MODERN GHANA notes a bit of the history referenced in the video:
Gadhafi’s unbridled urge in modern times to enlarge Arabia inside Africa, is a continuation of the Arab war against Africans and the Arabization of African lands that started in the 7th century CE. Arabs have since settled on one-third of Africa, pushing continuously southwards towards the Atlantic Ocean. Arabs’ racial war against Black Africa started with their occupation and colonization of Egypt between 637 and 642 CE, decimating the Coptic or Black population. Between 642 and 670 CE, more Arab invaders poured into Africa and occupied areas known today as Tunisa, Libya, Algeria and Morocco, where they physically eliminated most of the native (Berber) inhabitants. The Berbers that escaped death ran westwards and southwards towards the Sahara.
It is interesting that as Rev. Stephen Schumacher (a priest with the St. Louis Archdiocese) is attempting to provide a history lesson on King Louis IX, h is being shouted at with Afrocentrist history (taught by black racist cults like The Nation of Islam and the Five Percenters).
….Rev. Schumacher, in a video which can be viewed below, attempted to inform protesters about King Louis IX.
“St. Louis was a man who had authority thrust upon him, he didn’t do anything to earn it. You’re right, he didn’t do anything to earn it,” started the priest. “What did he do with that authority? Do you know what he did? Go down to the St. Louis Cathedral, and you’ll see some of the history that St. Louis did.”
One of the protesters shouted, “Eventually we’re taking that, too, though,” referencing the cathedral.
“St. Louis was a man who willed to use his kingship to do good for his people,” Rev. Schumacher said, triggering angered shouts from protesters.
“He died in Tunisia,” one of the protesters shouted, drawing an alleged connection to Africans.
“St. Louis had nothing to do with Africans, okay,” the Catholic leader responded to protesters.
“Do you know who lived in Tunisia in the 1100s?” he posed, “Arabs. … and the Arabs had killed all the Africans in Tunisia in the 700s.”
“In the 700s, Arab Muslims conquered the Holy Land,” Rev. Schumacher continued, “Christians did not fight back against that. … the Crusades happened beginning in 1095, after the Turks conquered the Holy Land.”
During the same intense face-off, some protesters marked the statue with chalk, calling for its destruction, reported Currier.
“The history of the statue of St. Louis, the King is one founded in piety and reverence before God, and for non-believers, respect for one’s neighbor,” the statement said. “The reforms that St. Louis implemented in French government focused on impartial justice, protecting the rights of his subjects, steep penalties for royal officials abusing power, and a series of initiatives to help the poor.”
“King Louis IX’s renowned work in charity helped elevate him to Sainthood,” the St. Louis Archdiocese continued. “His daily suppers were shared with numerous beggars, whom he invited to the royal table. On many evenings, he would not let them leave before he washed their feet. He personally paid to feed more than 100 poor Parisians every day. His care for the sick was equally moving; St. Louis frequently ministered to lepers. He also created a number of hospitals, including one for the blind and another for ex-prostitutes.”….
As an aside, a great post to include in these studies is over at WINTERY KNIGHT and responds to these four myths:
Myth #1: The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world.
Myth #2: Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich.
Myth #3: Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives.
Myth #4: The crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.
There was nothing wrong, in principle, with the Crusades. They were an appropriate (if belated and badly managed) response to the conquest of the Holy Land by Islam. Did marauding 11th century armies inevitably commit outrages? They certainly did. In fact, that still happens today. But the most unfortunate thing about the Crusades is that they failed. (Powerline)
9 Total Crusades from 1095-1272 A.D;
The crusades lasted about 177 years;
About 1-million deaths – this includes: disease, the selling into slavery, and died en-route to the Holy land;
About 5,650 deaths a year.
His rise to power in 1927 lasted until his death in 1953;
Stalin’s reign was 26-years;
Middle road estimates of deaths are 40-to-50-million;
That clocks in at about 1,923,076 deaths a year.
(Some put the death toll per-week by Stalin at 40,000 every week — even during “peacetime”)
ISLAM (killing Hindus)
160,000 a year.
(As an aside… about 5.714 [to be clear, that is: five-point-seven one four people] people were killed a year by the Spanish Inquisition if you take the highest number over its 350-year long stretch if you use the leading historian on the topic.)
I have some maps to help make my case… and we know that conversion in these days was due to duress, like it is today. This first map puts a time-table to the 3-caliphates:
Around this same time (and you mentioned this in the convo I viewed) this was going on:
▼ The Third Crusade (1188-1192). This crusade was proclaimed by Pope Gregory VIII in the wake of Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Crusader forces of Hattin in 1187. This venture failed to retake Jerusalem, but it did strengthen Outremer, the crusader state that stretched along the coast of the Levant. (The Politically incorrect guide to Islam-and the Crusades, by Robert Spencer, pp. 147-148.)
…the Crusades were a defensive war, not an aggressive grab for land and loot. In fact, crusading was an expensive and costly endeavor. After the success of the First Crusade nearly all the Crusaders went home. Virtually none of them recovered the cost of crusading. If one wanted to get rich, crusading was definitely not the best route to make it happen. Many atrocities occurred in the Crusades.
Understandably, war can bring out the worst in people. Even during World War II some American soldiers committed atrocities, but this does not mean the war was conducted so soldiers could commit crimes. [me: nor does this mean the whole of the meta-good of the conflict is undone] (Sean McDowell)
[Like the video says: Islamic jihad was enslaving Kafirs, the Crusaders were freeing them — key distinction.]
The almost Political Correct myth is that the crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world are dealt with in part:
▼ The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood as the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution. A few examples: Early in the eighth century, sixty Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time, the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies – except for a small number who converted to Islam; and Muslims demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn’t pay. Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the anti-religious tax (jizya) that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction to others, even their own children. Brutal subordinations and violence became the rules of the day for Christians in the Holy Land. In 772, the caliph al-Mansur ordered the hands of Christians and Jews in Jerusalem to be stamped with a distinctive symbol. Conversions to Christianity were dealt with particularly harshly. In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk who had converted from Islam and plundered the Bethlehem monastery of Saint Theodosius, killing many more monks. Other monasteries in the region suffered the same fate. Early in the ninth century, the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled to Constantinople and other Christians cities. More persecutions in 923 saw additional churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection. (The Politically incorrect guide to Islam-and the Crusades, by Robert Spencer, pp. 122-123.)
One person (my pastor at the time) said to paint a picture of the crusaders in a single year in history is like showing photo’s and video of Hitler hugging children and giving flowers to them and then showing photo’s and video of the Allies attacking the German army. It completely forgets what Hitler and Germany had done prior.
This second map show there were raids, violence, and rape that reached close to Paris itself:
So far from the Crusades being an “out-of-the-blue” event, it was people in the West stopping the Muslim horde. Literally! Here is a 35-minute interview with Professor Clay Jones on the Crusades:
As well as a 6-minute section where Michael Medved was interviewing Robert Spencer. About half way through a call is taken… your typical “party-line”
Below is a comparison I used for a class at church comparing Muhammad and Jesus:
Not only that, but to say that the Crusades were immoral IS to borrow from the Judeo-Christian ethic. I make this point in a recent question/challenge sent to me by an atheist which I posted on here.
There is nothing in the pantheist worldview (Buddhism, Hinduism, Janism, Taoism, etc) which can account for people saying, “you [or ‘the church’] ought not have done that.” In fact, when I updated my chapter to reflect a recent event, I said this:
It is laughable that some defend this doctrine tooth and nail. However, if really believed, they would come to realize there is no real good or evil! The Inquisitions, the Mumbai terror killings at the hands of Muslims, as examples, were merely the outgrowth of the victim’s previous karmic lives. Therefore, when those here defend karmic destiny in other posts speak of the horrible atrocities committed by religion, they are not consistently living out their philosophy of life and death, which are illusory. The innocent victims of the Inquisitions, terror attacks, tsunamis, or Crusades then are merely being paid back for something they themselves did in a previous life. It is the actions said people did prior that creates much of the evil upon them now. So in the future when people who are believers in reincarnation say that Christianity isn’t what it purports to be because of the evil it has committed in the past, you should remind them that evil is merely an illusion (maya – Hinduism; sunyata – Buddhism) to be overcome, as karmic reincarnation demands.
And there is nothing in evolutionary naturalism either to denote an action being immoral. As the first of the links above clearly show. Only if you have the Judeo-Christian God in play do you have such a case to make. In other words you have to assume that which you wish to show false.
One last note on this differing direction of the convo. The Bible does not teach the horrible practices that some have committed in its name.
It is true that it’s possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the details it produces evil because the individual people [Christians] are actually living in rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it [religion] can produce evil, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism (non-religious practices) actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We’re talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God. For example: the Inquisitions, Crusades, Salem Witch Trials killed about anywhere from 40,000 to 80,000 persons combined (World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana), and the church is liable for the unjustified murder of about (taking the high number here) 300,000-women over about a 300 year period. A blight on Christianity? Certainly. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course.
Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religious criminals have committed); the Chinese regime of Mao Tse Tung, 60 million [+] dead (1945-1965), Stalin and Khrushchev, 66 million dead (USSR 1917-1959), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia 1975-1979) and Pol Pot, one-third of the populations dead, etc, etc. The difference here is that these non-God movements are merely living out their worldview, the struggle for power, survival of the fittest and all that, no evolutionary/naturalistic natural law is being violated in other words (as non-theists reduce everything to natural law — materialism). However, and this is key, when people have misused the Christian religion for personal gain, they are in direct violation to what Christ taught, as well as Natural Law. (A condensing of Gregory Koukl’s, “The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?“)
In fact, A recent comprehensive compilation of the history of human warfare, Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what atheists have considered to be ‘most’ really amounts to less than 7% of all wars. It is interesting to note that 66 of these wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare. Even the Seven Years’ War, widely recognized to be “religious” in motivation, noting that the warring factions were not necessarily split along confessional lines as much as along secular interests.
The above paragraph is an adaptation of sorts from these two sources:
Alan Axelrod & Charles Phillips, Encyclopedia of Wars, Facts on File, November 2004
John Entick, The General History of the Later War, Volume 3, 1763, p. 110.
John Quincy Adams is worth reading at greater length on the topic, as he provides some insight into what has been going on in Iraq now that Obama has prematurely removed our troops:
▼ In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, […..] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST. – TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE…. Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant … While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.
Winston Churchill deserves a longer hearing too:
▼ “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
Islam has not changed over the centuries. All that has changed is that never before have we been ruled by people who take Islam’s side against us. That is why the Marines were created in fact… the Barbary Wars. “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (ECC 1:9). While other religions has entered modernity and rejected claims by men to get closer to their founding doctrine. Like what Jesus ACTUALLY teaches versus the guy in the pulpit… which was why it was illegal to own a Bible in parts of Italy all the way to 1870. Those in charge didn’t want the words of their Founder to be read.
People like Luther and Calvin read it, and read it well.
The White House is insisting the U.S. is not at war with the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, despite an aggressive air campaign and previously labeling the jihadist group an “imminent threat to every interest we have.”
“Before getting into the strategy though, there seems [to be] a fundamental, existential question: Is the United States presently at war with ISIS, yes or no?” MSNBC host Chris Hayes asked President Barack Obama’s top spokesman, White House press secretary Josh Earnest, on Thursday night.
Earnest went with “no.”
“No, Chris. What we are doing is we are working very aggressively with international partners, with Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, to take the steps necessary to mitigate the threat that’s posed by ISIL,” he responded.
The interview was part of a series of television appearances for Earnest on Thursday and Friday after Obama stumbled and said “we don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with the Islamic State in Syria. Earnest insisted Obama actually has a “comprehensive strategy” even as critics slam the administration for not articulating a more forceful foreign policy vision for the region….
Controversial London Imam Anjem Choudary had a heated argument with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity on the latter’s show Wednesday, eventually saying that sharia law would be imposed on the world.
Choudary has expressed support for the terror group that calls itself the Islamic State (ISIS), and when Hannity pressed him on the group’s beheading and crucifying of women and children who don’t convert to Islam, Choudary at first denied it.
“This is simply false. It didn’t happen,” he said. “This was a complete pack of lies to demonize and vilify the Islamic State.”
When Hannity continued to push him, Choudary said the United States has tortured people in Guantanamo Bay and with drones. He also said Israel has killed innocent people with rockets in Gaza.
After several minutes of talking over each other, Hannity eventually told Choudary that he is a Christian and “I don’t want your sharia law.”
“You will have no choice, Sean,” Choudary responded, smiling. “It’s coming to a place near you.”
Poll: 92% of Saudis believe that Islamic State “conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law”
Now where did they get this idea? Haven’t they been listening to Barack Obama and David Cameron, the Pope of Rome and the Archbishop of Brisbane, who tell them that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, and to all the Muslim groups in the West who have condemned (in vague, non-specific terms) the Islamic State? Is the Kingdom of the Two Holy Places, dedicated to implementing Islam in every detail of life, somehow filled with misunderstanders of Islam? What an odd turn of events! How could it possibly have come about? (Jihad Watch)
Krauthammer comments on the Imam’s words:
And here we see that many are living in a dream world that doesn’t deal with the core issues at hand, the teachings of Muhammad:
Just minutes after defending Islam in a speech about the beheading of James Foley by the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL), President Barack Obama was back on the golf course. Reality doesn’t seem to mean much nowadays.