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.
Islam has failed due to many factors, but a central reason is that Islam is a hyper dictatorial religion. It is premised on centralized control, on only one way to live, one book to believe, one prophet to follow, one belief that is superior to all others and a view of the world that is male anthropomorphic [females need not apply], addicted to male sexual pleasure (females and young boys); and a cult which does not tolerate other cultures. Christianity and the Bible are totally different. The Bible is a collection of laws, truths, stories, parables and histories that develop civilisation. This is why European civilisation rose to its heights. It was premised on the combined faith, reason and energy of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and the Catholic Church.
In Islam there is less flexibility in interpretation [only about the real blood lines of the Brigand-leader], and less curiosity in trying to resolve complex intellectual questions about the Trinity for instance, or the meaning of the 'Son' of God [how can a God be his own Son?]. This type of intellectual ferment is indicative of a culture that is content to debate and understand and not merely follow [witness the Reformation, Luther, Erasmus and the Counter Reformation replete unfortunately with the horror of the 30 years War plus a myriad of unenlightened other tragedies and non-science (abiogenesis et al)].
There is plenty of written testimony that from about 900 AD onwards the Christians were far more interested in the Arabs and Moslems than vice versa. Arab chronicles rarely mention the 'Franks' [the Arab name for all Westerners], except to state that they provide abundant slave material. The Christians traded, travelled and warred against the Arabs and were quite fascinated by many aspects of Muslim society [though not by their religion, neither side apparently had much interest in understanding the other's religious doctrine]. The Christians for all their mistakes, travails and atrocities, were more willing to change, innovate and get ahead then the Arabs, who never really took seriously the incipient threat from the 'Franks'. If they had spent some time understanding the Europeans maybe they would not have fallen so far behind especially post 1683 after their defeat at Vienna.
Islam by its construction expects obedience, and does not elevate curiosity, experimentation or technology creation. It is a contained world - the outside world is inferior and therefore of little interest. Such a society can only attain a certain level before rot and corruption sets in. Any country or empire that has access to easy resources, and easy trade money will inevitably fail, if its political system is 'Oriental' ie. despotic or centralized and based upon nepotism and fear as opposed to talent and freedom.
Islam fits the bill. It is a religion that the ancient Greeks living in the time of tyrannos or the first tyrants would have recognized quite easily. A state religion, a set of concrete rules and limitations on freedom and trade and innovation, all to ensure that the society is not corrupted. That is what the Communists attempted in Russia and the National Socialists in Germany, as well. Their religion was Atheist-Socialism. A variant of tyrannos. Today, Globaloneywarming, Covidism, One-World governance are simply totalitarian constructs that differ little from Sargon the Great’s empire in the 4th millennium BC.
Christianity on the other hand has instilled in Western culture the following important ideals:
1. It provides a necessary bulwark against State power.
2. Christian thought makes the individual accountable for his/her actions. This is a large step forward in ethics and self- determination. Islam has no such belief.
3. Christianity is concerned with the salvation of all souls regardless of caste, income or success. By extension it teaches forgiveness, a form of love based patience and peace, as opposed to war and gaining of spoils.
4. Christianity teaches about freedom to choose, to live and to express inner spirituality without being victimized. This is another large step forward in building harmonious relationships in society.
For these reasons and many others, it is important to remember that Western society is a Judeo-Christian framework. Such a framework is diametrically opposed by Islam which is a thought system to unify society - both state and church. Christ taught that Caesar and God are separate. Tolerance, charity, responsibility, dignity were prime traits of the good Christian. Koranic doctrine is openly hostile to Christianity and Christians preaching the eradication (or conversion) of both to Muhammadanism (the rightful name of his cult).
Unlike Christianity, Islam on the other hand teaches people intolerance. Non–believers, heathen and Jews are targeted for either conversion or destruction. The very name Islam means ‘submission’. Islam and the Koran are quite clear – they preach that the world must be Islamicized and must submit to the rule of the Koran. Any and all means including war and terror to achieve this goal is justified. Terror in the name of Islam is a daily event. Such a philosophy facilitates and breeds its own inner demise. It spawns hate and horror. Islam has quite obviously has failed its constituents.
That the cult of Muhammad is a gigantic failure is quite evident in the flows of millions of Muslims to White-European, North America and Oceania states. Millions of Muslims would invade Europe tomorrow if the borders were thrown wide open and access granted. The host countries have been ‘enriched’ by Moslem crime, massive unemployment, mosque-building (which is the centre of Jihad), Jihadic attacks, Church attacks (including the arson of Notre Dame), the rapes of hundreds of thousands of white girls, and abuse of local and national cultures. For the deeply ignorant, the critical race theorists and the Low IQs, all of this carnage is enriching. It should be self-evident to Westerners, just watching Moslems in their midst that the cult of polygamy, FGM, violence and racism is a massive failure.
There is a grand difference between religious modernity and religious backwardness. This is the issue. “For Muslims, Islam is not merely a system of belief and worship, a compartment of life, so to speak, distinct from other compartments which are the concern of nonreligious authorities administering nonreligious laws. It is rather the whole of life, and its rules include civil, criminal and even what we would call constitutional law.” B. Lewis, Islam and the West.
Submission or Islam is monolithic, unreformable, immovable and mired in bronze-age pagan Arab dogma. The Al Lah for example is not God, but Baal the moon deity of Mecca (the Lord of Mecca or the Al Lah); Muhammad’s family were Baal’s caretakers. The cult is saturated with Bronze age rituals (kissing an asteroid, throwing rocks at little demons, circumambulations around the main shrine, polygamy, sex slavery etc).
In the modern world the violent expression of Muhammadanism kills Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists and Buddhists. There is no logic, no reason, no attempt by Muslims to understand their own hatred, their own anger and their own failure. It is easier to blame someone else and always claim victimhood – always the sign of a loser and a cult of failure. Western apologists and acolytes who admire and actively support the failure of Muhammadanism and its attendant culture destruction are nothing but a collection of 'useful idiots' and civilisation destroying ignoramuses.
.jpg)
The Moslem sack of Constantinople, May 29th 1453. 180.000 Muslim troops plus 120 cannon, the first time in history that cannons were used at scale, faced a massive set of Christian-Byzantine walls, with 2 layers, some 11 miles around the city. Estimates of Byzantine troops vary but no more than 30.000 regular and irregular militia defended the city. As it was the Muslim cannon did open a breach, but a postern gate left unattended was discovered by Moslem infantry, allowing them inside the inner walls, where the main gates were opened. Without this bit of ill fortune, the Byzantine garrison may well have survived the siege. The last Emperor, Constantine XI died defending the breached walls, along with all his troops. 40.000 of the general population were enslaved. Another 10.000 at least of innocents were killed by the rampaging Moslems. The Muslim siege and rape of Constantinople was a colossal act of destruction and carnage.
.jpg)
No sad narrative however given by the ‘Enlightenment’ ‘thinkers’, so fascinated as they were by the Moslem fascism. Voltaire, Gibbon and the self-proclaimed clever set have nothing to say. Walter Scott was ignorant of the event.
No poetic lamentations about streets running with ‘blood up to the knees’ in a slaughter that was 10 times greater than that of Jerusalem in 1099 (the sack of the city by the First Crusade which killed almost entirely, Moslem and Jewish fighters). Blood up the bridle is an Old Testament assertion of wanton blood and violence in war, it is not to be taken literally except by the ignorant and mal-informed.
No modern demands for reparations or apologies to Christians, by Moslems for the horrific evisceration of one of the world’s greatest ever cities. No glowering Papal insistence on the acknowledge of Moslem sin.
No mention in the modern education system of the vast pilfer, slaughter and rapes enjoined by the Moslem hordes of Mehmet II named the ‘Blood Drinker’ (Mehmet is Muhammad in Turkish), upon the Byzantine Christians.
Steve Weidenkopf in ‘The Glory of the Crusades’ on pages 209 to 212 gives a fair appraisal of what happened. The Moslem host besieging the last remnant of the 1100 year old Christian Byzantine ‘Greek’ empire was without compare in medieval times. It was simply gigantic. The Blood Drinker came to drink the blood of the last Christian city in Eastern Christendom. The city had a population of perhaps 500.000 in 1453. No one knows how many fled before the huge Moslem army with its 120-canon arrived in April 1453. If half stayed, then the 40.000 killed and 40.000 taken as prisoners (many would be women who would be raped in harems) constitutes about 30% of the total population dead or enslaved by the attack. This is a significantly higher percentage than one finds in similar episodes of medieval warfare.
Weidenkopf: “The Muslem troops ran through the undefended city, slaughtering the inhabitants, stopping just long enough to take the pretty women and children for slaves before dispatching the rest. Women (including nuns) and boys were savagely raped.”
Modern anti-Christian, anti-White racists, would call this ‘enrichment’.
.jpg)
The Moslem eradication of Eastern ‘Rum’, or Rome, fulfilled the demands first initiated by the cult’s founder, Muhammad. He wrote a letter to then Emperor Heraclius in 630 AD demanding the surrender and submission of Christian Byzantium to the Moslem moon cult. Byzantium never fully appreciated the virulent demonic threat posed by the Arab Muslims in their lust for women, gold, booty, civilisation and power. Long a back-water, the unifying force of the moon cult belief system (Hubaal or Baal); provided the engine of purpose. Muhammad’s example of leading 80 odd military expeditions and his blood thirst Jihad of war, murder, rape and pillage was the compelling example which drove his successors, including improbably as of 630 AD, converted Turkish tribes, to erase Byzantium.
Islam as embodied in the Allah idol, is simply the Meccan moon god and family idol of Muhammad or Hub'Al, married to some poorly understood fragments of Judeo-Christian theology and monotheism, and suffused with existing Arab paganism. Given the incoherence of this program, much of the Koran and indeed of Muhammad's life is insensible, incomprehensible, contradictory and glaringly insipid.
One such case is that of the Satanic Verses. The import of these erased-from-the-Koran 'revelations' is this: it proves that Muhammad was insane, and that this Allah thing was really Hub'Al with a consort venerated as Allat begetting at least 2 daughters who were worshipped by pagan Arabs in their Kab'aa shrine at Mecca as deities or at the very least, as important pagan spirits who would help the Meccans in some way [fertility, rain, with famine etc.]. The Koran is very clear that the Allah thing does not beget sons or daughters. Yet in a few places in the Koran Uzza and Manat are still mentioned and the Satanic verses, 'revealed' by Muhammad to win favour for his poor little band of cult followers in Mecca, clearly identify them as co-idols to be worshipped alongside that of the Hub-Al or Allah idol.
The Satanic Verses prove beyond any doubt, the pagan antecedents of the Islamic cult. This is why Moslems [some, many, all?] will kill or at the very least intimidate into silence [Human Rights, Free speech, Free-will?], anyone who publishes or discusses any topic about them. These words of Shaitun or Satan are deeply embarrassing to the cult of Muhammad. Why ? There are 3 truths about these statements, 'revealed' to Muhammad by Satan. The first is that it proves the existence of al-Manat and al-Uzza the daughter goddesses of Hub'Al. Second, it confirms Muhammad's insanity. Third, it proves that the Koran was made up and not revealed by a 'God'. The entire cult of Islam simply falls, when one reads, understands and then maps back to Muhammad's mental and theological state, these verses.
Of course Moslems [many, most, all, some ?] deny the importance of the verses. These are the same big brains who will deny the real history of Muhammad and of Islamic supremacist-racialist-Jihadic imperialism. Only pious Western Marxists believe Moslem propaganda goose-stepping along in unison to the beat of PC and multicultural fascism.
Muhammad had few to almost no followers during his early 'prophethood' at Mecca. He was a laughingstock. The Meccans called him insane and the mad poet. He garbled well known and later-plagiarized into the Koran; verses and poems from the Kabaa shrine. He stood and screamed and preached that the Meccan pantheon of 360 idols was an offence to Hub'Al or the Lord or ilah of Mecca who should be venerated alone. He demanded that Jews recognize him as the successor to Moses, Samuel, Daniel and Christ. His program was incoherent with fragments usually wrong or distorted, of Judaism sprinkled with some poorly understood New Testament gospel concepts, married to Arab paganism. It was a mess and the Meccans mocked Muhammad.
It was during this period, when it appeared that the cult of Submission would fail that Muhammad received the Satanic revelations, to mollify, appease and persuade the Meccans that he was a prophet.
“Have you then considered the al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the last ... these are the exalted Gharaniq (a high flying bird) whose intercession is approved. (Q: 53.19-20)
Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were local idols worshipped in Mecca. Allat was the Sun consort [some scholars believe she might have been the moon deity and Allah the sun deity though personally it appears likely that the opposite is true]; and she had 2 daughters – Uzza and Manat. In his early ministry Muhammad had declaimed against these idols as affronts to the Lord or ilah, now he had recounted and renounced his previous position. These existing idols along with Hub'Al would again be worshipped.
This of course negates the entire purpose of Islam. Embarrassing indeed. There was no difference between Muhammad's program and that of the Meccans in essence. This 'Allah' thing was no more important than Allat, Uzza or Manat. What to do ? Muhammad made up another revelation which usurped his previous recognition of the Meccan moon and sun idols, blaming Satan for such an inspiration.
“He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he indeed strays off into a remote error.” (Q: 4.116)
Only Allah can be worshipped according to 4:116. What became Sura 53 19-22 was also rewritten.
“Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza. (Q: 53.19) And another, the third (goddess), Manat? (Q: 53.20) What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? (Q: 53.21) Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! (Q: 53.22)”
The Meccan pagan idols are still in the Koran, but denounced. The female goddesses are dismissed since only Allah – unknowable, androgynous, never explained – is the only 'thing' combining all sexes that you can worship.
So Muhammad did an about face. First he said that you can worship your moon and celestial deities along with the ilah or Hub'Al. Then he said, no that was not right, he had made a mistake. Needless to say many people would have left his ministry over this. Was the Koran simply what Muhammad himself made up ? Was it really divinely inspired, or just the expressions of someone vying for political power ?
After this embarassment, Muhammad was forced to flee Mecca for some time. He and his later-most successful-general and 2nd Caliph Abu Bakr, who would later donate his 6 year old daughter to Muhammad as a sex-token and family alliance ransom, had to flee one night and escape to a cave (Winn, 2004, p. 587). Moslem historians Tabari and Ishaq wrote,
“When the Messenger decided upon departure, he went to Bakr and the two of them left by a window in the back of Abu's house and went to a cave in Thawr, a mountain below Mecca. (Ishaq: 223)”
The Satanic verses are not a literary composition by Rushdie. They were recorded by Moslem historians including: al-Wikidi, al-Baydawi, al-Zamakshari, Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa’d and Bukhari. It is impossible to argue that they did not exist. How then to explain Muhammad's flight and the fact that these verses – initiated supposedly by Satan – were kept and remembered ?
There are 3 main conclusions that we can make from the 'revelation' and retraction of the Satanic verses.
The Koran is a man made book in which verses can appear, disappear and be modified. It is not 'god created' or 'uncreated'.
Muhammad was not a prophet of some god, but a confused and hallucinatory man trying to earn power and favour and using 'revelations' when convenient.
Since the Koran says that only Allah 'made' the Koran, the Satanic verses prove that the Koran is not only contradictory but a giant lie. Satan in other words has proven Muhammad to be false.
There are no other conclusions to be drawn from the Satanic verses. Islam implodes on many factors, but certainly this is as obvious and clear an episode of fraud as one can get. That Muhammad conveniently received 'revelations' is well-known and acknowledged by Moslem historians and investigators of his cult. What is truly sad is that most Moslems know as little about the Satanic verses, as they do about the madness of their cult's founder.
Puglia in Italy is now catering to rich Muslim ‘tourists’ who spend (apparently), Euros 10.000 and more per visit. They will remove ‘offensive’ Christian symbols. Maybe they can also provide guides on raping White Italian girls, how to burn down Italian Churches, how to use a Machete to smite the neck of the Italian infidel. How far down the rabbit-hole of hell, will secular states crawl, in order to attract Mammon?
Catholic Italy spent 1000 years fighting off the Muslim Jihad. Now through unfettered illegal immigration, open borders, family reunifications and the lust for tourist money, the Italians are quite willing to erase their history, culture and existence as the country is Muslimified. All happily approved by the Fake News and Quackademic ‘experts’, not to mention the various illimitable levels of Italian government.
“The Puglia region has drafted a budget of 90 thousand euros for the project, to be used between October 1 and November 18, 2020. The plan will take into account “the particular needs of Muslim tourists, who, according to recent research in the sector, are constantly growing numerically, as well as having peculiarities that also make them qualitatively very interesting for the Apulian territory.”
Critics of the project have suggested that catering to Muslim tourism will involve covering up Christian symbols and artistic works deemed inappropriate.
Giorgia Meloni, leader of the Fratelli d’Italia Party, said that becoming Muslim friendly involves “removing Christian symbols” as well as separate swimming pools for men and women, prudishly dressed hotel and restaurant staff, and a series of other “embarrassing rules,” insisting that public funds should not be utilized “to Islamize us.”
In 2016, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi had a series of nude statues at Rome’s Capitoline Museum completely covered for the visit of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, out of respect for Muslim sensibilities.”
Fantastic book. Yes, the Crusades were ‘glorious’, a late, latent reaction against the invasion of Christian civilisation by the cult of Muhammad. For 400 years did the Muhammadans rape, war, jihad, slaughter and destroy. 30.000 Churches pulled down between Arabia and southern France. Millions enslaved and converted to the moon cult (Baal or the Al Lah of Mecca). The use of the wheel lost in Egypt, technology, water systems, agriculture, advanced cities and structures plundered, lost, destroyed. Algebra invented 400 years before the Muhammandan cult renamed and appropriated. All manner of civilisation erased and violated.
Walter Scott, Runciman, the ‘Enlightenment’ ignoramuses’, the Marxist revisionists, Atheopaths and Protestants, always paint the Crusades as a monumental failure, a colossal display of barbaric savagery, an unprovoked rage against the peaceful, sedate, earnest, civilisation-creating Musulman, who desired nothing but harmony, romance, love and inventing. This latter portrayal of the Crusades offers nothing but a solid impenetrable wall of wilful witlessness. As divorced from what actually went on, as most modern science is from open, replicable experimentation.
Muhammadans famously slaughtered 40.000 in 1453 at Constantinople, 10.000 at Edessa, 40.000 at Acre, 20.000 plus at Antioch; yet 3.000 Moslem and Jewish soldiers (along with some innocents), fighting and killed in Jerusalem in July 1099 meant that the city was up to the ‘knees in blood’ (a quote from revelation and blood to the bridle imagery found in the Old Testament, not reality). The stupid hurts.
Weidenkopf sets the record straight. He disproves the myths, some of them believed by Catholics who don’t know their own history.
1-The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression (an idiotic assertion given that Muhammadanism attacked the Christian Byzantine empire in 637 AD and by 732 controlled the Levant, North Africa, Spain and was poised to take over France).
2-They were motivated by greed and plunder (80% of Crusaders did not return, dying from disease or war, most were financially ruined).
3-Crusaders killed all the inhabitants on Jerusalem in July 1099 (maybe 3000 died, most of those were Muslims and Jews still fighting).
4-They were colonialists (4% stayed, the rest who survived, went home).
5-The Crusades were wars against the Jews and the first holocaust (often the Jews sided with the Muslims and were dealt with accordingly).
6-They were wars of conversion (the exact opposite happened within the Frankish-dominated Levant, Jews and Moslems were left alone, the Frankish rulers having no resources or interest in conversion).
7-Crusades are the reason for the modern West-Muhammadan tension (the Moslem Jihad against civilisation erupted in 632 AD after the founder of the Baal cult, Muhammad died, poisoned by his own men).
Moslems had invaded, slaughtered, stolen Christian lands.
“The Crusades emerged from a feudal society that stressed personal relationships founded on honour, loyalty and service to one’s vassal. Crusading knights invoked those virtues as they fought for Christ and the Church to recover ancient Christian territory stolen by Muslim conquerors.”
“Muhammad laid the foundation for the Crusades when, at the end of his life, he instructed his followers to ‘fight all men until they say there is no God but Allah.’…..Muhammad’s militaristic teachings and actions set the example for his followers who sought to emulate the jihad undertaken by the prophet. Jihad and imperial expansion of the umma promised not only material but also spiritual riches for the Muslim, as heaven awaited him if he died on jihad and hell awaited those who fought against him.”
Islam or Submission is rooted in and based on Jihad – the forcible conversion or killing of non-Moslems. That is the premise of the cult. This is why you can’t leave the moon cult once you join it (apostasy is punished by death). This is why for 1400 years the wars, the assaults, the rapes, the polygamy, the female mutilations have never ceased. All the pre-modern Arabian pagan customs were simply rewritten by Muhammad’s cult to be divinely inspired. Muhammadanism did not invent anything new. It enshrined as godly, the Meccan practices dating back to the Bronze Age, infusing them with monotheistic concepts from Judeo-Christianity, creating the most anti-Christian program outside of Nazism and Communism.
Without the Crusades and taking the war to Muhammad’s cult, it is unlikely that Europe would have survived.
Black Christian Nigerian Lives Don’t Matter. Nigeria’s President is Musulman. The Muslim North is engaged in a 200 year Jihad to exterminate Christianity in the centre and South. Fake News, Quackademics, BLM fascists all yawn.
In Nigeria, over the past 20 years, 100,000 Christians have been killed.... Nigeria is becoming the "biggest killing ground of Christians in the world".
Nigeria, already the most populous African country, could have a population of about 800 million people in the year 2100, according to a study by The Lancet, and could become the ninth-largest economy in the world.
How many could be saved if the media, the chancelleries and international organizations had put pressure on the Nigerian leadership to protect its Christians? Why has the West never linked trade, diplomatic, military and political exchanges with Nigeria to protecting its Christians?
US President Donald Trump, in 2018, raised the issue with Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari. "We have had very serious problems with Christians who are being murdered in Nigeria", Trump told him. President Trump, however, is almost alone among Western leaders to raise the issue. When his predecessor, President Barack Obama, met with Buhari, he never talked about the murders of Christians.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16458/black-christian-lives