A Muslim indicts his religion 46

Last week, two Jewish girls from London, volunteer teachers at a Christian school in Zanzibar, were attacked with acid by Muslims. Why? Religious hatred.

The two men – one of them (?) now arrested is a Muslim preacher – did it passing by on a motorcycle as the girls walked along the road.

The pictures are from the Mail Online.

Kirstie Trup and Katie Gee, both 18, of Hampstead, north London, had acid thrown at their faces and bodies by Muslim attackers on the island of Zanzibar


This is from AINA, the Assyrian International News Agency. It is written by Farid Ghadry, a Muslim whom we applaud:

I indict Islam.

Yes, I indict it for ignoring the terror against two innocent British teens in Zanzibar who were doused with acid. I do not give a damn what the reasons were and what justification those bastard Islamists had to change permanently the good lives of two innocent young teens who were there to help Muslims in the first place.

What is Holy about Ramadan when the Muslim bastards in Zanzibar use it to commit the unholiest of acts?

I am really, really angry.

Where are our Muslim leaders to speak out against such terror and to commit, once and for all, to its eradication?

Where is the King of Saudi Arabia, or the President of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? Cooperation on what? With the OIC’s silence, how could not anyone interpret “Cooperation” to mean to cooperate to disfigure the innocent?

Where is the Grand Imam of al-Azhar University, or the Arab League, or Ayatollah Khamenei, or the millions of other religious Muslim leaders?

Where is Erdogan of Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood? Why are they silent in the face of such atrocities committed in the name of Islam?

Where are all our collective Muslim voices to indict these senseless acts not even animals in a jungle are capable of?

Islam has become synonymous with terror and the target of justifiable and global contempt. The religion I was born into, and which shelters 1.3 billion people, has turned into a weapon of global destruction against the other 5.7 billion people who do not adhere to Muslim principles.

Islam no longer exists for Islam. Islam exists today to destroy non-Muslims.

I indict all of Islam because the religion that is supposed to support the needy and the helpless has become a cult of terror against the self-sufficient and the enterprising.

I indict all the silent Muslim leaders for their weakness. With their silence, they are feeding these acts of barbarism to define Islam.

I indict them for all the acts of terror committed in the past against thousands upon thousands of innocent people.

I am really, really angry at all the Imams, the Grand Muftis, the Sheikhs, the Mawlawis, the Ayatollahs, the Emirs, the Kings, the Princes, and whatever titles they embrace.

At the end, if they do not indict these acts publicly and couragousely all of them share in the savagery of Zanzibar. That is their legacy.

The Muslim leaders in the OIC and the Arab League must awaken from their slumber by committing serious funds to re-educate our youth and to rid the world of the cancer within, instead of remaining silent or accommodating the evil source of Islamic terror.

It is obvious political correctness and generous aid by the West is not making a difference.

In fact, Western countries have donated hundreds of billions of Dollars in foreign aid to Muslim countries, and we Muslims pay back the West by dousing their children, who came to help our poor and disfranchised, with acid. It is truly sickening.

Something must change. The West must change course to help us find our way, the hard way. This status quo cannot go on.

If you want to help Islam, then it is time to tie your help with what our leaders do or say, and not by how much intelligence they deliver.

Otherwise, stop buying our oil and gas. Let us perish in our own waste. Maybe, then, our leaders will speak out and cooperate with the West based on equality and not based on them forcing Islam upon the rest of the world.

Enough is enough. I am really, really angry.

May those British teens, and all who were injured by Islamic terror in the past, find peace and happiness. May they, and their families, forgive us for not speaking loudly enough.

Horrified as we are by what the Muslim attackers did to the girls, and much as we pity them, we declare they were foolish and wrong to go to Zanzibar to “help the poor and disenfranchised”.

Knowing that a plea to All Mankind to give up the lethal stupidity of religion would be whistling down the wind, we plead instead (no doubt quite as uselessly) only with philanthropists, do-gooders, altruists: Give up your moral vanity. Stop stroking and primping your egos by inflicting your benevolence on other people. 

Posted under Commentary, Islam, jihad, Muslims by Jillian Becker on Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Tagged with , , , ,

This post has 46 comments.

  • Jillian Becker

    Here is Bruce Bawer’s take on the acid attack – as we have summarized it on our Facebook page:

    Katie Gee and Kirstie Trup were walking down a street in Zanzibar when two young men on a moped rode past them and threw acid in their
    faces. “This whole thing is unexplained,” Gee’s mother said. “It’s difficult to
    think of someone doing something so evil.” Well, not so difficult if you spend a few minutes skimming through a Tanzanian human-rights report or reading about the latest jihadist barbarities in sun-drenched Zanzibar. Did these girls’ parents know how much irrational anti-Jewish bile is poured out daily in the media and mosques of the Islamic world? This is certainly not to criticize the girls. Or even their parents. What we’re looking at here is a systematic educational failure. Western teachers and journalists, among others, haven’t done their jobs. They’ve soft-pedaled the truth about Islam and they’ve rebranded primitive, dangerous Third World countries as “exotic” and culturally rich lands where the only social problems are the consequences of Western colonialism. As a result, 18-year-old Jewish girls from England who’ve presumably received good educations and who are about to attend university can head off to a place like Zanzibar with stars in their eyes. Far from being the victims of some random act of cruelty, then, it would seem likely that Katie Gee and Kirstie Trup were targets of jihad. They thought they were in a tranquil island paradise, when in reality they were on a jihadist battlefield. Teach
    your children well.


  • DeadWhiteMan

    The attack was horrible, for sure. But I must take issue with the descriptive “religious hatred.” When speaking of the communist killing of millions, do we call it “secular hatred”? Hatred is hatred.

    • Don L

      Communism and secularism are separate ideas. Communists kill because they are deluded in believing in an absurd and impossible equality-based political ideology. The communists don’t kill because of religious beliefs…millions died for cooperative farm planning…intentional starvation. If anything, you might call death by communism freedom- or independent thought-hatred.

      The jewish girls (might as well have been protestants) were not muslim girls…infidels…religious hatred seems to be the motive. Get your hatreds right for gods’ sake.

  • Philo Vaihinger

    Heck of a risk for the writer to take, I think. Muslims don’t forgive other Muslims who dare dissent.

  • mybrainhurts

    And what of the parents’ role in this mess? What kind of Jewish parent sends his 18-year-old daughter off to a Muslim nation in the first place, be it to volunteer or for anything at all?! Definitely not an Israeli Jew, that’s for sure. This is First World stupidity taken to staggering new heights (or lows, if you please). The guilt of wealthy liberals in the West: let me risk my children’s lives to prove that we’re doing the right thing by helping the poor, even in dangerous places where they HATE us.

    Now those pretty girls are scarred for life—and for what? They could’ve volunteered anywhere back home in the UK, gotten their “good guy” badges, and made it home in time for supper safe and sound. But, NO, that won’t do! Their parents had to send them to the ass crack of the planet to help the poor Muslims of Zanzibar.

    I’m from Puerto Rico, and there are places here where I wouldn’t do charity work even if you paid me. Why? Because it’s not my fault that people in the projects live the way they do, for instance. I’m not an idiot, i.e., I don’t set foot in known dangerous neighborhoods. I’m that cautious in my own country, where the ethnicity, religion, and culture are, for all intents and purposes, homogeneous.

    • liz

      Great point. Its the same mentality as the Christian missionary.
      I know Christians who sent their teenage daughter to an African country for “mission” work, in the midst of the genocidal insanity that was rampant there at the time. Just plain stupid.

      • DeadWhiteMan

        The only time it wouldn’t be a function of naivety is if you understood the risks and decided to martyr yourself. But I could think of better uses of missionary zeal.

        • liz

          The problem is that deciding to martyr yourself, as we’ve discussed in a few recent posts, is in itself a really bad idea based on the teaching in Christianity that you must become a “living sacrifice” to God, debasing yourself, denying yourself, believing that “to die is to gain”, “resist not evil”, “turn the other cheek”, etc., etc…. resulting in a guilt complex that basically keeps one from enjoying life and fully pursuing what is in ones own rational self-interest.
          It equates with the Islamic teaching of “martyrdom” for the glory of ones god, except without the violence to others that Islam features.
          Both are ancient and irrational mentalities.

          • DeadWhiteMan

            I can only agree partially. A Christian may place himself in harms way, knowing the dangers but driven by a desire to do what he believes God’s will for him is. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he is committing suicide, mind you, just that he realizes that the situation involves risk and that martyrdom is a possibility.

            This is far different from what a Muslim does when he goes on a suicide mission and kills others.

            As for the injunctions you mention, the “turn the other cheek” counsel is almost universally misunderstood. It is actually a prescription for resisting tyranny. The explanation is found in many places, but here is one: http://www.southerncrossreview.org/39/wink2.htm

            You just have to scroll down a bit.

            I’d explain it myself, but I think you understand that I’d rather not do all the extra typing when a link will suffice.

            • liz

              I agree that the Muslim idea of martyrdom and the Christian view are very different in that the Muslim aim is to kill innocent people. But any and all “martyr” mentalities are anti-life, self-defeating, and destructive, either to oneself, others, or both.
              To say that “turn the other cheek” is universally misunderstood you have to ignore the plain meaning of it and come up with some esoteric meaning that really strains credibility. If you interpret it as a way of resisting tyranny, it sounds like you’re advocating pacifism, which doesn’t work.
              To “not resist evil” is to allow evil to win out. To expect “God” to work everything out for your good because you “obeyed his will” is a prescription for failure. But you can always rationalize the failure by imagining that whatever happened is his will, since he works in mysterious ways, etc…
              So you sacrifice your success, happiness, freedom, or possibly your life, depending on the circumstances, for the sake of obeying rules imposed by ancient imposters posing as “spiritual leaders” as a way of controlling their tithing “flocks”.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              Liz, did you read the explanation associated with the link I provided? Jesus did NOT say “turn the other cheek.” Rather, He said that if a man strikes you on your RIGHT cheek, turn your left one to him. There is a reason why He specified the sides of the face, and it’s explained on the page I provided you.

              Jesus’ prescription was not for pacifism per se. It was counsel on how to stand up for yourself in a situation in which you have no power to resist physically, such as when a Jew was confronted with a Roman soldier.

              It’s one thing to criticize, but a wise person tries to understand what he’s analyzing first.

              “Wisdom is, when you know something, knowing that you know it; and when you do not know something, knowing that you do not know it.” — Confucius

            • liz

              Yes, I read the explanation. It still sounded like a roundabout way of justifying pacifism to me.
              It may apply in the situation you mention, but nowadays Christians put themselves in dangerous situations voluntarily, and are then praised as martyrs if they die while “inflicting their benevolence on others”, for the sake of stroking their own egos. They really have only themselves to blame in such cases.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              Most of the time the Christians in question are just trying to perform works of charity. But I wouldn’t expect someone with an axe to grind to give them credit.

    • Mike

      Do you also blame women for being raped? You logic is perverted. NOTHING justifies what happened.

      • liz

        Of course nothing justifies what barbaric scum do.
        But a lot of tragedies could be prevented by people using common sense, and maybe a little profiling?

      • mybrainhurts

        Mike, I’m not sure if you’re referring to my logic or liz’s as “perverted”, but either way you seem to have misunderstood my point (and hers). You also bring up a false equivalence by asking “Do you also blame women for being raped?” (An unrelated can of worms and a lazy rhetorical cliché even in its proper context.)

        I think that modern society is quick to jump into the blame game instead of addressing personal responsibility, which is what I’m trying to bring into the conversation. This not about “blaming the victim”, it’s about questioning incredibly poor judgment that flies in the face of basic common sense and what should be the protective parental instincts of sane adults.

        Now, to restate my point: I’m specifically questioning the parents’ role and terrible judgment, i.e., Jewish parents should know better than to send their 18-year-old daughters off to a 99% Muslim territory in Africa.[1] Do we need to draw a picture to explain this? Pass the marker and the dry-erase board…

        Let me indulge in a bit of facetious hyperbole to drive the point. The girls could’ve been walking around Zanzibar City topless wearing nothing but a G-string, stopping at every corner to apply oil all over each other’s bodies and engaging in passionate lesbian kissing sessions in front of a mosque—and that still wouldn’t justify a battery acid attack—but that’s not the point. No one deserves to get doused in battery acid, and surely not two naive girls who had their hearts in the right place in wanting to save the world and help the poor. Given the predominant reality-denying “mores” of liberal Western society, where the successful and the industrious can’t live in peace without self-immolating in a pyre of guilt (self-imposed or otherwise), it’d be almost strange if girls like these weren’t out there trying to save the world. The girls had a valid, understandable excuse: they’re at that blossoming stage of youthful idealism. Their parents, however, are supposed to curb that enthusiasm when it will put their children in patently dangerous situations. Let’s try this again: Jewish teenage girls from the UK have no business doing charity work in Zanzibar or any Muslim territory in Africa. Actually, I’m curious about how many Muslims from the UK go to Zanzibar to do charity work, but I digress.

        Right from the start, it was a scenario begging to end in tears. Even in the best of circumstances, Muslims don’t exactly love Jews, Muslims in the Third World don’t exactly love the West, and so on; you get the point. So, remind me again why sending two Brit Jewish girls to a 99% Muslim African territory is a good idea? And what, exactly, is perverted about the logic of pointing that out?

        For instance, no one deserves to get mugged, but as liz put it, a lot of unnecessary tragedy can be avoided with good ol’ fashioned common sense. In our everyday lives, I bet most people here avoid places that are known to be dangerous/high crime areas if they can help it, you don’t go to certain parts of your city at certain hours, etc. The girls’ parents threw out those basic safety guidelines out the window on a global scale. Luckily those girls didn’t end up dead thanks to their parents’ poor judgement.

        1. Mainland Tanzania – Christian 30%, Muslim 35%, indigenous beliefs 35%; Zanzibar – more than 99% Muslim. Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tz.html

        • Mike

          Sorry. Don’t blame the girls nor the parents for this evil act of Islamic hatred. They would not have been attacked had it not been for this evil cult. No amount of your typing can convince me of otherwise. I know rationalizing BS when I read it.

          • mybrainhurts

            If I didn’t make myself clear already, then there’s not much to add. I live in the real world and, alas, I share this real world with some crazy people who would kill me simply because I’m an atheist or not their brand of Muslim or for whatever reason they think that Allah wants me killed or punished. Therefore, I take the necessary precautions, such as not going to Muslim countries. Maybe this is just more “rationalizing BS”, and no amount of reality (or my tying) can convince you otherwise. 😉

          • DeadWhiteMan

            Of course nothing will convince you, because you’re operating based on emotion.

            By the way, let me know when you’re willing to walk through Harlem at 2 AM drunk and flashing money. I don’t see why you wouldn’t. After all, it’s not like you would “deserve” to get mugged, and we all know that sense of righteousness you feel when something bad happens to you that you didn’t deserve.

          • liz

            You apparently can’t tell the difference between rationality and BS, which is why you are full of the latter.

          • Mike

            All of you s.h.i.t.s, Liz especially, stop blaming the girls and their parents you evil b-stards. Muslims are the perpetrators. And Dead, why don’t you shove you rhead up your butt. Do you think I’m going to read all you crap, you long winded creep?

            • Jillian Becker

              Mike – your views are welcome, but we see no need for vulgar invective. Why insult someone because they disagree with you? It is you who appears to our readers as unpleasant, not the person you fling your insults at.

              We don’t like to remove anything from our pages, and we hate to discourage commenters. But if you use such language again I will delete your comment.

              Please argue respectfully – however strongly, however acerbically if you like – but not with ad hominem abuse. Abuse is not an argument.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              It seems that your vulgar response to me (which I received in my email box) might have been deleted. But it said more about you than it did about me — first and foremost that you’re out of arguments.

  • rogerinflorida

    But he is still a Muslim, right?
    So spare me the BS, it isn’t that there is a dearth of Muslim crimes to get upset about.

    • liz

      I assume you’re being sarcastic here, right?
      I applaud the guy’s honesty. He’s right – we should leave them to perish in their own waste, after sending the ones contaminating this country back over there where they belong.

      • mybrainhurts

        It takes a heroic amount of bravery (borderline reckless valor?) for a Muslim to indict his coreligionists in such terms. He’s not only going against the faith and its clergy, but against a whole culture because, as readers here know, it’s disingenuous at best to pretend to separate Islam from Arab/Middle Eastern cultural identity. Indeed, Mr. Ghadry deserves at least the moral support of Western secularists for taking his fellow Muslims to task. Not even a thousand more years of Western secularism will “fix” Islam or make it compatible with Western civilization.

        One could argue that Christianity became the relatively domesticated version of itself through the gradual process of two millennia of internal tweaking. As Sam Harris has said, the problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam.

        • liz

          Yes, its been noted here before by myself and others that the only thing that makes Christianity a “religion of peace” now is that it has been “de-fanged” by a few centuries of science and rationality brought on by the Enlightenment, combined with a couple of centuries of the separation of church and state.
          I suppose that might be possible with Islam, but then again, maybe not. Killing and subjugating infidels is so much more a central theme – yes, a fundamental – to Islam than it ever was in any other religion, its hard to imagine them doing without it.

        • DeadWhiteMan

          The last part of your post is based on a myth. Christianity never had to be “domesticated” because the Catholic Church (and we are talking about the Catholic Church here) never taught anything remotely close to what Islam mandates. The Church’s fundamentals are the same as they’ve always been (that’s the nature of fundamentals). It’s only revisionist history that makes people think there has been some great change — and that there needed to be.

          • Jillian Becker

            Please tell us, DeadWhiteMan, what the “fundamentals” of Catholic Christianity are that have never changed, and what Islam “mandates”.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              That would be a long list. But a few Catholic fundamentals would be the Resurrection, the Sacraments, the Trinity, and final judgment.

              The question on Islam is more difficult, because it doesn’t have anything approximating the Catholic Church’s teaching body. But the Koran calls Jews pigs and apes, and enjoins its adherents to destroy those who don’t bow down to Allah. .

            • Jillian Becker

              Thank you, DeadWhiteMan.
              Christianity: That is indeed the bill of goods – or part of it – that the Catholic Church began to sell quite early in its existence and continues to sell. But what the Catholic Church did in its long history was very bloody. It seems to be much less so now, wouldn’t you say? A certain taming has taken place, wouldn’t you agree?

              Islam: Right.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              No, I would not agree, with all due respect. A lot of what seems like “bloodiness” is either revisionist history or exaggerated. The Crusades, for instance, are a favorite topic of those who wish to impugn the Church. But they were actually a response to Muslim aggression. Of course, some Crusaders committed transgressions, but that’s even true in modern wars (My Lai Massacre, etc.). And the Crusader atrocities reflected official policy no more than the modern atrocities reflected official American policy.

              Obviously, these is a deep issue with a lot of often esoteric details, but the point is that what Christianity and Islam teach are very, VERY different and always have been.

            • Jillian Becker

              You are overlooking: innumerable internecine wars between Christian armies of different opinions; the appalling mass murders of Jews carried out by the Crusaders as they travelled down the Rhine (or were those aberrant My Lais? If so against whose policy?); the terrible persecutions and massacres by the Inquisition for centuries on end, and so on. I do not accept that the principles of Christian morality are good (even after reading the special pleading and rationalizations on the site you linked to), but Christians do, and so inescapably condemn themselves to guilt, shame and hypocrisy.

              However, yes, Christian doctrine is very different from Islamic doctrine. The teaching of Islam is – I agree – far worse.

              By the way, I did delete an even more abusive and disgusting comment by Mike. I left the one you say should have been deleted in order to be able to rebuke him as I did.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              Actually, there were two notable massacres of Jews during the history of the Crusades — a history that involved hundreds of thousands of men embarking on numerous campaigns during the course of hundreds of years. And the first of those massacres involved the “People’s Crusade,” an unofficial campaign involving many peasants and rabble that went to war early in 1096, prior to the launching of the first official Crusader armies (the People’s Crusade was wiped out by the Muslims). Moreover, there were instances in which Crusaders massacred other Christians as well, so it’s not as if Jews were targeted either based on policy or in any consistent manner. And, nonetheless, we’re again talking here about MEDIEVAL ARMIES dispatched over centuries, so it isn’t surprising that there would have been some transgressions.

              Anyway, none of that is really the point. To dwell on such things would be like letting fixation on American atrocities during WWII (and they did occur) blind us to the actual reason why the war was fought. And why were the Crusades fought? Here is a link from a college professor who actually happens to a medieval studies historian: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/mayweb-only/52.0.html

              And here is a relevant excerpt:

              With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was
              reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

              That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already
              captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
              End quote.

              Note that at the time of the Muslim invasions, there were more Christians in North Africa than in Europe.

              As for morality, all I’ll tell you is that I suspect you will find, over time, that the atrocities committed by the communists (100 million killed during the 20th century alone) were not some peculiarity of communism but the inevitable result of removing Christian morality — which is true morality — from the equation. And this comes from someone who wasn’t at all raised with faith.

            • Jillian Becker

              Thank you for a thoughtful and informative comment. I have read histories of the Crusades, but there is always something new to learn. I did not know about a request from the emperor in Constantinople, or had forgotten it. And of course I would rather that Islam had not conquered the lands of the eastern Roman church. Still, the Crusaders slaughtered many innocents. Contemporary accounts of the First Crusade tell how the streets of Jerusalem “ran with blood” – and it was not the blood of the Muslims. I notice you do not reply to my mentions of the Inquisition and the internecine Christian wars.

              I have also read – have a large library on communism. Have even had brief and nasty experience of it. I do not agree that Stalin’s and Mao’s and Pol Pot’s and Castro’s slaughter was a result of removing – or in Mao’s and Pol Pot’s case one would have to say not adopting – Christian morality.

              I believe Socialism/Communism arose as a backlash against the humanism of the Enlightenment. I have called Socialism the child of Christianity. I have enlarged on this on our website pages and if you put keywords into our search slot you can find the posts. Also if you will search for “Tread on me: the making of Christian morality” you’ll find my reasons for being very much against it. I believe, as Gibbon does – and partly because of his history (inter alia) – that Christianity brought a thousand years of darkness down on Europe.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              I’m sorry to say that you have things very, very wrong. Honestly — and I’m not trying to tweak you here — I really can’t unravel all of this for you in this forum because you have embraced too many misconceptions. One fallacy/falsehood overlaps with another and with another and with another as far as the eye can see. Add to this the fact that they all serve to support a world view that you wish to maintain, and it’s clear that it is fruitless. I will just tell you, to provide one example, that the Templars became rich because they essentially became bankers, not because of plunder. As for the idea that Crusaders enriched themselves, that is a falsehood. It is something that happened very, very rarely (many more impoverished themselves).

              Anyway, it is only because of Christianity that Europe rose and prospered, and now that the continent is in its post-Christian phase, it’s declining — rapidly. This will become apparent to you in time, as life is the best teacher. It’s an awfully unforgiving one, though.

            • Jillian Becker

              I very much doubt that you are older than I am. If you are, it cannot be by much. Do you realize that you are patronizing me? I know that the Templars were bankers. How could they have become rich bankers if the Crusader Kingdom was poor? What did the Enlightenment lighten? What darkness did it dispel, if not the long darkness of the would-be totalitarian rule of the churches? Europe rose and prospered after the Renaissance, after the Enlightenment, after the Industrial Revolution. Before that it was in a long night “lit only by fire” (to quote the title of a well-known history of the Middle Ages). As you have brought the argument down to personalities (though you don’t know me at all!) I will say this: It is you who – I gather – are blinded by faith, obsessed with a superstition. That is a darkness of the mind. However long you live, it will probably never be dispelled.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              If you think I was patronizing you, it is simply your own misperception.

              Anyway, the answer to your first question should be obvious. Like everyone else, the Europeans did have money that they often wanted to secure. This doesn’t mean they plundered it. You have money, don’t you? Does this mean you stole it?

              In point of fact, pilgrims traveling to the Holy Land sometimes were robbed by Muslims, and this is one of the reasons they wanted to use the Templars as bankers.

              As for the “Enlightenment,” do you know who gave it that name?

              The people who lived at the time and who created the movement!

              So isn’t that unusual? People who thought they were more enlightened than everyone else and proclaimed that it was so.

              In reality, the “Enlightenment” didn’t enlighten anything, and it wasn’t even original. The ideas the so-called philosophers of the time propounded predated the movement. It’s just that they truly gained traction at that point in history.

              And you didn’t have to tell me about the Fourth Crusade — I knew all about it (I’m a historian). It was a true Crusade transgression, and it didn’t help the cause. However, the situation is a bit more complicated than Runciman (who is a leftist hack) would lead one to believe.

              The Crusaders didn’t just decide to sack Constantinople out of the blue. What happened was that they got drawn into Byzantine politics, promising to help an imperial claimant gain the throne in return for aid. When that man did rise to power, however, he found that he could not fulfill his promises and reneged on the deal. This is what inspired the Crusaders to take what they believed was owed them.

              This doesn’t mean that their actions were right — they weren’t. But, as I said, these things are a bit more complicated than people like Runciman — who is a very biased and dishonest pseudo-historian — would have you believe.

              By the way, by the time the attack on Constantinople occurred, the pope had already excommunicated the whole crusade. So it was, in that sense, an illegal campaign to begin with.

            • Jillian Becker

              I won’t debate with you any more. You “answer” points that are not made. You don’t get the points that are made. Much of what you say here is beside any point. You have made no case for Christianity or anything else. I hope other readers have better understood my arguments.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              Hopefully they’ll understand that your arguments are based on fallacies and falsehoods. Not that you yourself are dishonest, but you are misinformed.

            • liz

              Interesting that the ideas of the Enlightenment propounded by the “so-called” philosophers of the time “just happened to gain traction at that point in history”.
              Could the reason they didn’t “gain traction” before that possibly be that the Church consistently suppressed, persecuted, tortured and killed anyone who came up with ideas counter to Scripture and established Church teaching up to that point? (such as Bruno and Galileo)
              The suppression of all ideas not conforming to a primitive, Biblical worldview kept Europe in the Dark Ages for centuries. The tide of scientific knowledge which had been revived from the Greeks and expanded upon by the philosophers and scientists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods finally broke the barrier of Church suppression and “gained traction”. It was not thanks to Christianity.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              Actually, heliocentrism (you mentioned Galileo) had been around since the ancient Greek period. And it was propounded by Copernicus in his treatise “The Revolutions of Heavenly Orbs” before Galileo was talking about it. Moreover, the Church actually protected Copernicus from the Calvinists. The main opponents Galileo had were other scientists, since the system they had been using – -the Aristotelian system — had been in force for 1500 years and seemed valid. They could even navigate the oceans based upon it.

              Churchmen generally had little interest in such things. As St. Baronius said, “The Bible is there to teach us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” The Galileo affair is largely misunderstood, and this has a lot to do with Protestant agitprop that was peddled during the so-called Reformation period.

            • liz

              And what about Bruno?
              (Not to mention the millions of other heretics and “witches” burned at the stake on the authorization of the Church.)
              I have no axe to grind, but you seem willing to go to great lengths to keep the Churches axe buried.

            • DeadWhiteMan

              Since you aren’t really interested in the truth, I’ll just say “goodbye,” which, by the way, is a contraction of “God be with ye.”

            • liz

              If pointing out historical facts makes me uninterested in the truth, then I guess I’m guilty.
              It is my impression that facts are rather pertinent to honest discussion. It is you who appear to be uninterested in addressing facts (and therefore truth) that puts Christianity in a less than flattering light.

  • Dale Jensen

    Not only Is Islam responsible for this, so is the West’s pathological altruism. Altruism which has its roots in Christianity as you so brilliantly identified in your origins of Christianity series (especially the one on St. Paul).

    The Left has taken a secularized version of Christian altruism, packaged it with egalitarianism, rooted it on an epistemology of subjectivism and created a secular civic religion; a religion which basically dominates the Euro-American world. Mainstream Conservatives are trying to fight back by pushing a pre-1960s version of the same thing. (Some of them are pushing a pre-20th century version.)

    The whole thing is depressing to watch.