Fourteen Centuries of War Against European Civilization

globalpolitician.com ^ | 9/4/2009 | Fjordman

[Nikas777]

Fourteen Centuries of War Against European Civilization

Fjordman - 9/4/2009

The following essay is an amalgam of my previous online essays, among them Who Are We, Who Are Our Enemies — The Cost of Historical Amnesia, Why We Should Oppose an Independent Kosovo, Refuting God’s Crucible and The Truth About Islam in Europe.

“The Jihad, the Islamic so-called Holy War, has been a fact of life in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Near and Middle East for more than 1300 years, but this is the first history of the Muslim wars in Europe ever to be published. Hundreds of books, however, have appeared on its Christian counterpart, the Crusades, to which the Jihad is often compared, although they lasted less than two hundred years and unlike the Jihad, which is universal, were largely but not completely confined to the Holy Land. Moreover, the Crusades have been over for more than 700 years, while a Jihad is still going on in the world. The Jihad has been the most unrecorded and disregarded major event of history. It has, in fact, been largely ignored. For instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the Crusades eighty times more space than the Jihad.”

The above quote is from Paul Fregosi’s book Jihad in the West from 1998. Mr. Fregosi found that his book about the history of Islamic Holy War in Europe from the 7th to the 20th centuries was difficult to get published in the mid-1990s, when publishers had the Salman Rushdie case in fresh memory.

A few years later, perhaps the most comprehensive and scholarly book on the subject to date, The Legacy of Jihad, was published by Andrew G. Bostom. He has written about what he calls “America’s First War on Terror.”

[Nikas777]

ping

[Nikas777]

http://globalpolitician.com/25885-islam-west

According to Hugh Fitzgerald, “One must keep in mind both the way in which some atrocities ascribed to Serbs were exaggerated, while the atrocities inflicted on them were minimized or ignored altogether. But what was most disturbing was that there was no context to anything: nothing about the centuries of Muslim rule. Had such a history been discussed early on, Western governments might have understood and attempted to assuage the deep fears evoked by the Bosnian Muslim leader, Izetbegovic, when he wrote that he intended to create a Muslim state in Bosnia and impose the Sharia not merely there, but everywhere that Muslims had once ruled in the Balkans. Had the Western world shown the slightest intelligent sympathy or understanding of what that set off in the imagination of many Serbs (and elsewhere, among the Christians in the Balkans and in Greece), there might never have been such a violent Serbian reaction, and someone like Milosevic might never have obtained power.”

In 1809, after the battle on Cegar Hill, by order of Turkish pasha Hurshid the skulls of the killed Serbian soldiers were built in a tower, Skull Tower, on the way to Constantinople. 3 meters high, Skull Tower was built out of 952 skulls as a warning to the Serbian people not to oppose their Muslim rulers. Some years later, a chapel was built over the skulls.

Similar Jihad massacres were committed not only against the Serbs, but against the Greeks, the Bulgarians and other non-Muslims who slowly rebelled against the Ottoman Empire throughout the 19th century. Professor Vahakn Dadrian and others have clearly identified Jihad as a critical factor in the Armenian genocide in the early 20th century.

As Efraim Karsh notes, “The Ottomans embarked on an orgy of bloodletting in response to the nationalist aspirations of their European subjects. The Greek war of independence of the 1820’s, the Danubian uprisings of 1848 and the attendant Crimean war, the Balkan explosion of the 1870’s, the Greco-Ottoman war of 1897—all were painful reminders of the costs of resisting Islamic imperial rule.”

[2banana]

According to Robert Spencer, “Although the strictness with which the laws of dhimmitude (the subservient status of Jews and Christians) were enforced varied, they were never abolished, and during times of relaxation the subject populations always lived in fear that they would be enforced with new stringency. Muslim rulers did not forget that the Qur’an mandates that both Jews and Christians must ‘feel themselves subdued.’ One notable instance is recounted by Arab historian Philip Hitti: ‘The caliph al-Mutawakkil in 850 and 854 decreed that Christians and Jews should affix wooden images of devils to their houses, level their graves even with the ground, wear outer garments of honey color, i.e., yellow, put two honey-colored patches on the clothes of their slaves… and ride only on mules and asses with wooden saddles marked by two pomegranate-like balls on the cantle.’“

And this was the "golden age" of "Islamic Tolerance"

[kosta50]

Yes, I am (as all Serbs are) well aware of the Skull Tower (Chele kula) and other atrocities the Ottomans committed during their occupation, and yes, a little less amnesia would have helped attenuate, even avoid the Bosnian civil war. Instead, the west took sides immediately and without historical consideration base don personal antipathy towards Miloshevich. The article is not correct, however, about Miloshevich not coming to power had the west been more sensitive to the historical issues involved.

Miloshevich came to power as a result of nationalist euphoria in Slovenia and Croatians feeding nationalist euphoria in Serbia and vice versa. But his claim to fame came when he, a small an unknown party apparatchik, came to Kosovo and witnessed Kosovo Albania police beating up on Serbs there.

The Province was made judicially independent from the rest of Serbia by the 1974 Constitution, and there was no interest among Serbia's communists to aid the terrorized Serbs in the province (the plight and forced exodus of the Serbs from Kosovo during the 1980's power vacuum was well documented by the New York Times).

Miloshevich was an instant sensation and a grass-roots movement centered around him (people used to say Slobo, Slobodo meaning Slobodan [our] Freedom because the word Slobodan means someone who is free). He also used a nationalist card to get rid of his political rivals because he had Serbs eating out of his hands after years of repression and neglect.

Croatians on the other hand were resurrecting the WWII Ustasha war criminals to the status of national heroes. The fascist emgiree groups were supporting Croatia's nationals leader Franjo Tudjman, and the Serbs were not about to live in another Independent State of Croatia that glorified the Nazi WWII creation (inlcuding returning the fasicst currency used during WWII) that killed so many Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in their concentration camps.

Finally, Izetbegovic, Bosnian fundamentalist Muslim leader didn't help matters either with his "Islamiya" plans for the state. Of course, the Croatians ganged up against the Serbs with their former WWII Muslim allies in hopes of seceding western Herzegovina and attaching it to Croatia.

The ghosts ow world war II massacres were revived all over the former Yugoslavia (let's not forget that Kosovo Albanians were overwhelmingly supporting Nazi German occupation as well), and the Serbs were not about to take it lying down. The western indifference and even animosity to the Serbian fears simply because Miloshevich was not popular abroad made things only worse. The west played a major role in fanning the fires of the wars that ensued.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks Nikas777. real story of the Crusades site:freerepublic.com Dogpile To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[eleni121]

Many books about genocides committed by MUSLIMS have been published in languages other than English-—it is very difficult to get them published into English even after they are translated.

Here is one I consider one of the best outlining in detail the 20th century Genocide committed against Greek Christians by the Muslim turks and it is available in English:

“The Genocide of the Greeks of Pontos, Thrace and Asia Minor through the French Archives” by Haris Tsirkinidis.

http://www.amazon.com/At-last-uprooted-them-genocide/dp/9603434787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252118528&sr=1-1

[TheOldLady]

How will we ever know what version of history is the truth when everyone has a version of it, and none of them can possibly be true in every particular? No hearsay can ever be trusted completely. And what exactly is written history? What proof do we have of any of it really? Over-hyping a situation, they name is Man.

It is the task of many earthly governments to disseminate misinformation.

[Bokababe]

[patriot08]

[patriot08]

[gitmogrunt]

http://www.greek-genocide.org/index1.html

[Honorary Serb]

.....Had ‘Abd al-Rahman’s men prevailed that October day, the post-Roman Occident would probably have been incorporated into a cosmopolitan, Muslim regnum unobstructed by borders, as they hypothesize — one devoid of a priestly caste, animated by the dogma of equality of the faithful, and respectful of all religious faiths. Curiously, such speculation has a French pedigree. Forty years ago, two historians, Jean-Henri Roy and Jean Deviosse enumerated the benefits of a Muslim triumph at Poitiers: astronomy; trigonometry; Arabic numerals; the corpus of Greek philosophy. ‘We [Europe] would have gained 267 years,’ according to their calculations. ‘We might have been spared the wars of religion.’ To press the logic of this disconcerting analysis, the victory of Charles the Hammer must be seen as greatly contributing to the creation of an economically retarded, balkanized, fratricidal Europe that, in defining itself in opposition to Islam, made virtues out of religious persecution, cultural particularism, and hereditary aristocracy.....

If Western Europe had stayed Orthodox, it might have had all these good things (via its Byzantine and Serbian allies, the Celtic monks, etc. etc.), and avoided feudalism and barbarism. (See, for example, the writings of John Romanides.) But it would have had these good things FOR REAL, and the people would have been at least mainly FREE, not dhimmis or slaves.