by the allure of gold, money and sex-slavery, attract Jihadis and Ghazi or warriors. We are told that this is the genesis of a 'great religion'. I do imagine that Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 was of a similar caliber.
David Goetz in 'The Only Solution' describes the anti-Christian worship by Moslems of Baal correctly:
“Known originally as Baal, then Sinai or Sin, Allah was vastly accepted as the Arab's primary god of many god's way before Islam was established.....every Arab that worshipped all of these pagan gods, were more likely to accept Allah the Moon god as the ONLY god.'
Entirely correct. Allah does not mean god. It means the Lord. This Lord of Mecca, or Baal, has no connection whatsoever with the Christian idea of God.
Further, Muhammad's family, part of the ruling aristocracy of Mecca, took care of the Allah shrine, which was dedicated to Baal [Hu'Baal] or the Meccan moon deity. Moon worship was rife in the ancient Near East and the Biblical Baal or 'Sky god' is the same deity as the Baal of Mecca. Various tribes and states worshipped Baal in somewhat different forms. The Canaanites submitted to Baal as the god of the Sky, the Hittites the Lord of storms, the Babylonians as Sin or the Moon deity. Celestial worship was the default cult of the Near Eastern peoples. The cults of Baal are rightly attributed in the Old Testament, as societies steeped in the evil of human sacrifice, murder, oppression, slavery, sexual deviancy, dishonesty and violence.
The above characteristics describe Islam perfectly.
Academics, toothy TV 'experts' and Phds invested in the Multi-culti cult of 'One World', are amazed and embarrassed by the un-wanton, unbridled, visceral, hate and destruction enacted by their favorite non-Darwinian cult, the Meccan cult of Baal or the Lord of Mecca [allah]. The One-World cult of relativity assures the peasantry that Moslem barbarity has nothing to do with Moslems; and that Islamic Fascism which saturates Mein Koran and Mein Hadith, has nothing to do with Islam, or Submission [to Baal, Muhammad].
Only 25-30% of the Koran is hate speech against the Infidel and this is why Islam is so very violent. Muhammad was a military leader, a sex slaver, a pervert, a murderer, a Jihadist, and a man who plundered, raped and killed. Why would his cult have the opposite set of characteristics, evinced by Christianity and the model of Christ ? Muhammad is the anti-Christ, the embodiment of anti-Christian dogma. Islam is the exact polar opposite copy of Christianity. Yet too many deluded, deranged and ignorant nubes, rubes and dupes in the Church preach the opposite.
Every single Sura and its hate speech has been recorded here. It makes ugly reading. 1500-1600 verses of hate speech targeting the Kufar [subhuman, not Unbeliever], provides the spine and the skeleton of this barbarism. The standard sized Koran is about 423 pages long. This means that each page contains 3-4 verses of unbridled hate, terror, threats, or violence against the Kufar sub-human. Many of the phrases are lurid and debauched, prophesying torment, drinking boiling water, poisonous plants as food sustenance, and endless eternal damnation for anyone who does not follow the cult of Muhammad or the Al-Lah idol [Lord, the 'One', namely Baal of Mecca].
In this regard the Koran compares quite favourably with Mein Kampf, a book in which about 30% of the text is undoubtedly racist and supremacist. Mein Koran is defended with wild-eyed zealotry and lunacy by the Marxists and the huge-brained multi-culturalists as a 'religious book'. Truly fascinating. I would expect anyone with a brain to name a violent cult after its founder or in this case, Muhammadanism, the cult of Muhammad.
A cult is usually defined as a noun
-a particular system of religious worship, especially with
reference to its rites and ceremonies.
-an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing
-the object of such devotion.
-a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same
thing, person, ideal, etc.
-Sociology a group having a sacred ideology and a set of
rites centering around their sacred symbols
Moslems venerate a mass-murdering, sex-slaving, psychopath as a 'prophet'. The Germans extolled a sociopath as a divinely inspired article of Evolutionary Darwinism and the embodiment of Teutonic superiority. Pathetic.
A cult is always the opposite of a religion. A real religion will free your mind, spirit, will and body. A cult seeks to enslave your mind, your spirit and your body through rites and ceremonies and replacing the real world, with a fantasy world,premised usually on pagan-communal mythology and nonsense. This is the key aspect of a cult.
The core doctrine of Islam is Sura 5:33. The Kufar untermensch are to be killed, humiliated, crucified or at least, subservient to Islam:
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
If the Jew or Christian attempts to resist Islam encased in the supremacist bile of Muhammad's Mein Koran you will be ripped asunder through various torments, just as the Nazis exterminated 5 million Catholics for opposing 'science' and 6 million Jews for being genetically inferior and un-evolved.
Mein Koran. Mein Muhammad.
Summary of Mein Koran:
Moslems must fight in the name of Allah and Muhammad, and use all of their assets, money and even their lives to spread the Moon cult of Mecca.
In exchange for 'striving' in the name of the Allah or Lord of Mecca, Baal the moon deity or Allah, might grant you an eternity in paradise [only males go to paradise and only those who are Koranic enough].
Moslems cannot be friends with Jews or Christians, nor marry their women.
Women must obey Moslem men.
Moslem men may own sex slaves, a harem, 4 wives, and are superior to Jews and Christians.
The pagan cult of Islam is built on war, and its pagan documents, which have antecedents stretching back far into the Bronze-Age, adjures, encourages, nay demands, violence and war. In this vein Nazism and Islam are quite similar supremacist cults, both of which de-humanize their enemies [Jews, Christians, Slavs etc]; and sanctify war to exterminate these untermensch.
The following are typical Koranic verses of terror – a very partial list of 1600 such verses which academics, politicians and media talking heads know nothing about:
Kill the apes and pigs:
"kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191),
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil doers. (2:193)
Muhammad informs fighting Infidels is necessary because "it is good for us even if we dislike it" (2:216).
"And that God may test those who believe, and destroy the infidels." (3:141)
Jews and Christians will have their necks broken:
"O ye to whom the Scriptures have been given! believe in what we have sent down confirmatory of the Scripture which is in your hands, ere we efface your features, and twist your head round backward, or curse you as we cursed the sabbath-breakers: and the command of God was carried into effect." (4:47).
Jews and Christians are Satanic:
Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan)(4:76).
Jihad all the time:
"Relent not in pursuit of the enemy" (4:104)
"slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter" (5:33-4)
"Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies" (8:60)
"Fight (kill) them (non-Muslims), and Allah will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame" (9:14)
"I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah" (8:12, 17)
"And He orders us to fight them on until there is no more tumult and faith in Allah is practiced everywhere (8:39).
"fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (9:5).
Jews and Christians must pay tribute:
"Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled." (9:29)
Jews and Christian neighbors need to be killed:
"Believers! Wage war against such infidels as are your neighbours, and let them find you rigorous" (9:124).
“O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelieves and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them” (9:73),
Unbelievers, even if a friend of a Moslem, need to die:
"God has bought from the faithful their selves and their belongings against the gift of paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill and get killed; that is a promise binding on Allah... (9: 110).
“O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Pious, (9:123).
"When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them" (Sura 47:3).
"strike off the heads of the disbelievers....wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" (47:4).
“Say to those Arabs of the desert, who took not the field, ye shall be called forth against a people of mighty valour. Ye shall do battle with them, or [other translations have "until"] they shall profess Islam.” (48:16).
Islam uber alles. One world, One Muhammad:
"He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness." (48:28)
"He has sent His messenger with the guidance and the true religion, and will make it dominate all religions, in spite of the idol worshipers" (61:9).
"O Prophet! Make war on the infidels and hypocrites, and deal rigorously with them" (66:9)
This constitutes a very partial list of some 1600 such verses which declaim against the Satanic, greedy, stupid, wayward, dishonest, untrustworthy Kufar ape and pig. Such declamations render Islam a cult of death and hate, not a religion.
Yet we see every week that the brain dead of the world are utterly astonished when Moslems kill, crucify, rape, slaughter, and destroy the lives, homes and assets of Christians and Jews. Maybe they should read Mein Koran.
Mad Muhammad – he is called insane in the Koran – was no more a prophet than Adolf Hitler was the divinely sent Nordic messenger of Teutonic perfection and grace. Muhammad was a mass-murdering, Jihading, slaving, whoring, psychopath. Islam was built on violence, plunder and rape. A partial list of his mental illnesses is here.
Muhammad was a psychotic who experienced visions [drugs, hallucinations?], voices [ibid], visits from angels [not just Gabriel], and discussions with the moon deity Hu'Baal or Al-Lah [the Lord of Mecca]. His stories constantly changed. One minute he was stating that Al-Lah talked directly to him. Later this would be amended to angels. Further on, 'angels' becomes just Gabriel. Then the cycle repeats itself. As with most mentally ill people, Muhammad could not even keep his own story straight.
In the book 'Islam', by Norman Geisler there is an examination of the various 'calls' and experiences of mad Muhammad. Geisler writes:
"Muhammad himself questioned the divine origin of the experience. At first he thought that he was being deceived by a jinn or evil spirit. One of the most widely respected biographers, M.H. Haykal, speaks vividly of Mohammed's plaguing fear that he was demon possessed: 'Stricken with panic, Muhammad arose and asked himself, 'What did I see? Did possession of the devil which i feared all along come to pass...?”
Demon possessed ? Indeed this would explain Islam, which is in the main the Anti-Christ or anti-Christian dogma par excellence exceeding even that of Atheist-Nazism, or Atheist-Communism.
Muhammad was called the 'mad poet' by the Meccans, because he garbled and confused common poems and utterances which were posted on the Kabaa shrine's walls. In Sura 15-6 we find: "they [the people of Mecca] say: 'O thou to whom the warning hath been sent down, thou art surely possessed by a djinn [evil spirit]." [See also Sura 81:23].
Muhammad like Hitler, was an occultist. If Muhammad was a prophet, it was of death, rape, slaughter and occult black magic. As Geisler states:
"Another characteristic often associated with occult revelations is contact with the dead (CF. Deuteronomy 18:18:9-14; Isaiah 8:19, God condemns it). Haykal relates an occasion when 'the Muslims overheard him [Muhammad] asked, 'are you calling the dead? 'and the prophet answered, 'They hear me no less than you do, except there are unable to answer me.'
In other words, mad Muhammad believed that he was possessed.
In an analysis of Guillaume's Sira or biography of Muhammad, one historian Ankerburg comments:
"Guillaume describes Mohammed's other spiritualistic contacts and revelations: 'On the way back to Mecca a number of jinn or spirits are said to have jostled him...From the books of tradition we learn that the prophet was subject to ecstatic seizures. He has reported to have said that when an inspiration came to him he felt as it were the painful sounding of a bell...At other times visions came to him in sleep...in its early stages Mohammed's verses were couched in the semitic form of mantic oracular utterance...veiling of the head and the use of rhymed prose were marks of the arabian soothsayer, while the feeling of physical violence and compulsion...the outward appearance of 'possession'...seemed to the onlookers to indicate madness of demon possession.' (Facts on Islam, p.12).
The seizures, the foaming at the mouth, spirits jostling the person – these can all be associated with the Occult pagan practices so prolific in Arabia which had existed from thousands of years. Hitler also experienced ecstatic moments, carpet biting, foaming at the mouth, and a rabid interest in all manners of the occult. I doubt many Phds will be writing theses stating that Hitler was a genteel, educated, thoughtful and sane prophet. In Hadith vol 1 #740, vol 5, #199, Muhammad is described as a Shaman, or an occultist priest. This depiction is likely quite accurate and would explain why many contemporaries viewed him as deluded, stupid, insane and quite mad. A portrait which also nicely illustrates Herr Hitler.
The Koran is in my view, mankind's most odious, disastrous, unlettered, and fascistic document. In support of worshiping Baal the Al-Lah, or Lord Of Mecca, the Koran sanctions hate, racism, war, Jihad, misogyny, murder, discrimination and supremacism. Not even Mein Kampf achieved so much intolerance and fascistic paganism in its illiterate ravings. There is a very good argument to be made that Muhammad, whose family were the caretakers of the Baal shrine, becomes conflated and confused with the Lord or Al-Lah. Thus Muhammad is really the Allah or Lord. Certainly the Koran demands meek submission to Muhammad, as well as Baal. It astonishing that a cult to a single mad man, one who whored, warred, slaughtered, murdered, raped and sex slaved, is now deemed to be 'religious'.
The Kabaa shrine or primitive cube which housed the Arab pantheon of 'Gods' contained 360 idols. The Chief or Lord of these was Baal or Hu'Baal in Arabic. Baal in Mecca was the male moon deity, and was associated with Sin the Lord of the Moon, in Babylonian culture. Babylonian and Mesopotamian influences were rampant in Arabia. In the Old Testament Baal and its attendant pagan culture of blood, sacrifices, sexual deviancy, immorality and sloth is associated quite rightly, with evil. The Canaanites worshiped Baal and the excesses of their cult were used by the Hebrews as examples of how not to live a proper life.
Muhammad's family took care of the Baal shrine at Mecca. How convenient that the Lord of Mecca would choose Muhammad as its spokesman and most important human in history.
"The Quraysh tribe into which Muhammad was born was particularly devoted to Allah..." (Islamic Invasion, Morey, p.51). Before Muhammad was ever born, his tribe worshipped Allah, and he was the chief God of Mecca: "Its been pointed out that Mecca was in the control of the Quraysh tribe into which Muhammad was born" (ibid., pp.39-40). Since they were in control of Mecca, it was only right that their God was chief of the Kaaba in Mecca.”
"In pre-Islamic days, called the Days of Ignorance, the religious background of the Arabs was pagan, and basically animistic. Through wells, trees, stones, caves, springs, and other natural objects man could make contact with the deity...At Mekka, Allah was the chief of the gods and the special deity of the Quraish, the prophet's tribe. Allah had three daughters: " (Van Ess, John, Meet the Arab, New York, 1943, p. 29)
Collier's Encyclopedia under "Allah" writes "...there were among the Arabs, long before the emergence of Islam worshippers of a supreme god known as Allah, and the Koran (13:17; 29:61; 31:24 [These show that the Pagan Arab and Muhammad worshipped the same Deity])
Zwemer writes: "But history establishes beyond the shadow of a doubt that even the pagan arabs before Muhammad time, knew the chief god by the name of Allah...ilah is used for any god and Al-ilah (contracted to Allah, i.e, the god), was the name of the supreme. Among the Arabs this term denoted the chief God of three hundred and sixty idols...As final evidence, we have the fact that centuries before Muhammad the Arabian Kaaba, the temple at Mecca, was called Beit Allah, the House of God..." (Muhammad is Mecca, pp.25-26, 31-36).
The Allah deity had a wife, named Allat who was the Sun goddess. Manat and 'Uzza were their 2 daughters representing the moon and Venus. The entire family of Allah was worshiped until Muhammad commanded that there was no God but the Allah or Baal, and that all idols must be smashed and broken.
The Encyclopedia of Religion of Ethics under "Allah" writes, "..as Prof. Nokleke has shown...Muhammad found the Meccans believing in a supreme god whom they called Allah...with Allah however they associated minor deities [called] the daughters of Allah. Mohammed's reform was to assert the solitary existence of Allah. The first article of the Muslim creed, therefore 'La-ilaha illa-Llahu-means only as addresses by him to the Meccans 'There exist no god except the one whom you already called Allah" (Hastings, p.326).
'Already called Allah'. This is an article of faith propounded by Moslem cult devotees. Allah or the Baal deity, had existed in Arabia for some 3000 years before the time of Muhammad. Moon worship was rampant in the Near East and Arabia. Muhammad's madness 'invented' the celebration of Baal-ism, and monotheism devoted to slavery demanded by Baal and Muhammad, of their subjects, their followers, their knaves. There is a good reason why Muhammad was murdered in 632 AD, fat, covered in gold, head buried into his private sex harem. Even a slave can become tired of the master's insanity and constant and quite convenient 'revelations' from his family idol.
What excuses do present day Moslems offer, in their slavish devotion to Mein Koran und Mein Fuehrer?
Major medieval historian Grant: “The medieval university laid far greater emphasis on science than does its modern counterpart.”
How true. Globaloneywarming? Tulips to Teachers ? Right.
It is ironic that Marxist-Atheist professors declaiming their Islam-is-Peace and Christianity-is-evil doctrinaire dogma from the sanctity of their well-pensioned ivory towers; are the benefactors of the Christian-invented University system. Without Medieval Christian civilization there would be no university system. The university concept is yet another Christian creation.
It took about 500 years for universities to develop. Starting in the 5th and 6th centuries Christians began compiling educational material for both children and for 'scholars'. Boethius and Cassiodorus are usually credited with providing much of the material for the Christian university system, detailing what the Medievals called the 'quadrivium': arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music theory which were merged with the so-called trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric). The 7 liberal arts were the prime subjects taught in the monastic schools and later on in the university system which began in earnest in the 11th century. These subjects were quite practical, unlike the plethora of useless majors, schools and professors we have today.
The compilation and codification of knowledge was a Christian-wide enterprise. Its breadth from the benedictory 'decline of Rome' to the 9th century is remarkable indeed. Thus we have:
“Marcianus Capella..at Carthage about A.D. 420. in two books, "Nuptiae Philologiae et Mercurii", carrying out the allegory that Phoebus [me: the god of the bright, the pure...] presents the Seven Liberal Arts as maids to the bride. Philology, mythological and other topics are treated. In the seven books that follow, each of the Liberal Arts presents the sum of her teaching....same subject is found in the little book, intended for clerics, entitled, "De artibus ac disciplinis liberalium artium", which was written by Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus in the reign of Theodoric...translation of the Greek mathesis or mathemata, and stood in a narrower sense for the mathematical sciences. Cassiodorus derives the word liberalis not from liber, "free", but from liber, "book"..."Origines, sive Etymologiae", in twenty books, compiled by St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, about 600... grammar..rhetoric..dialectic, both comprised under the name of logic; ...four mathematical branches....medicine, jurisprudence, theology... Alcuin the well-known statesman and counsellor of Charles the Great..(Wisdom hath built herself a house, she hath hewn her out seven pillars)..One of Alcuin's pupils, Rabanus Maurus, who died in 850 ..published under the title, "De Universo", what might be called an encyclopedia. The extraordinary activity displayed by the Irish monks as teachers in Germany led to the designation of the Artes as Methodus Hybernica. To impress the sequence of the arts on the memory of the student, mnemonic verses were employed such as the hexameter...”
The list of medieval scholars would run into the many hundreds. Most are lost to us. As French historian Regine Pernoud states, hundreds if not thousands of tonnes of documents in Latin sit undisturbed across Europe. Within these papers we would no doubt find hundreds of men and quite a few women, busy with the elaboration of the great works of Cassiodorus and Boethius, and the manufacturing of education. How many anti-Christian professors today even understand that their very lives and ability to slander and hate the past, is due ironically, to people from a culture they despise. Not many I suppose.
Tiresome Atheist-Marxist propaganda, espoused primarily by Protestants and Secularists, include the fiction that the Church was opposed to 'science'. Besides the difficulty of defining 'science', the historical fact is that the scientific method and all the appliances and appurtenances of civilization only came to fruition in Christian Europe during the Middle Ages – far in advance of Protestantism which destroyed thousands of valuable artistic structures, and long in advance of Secular Atheism which propounds as its core science-fiction theory; that bacteria became men; and 100 trillion cell complexities arose by chance from one cell. Whatever.
Some examples of Christian genius in Math:
Algebra: No Muslims did not invent algebra. Islam has invented next to nothing. Diophantus and Greek Christians in Alexandria in the 3rd century invented Algebra, some 600 years before a Persian Zoroastrian with a Moslemified name, Al Khwarizmi supposedly invented it. Diophantus was a Christian and his book 'Arithmetica', even with its attendant issues, is obviously one of the key books in the history of mathematics, clearly laying out the basis of algebra, with his theorems still in effect today.
An example found in Arithmetica:
I. Polynomials (or other algebraic expressions) to be represented as squares. Among these are:
1. One equation for one unknown:
(II, 23; IV, 31) ax2 + bx + c = u2.
(VI, 18) ax3 + bx2 + cx + d = u2.
(V, 29) ax4 + b = u2.
(VI, 10) ax4 + bx3 + cx2 + dx + e = u2
(IV, 18) x6 - ax3 + x + b2 = u2.
Trigonometry: No Muslims did not invent trigonometry, which is a vital component in many disciplines. Hipparchus circa 190 to 120 BC is the first Greek credited with developing trigonometric theories in relation to astronomy, equinoxes and measuring the earth's circumference. It was however, Christians during the Middle Ages, beginning in the 2nd century AD with work in isoperimetrics and other arcana – 500 years before the moon cult named Islam was established - who refined trigonometry to encompass analytical and coordinate geometry, which are the foundations for other scientific and mathematical constructs. For instance y = sin(x) and the graph of this equation and function is periodic or wave-like. This is an important breakthrough allowing for example, the Christian Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) to unravel the mysteries of the dynamics of heat through advanced trigonometic notations.
Geometry: No Moslems did not invent geometry. Euclid's geometry, created circa 300 BC, was improved upon during the entire era of the Christian Middle Ages in Europe, ending with the Catholic Descartes advanced geometrical calculations in the 17th century. Around 500 AD, the Roman Christian Boethius made Latin redactions of a number of Greek scientific and logical writings. His Arithmetic, which was based on Nicomachus, was well known and was basis for medieval scholars to elaborate upon the Pythagorean number theory.
Boethius and Cassiodorus provided the material for the monkish and Christian university system, called the 'quadrivium': arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music theory. Together with the trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric), these subjects formed the seven liberal arts, which were taught in the monasteries, cathedral schools, and, from the 12th century on, in the universities. The Middle Ages university curriculum – another Christian invention – would inspire Descartes and other mathematicians to expound and extend geometrical knowledge.
Heliocentricity has nothing to do with Galileo or the 'conflict between science and the Church'. Christian scientists discovered using advanced mathematics the concept of heliocentricity long before Galileo took the credit. Copernicus, a Catholic monk, devised a system to explain why the earth rotated around the Sun; much of what he theorized was wrong. He waited 20 years to publish his work out of fear of academic reaction [sound familiar?], who were invested in the Ptolemaic concept of geocentricity and Luther's Protestants who following Luther's condemnation of the theory, were violently opposed to Copernicus. The violence against Copernicus by both Protestants and academics was indeed quite virile and hostile.
It was Kepler, another Christian, and ironically a Lutheran, who developed the math to explain elliptical orbits, and whose theory merged with real observations on planetary motions. He formed his math 10 years before Galileo stepped onto his soapbox. Galileo never quoted nor corresponded with Kepler though he must have known of his work. It is Kepler whose mathematical detail provides a thorough support for heliocentricity.
Galileo contributed nothing, but invective and the addled notion that tides, which arise from the gravitational pull of the moon, 'proved' that the earth revolved around the Sun. The 2 have nothing to do with each other, a fact that Jesuit astronomers had proven for 30 years during Galileo's lifetime. Apparently Galileo was either too ignorant or too careless a scientist to bother with well-known facts widely circulated during his day.
“Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.” link
There was precious little science, but lots of earnest slander in Galileo's works. Galileo also propounded without evidence, that the Sun was the center of the entire universe ! He provided no math or evidence to support his assertion.
The Galileo myth is just another tired Atheist-Protestant piece of puff propaganda. Banal, untrue but entirely convenient for cult members who dearly want to believe that only Atheism promotes science [such as abiogenesis, mud-to-men, life on the moon, life on venus and mars, Communism, Marxism, Nazi evolutionary theology etc.].