Muhammad's Tribe (the true history of Islam's suppression of conquered nations and people)

National Post (Canada) ^ | Janary 10, 2008 | Philip Carl Salzman

[Mrs. Don-o]

Today's religious map of the Middle East traces to the unification of the Arabian tribes under the banner of Islam in the 7th century, and their subsequent conquest of much of the known world. Muhammad's genius was in finding a way to unite the myriad of fissiparous, feuding Bedouin tribes of northern Arabia into a cohesive polity. Just as he had provided a constitution of rules under which the people of Medina could live together, so he provided a constitution for all Arabs, but this one had the imprimatur not just of Muhammad, but of God. Submission -- Islam -- to God and His rules, spelled out in the Koran, bound Arabian tribesmen into the community of believers, the umma.

Building on the tribal system of "balanced opposition" -- the subject of yesterday's essay -- Muhammad was able to frame an inclusive structure within which the tribes had a common, God-given identity as Muslims. But unification was only possible by creating a tribalized enemy against which Muslims could make common cause. This Muhammad did by opposing Muslims against infidels; and the dar al-Islam, the land of Islam and peace, against the dar al-harb, the land of infidels and conflict. Through the precepts of Islam, traditional Bedouin raiding was sanctified as an act of religious duty.

With every successful battle against local unbelievers, especially after the critical early battle against the Meccans, more Bedouin joined the umma. Once united, the Bedouin warriors of the umma turned outward, teaching the world the meaning of jihad, holy war. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Arabs, in lightning thrusts, challenged and beat the Byzantines to the north and the Persians to the east, both weakened by their continuous wars with one another, thus imposing their control over the Christian majority in the Levant and the Zoroastrian majority in Persia, and therefore over the entire Middle East. These stunning successes were rapidly followed by conquests of Christian and Jewish populations in Egypt, Libya and North Africa's Maghreb (Arabic for "the West"), and, in the east, central Asia and the Hindu population of northern India. Not content with these triumphs, Arab armies invaded and subdued much of Christian Spain and Portugal, and all of Sicily. Since the Roman Empire, the world had not seen such power and reach. All fell before the Saracen blades.

Most accounts of Islamic history, even that of the Lindholm's esteemed The Islamic Middle East, glide over these conquests, as if they were friendly takeovers. But the truth was very different.

The evidence is overwhelming that vast numbers of infidel male warriors and civilians were slain, and that most of those spared, particularly the women and children, were enslaved for domestic and sexual servitude. While men who willingly converted were spared, their wives and children were taken as slaves. In conquered regions, children were

regularly taken from parents, while on the borders -- especially in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Africa south of the Sahara -- raiding for slaves was normal practice. Of the male slaves, a substantial number were made eunuchs by the removal of sex organs, in order to serve in harems. This account of the Arab campaign in northern India illustrates the usual procedures:

"During the Arab invasion of Sindh (712 CE), Muhammad bin Qasim first attacked Debal…It was garrisoned by 4,000 Kshatriya soldiers and served by 3,000 Brahmans. All males of the age of 17 and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved. "[Seven hundred]

beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh (that is, had taken shelter in the temple), were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels." Muhammad dispatched one-fifth of the legal spoil to Hajjaj, which included 75 damsels, the other four-fifths were distributed among soldiers."

The multitude of reports from Muslim, indigenous and other sources of the Islamic conquests are equally detailed and equally daunting to a modern reader. It is true that throughout history intergroup relations in most of the world were exploitative and repressive, and not infrequently brutal and bloodthirsty. The world of Islam was not so much an exception to this, as exemplary of it.

The theological foundation of the Arab Empire was the supremacy of Islam and the obligation of each Muslim to advance its domination. The notion of Jihad, in particular, served to establish the Muslim community's permanent state of war against the dar al-harb until the infidels' conclusive submission and the absolute world supremacy of Islam.

Yet even as Islamic armies were coming to dominate the known world, fissures emerged within Islam, which would give rise to the bloody internecine battles that continue to this day in Iraq and elsewhere.

Most notably, the relentless oppositions within tribal life have been reflected on a large scale in the battles between Sunni vs. Shiite, a battle originating in a squabble between closely related kin groups over the leadership of the Islamic empire following Muhammad's death. Their divergent philosophical orientations are based on two tribal principles: Sunnism recognizes leaders based on consent; Shiism recognizes leaders based on descent. The continued anatagonism between the two groups constitutes one of the many ways in which the tribal spirit continues its dominance in the Middle East.

philip.carl.salzman@mcgill.ca

-Philip Carl Salzman is professor of anthropology at McGill University. This article is drawn from his forthcoming book, Culture and Conflict in the Middle East (Humanity Books).

[Mrs. Don-o]

Why did the Middle East become so violent? Here's your answer: Bedouin desert-raider politics became embedded in modern Islamic sociology.

My News Years resolution was to read some more of of Bat Ye'or's histories of how Islam suppressed Christian and Jewish conquered people over the centuries. Did it. And now we're seeing it unroll before our eyes.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ping your peeps?

[Alouette]

FReepMail to be added or removed from this pro-Israel/Judaic/Russian Jewry ping list.

Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.

[Beckwith]

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel.

Leon Uris, "The Haj"

[forkinsocket]

Bedouin desert-raider politics became embedded in modern Islamic sociology

This is very true.

[Jo Nuvark]

WHAT IS JIHAD?

Tabari IX:69 “Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us.”

What is Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran.

This site brings you the history of the Islamic Jihad from a neutral and factual viewpoint.

Site Map

The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)

The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)

The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians - modern Sudanese (650)

The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)

The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)

The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)

The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)

The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)

The Jihad against Chinese (751)

The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)

The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)

The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)

The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)

The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)

The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)

The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)

The Jihad against Rumania (1350 to 1699)

The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)

The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)

The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)

The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)

The Jihad against Albania (1332 - 1853)

The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)

The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)

The Jihad against Austrians (1683)

Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)

The Jihad against Israelis (1948 – 2004 ongoing)

The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)

The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)

The Jihad against the Germans (1945 onwards)

The Jihad against the Indians (1947 onwards)

The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao(1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)

The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)

The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)

The Jihad against Latin America (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Australia (2002 onwards)

The Global Jihad today (2001 – ongoing)

The War on Terror against Jihad today (2001–

[FormerACLUmember]

Outstanding!

[Red_Devil 232]

Actually there is no such thing islamic sociology. mohammedan sociology would be the correct term.

[ml/nj]

Bat Ye'or's histories

Let's Restore Medina to the Jews

ML/NJ

[Mrs. Don-o]

The referenced website is HISTORYOFJIHAD.ORG

[slowhandluke]

Why did the Middle East become so violent? Here's your answer: Bedouin desert-raider politics became embedded in modern Islamic sociology.

Are you sure this shouldn't read:

Why did the Middle East become so violent? It always was, anytime they got military or strategic advantage. Bedouin desert-raider politics are embedded in the Koran.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, yes, exactly. The Bedouin desert-raider politics acquired a stable and yet virulent institutional form because the raider-ethic was "sanctified" in the Koran.

Compare the way the equally vicious Viking plunderer ethic was not "sanctified" and institutionally supported by, for instance, Christianity.

[knighthawk]

Islam-list

If people want on or off this list, please let me know.

[dennisw]

"...prone to tyranny, like the old Soviets. It isn't due to religion, but culture, especially through contact with Islamic and Mongol elements."

The near east in ancient republican roman times already had the reputation of a land where the monarchs made slaves of their people, that was long before the Mongol invasion or the Rise of the worshippers of Mohameed.

The persian emperor was styled as king of kings and lord of lords. Before Mohameed, the arabs were known as raiders and brigands, Mohamed was able to institutionalize those elements and apply a religious gloss on what was already a cultural norm.

After Mhmd siezed power he quickly abrogated the quranic verses about tolerance and freedom, and reverted to the general model of near eastern governance.Posted by: stickman at January 13, 2008 1:06 AM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019529.php#more

 

[dennisw]

Why did the Middle East become so violent? Here's your answer: Bedouin desert-raider politics became embedded in modern Islamic sociology.

The Arabs were pagan predators raiders and thieves before Muhammad. Islam gave them an Allah and Muhammad that justified bloody thievery rape and conquest

[Defiant]

Can’t this writer be prosecuted in Canada for this article?

[G8 Diplomat]

in the battles between Sunni vs. Shiite, a battle originating in a squabble between closely related kin groups over the leadership of the Islamic empire following Muhammad's death.

It's really quite amazing (in a bad sense) just how these two groups can fight and hate each other so much over the one basic difference of opinion; who can be a caliph. As the article says, the Sunnis believe anyone can be one, whereas Shiites believe only descendents of the first caliph can be one. My Islamic history is a little rusty, but if I remember right Imam Hussein (the third one; grandson of Imam Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed, I think), a member of the Umayyad dynasty was assassinated by a member of the the Abbasid family, and Hussein is revered by Shiites; Ashura is their day of mourning for him (which is coming up on the 18th--the tenth day of the Islamic calendar--Ashura means 'tenth day'). Shiites believe only his descendents are fit to be a caliph; and Sunnis think anyone can, which is why a member of the Abbasid family assassinated Hussein. It went something like that...I learned this stuff awhile ago, so some of it could be off.

But remember folks, Arabs are not the problem; Islam is. If it were not for Islam, the Arabs could be Christian for all we know. Christian missionaries could've eventually made it over to the Middle East and civilized the Arabs and converted them. Who knows? Don't think that violence and savagry are inherent to the Arab people, it's not. It's inherent to Islam, which the Arabs embrace, and thus become violent and savage.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Can’t this writer be prosecuted in Canada for this article?"

Stay tuned.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Very true. Present-day Arab Christians (e.g. Maronites, Melkites, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Copts) had nothing to do with all those wars of Islamic-Arab conquest -— except as dhimmis and “collateral damage.”

[Madame Dufarge]

Don't think that violence and savagry are inherent to the Arab people, it's not. It's inherent to Islam, which the Arabs embrace, and thus become violent and savage.

Thank you for pointing out that important distinction.

A dear friend of mine (born in Lebanon) is a Maronite Christian, and an exemplar of all that is good.

She just happens to be an Arab.

I suppose if Christianity had murder, robbery and enslavement as its founding principles, it would have turned out differently though.

[Jo Nuvark]

Thanks you for that website Mrs. Don-o.
I forgot to capture it. You are a blessing.

—Jo—

[G8 Diplomat]

Imam Hussein (the third one; grandson of Imam Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed, I think)

Actually I just looked it up and Abu Bakr, Mohammed's father-in-law, was the first caliph, and Ali, Mohammed's son-in-law, is actually the fourth (but to Shiites he is regarded as the rightful first caliph). Hussein is Ali's son, which would make him the fifth imam, but I could've sworn I read on some article here that he was the third....oh well.

Sheesh!

[flaglady47]

“But remember folks, Arabs are not the problem; Islam is. If it were not for Islam, the Arabs could be Christian for all we know. Christian missionaries could’ve eventually made it over to the Middle East and civilized the Arabs and converted them. Who knows?”

Actually, we tried taking back the lands conquered by the Muslims, remember the Crusades? Those “evil” Crusades where the Christians were the bad guys for having tried to get the holy lands back that had been taken from them by Muslim Jihad. Those Crusades that the Christian haters now portray as an invasion without merit, totally disregarding the invasion that took place initially wherein the whole Middle East was conquered by the scimitar. The Crusades which some Christians still to this day feel they have to apologize for. But the initial takeover of the holy lands by force by the Muzzies is just peachy keen, don’t ya know. Geez....

[G8 Diplomat]

At the Catholic church at my university there is a map on the wall and you can stick a pin into the country where you are from. There were pins in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Jordan. Christian Arabs (and Persians) are out there...in fact, about 35% of the population of the UAE is Christian (most are foreign workers from places like Pakistan or Bangladesh though). Saudi Arabia actually has a higher percentage of Christians than Japan...3% in SA, 1% in Japan. I think Turkey has about 2%, and Iraq has lots of Christians...don't know the exact number, but there are a fair amount of them there.

[G8 Diplomat]

What about the Crusades? I agree with you with what you're saying about them, but my point is that the Arabs involved there were Muslim Arabs, and as I said, it is Islam that keeps Arab society so brutal and oppressive, not the Arabs themselves. If Arabs were Christian (and some are), they would not have such screwed up societies.

[G8 Diplomat]

Actually, we tried taking back the lands conquered by the Muslims, remember the Crusades?

I meant Christian missionaries could have successfully converted the Arabs either before Mohammed of if Mohammed had never created Islam and had the Arabs never embraced Islam. Once they take hold of that religion, it's tough for someone to pry them away from it, because if you leave Islam you'd be killed by your own family if they got the chance.

[fanfan]

Can’t this writer be prosecuted in Canada for this article?

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

So they are a bunch of violent savages bent on dominating the world. And why are they not expelled from civilized countries?

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Crusades were as defensive as the invasion of Normandy. Trying to get a beachhead in order to take back a captive continent that had been conquered by force.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You’re asking me?

[SuziQ]

There is a very interesting article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about "The Lost Archives". These were rolls of film which held photographic images of Koran through the ages. The study was to see if, in fact, the Koran of today is the same as it was when it was supposedly given to Mohammed directly from Allah. That is the claim of the fundamentalist Muslims, and those who don't adhere to that claim of the unchanging Koran were hoping to use the archives to prove their point. The Berlin Archive in which the film was stored was bombed by the Allies in WWII, and the man responsible for the Lost Archive claimed it was lost in the attack.

Turns out, he had them all along, and hid them at his house. After his death, earlier this decade, they were found, and are not being made available to a group of German scholars. Some are using false names in print because they're scared of reprisals by Muslims. It will be interesting to see what they find. Makes me wonder if their discoveries will be trumpeted with the fervor of those who reported on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please post it. I’d like to read it.

[SuziQ]

It was in the print version. I’ll have to see if it’s online.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Very interesting; thanks for posting this, Mrs. Don-o!

[Convert from ECUSA]

Ping!

[444Flyer]

Islam was occultic from its beginnings. Doctrines of demons.

[Convert from ECUSA]

That’s the truth!

[exg]

Not sure if this has already been posted, but here is a copy of the “complaint” and the response.
http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf

http://ezralevant.com/Response_to_complaint.pdf

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks Convert from ECUSA. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[CJ Wolf]

The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)?

Didn’t this actually start in ‘79?

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/

Genocide committed in the name of Allah:

3,000,000 Bangladeshi Hindus Killed during the Pakistan-Bangladesh war in 1971. From 1894 to 1896 Abdul Hamid, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, killed 150,000 Armenian Christians. In India, Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur along with his disciples was burned to death by the Moghul ruler Aurangzeb in 1675. Another Sikh, Bhai Mati Das was sawn into right and left halves while he was still alive. In July 1974, 4,000 Christians living in Cyprus were killed by Fahri Koroturk, president of Turkey and his Islamic army. From 1843 to 1846 10,000 Assyrian Christians including women and children were massacred by the Muslims. From 1915 to 1918 750,000 Assyrians were killed in the name of Islamic Jihad. In 1933 thousands of Assyrian villagers were murdered by the Iraqi soldiers in Northern Iraq. Since 1990 more than 10,000 Kashmiri Hindus have been brutally murdered by Islamic fundamentalists. Over 280,000 Ugandans killed during the reign of Idi Amin from 1971 to 1979. Over 30,000 Mauritanians have been killed by the Islamic dictators since 1960. In 1980, 20,000 Syrians were murdered under the rule of Hafez Al-Assad, President of Syria. Since 1992 120,000 Algerians have been murdered by the Islamic fundamentalist army.

Hinduism tells us that the “Self” which dwells in each and every being in this universe is one and the same with Godhead. Every soul in this uinverse is a reflection of this Supreme Self. Thus every individual has the potential to realize Godhead by the realization of this “Self”.

Realization of the “Self” is possible only when someone is free to think on his/her own and act accordingly. The most heinous and barbaric crime in this world would be to stop an individual to think freely. And when such a crime is legalised in the form of a religion, one can easily imagine how disastrous it can be. Islam is such a religion.

Islam imposes a threat to the whole world which is far worse than deforestation, nuclear destruction or AIDS. It is an insidious, devilish disease creeping into the veins of the world. Every individual must realise the destructive and evil nature of this religion, for it eats away at the very foundation of humanity which is an individual’s ability to think individually and act accordingly. The following articles logically analyse different aspects of this so called religion and bring forth the true nature of Islam...

[VOA]

“Muhammad’s Tribe (the true history of Islam’s suppression of conquered
nations and people)”

Good post.
Reminds me of a presentation by the recently departed D. James Kennedy
(of The Coral Ridge Hour) in which he muttered aloud “Why does
NOBODY talk about the REAL FIRST “Crusade”...the one in which the
Muslims took the Middle East, Northern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula
by raping, murdering, enslaving the populace. Or converting them
at the point of a sword.
And either appropriating or razing THOUSANDS of their churches and synagogues?

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar1.html

Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace—Part I
Mohammed, Prophet of Islam is known as the “Apostle of Peace” by Muslims. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This article is just one of a series that I will be publishing regarding sadistic cruel nature of Prophet Mohammed. In this article I will prove once again, that Mohammed was in fact a terrorist, criminal and murderer whose entire life was based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence, carnage and massacre. He was a man who destroyed peace wherever he went, and in its place brought terror, carnage and death.

When Mohammed first started screaming from the rooftops that he alone had the divine word of God, the people of Mecca ignored him. However, when he started insulting and defaming the religion of the peace loving Meccans, they couldn’t take it anymore and tried persuading him to stop. Mohammed the coward was too scared of the growing hostility against him and instead of calling upon his Allah to strike down the Meccans, he crept out one night and fled for his life.

Ever since that incident, Mohammed was determined to take revenge on the Meccans. He escaped to Medinah, which had a sizeable Jewish population, and started plotting his revenge with a small gang of criminals. This was the beginning of Mohammed’s trail of violence, hatred and bloodshed that would soon destroy the once flourishing culture of Arabia. The story has been documented in detail by his biographers, - surprise raids on trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperados, assassinations of opponents, blackmail, expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medinah, attack and enslavement of the Jews of Khayber, rape of women and children, sale of these victims after rape, trickery, treachery and bribery employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion Islam which ironically was supposed to mean “Peace”! He organised no less than 86 expeditions, 26 of which he led himself.

The motives of the converts to Islam was never in any doubt. As D.S. Margoliouth states in his book Muhammad and the rise of Islam

“Of any moralising or demoralising effect that Muhammad’s teaching had upon his followers we cannot say with precision. When he was at the head of the Robber community, it is probable that the demoralising influence began to be felt; it was then that men who had never broken an oath learnt that they might evade their obligations, and that men to whom the blood of their clan had been as their own, began to shed it with impunity in the “cause of god”. And that lying and treachery in the cause of Islam received divine approval. It was then too that Moslems became distinguished by the obscenity of their language. It was then too, that the coveting of goods and wives possessed by Non-muslims was avowed without discouragement from the Prophet....”
The details of all his criminal onslaughts in the form of battles and assasinations are chronicled in this article in a chronological manner. One should note that everytime the “Apostle of Peace” committed one of his criminal onslaughts, he always justified the crimes by quickly claiming a “divine revelation” which conveniently removed the blame from his bloodied hands. These convenient Suras are detailed immediately below the description of the incident...

[nicmarlo]

Mohammed was in fact a terrorist, criminal and murderer whose entire life was based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence, carnage and massacre. He was a man who destroyed peace wherever he went, and in its place brought terror, carnage and death.

bttt!

[M. Espinola]

Thanks for this ping. The total truth concerning the Islamic enemy & their diabolical goals must be told.

[nicmarlo]

unification was only possible by creating a tribalized enemy against which Muslims could make common cause. This Muhammad did by opposing Muslims against infidels; and the dar al-Islam, the land of Islam and peace, against the dar al-harb, the land of infidels and conflict. Through the precepts of Islam, traditional Bedouin raiding was sanctified as an act of religious duty.

With every successful battle against local unbelievers, especially after the critical early battle against the Meccans, more Bedouin joined the umma. Once united, the Bedouin warriors of the umma turned outward, teaching the world the meaning of jihad, holy war.

Islam is NOT a "religion of peace."

[nicmarlo]

we tried taking back the lands conquered by the Muslims, remember the Crusades? Those “evil” Crusades where the Christians were the bad guys for having tried to get the holy lands back that had been taken from them by Muslim Jihad. Those Crusades that the Christian haters now portray as an invasion without merit, totally disregarding the invasion that took place initially wherein the whole Middle East was conquered by the scimitar. The Crusades which some Christians still to this day feel they have to apologize for. But the initial takeover of the holy lands by force by the Muzzies is just peachy keen, don’t ya know.

Revisionist history......still being taught....anything to condemn Christians.

[SuziQ]

“The Haj” is an outstanding book! That one, in addition to “O, Jerusalem” gives a good overview of reality in the Middle East, before and after the creation of Israel.

[COBOL2Java]

...Abu Bakr, Mohammed's father-in-law, was the first caliph, and Ali, Mohammed's son-in-law, is actually the fourth (but to Shiites he is regarded as the rightful first caliph). Hussein is Ali's son, which would make him the fifth imam, but I could've sworn I read on some article here that he was the third....oh well.

Sounds like what'll be going on at the Democrat convention, between the Hillary minions and the Obama brigades.

[colorado tanker]

IMHO, the problem is not Islam, although radical Wahabbism is used to justify the terrorists behavior. The largest Muslim populations in the world are in Indonesia and India and generally don't act this way.

In my opinion the instability in the Middle East results from the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI and the collapse of the European colonialism that attempted to replace it. We still don't know what group or country is going to emerge as dominant in the region, although Iran is making a powerful bid.

This region has not been self-governing since the foundation of the Ottoman Empire, a period of about four centuries. The present borders are mostly artificial creations.

IMHO the region would have had a much better chance if at the end of WWI the British hadn't double-crossed its Arab allies and allowed the creation of a unified Arab state with Damascus as the capital.