Skip to comments.How the Europeans Saved Islam
Posted on 10/05/2012 12:08:14 AM PDT by neverdem
A study of Western History shows that on many occasions Islam was on its deathbed only to be rescued by Western intervention. The civilizational struggle we now face is one of our own making. The enormity of this abysmal lunacy becomes apparent when one realizes that by the mid-nineteenth century so complete was Islam's collapse that at every point where it survived, it did so only because of imprudent Western assistance. The monster we now face is a resuscitated corpse, and like that of Frankenstein, it has consistently turned on the creator who gave it life.
In 1492, the Muslims surrendered Granada to Catholic Spain. The loss was enormous. The forfeit of the Iberian peninsula -- which the Arabs called Andalusia -- is mourned to this day.
But defeat was not total. To cut down on casualties, Ferdinand and Isabella made breathtaking concessions to persuade the Muslims to surrender in the Treaty of Granada. Some of the agreed -upon liberties would come in under the umbrella of religious tolerance -- altogether admirable -- but others were concessions that simply defy comprehension. Muslims who remained in Spain were to be exempt from general taxation for a number of years. If a Christian laughed at a muezzin's call to prayer, he was to be punished -- and this was 520 years before Innocence of Muslims ignited a similar call for Sharia censorship. Even in defeat, the Muslims insisted...
In 1898, in order to annoy the British, Kaiser Wilhelm II declared himself the Protector of Muslims worldwide. This was not minor news. This imbecile -- and there is no other word adequate to describe him -- noted that were he not Christian, he would be a Muslim. The Muslim street started calling him Hajj Wilhelm -- presaging the later Abu Ali Hitler...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good article! Thanks.
it was not capitulation by the Christians but rather ensuring that a victory could be retained
The author is also incorrect that Europe had technical superiority to retake constantinople in the 1500s. In the 1700s it did, not earlier
Marking to read later.
You might enjoy this.
There is vastly more detail in the Islamization of Europe, brought on by the Europeans after the Second WWII. During the War, 2 of Hitler’s 6 SS divisions were generaled by Muslims, operated in the Balkans, one of whom was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, implicated in the design of Auschwicz. An author, Bat Y’eor wrote a book on the post-war decisions to merge Europe with Islam, and in 2006, Fjordman, the noted Norwegian blogger, wrote a 3 part essay that appeared at the Gates of Vienna blogspot, still active today. Below is a link to the 3 part essay chock full of the origin of the post war, unbelievably foolish, integration of Islam into Europe itself. Generally, the Brits brought in the Pakistani Muslims, the French Muslims from N. Africa, and the Germans brought in Turks, with whom they were acquainted with as allies in the First WW:
I recommend all three parts to understand generally the existential threat Europe imposed on itself, and which the US is flirting with today as our free speech is being tested in court cases right now in the US involving the protection of Islam from any criticism or objective evaluation, criticism at all.
Reminds me of some of the conflicts fought around here between Republicans, Libertarians, and conservatives. No one is pure enough for the other and this fighting is going to give the victory to the worst.
Not true. The Moslem League was set up way before that, in fact it was really started after WWI when the Moslem Caliphate movement spread over India. This was a movement to restore the Caliphate (Ottoman Caliphate)
I don’t think I’ve ever read an article with greater historical projection.
That’s where an author takes today’s issues and attitudes and projects them into the past and criticizes historical figures for not making their decisions using them.
As if Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492 should have negotiated their treaty with Granada based primarily on the need to avoid the rise of Islamism in the late 20th century.
I especially liked the claim that all 17th century Europeans should have ignored their own very real differences and joined together to destroy Islam because they had technological superioirity.
Today the West has the greatest tech superiority in history, but we are not likely to join together to use it in this way. But historical figures should have ignored their own needs and concerns to address those of the author.
Ping for later.
Sure, it was brutal back then, but not as brutal as we imagine ~ those people were tough, and the same things we find exceptionally brutal today were, given the conditions, considered tolerance and love by those folks.
There were also class differences. The guys at the top were always treated differently than the guys at the bottom. Jews were always treated differently than Christians or Moslems.
Then there were the trouble makers who always wanted to do a voluntary conversion so they could protect their economic advantages ~ that ended with Ferdinand and Isabella. Since the only place left to conquer was Morocco, that was considered an end-time and folks were left to become Christian or leave the country.
All things considered, the best place in Europe to live North of the Mediterranean from about 700 AD to 1660 or thereabouts was called Spain ~ or, if you didn't want kids, Venice. Otherwise it was pretty much like the worst third-world he**holes around in modern times.
Breathtaking. I could write better history with a bag of spiders on my head.
And anyone who believes that post Reconquista Spain was a place of religious tolerance and freedom may contact me privately as I have some green moon cheese to sell them.
The 30 years war was far in the future and Spain didn't have much of a hand in that blood bath.
Sorry, Bub, but you’re confused. The Spanish were involved in the 30 Year’s War up to their eyeballs. Largely to safeguard their land route to provide troops and supplies to their forces fighting the Dutch. They couldn’t use the sea route because the Dutch were better sailors.
Contrast that with the German states ~ now that was some stuff!
Contrast that with the German states ~ now that was some stuff!
Do not confound cessation of serious hostilities with the signing of a peace treaty. The Northern provinces had had defacto independence for many years ~ but the wrap up on the Southern provinces involved French involvement ~ and they stripped off those provinces for themselves.
I know that particular part of the broader peacetreaties was important to the Dutch, but the Treaty of London (1604) pretty much kept the Americas, including all the Spanish holdings, out of the battle ~ for all practical purposes the Dutch did what they wanted (in the area South of Acadia and North of Carolana) after North America was sliced up.
The Hapsburgs, on the other hand, had their handsful for most of the duration of the 30 years war ~ in one place or the other. The Treaty of London reserved Spain's American interests for Spain, not the Hapsburgs. Probably the largest land swindle in history ~ followed only by the Louisiana Purchase and then the Mexican Cession (Which were, of course, good swindles ~ but tricky none the less ~ buying stuff from guys without good titles has it's own sort of problem)>
The 30 Years War was at base a war between the Catholic HR Austrian emperor and his Catholic allies and the much less unified Protestant states of the Empire. Left to themselves the war might have been relatively short.
The problem is that outsiders kept jumping in whenever the war looked like somebody might win. The Spanish were involved from the beginning, occupying the Palatinate. They would doubtless have been more involved, but they generally had their hands full losing their 80 Years War against the Dutch. Nevertheless Spanish armies were heavily involved in several major battles of the war in Germany.
The Danes, Swedes and French also got involved at different times. The Brits somehow managed to stay out of it, possibly because they were saving up strength for their own civil war.
Never forget the War had what was called THE DANISH PHASE.
A peculiar statement, since the Spanish monarchs were Hapsburgs, just from the Spanish branch of the Family.
And the Austrian branch had lost any claims they might have had to the American possessions of Spain all the way back in 1556, when Charles V abdicated, giving the Empire and the German lands to his brother Ferdinand and Spain and its possessions to his son Felipe.
As I said.
just a matter of time until a family owned empire runs out of even cadet branches and they have to dig back centuries to figure out who’s the monarch. The Germans got cut out forever.
I doubt that's how the German Hapsburgs saw it.
The normal procedure was for the son to inherit all his father's possessions. Which would have meant Charles V handing over his German lands as well as Spanish lands to Felipe.
However, in this case Charles' brother managed to abscond with half the loot. Half a loaf being a great deal better than none.
So it would be more accurate to say the Spanish branch was unfairly deprived of their German rights than the other way around.
A minor technicality at the time, I am sure but just another reason the Hapsburg’s got a bad rep for being elementally stupid. Spain’s possessions were worth a war ~ if only for access to the vast silver resources that turned the Spanish trade dollar into a world currency ~ which, btw, is supposed to still be acceptable in the US as $1.00
Yep, this is revisionism a la a liberal. Good call and post.
I’m presently listening to a book in the car on T.Jefferson’s Barbary Wars.
The British and French at the time were quite open that they approved of the pirates. The big powers had large enough navies and economies to afford the extortion and intimidate the pirates when it was occasionally necessary.
The smaller powers: Spain, USA, Portugal, the Italian states, the Baltic states, did not. So the pirates preyed on them and kept them out of the trade picture, leaving it open for Britain and France.
Of course, USA proved even a small power could kick ass and take names when needed.
Yep, but when I read the reports of our victories it seems that God was on our side.
Possibly, but the major difference was that the US Navy WAS a navy, organized to fight other navies.
Whereas the corsairs were pirates, structured to prey on merchant ships that even if armed generally had crews of 8 to 20 men.
IOW, the corsairs were bullies that attacked those who couldn’t fight back effectively. The US Navy was designed and structured to fight those who could.
When A came into conflict with B the result was predictable.
The problem with this theory is explaining our defeats, such as the capture of the Philadelphia.
Presumably God was either A. on vacation, or B. switched sides temporarily,
You cannot presume God’s purposes are linear. Christianity was founded by a God who died. The death isn’t the triumph, but the Resurrection is.
Look, if you count our victories as due to God’s favor, then you must logically credit our defeats to his disfavor.
That’s not logical. Both the victories and losses work to do God’s will. Look at the results of the “loss” of the Philadelphia. It’s loss was beneficial to the nation in the long run. It created a sense of national unity and pride, proved the US Navy was a serious force and established the US Marines as a fighting force to be feared.
Furthermore, it set American policy as serious, despite State Department treachery. As a matter of fact, Tobias Lear set the standard for future State Departments. Who knows how much of a cut he got out of the settlement.