When and Why the West Began to ‘Demonize’ Muhammad-Did Christendom really trigger the conflict?

Frontpagemagazine ^ | 12-29-17 | Raymond Ibrahim

[WayneS]

Muhammed demonized himself. He didn’t need any help from Christians.

[EBH]

Wow...just WOW!

So all those early writers and observers of Islamic slaughter of Christians are racist? Therefore the need for self-defense and military defense against an invading violent pseudo-religion was 'wrong?'

Sorry Mr. Ibrahim, me thinks you have succumbed to lies and deceit. To 'believe' those early texts do not accurately describe the conquests of islam is naive at best and dangerous denial at worst. And the effort you put forth in this piece today is even worse as it twists the truth of the time leading up to the Crusades.

http://www.historyisfascinating.com/2015/02/the-fascinating-history-of-crusades.html

[Bookshelf]

‘In short, the widespread narrative that European views of Muhammad as a “sinister figure,” a “cruel warlord,” and a “lecher and sexual pervert” began as a pretext to justify the late eleventh century Crusade....’

In great part the Crusades can be attributed to the 11th century depredations carried out by Moslems who continually attacked Christians on pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

[carcraft]

When I run into people that claim the Crusades are responsible for the conflict between east and west I like asking “if that is true why did Charles Martel stop the Islamic advance into France and Spain 100 years before the Crusades started?”. Usually I get a blank look and silence.

[SES1066]

There is also this to remember, that the rise of Islam did not occur in a vacuum, and that Muhammed (570-632), whilst being a reformer against local sects of idol worship, still embodied much of polygamy and tribal culture of Arabia within his message. Also, within the area of Syria, Arabia and Egypt, many of the Christian communities were heretical Monophysites who rejected the arguments that led to the Chalcedon Creed of 451.

This Monophysite belief held that the Christ was either entirely of God or had a mixed ‘nature’ whereas the Chalcedon Creed held that Christ was both Human and the Eternal Son of God at the same time. Those passages in the Koran that grant Jesus a prophet’s standing and the contemporary (600-800s) ‘good’ treatment of Christians as fellow ‘people of the book’, made the conquest of Syria to North Africa an easier task.

As for the outside world, the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Sasanian Empire had been fighting for centuries and had basically exhausted themselves. Then there was also a very bad outbreak of the Plague (Justinian’s Plague) that further weakened the communities. Thus when Islam’s Armies erupted, there was little to poor resistance against them. In the West, Syria fell first in 641 and the rest of North Africa fell all of the way to Spain, stopping, as an unbroken conquest, at the Battle of Tours in 732.

In the East, the Persian Sasanian Empire had even less luck, and was fully conquered by 651 with the Islamic Armies pushing on to India and into Central Asia by the 750s. Other Islamic forces also went north into Armenia and the Caucuses area with equal success. Nothing in known history equals this lightning-like string of military successes over such a large territory. By the Umayyad Caliphate of 750, with the capital in Damascus, their empire stretched from Spain to the edge of India and well into Central Asia.

[jmaroneps37]

The vicious lying piece of shit has no redeeming qualities. Any questions?

[Ambrosia]

No, I think you described it appropriately!

[jonno]

bookmark

[Nifster]

It is a battle between good and evil

[PIF]

Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad as a sinister figure ...

—
The reason that is such a prevalent view today, is simply a matter of education - How many schools even teach world history over how many grades? If they even teach the periods from Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, they gloss over them in a few chapters.

The periods after that? Mostly blank other than mentions of the Crusades until the 15th century. All the time between is just mostly nothing beyond a few sentences. But the period from 600 AD to 800 AD is zilch; any historical events in North Africa, the Middle East, India, southern Europe purely fantasy since they are never mentioned.

Worse when muslims are mentioned, they are referred to as Saracens, Mussulmen and the like, confusing every one into thinking Islam did not really exist then and these evil doers are some other people. Is it any wonder most people and especially Christians think of mussulmen as worshiping a prophet who is messiah-like in a somewhat mystical and beautiful religion. Any mention that it just is not and was not so to these non-muslims brings derision and defense.

[ontap]

The term religion of peace when referring to Islam is simply outrageous in it dishonesty. While I'm sure there are peaceful Muslims they are not following the tenets of Islam if they are. They are not “good Muslims”!!!!

[Thibodeaux]

Your misinterpretation is invalid.

Their interpretation and action are what is actually valid

[SES1066]

"if that is true why did Charles Martel stop the Islamic advance into France and Spain 100 years before the Crusades started?"

Given the the First Crusade was from 1095 to 1099 and the Battle of Tours was 732, you need to say 'more than 350 years' before the First Crusade! Not arguing with you, just saying the time frame is even more emphatic! You can also toss in Islamic slave raids on the Mediterranean and South Atlantic European coasts all of the way into the 1400s and raids against Rome from conquered Sicily in the mid 800s. North Africa-based Islamic Pirates menaced commerce in the English Channel well into the 1600s under the support of the Ottoman Empire.

[paterfamilias]

“Sorry Mr. Ibrahim, me thinks you have succumbed to lies and deceit. To ‘believe’ those early texts do not accurately describe the conquests of islam is naive at best and dangerous denial at worst. And the effort you put forth in this piece today is even worse as it twists the truth of the time leading up to the Crusades.”

Did you actually read the article?

Ibrahim is agreeing with you.

[Uncle Miltie]

islam is a totalitarian death cult founded by a child rapist

[spacewarp]

I think you and several other posters have misread the article.

He’s not saying the early texts don’t accurately describe things. What he’s saying is those who claim that Islam was this peaceful group that was just sitting around and the “lies” made up by Christians to demonize big Mo were the justification of the attacks of the crusades were deluding themselves. He then goes on to describe in great detail the descriptions and explain that the hatred of Islam was justified by the following quotes, and then laid out a clear cut case as to why the hatred was valid.

He’s being pretty well attacked by a lot of folks here because he’s going about it rather circumspect in stating that it was justified and roundly misunderstood.

[READINABLUESTATE]

Bookmark

[WashingtonSource]

Bump

[Montana_Sam]

The writings of the saints of that time declared islam to be a heresy, and so it is to this day.
Muhammed, whatever his fate, died and has been judged, as has allah. islam is a religion of death, not life.
Choose life.

[cld51860]

It was that point I stopped reading this drivel.