Skip to comments.No, the West Did Not 'Demonize' Muhammad as PR for the Crusades
Posted on 12/21/2017 8:03:15 AM PST by RoosterRedux
To understand any phenomenon, its roots must first be understood. Unfortunately, not only do all discussions on the conflict between Islam and the West tend to be limited to the modern era, but when the past, the origins, are alluded to, the antithesis of reality is proffered.
We hear that the West -- itself an anachronism for Europe, or better yet, Christendom -- began the conflict by intentionally demonizing otherwise peaceful and tolerant Muslims and their prophet in order to justify their colonial aspirations in the East, which supposedly began with the Crusades. Bestselling author on Islam and Christianity Karen Armstrong summarizes the standard view: Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad as a sinister figure. The scholar monks of Europe stigmatised Muhammad as a cruel warlord who established the false religion of Islam by the sword.
That nothing could be further from the truth is an understatement. From the very first Christian references to Muslims in the Seventh Century to Pope Urbans call to the First Crusade more than four centuries later, the Saracens and their prophet were consistently abhorred.
Around 650, John of Nikiu wrote that Muslims -- the Copt is apparently the first non-Muslim to note that word -- were not just enemies of God but adherents of the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Mohammed.[i] The oldest parchment that alludes to a warlike prophet was written in 634 -- a mere two years after Muhammads death. It has a man asking a learned Jewish scribe what he knows about the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens. The elderly man, with much groaning, responded: He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot?
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Well, he was demonic. The left got that part right, at least.
Among other things, mo hamid was a murderer. That is how he spread is so-called “religion”...by murdering others.
A mass murderer, at that. Islam is best defined as a death cult - murder is the theme that’s run throughout, from it’s inception to the present.
This explains it really well:
Bill Warner knows his stuff on this.
All you have to do to ‘demonize’ Mad Mo is tell the truth about him.
He was a treacherous, murderous bandit, turned conqueror.
He was a pedophile; he married a six year old and consumated his ‘marriage’ with her at nine years of age.
He had to review his trance dictations to figure out which verses came from Satan (but they ALL did and they became the Koran!).
What need is there to demonize a demon?
There is no Allah but Satan, and Muhammad was his murdering pedophile.
Mohammad WAS a sinister figure.
He began a wave of naked aggressions that lasted for all the centuries since, hundreds of major battles, and many more minor ones, that caused the dark ages and turned prosperous areas like North Africa into basketcases often full of abandoned cities and towns. Untold millions taken by Muslim slavers.
Islam was only peaceful till Mohammad had military power to kill and pillage innocent caravans or communities. Less than two decades, that’s all there is of peaceful Islam. That’s all there ever will be.
And the crusades? A few dozen battles to retake lands stolen by Muslims.
The Crusaders misbehaved at times because they were men of their times, but who are the Muslims to complain when their savagery continues to the present day?
Cutting to the chase: when Christians do not emulate Christ that’s a bad thing; when Muslims do not emulate Mohammad that’s a good thing.
Jihad vs the Crusades: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsk9dYa4fGc
Sounds just like Obummer. No wonder he was so accommodating to them.
Something tells me that Mohammed did it all on his own.
Islam is, was and will always be...a War Plan.
The Red Pill Briefling and Q&A by Stephen Coughlin
... long but well worth it!
Part 6 (mislabeled at part 7): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RikBsB7_Tbk
“Part 8” (mislabel continues): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7cmDOnZVS0
“Part 10”: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9iC4R9WqV9E
Bulletin board material for the locker room.
Money quote: “when Christians do not emulate Christ thats a bad thing; when Muslims do not emulate Mohammad thats a good thing.”
Most excellent. Short, and to the point.
It’s the ultimate come back to those who want to make a moral equivalence between when Christians do bad and when Muslims do bad.
“Christian” is supposed to indicate a measure of discipleship.
“Islam” is meant to indicate submission.
Secularist act as if either is just a cultural association, though we cannot really blame them for it because the idea of “Christian” by association, even “culture”, rather than discipleship has been around for a long time before modern secularism (though it wasn’t used antogonistically in the West much before Secularist).
Secularist also miss, arguably wilfully so in many cases, the difference between emulating Christ or Mohammad. To the first they demand that folks NOT doing so are to be considered “Christian” so they can slander Christians and to the second they usually demand that only the peaceful verses of the Koran need be considered and so those actually following the Koran, and its principal of Abrogation, are somehow not true Muslims ... and when they do this it is to the benefit of Islam.
The West and the left in particular needs a Cranialectemy!
... while there’s still time to stop the importation of Islam....
About the OIC and its role in enforcing Sharia, by Stephen Coughlin: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey-TRpkUiPI
(Yes, it’s long too)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.