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.
The clever people only believe that only Blacks were slaves. Their ignorance of history is so deep that they don’t know that other races, with different levels of melanin and pigmentation, have been enslaved en-masse. White slavery was the foundation of Greek empires and the Roman. At least 25% of Whites in ancient Greece were slaves or helots (probably more). At the time of Christ some 10-40% of the population of Rome were White slaves with a similar total across the empire.
This would mean 100.000 to 400.000 White slaves in Rome, and potentially 40 million White slaves across the empire, or 4 times the transatlantic Black-slave trade of the 16th to 19th centuries. I can’t remember reading in any history or panegyric of ‘classical’ civilisation, much if any discussion on White slavery.
Take the Musulman Jihad and occupation of richer lands over 1400 years. The Arab Musulmans enslaved millions of White and non-Arab Christians in Syria, North Africa and Spain. European coastal areas were attacked and denuded of Whites, with hundreds of thousands taken in sex, military-service, naval, or labour-slavery. The Arab Mahometans enslaved millions of Persians and Hindus as they conquered east during the 7th and 8th centuries.
The Arab-Muslim enslavement of Whites from cities and villages along and inside the border with Christian Byzantium was a yearly occurrence as it was in Christian Spain. Countless tens of thousands of Whites and Christians were enslaved. The Viking conquests of Britain and northern France were in part the lust for White slaves, most of them being sold to the Musulmans. Countless tens of thousands are transhipped from Britain and Normandy to the Musulman caliphates in Spain and beyond.
The Ottoman empire was built almost entirely on White slavery, constituting over 500 years, some 15 million or more White slaves. Tamerlane the Turkic Musulman enslaved many millions of non-Whites, Persians, Indians, Turks and even Arabs, and slaughtered far more. At least 1.3 million Whites were enslaved in North Africa during the Atlantic-Black-slave trading era from 1600 to 1800, a trade supplied and enthusiastically supported by Black slave traders. The extent of the Musulman White-slave trade is never discussed but needs to be researched and propagated.
To his great credit Simon Webb has produced a fascinating book, ‘The Forgotten Slave Trade; The White European Slaves of Islam’, which outlines the Musulman enslavement of Whites. Some facts that most people are completely unaware of:
White slavery has a long history
-The Celts who long pre-date the Roman era, relied on White slavery, a cultural attributed that survived in Celtic areas, during the entirety of the Roman empire.
-The Roman writer Strabo commented that Britain circa AD 10 was famous for its trade of cattle, gold, silver, iron and White slaves.
-During the ‘Iron Age’ (1000 BC to the time of Christ), White slavery was common across Britain and Europe, with evidence of iron chains, metal collars and sundry tools to control and manage slaves being unearthed.
-Slavery was well established in both Roman and Anglo-Saxon England (Webb is English). As in the Roman empire at least 10-25% would have been considered slaves in some way (there are different gradations of slavery).
-Roman slavery, during its 1100-year history was in total some 10 times more extensive than the shipment of Blacks across the Atlantic during the 18th century. White slaves were worked to death, their conditions often far worse than what Blacks would experience during the 18th century slave trade.
-It is estimated that every year, the Roman empire needed at least 500.000 new White slaves to keep its empire, military and economy afloat. In just 100 years, this means 50 million White slaves were taken by the Romans. Caesar famously enslaved some 3 million Gauls in less than a decade.
-Bristol on the Severn river was built during the Anglo-Saxon era, to trade in and export White slaves (St. Patrick from Bristol is one famous example), with many White slaves shipped to Muslim slave trading centres for hard coinage.
-The 1086 Domesday book compiled by the Normans after their conquest, states that at least 10% of the population in Britain were Whites slaves listed as chattel or assets.
-Dublin was founded by the Vikings in 841 as a White slave-trading port. Dealers and traders would often ship their cargo to Musulman Africa.
-Musulman slave traders took over Lundy island near Devon in the mid-17th century and enslaved thousands over a period of just 5 years, sending them back to the slave auctions in Tripoli.
The Musulman enslavement of Whites
No one knows how many White slaves were taken by the Mahometans over 1400 years, be they Arabs, Berbers, Senegalese, Turk, or Mongol. A reasonable estimate is 25 million.
-In Musulman theology, only non-Muslims can be slaves. As with the Roman empire, the Musulman slave-based empire must constantly expand and seek out slaves.
-Musulmans were the masters of White castration, hundreds of thousands of European White men were rendered ‘feminine’ with their testicles crushed or their penises cut off.
-Venice and Verdun during the entire medieval era, had ‘eunuch’ factories of White slaves who were castrated and shipped off to Musulman courts and emirs, as well as to Christian Byzantium, often to guard harems, women, or to protect palaces and emperors.
-By the 7th century, Jews were the largest middlemen in White slave trading between Christendom and Musulman Africa and Asia. A fact not forgotten within Christendom and a casus belli for Jewish pogroms during the medieval period.
-From the Musulman Jihad and conquest of Syria, Egypt and North Africa from 640 to 670 AD, it is estimated that some 1 million Whites and Berbers were enslaved, either as sex chattel or labourers. Dhimmitude it should be said, is the Musluman imposition of 2nd class status on non-Muslims, akin to serfdom, with Christians subjects open to rape, onerous taxation, loss property and random killing. Serfdom or 2nd class knave status, while not ‘proper’ slavery, is a gradation of slavery.
-In Spain, Arab and Black Musulmans or Almoravids (Senegalese, Niger river area), enslaved some 1 million White Christians over 800 years. Many of these were sent back to Africa or Asia to slave markets or emirs, many others were slaves within Spain for various emirs and Musulman rulers.
-10-15 million White ‘Slavs’ (or Slaves) from the Balkans and Eastern Europe, were fed into the White slave markets during the middle ages, as eunuchs in both Constantinople and Byzantium, and in Musulman emirates as soldiers, concubines, sex chattel labourers or galley slaves. The actual numbers are unknown but in any area of the Balkans, parts of Eastern Europe and Ukraine, there were almost yearly Ottoman-Musulman raids, wars and slave trading.
-This trade in White Slavic-Slaves was unimaginably brutal and vast, and over 500 years no fewer than 10-15 million White ‘Slavic’ slaves were taken by the Ottoman Musulmans. An example not given by Webb, is the small region of Albania where during the heroic defence of the Christian Crusader Skanderbeg, some 20.000-50.000 White Albanians were taken by the Ottoman Muslims in any given year from 1420-1470, or over 1 million. The depopulation was so severe that Albania never fully recovered.
-Mamluks (a word meaning ‘property’) were largely White Circassian and non-Muslim-Turkic slaves, and the foundation of the Musulman state in Egypt. The Mamluks overthrew their Arab masters, establishing a state in Egypt and Syria (1250-1798) until the time of Napoleon. The numbers of Mamluk slaves over 400 years would be in the millions.
-For over 400 years, from 1350 to 1750, the Ottoman Musulmans enslaved some 7000 young White Christian men just from the Balkans and forced them into the feared Janissaries, or the ‘new solders’ of Islam. Some 2.5 million White Christians would have been thus enslaved.
-Barbary coast ‘pirates’ or more accurately Musulman Jihadis, who were largely vassals of the Ottomans, slave traded some 1.5 million Whites, from 1500-1750, from all across Europe including Iceland and Britain.
The above is just a brief list. The book does not list the Mongol-Musulman enslavement of Russians in their millions. If you add up the totals above and add in the millions of Russians taken and enslaved by Musulman Turks and Mongols over 500 years, you arrive at about 25 million White slaves. Though the book is Britain-centric in many ways, it is an excellent compendium of Musulman White slavery and atrocity. This sordid, dark, satanic part of history – the mass enslavement of Whites is never told. Simon Webb deserves much praise to have produced a fine work to rectify this injustice.
An excellent book and anodyne to the general secular and even Catholic ignorance about the Crusades. After 400 years of Musulman conquests of Christendom, after endless Jihads, sex slaving, destruction, plunder and death, the rump called the ‘West’ finally fought back. As the book explains the Crusades were initially against the satanic cult of Muhammad but also included crusades against the pagan Wends and Lithuanians in the Baltics and the heretical Manichean sect or Cathars in Provence. These efforts to save Christendom and extend it, cover some 500 years. They are an important reason why Europe rose to world dominance. No crusades, no Byzantium, no Christianity would mean no modern world which is now being destroyed by 19th century materialism, the Globalist New World Order and the cult of ‘science’.
The book gives voice to scholars and experts in the history of Crusading who argue against the persistent and mendacious myths which permeate the study of the Catholic crusades, including Jonathan Riley-Smith, William Urban, Thomas F. Madden, Jessalynn Bird, and Paul Crawford.
Some important points of emphasis emanate from this eminently readable and learned dissertation:
-The pagan, warrior cult of Islam and its endless Jihad against Christianity
-The religious fervour at the heart of the Christian response to the Muslim Jihad
-The fact that the Crusades had nothing in common with ‘colonialism’ and that 90% of the men either died during the Crusade or returned home
-The so-called atrocities of the Crusades pale in comparison with the Musulman Jihad, the millions of Christians killed and enslaved over the first 400 years of the moon cult’s ascension to empire, and the innumerable massacres of Christians during and after battles, sieges and raids
-Jews, the erstwhile and long time allies of Muslims, were always in the frame for revenge and violence
-No Crusades, no Byzantium (which has its own history of religious crusading against the Musulmans), no Europe and modernity
Crusading to the East included:
· The First Crusade of 1096–1099 that captured Jerusalem;
· the ill-fated Second Crusade of 1147–1149 that unsuccessfully attacked Damascus;
· the Third Crusade of 1188–1192, known as the Crusade of Kings, which pitted Richard the Lionheart against Saladin;
· the Fourth Crusade of 1202–1204 that captured Constantinople;
· the Fifth Crusade of 1217–1221 to Damietta that ended in disaster in the Egyptian Delta;
· and the Sixth Crusade of Emperor Frederick II, 1227–1229;
· the Seventh (or Sixth) Crusade of Louis IX of France, 1248–1254, which also experienced a disaster in the Nile Delta;
· the Eighth (or Seventh) Crusade of Louis IX and Prince Edward of England, 1270–1272
Other Crusades include the Teutonic incursions into the Baltics and Russia during the 12th to 15th centuries and the Albigensian crusade from the 1220s to 1240s.
Myths. Despite crusade historians’ best attempts, crusade myths continue to live on, repeated endlessly as fact.
Probably the most pervasive of all is the Grand Myth that the crusades were an assault on a peaceful, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, and tolerant Eastern world by fanatical barbarians from the West who managed to deal a mortal blow to Byzantine civilization and taught the Islamic world to fight savage assailants in a like manner—giving no quarter. In the end, the crusades produced nothing but failure and hate.
Runciman’s sympathies lay with the Byzantine Empire, and he viewed the crusaders as intolerant barbarians who destroyed the foundations of this ancient and brilliant civilization, thereby making it mortally vulnerable to the Ottoman Turks who eventually conquered Constantinople and the last remnants of Byzantium in 1453. [There is some truth to this view of course. Runciman however, was a crusade historian from the 1950s, who hated Catholicism and the very idea of crusading against Muslim exotics, and much his work has been discredited as ahistorical]
Muhammad the warring totalitarian. Not much diversity or tolerance within the Meccan cult.
Indeed, as Rice University religion scholar David Cook has pointed out, Muhammad personally participated in or sanctioned no fewer than eighty-six military campaigns or raids against various opponents, including Jews, pagans, and Byzantine Christians, as he and his early followers established political control over the Arabian Peninsula. Because Islam theoretically forbids warfare between Muslims, for the deeply entrenched razzia tradition of Arabia to continue, raiding activity had to be turned against non-Muslims.
The Quran identifies Jews and Christians as enemies to be exterminated.
As Cook has further pointed out, the Qur’an contains a well-developed doctrine of military jihad (jihad of the sword), with one of its primary goals the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, and Hadith (the collection of sayings and actions ascribed to the Prophet and his companions) established holy war as a tradition within Islam from a very early date.
Qur’an 9:29 states, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day…until they pay the jizya [the poll tax paid by non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”; this principle was re-affirmed by Caliph Umar I, as quoted by the early Muslim historian al-Tabari: “Summon the people to God… those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.” As recorded in the Qur’an (the eternal word of God, which Muslims believe was dictated to the Prophet by the angel Gabriel), Muhammad declared that non-Muslims were to be attacked “until religion becomes Allah’s in its entirety.”
As Carole Hillenbrand has noted, significant “discriminatory measures” against Christians and Jews had become “enshrined” in Islamic legal books by the later eleventh century, on the eve of the First Crusade no less, although the degree to which these discriminatory measures were enforced by Islamic authorities varied from place to place….the status was the payment of the jizya, an annual head tax placed on all non-Muslim adult men ... Combined, the jizya and the kharaj—the levy on dhimmi-held land—usually exceeded twenty percent of a person’s wealth; this was very high for a pre-modern tax, but they could be set at much higher levels if the Muslim authorities chose to do so. Muslim women were not allowed to marry non-Muslim men, but the reverse was encouraged, for obvious reasons.
Crusaders were a mix of men and motivations
Research on crusading charters by Jonathan Riley-Smith and Marcus Bull, among others, has demonstrated how rather than blindly rushing off to the East in a religious frenzy, individual crusaders of means carefully considered the costs and logistics of crusading as they made preparations for the management of their affairs in their absence. The greater lords who wished to go had to arrange financing for themselves and their followers, often borrowing the funds from local moneylenders or mortgaging their estates to obtain the necessary funds. Furthermore, leaders had to be designated, travel routes determined, and large amounts of equipment and animals to transport men and materials acquired and organized.
Today the considered judgment of most historians who study the chronicles, letters, songs, charters, and art works of every sort from the crusade period is that the Christian spirituality and religious fervour of the Middle Ages, rather than elements evident in European colonialism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was the dominant factor in a complex mix of motives for crusading.
Religion was absolutely central to the Crusades. Runciman’s nonsense vs Tyerman’s scholarship
Christopher Tyerman’s massive new history of the crusades, which he offers as a corrective and update to Steven Runciman’s equally monumental history of the crusades places religion squarely at the centre of the crusading movement from start to finish. Reflecting the general consensus of today’s crusade historians, his Preface begins: Violence, approved by society and supported by religion, has proved a commonplace of civilized communities.
The crusades were wars justified by faith against real or imagined enemies defined by religious and political elites as perceived threats to the Christian faithful. The religious beliefs crucial to such warfare placed enormous significance on imagined awesome but reassuring supernatural forces of overwhelming power and proximity that were nevertheless expressed in hard concrete physical acts: prayer, penance, giving alms, attending church, pilgrimage, violence.
Riley-Smith and the religious dimension of crusading
1986, Riley-Smith wrote under the assumption that crusading was a form of armed pilgrimage and compared the documents he examined with similar ones for those departing on a more traditional pilgrimage as an act of penance. He found “a serious and purposeful devotion on the part of would-be crusaders,” “a pious desire to arrange for intercessory prayer,” sometimes by those whose previous “cruelty” had “astonished” local clerics.
Yet Riley-Smith has highlighted … by showing that, far from being “an economic safety valve” for landless and impecunious male members of a family, the prospect of any member of a family participating in a crusade resulted in significant financial sacrifices on the part of the family. Moreover, Riley-Smith has shown that such financial sacrifices were usually made to send the head of the family or the eldest son on a crusade, rather than younger sons.
Jews had always allied themselves with the Muslims
…the association of Jews with the Muslim enemy, followed by the first major persecution of Jews in Western Christendom; a lingering sense of fear and injury that resurfaced in many First Crusade chronicles; and the gradual refocusing of Christian spiritual energy on the salvation narrative and the physical places associated with it.
The fact is Jews had figured for centuries in Christian writing and in liturgy in ways that preserved Christian resentment for their supposed role in the Crucifixion.
Anselm’s famous defence of the Christian faith, Cur Deus homo (Why God Became Man), whose “adversaries” were almost certainly meant to be Jews and which was most likely written while the First Crusade was underway. This growing sensitivity to Jewish criticisms of the doctrine of the Incarnation, among other points of faith, is perhaps best reflected in twelfth-century crusade historian Guibert of Nogent’s vicious attack on the count of Soissons, who was suspected of being a “Judaizer.”
In fact, the papacy reiterated the doctrine of toleration for Jews and took steps to prevent, or at least discourage, persecutions during subsequent crusades. After 1096, the most pressing issue was deciding what to do with the Jews forced to convert to Christianity.
No, the Crusades were not an early form of Colonialism
Thomas F. Madden is among those who see its application as totally inappropriate. In one of his several essays on crusade myths, Madden assails “Myth 4: The Crusades were just medieval colonialism dressed up in religious finery” by stating: It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region.
The Crusader States, founded in the wake of the First Crusade, were not new plantations of Catholics in a Muslim world akin to the British colonization of America. Catholic presence in the Crusader States was always tiny, easily less than ten percent of the population. These were the rulers and magistrates, as well as Italian merchants and members of the military orders. The overwhelming majority of the population in the Crusader States was Muslim.
They were not colonies, therefore, in the sense of plantations or even factories, as in the case of India. They were outposts. The ultimate purpose of the Crusader States was to defend the Holy Places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem, and to provide a safe environment for Christian pilgrims to visit those places. There was no mother country with which the Crusader States had an economic relationship, nor did Europeans economically benefit from them. Quite the contrary, the expense of Crusades to maintain the Latin East was a serious drain on European resources. As an outpost, the Crusader States kept a military focus.
A final and compelling reason to conclude that the vast majority of persons who left on the First Crusade had no intention whatsoever of colonizing eastern lands is that most of the surviving veterans, their pilgrimage to the Holy City completed, returned to their homes in the West shortly after the capture of Jerusalem in July 1099, leaving a small minority of Westerners to govern a vast majority of Muslims and Eastern Christians. There were probably not more than 5,000 crusaders, many of them noncombatants, left in the then-three crusader states in late 1099.
No profits from the Crusades
…in a 1998 review of Riley-Smith’s The First Crusaders, Professor William Chester Jordan of Princeton University effectively summed up the view of many current crusade historians of Riley-Smith’s research, when he wrote, “Riley-Smith has, I hope, laid to rest for all time the contention that crusaders profited monetarily from the wars. They did not, or at least the vast majority did not. Nor did they say that they expected to profit materially.”
This is not to say that crusaders expected nothing in the way of an earthly reward. They were well aware that crusading brought with it considerable social capital at home. Crusading families, especially those for whom crusading became a multigenerational tradition in the years after the First Crusade, were highly regarded in their communities. The charters are silent, however, on this all too human expectation of prestige. It is a rare person who openly admits to such desires.
A third crusade historian, Giles Constable, anticipated and even laid the basis for Riley-Smith’s and Bull’s work in 1982 with an insightful essay on the financing of crusades in which in pointed to the enormous cost of crusading, the ways in which many crusade lords mortgaged the future and imperilled their heirs’ patrimony in order to crusade, and how crusaders did not expect to return richer in the goods of this life.
There is much more in this book, but the above were some important themes gleaned from this scholarship and which rectify the incorrect aspersions and indignities heaped upon the Crusades by modern culture, which appears to be mostly unacquainted with historical reality and perspective.
No greater lie exists than the perversion that Islam is a religion. And one of peace yet. Muslim practices and Islamic doctrine have nothing to do with 'religion'. They are premised on a 3000 year old moon cult, and are concerned with control, power, supremacism and racist ideology. Islam has far more in common with Nazism than it does with Christianity. Is Nazism to be accepted as a religion? If Islam, the most primitive and pagan of pre-modern ritualised moon worship must be embraced as a religion why not Nazism?
Hitler's great statist-fascist experiment was in essence a cult movement founded on the same ideals which animate Islam. Cults share many features. Hitlerite fascism was of course a left-wing, communal phenomenon using the power of the modern state to militarise, terrorise and engage in domestic and international violence. Yet few today would subscribe to the belief that Nazism was a religion, a way of life, a cultural expression or some sort of experiment which went sadly awry.
Not many defend the 70 million dead including 6 million Jews in an industrialised murder, as being unfortunate victims of a brave and morally superior 'new world order'. Nazism was a cult-centric evil of communist proportions, surpassed only in violence and butchery by Chinese, Russian and African marxists, and of course by Islam itself.
Islam in the name of the Arabian moon deity Al-Lah (some aruge it is the Sun idol, or a general celestial God), has killed about 300 million people over 1400 years. It enslaved some 20-25 million Blacks, and about 15-25 million Whites. Slavery still goes on in the Islamic world today, along with terrorism, female mutilation, female bondage, female slaving, and the persecution of Jews and Christians. Freedom, individuality, progress – all are neutered, corrupted or non-existent within Islam.
However, we the publicly educated knaves of the West are told by preening fembot politicians and 'experts' to accept the crass stupidity, forwarded by 'progressives' and socialists, that this murdering machine is a peaceful religion? Interesting. One supposes that Mr. Hitler was likewise an apostle of peace. The Nazi apes, like their Islamic brethren, also clambered about on top of the public corpse, discussing communal salvation, guaranteed social peace, and the 'volksgemeinschaft', or individual-community obligation, in supporting and loving the Hitler cult, and thereby achieving spiritual healing .
It was Hitler's desire after all to turn Linz into a Nazi Mecca and it would have been a short step to declare himself a prophet, inspired by the Norse gods to lead a greater Germany. In fact many German writers and socialist-fascist sympathizers described Hitler as a Christ-like saviour and god-inspired leader. For many Germans Hitler was god's instrument. The Nazi party a necessary vehicle to create a new earth-bound utopia of communal, socialist greatness. Mohammed would have been impressed.
Nazism was suffused with pagan cult practice and a deep hatred of Christianity. The Hitlerites hated not only Jews, but any philosophy or thought which made men 'weak', 'pacifist', 'bourgeois', and boring and middle class. Nazism was a revolutionary socialist doctrine. National socialism – rule of all by the state for the state, with nothing outside the state and everything in it – was in essence a massive program of communal madness.
Individuality, choice, debate, bourgeois living, peace, trade and commerce, dissension, religions, clubs – these and anything else which took away loyalty to the cult would and must be abolished. Guarantees – jobs, health, income, education, pensions – these would be given IF you are 100% loyal to the cult. There is nothing 'right wing' about such a program. This is collective madness.
Islam demands much of the same and given its origins as a pagan moon cult, this is not surprising. Most real experts – meaning those who are not populist politicians, nor the talking heads on TV – know that the word 'Allah' comes from the compound Arabic word, al-ilah. Al-ilah has always referenced the moon cult in Arabia, and in fact within al-ilah there are different moon deities depending on the cycle of the moon and its appearance in the heavens. It is not a mistake that the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. Allah is the 'male' moon deity and the cycle of the crescent moon was his pagan cycle of ritual.
According to the Encyclopeida of Islam "Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities" (I:406, ed. Gibb), and "Ilah . . . appears in pre-Islamic poetry . . . By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to Allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry" (III:1093, 1971). In the Encyclopedia of Religion: '"Allah" is a pre-Islamic name . . . corresponding to the Babylonian Bel' (I:117 Washington DC, Corpus Pub., 1979). According to Middle East scholar E.M. Wherry, whose translation of the Quran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Ba-al, were both astral religions in that they involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Osnabruck: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1973, p. 36).
The Quraysh tribe into which Muhammad was born was particularly devoted to Allah, the moon god, and especially to Allah's three daughters who were viewed as intercessors between the people and Allah.
In mad Mohammed's home town of Mecca, his family, part of Mecca's ruling tribe, worshipped three moon-astral based goddesses: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. All of these moon deities were worshipped in the shrine called the Kabah, a shrine which Mohammed's family helped to support and protect. Of particular importance was the veneration and kissing of the black asteroid rock called the Hubal signifying a gift from the heavens [later turned into a gift from God to Abraham by Mohammed]. Al-ilah was the common Arabic word for 'the god' or this supreme deity of the moon cult, though this God was never fully described by Mohammed or any Arab for that matter [it was largely an illiterate society].
Al-lah was in essence an abstract concept which probably referred to 'something' which controlled the other moon and astral deities worshipped by the Arabs. It was no accident that when Mohammed started his cult he named it Allah or al-ilah meaning the highest God or deity. It would be a word and a concept well-known to all the disparate Arab tribes with their various beliefs as being something they could identify with.
The moon or celestial cult was thus well known to Mohammed and had been in existence for 3000 years before his birth. Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans who inhabited northern Arabia. They did not worship the God of the Bible but the Moon-god and his daughters al-Uzza, al-Lat and Manat. Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating, "Islam proved itself to be...a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry." Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews."
Why would moon cult worship pass from the Judeo-Christian world to the Arabic? Moon cult worship has existed for millenia in the Middle East, and polytheistic moon worshipping societies, such as pre-Mohammed Arabia, were the norm, not the exception. Islam is fundamentally a moon cult, polytheistic, primitive and contradictory. Equating 'Allah' which is never defined nor illustrated by Mohammed with Christian or Jewish ideas of God is simply madness.
Islam is not a religion in the Western Judeo-Christian sense of that word. Probably the best definition of 'religion' is this one by Michael York of Bath Spa University College, Bath, UK who defines it as:
"A shared positing of the identity of and relationship between the world, humanity and the supernatural in terms of meaning assignment, value allocation and validation enactment. A religion need not accept or believe in the supernatural, but it takes a position on. Likewise, some religions deny the reality or at least value of the world, but they still take a position."
Religion is largely monotheistic and an enterprise of spirituality, designed to provide a road map for living, a set of laws and ethics, and to regulate behavior through such ethics and perhaps ritual. At its core any religion must be based on some pagan practice. Religious ideas have to have antecedents. But here is the crucial difference between a real religion and a cult. In the cult, the individual has no free will, no independent power, no responsibility, no self-made destiny. He exists to please the cult and its symbol. Submission, follow, repent, and accept. Period. This is Islam. This is Nazism. This is commmunism.
Christianity is wholly different. There are pagan aspects to Christianity of course. Christianity was a Jewish offshoot and the Jews lived and developed their ideology in a turbulent and multi-ethnic and dimensional world. But Christianity exults the individual. There is free will. Freedom of choice. A division between the church and state. A protection of women and the weak. And there is the golden rule – 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'. None of these concepts can be found in pagan cults. The pagan cult demands the communal and the unthinking loyalty of the mass. Christianity preaches the opposite.
Islam is not a religon in our Western sense of what constitutes a religion. It is a cult of obedience and submission. Hence Islam meaning submission, is a very good word choice indeed for the millenia old Arab moon cult.
It is a commonplace and entirely untrue lie that Islam had a golden era, and in that mythical state, viewed Jews and Christians as equals. No more absurd claim, other than Globaloney Warming, can be constructed. The Islamic hatred for the Christian was only surpassed by the Muslim detestation of Blacks [the original Kaffirs], and the sinful people of the 'book', the 'devious' Jew. As historian Louis Bertrand so eloquently expressed it, Muslim terror against the conquered Christians in Spain for example, was almost as profound as that against the Jew:
“To keep Christians in their place it did not suffice to surround them with a zone of famine and destruction. It was necessary also to go and sow terror and massacre among them. Twice a year, in spring and autumn, an army sallied forth from Cordova to go and raid the Christians, destroy their villages, their fortified posts, their monasteries and their churches.”
Muslim Spain – unmitigated carnage which proves yet again that Islam is peace.
The Arab invasions in the 7th and 8th centuries denuded and decimated more than half of 'Christianity' in the Mediterranean. Jews, Berbers, Christians, Greek-Romans, and the polyglot of merchants, artists, philosophers and skilled tradesmen were all negatively affected, by the onslaught. The Arabs were never a majority until much later in history. In the beginning they had little choice but to squat and rule as a minority. Some degree of 'tolerance' would be expected in such a circumstance. The entire edifice of Muslim rule was premised on the tax farming of Jews and Christians since Muslim males did not pay any taxed. Killing the entire host which supplies your wealth, slaves and cadre of sex vehicles or concubines, is probably not what any rational or in the case of Islam, irrational cult would enforce.
Thus the myth of 'inter faith' harmony. The necessities of tax farming and control over the vastly important slave trade does not mean that the Arabs were particularly interested in allowing 'freedom' or equality to the 'other'. They were very interested in chicks, gold and tax money. Islam is a doctrinaire theology of political power and control. It is not particularly concerned with the Golden Rule [the Koran has none], nor with respect, toleration or gratitude [except to the Meccan male moon deity Ali-ilah]. Though treated somewhat better than the Hindus or Buddhists who were exterminated in their millions, the 'peoples of the book' or Jews and Christians were still dhimmis, and second class slaves. The definitive study of this has been done by the Egyptian born and now French national Bat Yeor – another Islamic critic who is the target of post-modern hate and vitriol. But Yeor knows her topic as she asks of Islam:
“Are these countries conquered by Islam - Portugal, Spain, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, and the southern regions of France and Italy, for example - Arab lands? The shari'a was imposed as far to the north as Hungary and Poland, not to mention all central Europe, including regions of Greece, ex-Yugoslavia, Rumania and Bulgaria up to the end of the nineteenth century. Are those countries Arab countries, in which non-Muslim inhabitants must return to the condition of dhimmis, whose testimony is rejected by Islamic courts? Are they once again going to don discriminatory garments such as the Talibans today demand; and be subject to the prohibition on building and renovating their churches, like the Copts in Egypt?”
Good questions. Ones that the Western multi-cultists can't answer.
The Dhimmis were and today are, second class slaves. Submit to Muslim power. Pay taxes. Shut up. If you transgress 'norms' we the Muslim elite reserve the right to take your property, wealth and women. Be nice. Be discriminating. And we will let you be.
This is not an orthodoxy of tolerance but of supremacism and control. Tolerating the 'other' to tax them, is not a religious or spiritual enterprise. It is political and economic. As distinguished Orientalist G.E. von Grunebaum has written:
“It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms."
Muslims did use educated and well connected Jews and Christians to help manage their empire. Why wouldn't they ? They were a minority, they needed the continuation of some sort of known bureaucracy and it made good PR. Political convenience however, does not make a philosophy of totalitarian control moral, or tolerant. It just makes it cynical.
JJ O'Neill also knows his topic, and writes in 'Holy Warriors' of the open Muslim contempt for the Christian during the so-called Islamic golden age – which never existed:
“The humiliating status provoked many revolts, punished by massacres. Insurrections erupted in Saragossa in 781 and 881, Cordoba (805, 818), Merida (805-13, 828, 829, and 868), and again in Toledo (811-819). Many of the insurgents were crucified, as prescribed in the Koran (5:33).”
Indeed. Bloody uprisings. Even dhimmis can get annoyed by their slave status. Arab Spain was anything but a multicultural paradise so prized by academics. It was a bloody Arab imposition of Koranic tyranny.
Throughout the entire history of Arab and Islamic imperialism the hated dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were forced to wear distinctive clothing and were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices — as that might offend the Muslims.
The dhimmi also had to show public deference toward Muslims; for example, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.
And this imbalance in rights is now termed inter-faith equality ?
Islam of course has never been restructured or reformed over 1400 years. Islam and its Koranic invocations has remained in place for over 1000 years. It is ossified and static. It will never mutate. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:
“The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed."
The same is true today. Post 1945 almost 1 million Jews were expelled from Arab and Islamic states for example – thanks to Arab and Muslim racism. Many found refuge in Israel in hastily constructed camps. Those camps were gone after 10 years – its one-time inhabitants integrated into a surging Israeli society. Without a Christian state in the Middle East, Christians have fared far worse. Christian populations in Arab and Muslim lands have declined by 90 % in the past 100 years. The Muslims are either killing or forcing into exile, those 'others' of the book. It is a pattern repeated throughout the world and throughout the course of history. But never mind, the really smart people will still keep telling us that Islam is peace.
French police shoot a 17 year-old Muslim with a criminal history and the country explodes in coordinated civil violence which will leave dozens injured and billions in damages. The vast majority of the rioting and depredations emanate from the Muslim and Arab demographics. France has some 70 million people, with at least 10-15 million Muslims and Africans (legal and illegal), or double what the ‘official’ news sites and agencies state. Everywhere Muslims emigrate, unemployment, crime, Jihad and violence follows. A French Imam advocated Jihad back in 2019, to takeover France. Many urban areas in France are dominated by Muslims.
Police being attacked by Muslims and Arabs
Police claim they are at war with Muslims
Muslim rioters hunt down Police, issue death threats
Muslims are not integrated by their own volition and design. They refuse to acknowledge the secular values of the Republic (Muslims will not sign the French ‘values’ Charter 2020). Many routinely call for the overthrow of the Republic. Muslims and Blacks along with the fake-news blame non-Muslim and White French for all issues that dominate the Muslim-Black communities, including poor education attainment, poverty, unemployment, crime, drugs, rapes, and sundry violence.
When you import Muslims and Blacks into your country, this is always the result. A civil war.
Marine Le Pen rips apart those who have always denied the above statement as France becomes yet another victim of the Muslim hijra and Western stupidity.
![Scanderbeg: A History of George Castriota and the Albanian Resistance to Islamic Expansion in Fifteenth Century Europe by [A Brackob]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51L9JwbXwbL.jpg)
“For men’s souls are tired of the Turks, And their wicked ways and works, That have made of Ak-hissar A city of the plague; And the loud exultant cry That echoes wide and far Is `Long Live Scanderbeg!’” — Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
“…the exploits of Scanderbeg, it would be inestimable; for he excels all the officers, ancient and modern, in the conduct of a small defensive army. I met with him in the Turkish History, but nowhere else.” — James Wolfe to Thomas Townshend, 18 July 1756
Written in 2018, this is an excellent modern overview of the great Christian Albanian Crusader and hero, Skanderbeg. During the mid-15th century, Skanderbeg or Lord Alexander in Turkish, saved Christian Italy and central Europe from the Ottoman Jihad. An overview of Skanderbeg is here.
The Christian resistance in Albania
As the author writes, for a quarter of a century, from 1443 until his death in 1468, Skanderbeg used his military prowess to thwart the efforts of the most powerful Empire in the world at that time to subdue his tiny country. Despite this, few English language studies of his remarkable feat have been written. The British General of French and Indian War fame, James Wolfe’s comment on Scanderbeg recognizes the historical importance of the Albanian resistance to the Ottomans in the fifteenth century, but since his complaint, over two and a half centuries ago, that he could only find mention of Scanderbeg in Richard Knolles’ The Generall Historie of the Turkes, relatively few works on the subject have appeared in major languages.
Writing of Scanderbeg in 1905, William J. Armstrong said, “the exploits even of the renowned paladins of the crusades, whether Godfrey or Tancred or Richard or Raymond, pale to insignificance by similar comparison. Only the legendary feats of King Arthur and his knights, or of the Guardsmen of Dumas suggest a parallel of wondrous achievement.”
As Brackob rightly depicts, Skanderbeg as an image is similar to Saint George or the Archangel Michael, a militant fighter for Christendom, the leader of a holy crusade against the Turkish Infidels. To commemorate the 500th anniversary of Scanderbeg’s death, in 1968, Pope Paul VI declared: “This Holy See is pleased to join in the praise of this man of great nobility, a faithful son of the Church and a son whom sovereign pontiffs before us have praised possibly more glowingly than any other man of his time. For twenty-five years, he saved his country from the assault of enemies. He defended his country threatened by the greatest danger, at the head of an army which the rampart and defence of Christianity.”
Saving Civilisation
Brackob correctly concludes that Skanderbeg defended Europe for a quarter of a century and, it can rightly be said, helped to save Western Civilization from being overrun by Islam. Although the challenges have changed over the centuries, the clash of civilizations, which the history of the Albanian struggle to fend off the Islamic onslaught represents, continues today.
Methods
Geography played an important role in the success of Scanderbeg’s resistance to the Ottomans. The mountains served as a natural shield against the Islamic invaders; in his History of Mehmed the Conqueror, the Greek chronicler Kritoboulos, a contemporary of these events, testified to this fact: “there were but one or two passes through the mountains into the country, they guarded these with strong garrisons, and kept their land inviolate from enemies, and free from injury, unless a large force should invade it and forcibly occupy the mountains and the passes, and so open a door into the whole country.”
Skanderbeg’s genius lay in his system of organization which created greater possibilities for defence, making it easier to raise armies, while assuring the distribution of labour to meet the needs of the local community. It also created the basis of a type of feudal organization, as local communities were obligated to provide labour or goods to the ruling family in return for the social order and protection which it provided. Thus, the origins of a distinct Albanian feudalism can be found in the extension of these familial ties and the need to organize to ensure social order and defence.
Albania’s important geographical position
Flourishing cities dotted the coastline of Albania during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The major ports were Durazzo, which had been an important harbour since its founding in the seventh century B.C., and Valona, the principal port in the southern part of the country. These coastal cities had a developing middle class whose prosperity depended largely upon Venetian trade with the interior. Ever since the Fourth Crusade at the beginning of the thirteenth century, Venice had sought to gain control over the coastline to exploit the rich economic resources of Albania.
Already in the thirteenth century Albania had become an important wheat exporter to Venice, Ragusa, and Constantinople meaning that the country was producing a significant surplus of grain.
The growing threat posed by the Ottomans, however, finally led Venice to seize control of Durazzo in 1392, and most other major coastal cities of northern and central Albania the following year. Venetian administration was established in these cities, and commerce was placed solely in the hands of Venetian merchants, thus destroying the native merchant class,
Venetian rule imposed heavy taxes and labour obligations upon the peasants in the coastal areas leading to major uprisings in 1399 and 1405. The causes of these rebellions lie in the fact that Venetian administration upset the traditional relations between the peasants and the native nobility.
The Ottomans
Sultan Mehmed I launched a campaign against Albania in 1415, reasserting Ottoman authority over the central and southern parts of the country. In the south, the timar system was extended, while in the central part of the country the aristocracy maintained their lands by paying tribute.
Ottomans imposed the devshirme, which led to the conscription of their most able-bodied children into military service, depriving the village community of valuable labour and violating local tradition. The peasants also blamed the Ottomans for the increasing fiscal burden they had borne since the beginning of the century. Free peasants in the mountainous regions actively opposed efforts to incorporate their villages into the timar system as they struggled to maintain their independence.
Between 1433 and 1436 Albanian rebellions defeated three separate Ottoman armies sent by Murad II to quell the uprisings. Finally, in 1436, the Sultan sent a large army, again led by Ali Bey, that crushed most of the uprisings; “[They] pillaged and destroyed the lands of John Castriota, the men were put to the sword, while the women were made slaves,” Oruç records, “They completely conquered Janina and Kanina and returned with great plunder... The son of Evrenos bey conquered the vilayet of the Albanians and was satiated with plunder from pillaging.” Only George Araniti managed to maintain a small pocket of resistance in the mountains of central Albania. Widespread opposition to the Ottomans remained, leading to a new revolt in Berat in 1437, but this new uprising was quickly suppressed by the Sultan’s forces.
Enter the former Muslim slave and Ottoman general, the great Christian Skanderbeg and his 25-year resistance which bought Italy and Europe valuable time, while defeating and erasing much of the Ottoman military. Much of this history is sadly forgotten. More here.
Raymond Ibrahim in his seminal study ‘Defenders of the West’, has a chapter on Skanderbeg the 15th century Christian warrior and hero. How many in the demoralised, confused, perverted and self-loathing ‘West’ even know the name of Skanderbeg? In centuries past including as late as the 19th century, he was well known, feted in songs, poems, and stories. Today nary a person would recognise his name or associate him with the correct century. This is indicative of a culture that has lost its roots and history.
Ibrahim quoting Skanderbeg, “I will judge your merits, when I see your swords smoking with the blood of the Turks…Let Muhammad, as long as he will, seek peace. As for us, we will purchase our peace with the sword.” Without fighting back against the Musulman Jihad and preserving Albanian Christian independence for some 25 years, quite likely eastern Italy, Rome and other areas of Europe would have been conquered and Koranised. Without Skanderbeg most of central Europe if not parts of Germany and Poland would likely still be Mahometan.
White Slaves
The primary fact of the Musulman Ottoman state, was as Ibrahim emphasises, White slavery. White slaves powered the Musulman navies, armies, economy and domestic services. White slaves populated the sex harems, sex depots and sex slave centres. White slaves were mutilated into eunuchs to guard the palaces, the women and the Sultan and other worthies. White Christian slaves made up the feared Janissaries, the most potent part of the Ottoman army. White slavery was the engine of the Ottoman empire.
As Ibrahim states, ‘A second function of slavery revolved around empowering the Ottoman state. Any Christian exhibiting any ostensible talent – physical or mental, strong body or mind – was enslaved and made use of, usually as an Ottoman soldier or administrator…it was also meant to weaken and bleed dry the Christians.’
Skanderbeg
Skanderbeg’s real name was George Kastrioti and his father was John Kastrioti an Albanian land-holder in Croya or central Albania and leading nobleman. The Ottomans conquered Albania in 1415 and to ensure good behaviour took the sons and daughters of leading men as prisoners. George Kastrioti aged 10 born in 1405, was sent to the Janissaries to be trained as a Musulman warrior and to have the Christian faith effaced from his memory and conscience. He apparently ended up with the Sultan Murad II when he was first sent as a prisoner and quite likely he was raped as a young boy by the Sultan and others at the Topaki Palace. The name Skanderbeg was given to him by the Ottomans, on account of his massive physical presence, Herculean strength and resemblance in blonde hair and blue eyes to Alexander the Great or Skander-beg, which means Lord Alexander.
The Albanian Christians were hauled away en masse each year by the Turks, to be retrained as Ottoman solders or used as sex slaves or working slaves. After a rebellion in 1435, the Turks destroyed Albania erecting pyramids of Albanian skulls and sending to Constantinople, countless slaves and plunder. Now 30, Skanderbeg had been rising in the ranks of the Ottoman military, fighting many battles in the east and north. He rose rapidly and became a favourite of the Sultan and his court and was considered one of the Ottoman’s best warriors. His father died in 1437 a broken man given the Ottoman carnage enacted in Albania and the fact that all 4 of his sons were Ottoman prisoners. After his father’s death family and others from Albania urged him to take over his father’s lands and raise a Christian revolt. Some time later, for unknown reasons, the Sultan appointed Skanderbeg governor of Croya – his father’s territory.
In 1443 at a battle against the Christian Transylvannians led by John Hunyadi, Skanderbeg the great Ottoman champion, defected in the midst of battle taking his men with him. They went into Croya and took the famous castle and fort from the Ottomans. Thus began the long Christian war against the Musulman occupation in Albania. Skanderbeg had always remained a secret Christian even as an Ottoman military star. His rebellion was suffused with Christian symbols, flags, masses and dedications to Christ.
Skanderbeg’s success was premised on unifying the various Albanian nobles and lords into one cohesive and singularly-led enterprise. Using bribery, political skill, flattery and force, he was able to meld together a disciplined force of some 20.000 full time warriors he trained, along with 10.000 militia or part-timers. The Ottomans routinely confronted Skanderbeg with 80.000 or more men. In 25 years of warfare, Skanderbeg lost one battle, winning most against great odds, using the mountainous and forested terrain to his advantage and destroying many Turkish armies. By so doing he save the rest of Europe by delaying the Ottoman advance by 2 generations and crippling its military fighting strength. General James Wolfe said Skanderbeg exceeded all other generals, from any era, in defensive warfare using a small army. Few military feats in history can compare to what Skanderbeg accomplished.
As Ibrahim states, Skanderbeg relinquished a life of wealth, riches, plenty, and fame, to lead a revolt, in a small state, against the world’s most powerful empire. He won at least 24 battles and sieges, with death the only enemy able to defeat him when he died at the age of 58 from fever or dysentery. Ibrahim states correctly that Skanderbeg’s relentless warring and defence saved Rome buying 30 years or more of time for the ‘West’ to organise a defence. After he died the Turks unleashed a massive army and destroyed resistance and began a process of Islamification and the erasure of Christianity which turned the Christian country of Albania into a majority Musulman country we see today.
Albania sits directly opposite Italy on the Adriatic and once Skanderbeg was dead, the Ottomans mopped up the Christian resistance with their usual cruelty and malice and set about the invasion of Italy. They invaded Otranto in 1480 and held the area around that key port until 1481, pushed out by combined Italian forces, who had been allies of Albania an alliance and political strategy created by Skanderbeg. The Turkish plan was always to use Albania as a launching pad to attack Rome and to fulfil the ambitions of Muhammad II who predicted he would take Rome and then Western Europe with his Musulman hordes.
Without Skanderbeg the ambitions of Muhammad II might well have been realised.