Replies

To this end we must strive to achieve a better appreciation of other religious and political cultures, through the study of their history, their literature, and their achievements.

A tall order given the paucity of literature on the darker side of Islam, the more relevant side at this period in history.
Islam has been dormant in its natural militant form for 5 generations or so and its true nature forgotten in its irrelevancy in recent history.

Serious reflection of the 500 years of Jihad before the Crusades (why the Crusades, anyway?) and the 1000 years following would bring into sharp focus the true nature of this scourge.
A serious effort at searching out the available literature would focus clearly the uncompromising nature of this primitive belief system, and it's only possible attitude towards more advanced society.
Islam's very nature prevents it from evolving and becoming civilized.

This author's enthusiasm is like a child with a hammer. Everything he sees is a nail and he is blind to its darker side.
No matter, a serious review of history will clarify the true nature of Islam and its uncompromising hostily to current civilization.

Serious reflection of the 500 years of Jihad before the Crusades (why the Crusades, anyway?) and the 1000 years following would bring into sharp focus the true nature of this scourge.

Too true. We can't afford the distortions of so-called multiculturalism and political correctness in our history courses. We need to face the truth and stop covering it up with ideological lies that give aid and comfort to the enemies of our civilization.

This author's enthusiasm is like a child with a hammer. Everything he sees is a nail and he is blind to its darker side. No matter, a serious review of history will clarify the true nature of Islam and its uncompromising hostily to current civilization.

Good response. That was my reaction as well. I've read Lewis', The Arabs in History(1967). Good overview but extremely apologetic and sometimes completely empty of analysis of the history of Islam with respect to its treatment of the dhimmis, massacres, pillage, forced conversion, etc. For a better read on what really took place behind the superficial Lewis statements read: Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam(1996).

..."...the author's enthusiasm is like a child with a hammer..." BRAVO...Didn't the Clintonistas, and the left of all stripes preach this "we must understand their rage" crap for eight years?...The result of their open-mind enlightenment was the Cole Bombing, the African Embassy bombings, and these scum cowards sitting in our mist planning to kill thousands....This dipstick needs to read some US history from the 1700's...the MUSLIM Babary Pirates killed unarmed Americans, took Christians as slaves, and vowed that to kill Christians was a ticket to heaven. Was OUR policy toward Israel the problem then?...Was America's WEALTH and FOREIGN policy the problem THEN?...America was a baby with NO NAVY and, although the third party isolationist love to believe that minding out own buisness brings peace, we were defintely ANTI-INVERVENTION in those days....what did it get us?....Our sea merhcants were attacked, their cargoes looted, and Christians taken as slaves....Say this "Muslim Rage" has been around for a LONG time.

Historical perspective on the crusades differs amongst Christians: The Eastern Roman Emprire (Byzantines) did not see the crusades as a benevolent movement, since the european knights sacked Constantinople and terrorized Cyprus and other territories. The Byzantines had managed to achieve a delicate balance with the Arabs up to that point, trade, occasional battles, mutual tolerance. Many muslims lived in Byzantine territories, in relative peace. The nature of the Empire was that of mutli-ethnicity and tolerance.

In the west European world, there was no central government, christianity was a relatively new thing that helped unify tribes and strengthen feudal lords. Attacking the Holy Lands was decided with religious fervor, tainted with a degree of greed and an appetite for adventure. But it was not a well thought-out attack. It only served to make Islam defensive, and increased intolerance. Up until then, except for the occasional conversion-by-force islamic expansion, Christiendom was largely tolerated because of the Byzantine policies.

I don't think that the Crusades were a "mistake", or a "turning point", however. The violent expansion of Islam westward seems historically inevitable, crusades or not. The only thing that changed was the mindset towards europeans: From "Hmm, let's convert those infidels and drain their resources", to "Hmmmm let's convert those #$@#$%#@# enemy infidels and drain their resources."