ISLAM's conquests led to THE DARK AGES, then the RENAISSANCE & REFORMATION...

The American Minute (AmericanMinute.com) ^ | 12/21/2015 | William Federer

[stars & stripes forever]

In the twelve years after Mohammed's death, 632-644 AD, Muslim jihadists conquered the Eastern Roman Empire, Syria, Palestine, Eastern Anatolia, Armenia, Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt and North Africa.

Muslim pirates terrorized the Mediterranean, blockading trade.

This caused economic disaster in Roman Europe by diminishing products moving from East to West.

An important item no longer shipped was papyrus - reeds from the Nile delta which were used for paper in Europe.

The sudden shortage of paper resulted in a decline of writing, literacy, and fewer books being written - a key factor in the beginning of THE DARK AGES...

[stars & stripes forever]

Full Title: ISLAM's conquests led to THE DARK AGES, then the RENAISSANCE & REFORMATION, which led ultimately to the American REVOLUTION

[LS]

Yes, this is a very good argument for this. Simply the cost of fighting the wars alone for 800 years was a drain on society.

[boycott]

A story passed down by Abd-Al-Latif of Baghdad (1162-1231), Jamal Ad-din Al-Kufti (1169-1248), and Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286) was that when Caliph Omar was asked in 642 AD what to do with the books in the library, he replied:

“If those books are in agreement with the Qur’an, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Qur’an, destroy them.”

—
—

The koran wasn’t written until 100+ years after Muhammad’s death. Muhammad was illiterate so he certainly didn’t write it.

The evil book didn’t even exist at that time.

[Revel]

Along the same lines.

Since there is the old saying that those that do not remember the past are destined to repeat it then everyone should watch this video.

[Revel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

[Yosemitest]

There's only ONE way to make Islam PEACEFUL FOREVER.

KILL THEM UNTIL THERE ARE NO MORE ISLAMISTS ALIVE!

[wtd]

Emmet Scott discusses this in his book, Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy

Scott takes as his starting point the thesis of the Belgian historian Henri Pirenne [1862-1935] that the real destroyers of classical civilization were the Muslims. Scott refines, corrects and augments Pirenne's insight, and he does so by taking into account two essential disciplines often neglected in studies of this period - archaeology and Islamology. As Scott points out, very few historians paid any attention to the nature of Islam or its beliefs ~ they simply assumed that Islam was and is a faith no different from others. As for the former element: Scott argues correctly that the written records cannot be taken at their face value, and must be supported by archaeology.

~~ IBN WARRAQ, author of Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy

Conventional scholarly wisdom has held that German conquest ended Roman civilization and brought on the Dark Ages. Henri Pirenne strongly disagreed. Almost a hundred years ago, he argued that starting in the seventh century, Islam was a destructive, indeed a catastrophic, force that caused Europe's Dark Ages. Most European historians have disagreed, claiming that Islam was a tolerant, enlightened force that began to raise Europe out of its darkness. The myth of a so-called Islamic "Golden Age" in Spain is an expression of that view. Scott defends and enlarges upon Pirenne's thesis, arguing that these historians have paid scant "attention to the nature of Islam or its beliefs." Like much of our media and government officials, they assume that Islam is a religion like any other. Scott argues that, with its doctrine of never-ending "holy war" against all non-believers, Islam was "an unprecedentedly destabilizing influence."

[Yosemitest]

Muslims are well know for lying about their faith.

MUSLIMS are allowed to LIE and deceive NON MUSLIMS, if it benefits or protects ISLAM.
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Posted by Atheist

For a better understanding of the issue, read HISTORY of Mohammed ( spelled variously; Mahomet, Muhammed, Mehmet, etc. ).

[I want the USA back]

It’s a curse on the earth. It serves no valid purpose.

[Snickering Hound]

Huh?

In that era in Western Europe, books were written on vellum, parchment made from animal skin.

Italy was ravaged by invasion by the Byzantines under Justinian a century before the Muslims.

The rest of Western Europe were small kingdoms intermittently at war with each other.

[SkyPilot]

One Islam rapist ordered raiding parties to Europe specifically to kidnap 5,000 blond and blue eye girls.

In total, over 2.5 million Europeans were kidnapped and enslaved by the the Muslim orcs.

[WMarshal]

Too true. Green glass for Mecca.

[Ditter]

Read later.

[boycott]

I’ve read one of William Federer’s books on islam and listened to him on talk shows. The man certainly understands islam.

[Noumenon]

Archeology doesn’t lie. The absence of papyrus and African Red Slip ware is one of the “tells” of the Islamic destruction of culture and prosperity in the years following the decline of the Roman Empire.

Emmet’s “Charlemagne and Mohammed Revisited” makes a compelling case for the Islamic Dark Ages.

[achilles2000]

“Dark Ages” a propagandistic term first used by Petrarch to promote the “Renaissance”, which was nothing more in reality that the recrudescence of the paganism of classical antiquity. The “Renaissance”, among other malign things, brought back slavery, which the Church had largely eliminated from Europe. The “Dark Ages” weren’t “dark”. They were a time of social and technological innovation in Europe. The Western Empire collapsed because of the rottenness of “classical” civilization. Scholars avoid the phrase “Dark Ages” and use “Medieval” instead. BTW, the Mohammedans conquered parts of the Eastern Roman Empire during the time period mentioned, but it didn’t conquer the entire empire until 1453.

[Mr. K]

If you applied those same rules to a mob gang it would work

This is not a ‘religion’ it is a murderous hate group disguised as a religion. It even says so, for chrissakes.

[Flag_This]

"In the twelve years after Mohammed's death, 632-644 AD, Muslim jihadists conquered the Eastern Roman Empire..."

Pretty sure the Eastern Roman Empire hung around until 1453.

[PIF]

Oddly enough, there is no actual archaeological evidence as to what the religion of the Arab invaders of the time practiced. There are no scrolls or coins with their religions imprinter on it. The only coin which may show their religion predates Islam’s origin by over a century, I believe. Everybody assumes it was Islam because that’s what the Arabs much later said it was but supply no evidence.

Probably, the major problem is that Saudis routinely destroy anything found which contradicts the traditional view of Islam or even dates from the time of Mohammad - there is nothing to supply evidence one way or another about the historical origin of Islam based on actual evidence.

[PIF]

The book complied did not, but the book itself was compiled from various other sources like scrolls and tapestries. It is also wise to remember the sources even then practiced taqyyia. That particular story is also elsewhere cited as to apply to anything not in the koran, not just books.