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 ...
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.