...by 730, his own realm secure, Charles began to prepare exclusively for the coming storm from the west. In 721, the emir of Córdoba had built up a strong army from Morocco, Yemen, and Syria to conquer Aquitaine, the large duchy in the southwest of Gaul, nominally under Frankish sovereignty, but in practice almost independent in the hands of the Odo the Great since the Merovingian kings had lost power. The invading Muslims besieged the city of Toulouse, then Aquitaine's most important city, and Odo immediately left to find help. He returned three months later just before the city was about to surrender and defeated the Muslim invaders on June 9, 721, at what is now known as the Battle of Toulouse. The defeat was essentially the result of a classic enveloping movement on Odo's part. After Odo originally fled, the Muslims became overconfident and, instead of maintaining strong outer defenses around their siege camp and continuing scouting, did neither. Thus, when Odo returned, he was able to launch a near complete surprise attack on the besieging force, scattering it at the first attack, and slaughtering units which were resting, or who fled without weapons or armour.
Charles had watched the Iberian situation since Toulouse, convinced the Muslims would return, and while he was securing his own realms, he was also preparing for war against the Umayyads. It is vital to note that Charles had used an extremely — for the time — controversial method of maintaining a standing army, one he could train as a core of veterans to add to the usual conscripts the Franks called up in time of war. During the Early Middle Ages, troops were only available after the crops had been planted, and before harvesting time. Charles believed he needed a standing army, one he could train, to counter the Muslim heavy cavalry, of which, at the time, he had none. To train the kind of infantry which could withstand heavy cavalry, Charles needed them year-round, and he needed to pay them, so their families could buy the food they would have otherwise grown. To obtain this money, he seized church lands and property, and used the funds to pay his soldiers. The same Charles who had secured the support of the ecclesia by donating land, seized some of it back between 724 and 732. The Church was enraged, and, for a time, it looked as though Charles might even be excommunicated for his actions. But then came a significant invasion. . .
Eve of Tours
It has been noted that Charles Martel could have pursued the wars against the Saxons—but he was determined to prepare for what he thought was a greater danger. Instead of concentrating on conquest to his east, he prepared for the storm gathering in the west. Well aware of the danger posed by the Muslims after the Battle of Toulouse, in 721, it has been explained that he used the intervening years to consolidate his power, and gather and train a veteran army that would stand ready to defend Christianity itself (at Tours).
It is also vital to note that the Muslims were not aware, at that time, of the true strength of the Franks, or the fact that they were building a real army, not the typical barbarian hordes which had infested Europe after Rome's fall. They considered the Germanic tribes, of which the Franks were part, simply barbarians and were not particularly concerned about them. (the Arab Chronicles, the history of that age, show that awareness of the Franks as a growing military power only came after the Battle of Tours when the Caliph expressed shock at his army's disastrous defeat) Further, the Muslims had not bothered with the normal scouting of potential foes, for if they had, they surely would have noted Charles Martel as a force to be reckoned with in his own account. Martel's thorough domination of Europe from 717 on, and his sound defeat of all powers who contested his dominion should have alerted the Moors that not only was a real power rising in the ashes of the Western Roman Empire but a truly gifted general was leading it. Thus, when they launched their great invasion of 732, they were not prepared to confront Martel and his Frankish army.
This, in retrospect, was a disastrous mistake. Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi was a good general and should have done two things he failed to do: he assumed that the Franks would not come to the aid of their Aquitanian cousins, and thus failed to assess their strength in advance of invasion; he also failed to scout the movements of the Frankish army, and Charles Martel. Having done either, he would have curtailed his lighthorse ravaging throughout lower Gaul, and marched at once with his full power against the Franks. This strategy would have nullified every advantage Charles had at Tours: the invaders would have not been burdened with booty that played such a huge role in the battle. They would have not lost warrior one in the battles they fought prior to Tours. (Though they lost relatively few men subduing Acquitane, they did suffer some casualties - losses that may have been pivotal at Tours). Finally, they would have bypassed weaker oppononts such as Odo, whom they could have picked off at will later, while moving at once to force battle with the real power in Europe, and at least partially picked the battlefield. While some military historians point out leaving enemies in your rear is not generally wise, the Mongols proved indirect attack and bypassing weaker foes to eliminate the strongest first is a devastatingly effective mode of invasion. In this case, those enemies were virtually no danger, given the ease with which the Muslims destroyed them. The real danger was Charles, and the failure to scout Europe adequately was disasterous. Had Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi realized how thoroughly Martel had dominated Europe for 15 years, and how gifted a commander he was, he would not have allowed Charles Martel to pick the time and place the two powers would collide, which historians agree was pivotal to his victory.
Battle of Tours
Leadup and importance
The Cordoban emirate had previously invaded Gaul and had been stopped in its northward sweep at the Battle of Toulouse, in 721. The hero of that less celebrated event had been Odo the Great, Duke of Aquitane, who was not the progenitor of a race of kings and patron of chroniclers. It has previously been explained how Odo defeated the invading Muslims, but when they returned, things were far different. In the interim, the arrival of a new emir of Cordoba, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, who brought with him a huge force of Arabs and Berber horsemen, triggered a far greater invasion. Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi had been at Toulouse, and the Arab Chronicles make clear he had strongly opposed the decisions of the then Emir to not secure outer defenses against a relief force, which allowed Odo and his infantry to attack with impunity before the Islamic cavalry could even assemble or mount. Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi had no intention of permitting such a disaster again. This time the Muslim horsemen were ready for battle, and the results were horrific for the Aquintanians. Odo, hero of Toulouse, was badly defeated in the Muslim invasion of 732 at the Battle of the River Garonne—where the western chroniclers state, "God alone knows the number of the slain"— and the city of Bordeaux was sacked and looted. Odo fled to Charles, seeking help. Thus, Odo faded into history, and Charles marched into it.
The Battle of Tours earned Charles the cognomen "Martel", for the merciless way he hammered his enemies. Many historians, including the great military historian Sir Edward Creasy, believe that had he failed at Tours, Islam would probably have overrun Gaul, and perhaps the remainder of western Christian Europe. No power existed, had Martel fallen at Tours, to stop the Muslims from conquering and occupying Italy, and Rome, in addition to all of Western Europe. Certainly, Gibbon made clear he believed the Muslims would have conquered from Rome to the Rhine, and even England, with ease, had Martel not prevailed. Other reputable historians that echo Creasy's belief that this battle was central to the halt of Islamic expansion into Europe include William Watson, and Gibbon believed the fate of Christianity hinged on this battle. This opinion was very popular for most of modern historiography, but it fell somewhat out of style in the twentieth century. Some historians, such as Bernard Lewis, claimed that Arabs had little intention of occupying northern France. This opinion has once more fallen out of style, and the Battle of Tours is usually considered by historians today as a very significant event in the history of Europe and Christianity.
In the modern era, John Julius Norwich, the most widely-read authority on the Byzantine Empire, says the Franks halting Muslim Expansion at Tours literally preserved Christianity as we know it. While some modern assessments of the battle's impact have backed away from the extreme of Gibbon's position, Gibbon's conjecture is supported by other historians such as Edward Shepard Creasy and William E. Watson. Most modern historians such as Norwich and Antonio Santosuosso generally support the concept of Tours as a macrohistorical event favoring western civilization and Christianity. Military writers such as Robert W. Martin, "The Battle of Tours is still felt today," also argue that Tours was such a turning point in favor of western civilization and Christianity that its after-effect remains to this day.
Battle
The Battle of Tours probably took place somewhere between Tours and Poitiers (hence its other name: Battle of Poitiers). The Frankish army, under Charles Martel, consisted mostly of veteran infantry, somewhere between 15,000 and 75,000 men. Responding to the Muslim invasion, the Franks had avoided the old Roman roads, hoping to take the invaders by surprise. Martel believed it was absolutely essential that he not only take the Muslims by surprise, but that he be allowed to select the ground on which the battle would be fought, ideally a high, wooded plain where the Islamic horsemen, already tired from carrying armour, would be further exhausted charging uphill. Further, the woods would aid the Franks in their defensive square by partially impeding the ability of the Muslim horsemen to make a clear charge.
From the Muslim accounts of the battle, they were indeed taken by surprise to find a large force opposing their expected sack of Tours, and they waited for six days, scouting the enemy, and summoning all their raiding parties so their full strength was present for the battle. Emir Abdul Rahman was a good general, and did not like the unknown at all, and he did not like charging uphill against an unknown number of foes who seemed well-disciplined and well-disposed for battle. But the weather was also a factor. The Germanic Franks, in their wolf and bear pelts, were more used to the cold, better dressed for it, and despite not having tents, which the Muslims did, were prepared to wait as long as needed, the fall only growing colder.
On the seventh day, the Muslim army, consisting of between 60,000 and 400,000 horsemen and led by Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, attacked. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and the emir was killed. While Western accounts are sketchy, Arab accounts are fairly detailed in describing how the Franks formed a large square and fought a brilliant defensive battle. Rahman had doubts before the battle that his men were ready for such a struggle, and should have had them abandon the loot which hindered them, but instead decided to trust his horsemen, who had never failed him. Indeed, it was thought impossible for infantry of that age to withstand armoured cavalry.
Martel managed to inspire his men to stand firm against a force which must have seemed invincible to them, huge mailed horsemen, who, in addition, probably vastly outnumbered the Franks. In one of the rare instances where medieval infantry stood up against cavalry charges, the disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. But despite this, Franks did not break, and it is probably best expressed by a translation of an Arab account of the battle from the Medieval Source Book: "And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe." Both accounts agree that the Muslims had broken into the square, were trying to kill Martel, whose liege men had surrounded him and would not be broken, and the battle was still in grave doubt, when a trick Charles had planned before the battle bore fruit beyond his wildest dreams. Both Western and Muslim accounts of the battle agree that sometime during the height of the fighting, scouts sent by Martel to the Muslim camp began freeing prisoners, and fearing loss of their plunder, a large portion of the Muslim army abandoned the battle, and returned to camp to protect their spoils. In attempting to stop what appeared to be a retreat, Abdul Rahman was surrounded and killed by the Franks, and what started as a ruse ended up a real retreat, as the Muslim army fled the field that day.
Both histories agree that while attempting to stop the retreat, Abd er Rahman became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Muslims then withdrew altogether to their camp. The Franks resumed their planlax, and rested in place through the night, believing the battle would resume at dawn of the following morning.
The next day, when the Muslims did not renew the battle, the Franks feared an ambush. Charles at first believed the Muslims were attempting to lure him down the hill and into the open - the one tactic he knew he had to avoid at all costs. Only after extensive reconnaissance by Frankish soldiers of the Muslim camp - which by both accounts had been hastily abandoned, even the tents remaining, as the Muslim forces headed back to Iberia with what spoils remained that they could carry -- was it discovered that the Muslims had retreated during the night. Later, the Arab Chronicles would reveal that the varying generals from the different parts of the Caliphate, Berbers, Arabs, Persians and far more, could not agree on a leader to take Abd er Rahman 's place as Emir, or even a single battlefield commander. Only the Emir, Abd er Rahman, had a Fatwa from the Caliph, and thus absolute authority over the faithful under arms. With his death, and the varied nationalities and ethnicities present in an army drawn from all over the Caliphate, politics, racial and ethnic bias, and personalities reared their head, and the surviving generals, bickering among themselves, were unable to agree on a commander to lead them the following day. It was that inability to select anyone to lead, which led to the wholesale withdrawal of an army that probably still could have defeated the Franks. Martel's ability to have Abd er Rahman killed when he could, using a clever ruse he had carefully planned to cause confusion, at the battle's apex, combined with years of rigorously training his men to do what was thought impossible: Martel's Franks, virtually all infantry without armour, managed to withstand both mailed heavy cavalry with 20 foot lances, and bow-wielding light cavalry, without the aid of bows or firearms. [2] This was a feat of war almost unheard of in medieval history, a feat which even the heavily armored Roman legions proved themselves incapable of against the Parthians, [3]and left Martel a unique place in history as the savior of Europe [4] and a brilliant general in an age not known for its generalship.
After Tours
In the subsequent decade, Charles led the Frankish army against the eastern duchies, Bavaria and Alemannia, and the southern duchies, Aquitaine and Provence. He dealt with the ongoing conflict with the Frisians and Saxons to his northeast with some success, but full conquest of the Saxons and their incorporation into the Frankish empire would wait for his grandson Charlemagne, primarily because Martel concentrated the bulk of his efforts against Muslim expansion.
So instead of concentrating on conquest to his east, he continued expanding Frankish authority in the west, and denying the Emirite of Córdoba a foothold in Europe. After his victory at Tours, Martel continued on in campaigns in 736 and 737 to drive other Muslim armies from bases in Gaul after they again attempted to get a foothold in Europe beyond al-Andalus.
Wars from 732-737
Between his victory of 732 and 735, Charles reorganized the kingdom of Burgundy, replacing the counts and dukes with his loyal supporters, thus strengthening his hold on power. He was forced, by the ventures of Radbod, duke of the Frisians (719-734), son of the Duke Aldegisel who had accepted the missionaries Willibrord and Boniface, to invade independence-minded Frisia again in 734. In that year, he slew the duke, who had expelled the Christian missionaries, in battle and so wholly subjugated the populace (he destroyed every pagan shrine) that the people were peaceful for twenty years after.
The dynamic changed in 735 because of the death of Odo the Great, who had been forced to acknowledge, albeit reservedly, the suzerainty of Charles in 719. Though Charles wished to unite the duchy directly to himself and went there to elicit the proper homage of the Aquitainians, the nobility proclaimed Odo's son, Hunold, whose dukeship Charles recognised when the Arabs invaded Provence the next year, and who equally was forced to acknowledge Charles as overlord as he had no hope of holding off the Muslims alone.
This naval Arab invasion was headed by Abdul Rahman's son. It landed in Narbonne in 736 and moved at once to reinforce Arles and move inland. Charles temporarily put the conflict with Hunold on hold, and descended on the Provençal strongholds of the Muslims. In 736, he retook Montfrin and Avignon, and Arles and Aix-en-Provence with the help of Liutprand, King of the Lombards. Nîmes, Agde, and Béziers, held by Islam since 725, fell to him and their fortresses were destroyed. He crushed one Muslim army at Arles, as that force sallied out of the city, and then took the city itself by a direct and brutal frontal attack, and burned it to the ground to prevent it's use again as a stronghold for Muslim expansion. He then moved swiftly and defeated a mighty host outside of Narbonnea at the River Berre, but failed to take the city. Military historians believe he could have taken it, had he chosen to tie up all his resources to do so - but he believed his life was coming to a close, and he had much work to do to prepare for his sons to take control of the Frankish realm. A direct frontal assault, such as took Arles, using rope ladders and rams, plus a few catapaults, simply was not sufficient to take Narbonne without horrific loss of life for the Franks, troops Martel felt he could not lose. Nor could he spare years to starve the city into submission, years he needed to set up the administration of an empire his heirs would reign over. He left Narbonne therefore, isolated and surrounded, and his son would return to liberate it for Christianity. Provence, however, he successfully rid of its foreign occupiers, and crushed all foreign armies able to advance Islam further.
Notable about these campaigns was Charles' incorporation, for the first time, of heavy cavalry with stirrups to augment his phalanx. His ability to coordinate infantry and cavalry veterans was unequaled in that era and enabled him to face superior numbers of invaders, and to decisively defeat them again and again. Some historians believe the Battle against the main Muslim force at the River Berre, near Narbonne, in particular was as imporant a victory for Christian Europe as Tours. In Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels, Antonio Santosuosso, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, and considered an expert historian in the era in dispute, puts forth an interesting modern opinion on Martel, Tours, and the subsequent campaigns against Rahman's son in 736-737. Santosuosso presents a compelling case that these later defeats of invading Muslim armies were at least as important as Tours in their defence of Western Christendom and the preservation of Western monasticism, the monasteries of which were the centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of her Dark Ages. He also makes a compelling argument, after studying the Arab histories of the period, that these were clearly armies of invasion, sent by the Caliph not just to avenge Tours, but to conquer Christian Europe and bring it into the Caliphate.
Further, unlike his father at Tours, Rahman's son in 736-737 knew that the Franks were a real power, and that Martel personally was a force to be reckoned with. He had no intention of allowing Martel to catch him unawares and dictate the time and place of battle, as his father had, and concentrated instead on seizing a substantial portion of the coastal plains around Narbonne in 736 and heavily reinforced Arles as he advanced inland. They planned from there to move from city to city, fortifying as they went, and if Martel wished to stop them from making a permanent enclave for expansion of the Caliphate, he would have to come to them, in the open, where, he, unlike his father, would dicate the place of battle. All worked as he had planned, until Martel arrived, abeit more swiftly than the Moors believed he could call up his entire army. Unfortunately for Rahman's son, however, he had overestimated the time it would take Martel to develop heavy cavalry equal to that of the Muslims. The Caliphate believed it would take a generation, but Martel managed it in five short years. Prepared to face the Frankish phalanx, the Muslims were totally unprepared to face a mixed force of heavy cavalry and infantry in a phalanx. Thus, Charles again championed Christianity and halted Muslim expansion into Europe, as the window was closing on Islamic ability to do so. These defeats were the last great attempt at expansion by the Umayyad Caliphate before the destruction of the dynasty at the Battle of the Zab, and the rending of the Caliphate forever, especially the utter destruction of the Muslim army at River Berre near Narbonne in 737.
Interregnum
In 737, at the tail end of his campaigning in Provence and Septimania, the king, Theuderic IV, died. Martel, titling himself maior domus and princeps et dux Francorum, did not appoint a new king and nobody acclaimed one. The throne lay vacant until Martel's death. As the historian Charles Oman says (The Dark Ages, pg 297), "he cared not for name or style so long as the real power was in his hands." Echoing Oman, Norwich has said:
- He kept no court, cared not for titles, and the thought of a crown amused him. All that interested him was the true essence of power, and what could be done with it. He believed he had a mission to preserve what his ancestors had struggled so to build after Rome's fall, and intended that it not be destroyed during his stewardship. For a man of such enormous power—the real master of today's Europe at his life's end—he cared naught for show, but only for results.
The interregnum, the final four years of Charles' life, was more peaceful than most of it had been and much of his time was now spent on administrative and organisational plans to create a more efficient state. Though, in 738, he compelled the Saxons of Westphalia to do him homage and pay tribute, and in 739 checked an uprising in Provence, the rebels being under the leadership of Maurontus. Charles set about integrating the outlying realms of his empire into the Frankish church. He erected four dioceses in Bavaria (Salzburg, Regensburg, Freising, and Passau) and gave them Boniface as archbishop and metropolitan over all Germany east of the Rhine, with his seat at Mainz. Boniface had been under his protection from 723 on, indeed the saint himself explained to his old friend, Daniel of Winchester, that without it he could neither administer his church, defend his clergy, nor prevent idolatry. It was Boniface who had defended Charles most stoutly for his deeds in seizing ecclesiastical lands to pay his army in the days leading to Tours, as one doing what he must to defend christianity. In 739, Pope Gregory III begged Charles for his aid against Liutprand. But Charles was loathe to fight his onetime ally and ignored the Papal plea. Nonetheless, the Papal applications for Frankish protection showed how far Martel had come from the days he was tottering on excommunication, and set the stage for his son and grandson to literally rearrange Italy to suit the Papacy, and protect it.
Death
Charles Martel died on October 22, 741, at Quierzy-sur-Oise in what is today the Aisne département in the Picardy region of France. He was buried at Saint Denis Basilica in Paris. His territories were divided among his adult sons a year earlier: to Carloman he gave Austrasia and Alemannia (with Bavaria as a vassal), to Pippin the Younger Neustria and Burgundy (with Aquitaine as a vassal), and to Grifo nothing, though some sources indicate he intended to give him a strip of land between Neustria and Austrasia.
German historians are especially fervant in their priase of Martel, and their belief that he saved Europe and Christianity from then all-conquering Islam, while they also praise him as driving back the ferocious Saxon barbarians on his borders. Schlegel speaks of this " mighty victory " in terms of fervent gratitude, and tells how " the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam", and Ranke points out, as " one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions."
He is considered a hero in the Netherlands, a vital part of the Carolingian Empire, and the low countries. In both France and (especially in) Germany, he is revered as a hero of epic proportions.
Gibbon called him "the paramount prince of his age" and a strong argument can be made that Gibbon was absolutely correct.
Legacy
At the beginning of Charles Martel's career, he had many internal opponents and felt the need to appoint his own kingly claimant, Clotaire IV. By his end, however, the dynamics of rulership in Francia had changed, no hallowed Meroving was needed, neither for defence nor legitimacy: Charles divided his realm between his sons without opposition (though he ignored his young son Bernard. In between, he strengthened the Frankish state by consistently defeating, through superior generalship, the host of hostile foreign nations which beset it on all sides, including the heathen Saxons, which his grandson Charlemagne would fully subdue, and Moors, which he halted on a path of continental domination.
Charles was that rarest of commodities in the Dark Ages: a brilliant stategic general, who also was a tactical commander par excellance, able in the crush and heat of battle to adapt his plans to his foes forces and movement — and amazingly, defeated them repeatedly, especially when, as at Tours, they were far superior in men and weaponry, and at Berre and Narbonne, when they were superior in numbers of brave fighting men. Charles had the last quality which defines genuine greatness in a military commander: he foresaw the dangers of his foes, and prepared for them with care; he used ground, time, place, and fierce loyalty of his troops to offset his foes superior weaponry and tactics; third, he adapted, again and again, to the enemy on the battlefield, cooly shifting to compensate for the unforeseen and unforeseeable.
He was also a skilled administrator and ruler, organizing what would become the medieval european government - a system of fiefdoms, loyal to barons, counts, dukes and ultimately the King, or in his case, simply maior domus and princeps et dux Francorum. ("First or Dominant Mayor and Prince of the Franks") His close coordination of church with state also began the medieval pattern for such government. He created the first western standing army since the fall of Rome. In essence, he changed Europe from a horde of barbarians fighting with one another, to an organized state.
Beginning of the Reconquista
Although it took another two generations for the Franks to drive all the Arab garrisons out of Septimania and across the Pyrenees, Charles Martel's halt of the invasion of French soil turned the tide of Islamic advances, and the unification of the Frankish kingdoms under Martel, his son Pippin the Younger, and his grandson Charlemagne created a western power which prevented the Emirate of Córdoba from expanding over the Pyrenees. Martel, who in 732 was on the verge of excommunication, instead was recognised by the Church as its paramount defender. Pope Gregory II wrote him more than once, asking his protection and aid [5], and he remained, till his death, fixated on stopping the Muslims. Martel's son kept his father's promise and returned and took Narbonne by siege in 759, and his grandson, Charlamagne, actually established the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Girona in 785 and Barcelona in 801. This sector of what is now Spain was then called "The Moorish Marches" by the Carolingians, who saw it as not just a check on the Muslims in Iberia, but the beginning of taking the entire country back. This formed a permanent buffer zone against Islam, which became the basis, along with the King of Asturias, named Pelayo (718-737, who started his fight against the Moors in the mountains of Covadonga, 722) and his descendants, for the Reconquista until all of the Muslims were expelled from Iberia.
Verbum diaboli Manet in Episcopis Calvinus et Mahometus
Featured Post
In Defense of the West
When I first began this site, it was with the intention of arguing politics, evolution, and Christian apologetics, topics I found myself add...
Saturday, June 3, 2006
A defender of the faith
Islam's peaceful, "desolating storm"
No, this was the eighth century, and they were fulfilling Allah's commands (Qur'an 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, Bukhari 1.2.24, et al).
From Medieval Sourcebook:
The Battle of Poitiers [Tours], 732Of course it matters more to the West than to Islam. If Martel and his forces had lost, the Religion of Slaughter would have conquered the continent. For the Mohammedans, this was just one of many fronts in Allah's War Against Humanity.
From 711 Muslim forces crossed the Straits of Gibraltar, conquered the Visigothic Kingdom, and in less than a decade crossed the Pyrenees. In 732, under the command of Abd-er- rahman, they were decisively defeated by Charles Martel and the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers [or Tours]. This event looms much larger in Western history than Muslim - leading to a famous passage of purple prose by Edward Gibbon about minarets rather than spires in Oxford if the Muslims had won. The event was notice [sic] the Muslim world, however, and the following is from an Arab chronicle.
So many Infidels to slay, so little time!
The Moslems smote their enemies, and passed the river Garonne, and laid waste the country, and took captives without number. And that army went through all places like a desolating storm. Prosperity made those warriors insatiable. At the passage of the river, Abderrahman overthrew the count, and the count retired into his stronghold, but the Moslems fought against it, and entered it by force, and slew the count; for everything gave way to their scimitars, which were the robbers of lives.Excessively murderous? Excessively rapacious?
All the nations of the Franks trembled at that terrible army, and they betook them to their king Caldus [Charles Martel], and told him of the havoc made by the Moslem horsemen, and bow they rode at their will through all the land of Narbonne, Toulouse, and Bordeaux, and they told the king of the death of their count. Then the king bade them be of good cheer, and offered to aid them. . . . He mounted his horse, and he took with him a host that could not be numbered, and went against the Moslems.
And he came upon them at the great city of Tours. And Abderrahman and other prudent cavaliers saw the disorder of the Moslem troops, who were loaded with spoil; but they did not venture to displease the soldiers by ordering them to abandon everything except their arms and war-horses. And Abderrahman trusted in the valour of his soldiers, and in the good fortune which had ever attended him. But such defect of discipline always is fatal to armies. So Abderrabman and his host attacked Tours to gain still more spoil, and they fought against it so fiercely that they stormed the city almost before the eyes of the army that came to save it; and the fury and the cruelty of the Moslems towards the inhabitants of the city were like the fury and cruelty of raging tigers. It was manifest that God's chastisement was sure to follow such excesses; and fortune thereupon turned her back upon the Moslems.
Near the river Owar [Loire], the two great hosts of the two languages and the two creeds were set in array against each other. The hearts of Abderrahman, his captains and his men were filled with wrath and pride, and they were the first to begin to fight. The Moslem horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side, until the going down of the sun.Where is Charles Martel when you need him?
Night parted the two armies: but in the grey of the morning the Moslems returned to the battle. Their cavaliers had soon hewn their way into the center of the Christian host. But many of the Moslems were fearful for the safety of the spoil which they had stored in their tents, and a false cry arose in their ranks that some of the enemy were plundering the camp; whereupon several squadrons of the Moslem horsemen rode off to protect their tents. But it seemed as if they fled; and all the host was troubled. And while Abderrahman strove to check their tumult, and to lead them back to battle, the warriors of the Franks came around him, and he was pierced through with many spears, so that he died. Then all the host fled before the enemy, and many died in the flight. . . .
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
+ Word of the Day +
'Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven. Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say' (Luke 12:8-12).
'Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you' (Matthew 10:16-20).
Mohammed was a feminist
A couple of months ago we heard of the tragic story about an Iranian woman who had gone to the court asking the judge to tell her husband to beat her only once a week and not every day. All she wanted was to live and she was willing to be beaten once a week for that privilege which kafir women take for granted. She knew if her husband divorced her, she had nowhere to go except to end up as beggar in the street. This reminded all of us of the painful reality of the Muslim women trapped in Islamic countries. Ms. Roach has no understanding of, or is completely and heartlessly indifferent to, how a typical Muslim woman lives and what she has to endure.
Ms. Roach says “There is nothing anywhere in any of the texts that tells women to take beatings from anyone,” So what does she think of Q 4:34? This denial is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is when she says: “There is no real Islamic society today on the national level, there is no real and complete implementation of Sharia law.” That is an amazing statement. After 1400 years 1.2 billion Muslims have not managed to implement the Sharia law in any of the 57 Islamic countries. Isn't it reasonable to conclude that such a utopian Islamic paradise exists nowhere except in Ms. Roach’s fantasies?
No dear Ms. Roach, I do not condemn Islam because of "some people’s backward interpretation of it". I condemn Islam for what Muhammad did and said. I condemn Islam because he assassinated those who criticized him including a 120 year old man and a poetess, mother of five small children. I condemn him for raiding civilians without any warning for killing unarmed men who had gone after their daily business and for enslaving their women and children, for selling humans and for looting innocent people. I condemn Muhammad for traitorously beheading 750 innocent Jews of Bani Quraiza after they surrendered to him without a fight. I condemn him for torturing and blinding people with red hot bars of iron to force them to reveal where they had hidden their treasures and then after killing them he showed their beheaded corpses to their wives and took one of them (Safiyah) to the tent and slept with her on the same day. I condemn him for introducing religious intolerance in a very tolerant Arabian society and for inaugurating religious wars and killings that has lasted up to this day and is still taking its tolls.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Sina's new book
My book, Understanding Islam and the Muslim Mind (I thought this is a more appropriate name) is finished. I believe this book is a devastating blow to Islam. Thousands of people, both Muslims and non-Muslims have changed their views about Islam after reading faithfreedom.org. It is time to take this message to a bigger audience.
I have been called an extremist. I accept this charge with honor. Islam is sheer evil. It must be opposed completely. Anything less would be to compromise with evil. How do you nullify a total lie? With half-truths? To say we should adopt a moderate stance vis-à-vis Islam is a logical fallacy. Islam says, kill the unbelievers. How can one be moderate in the face of that? Does moderation mean accepting that Muslims only jail or beat the unbelievers? Islam teaches one man can have four wives. Should we compromise and say two wives are okay? Either Allah is God or else he is the figment of a sick mind. Does moderation mean recognizing him as real but asking Muslims not to pay heed to his hateful and violent teachings in the Quran?
I vehemently reject any recognition of Islam as a legitimate religion and call for its total denunciation and ban. Seventy years ago, if someone had called for a total denunciation of Nazism, he probably would have been called an extremist as well, yet a decade later everyone adopted that view. Should we not learn from history? Evil must be rejected completely and without reservation.
An anniversary that must be marked
On Tuesday, May 29, 1453, the armies of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II entered Constantinople, breaking through the defenses of a vastly outnumbered and indomitably courageous Byzantine force. Historian Steven Runciman notes what happened next: the Muslim soldiers "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit." (The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, 1965, p. 145.)
It has come to be known as Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World.
Some jihadists "made for the small but splendid churches by the walls, Saint George by the Charisian Gate, Saint John in Petra, and the lovely church of the monastery of the Holy Saviour in Chora, to strip them of their stores of plate and their vestments and everything else that could be torn from them. In the Chora they left the mosaics and frescoes, but they destroyed the icon of the Mother of God, the Hodigitria, the holiest picture in all Byzantium, painted, so men said, by Saint Luke himself. It had been taken there from its own church beside the Palace at the beginning of the siege, that its beneficient presence might be at hand to inspire the defenders on the walls. It was taken from its setting and hacked into four pieces." (P. 146.)
The jihadists also entered the Hagia Sophia, which for nearly a thousand years had been the grandest church in Christendom. The faithful had gathered within its hallowed walls to pray during the city’s last agony. The Muslims, according to Runciman, halted the celebration of Orthros (morning prayer); the priests, according to legend, took the sacred vessels and disappeared into the cathedral’s eastern wall, through which they shall return to complete the divine service one day. Muslim men then killed the elderly and weak and led the rest off into slavery.Once the Muslims had thoroughly subdued Constantinople, they set out to Islamize it. According to the Muslim chronicler Hoca Sa’deddin, tutor of the sixteenth-century Sultans Murad III and Mehmed III, "churches which were within the city were emptied of their vile idols and cleansed from the filthy and idolatrous impurities and by the defacement of their images and the erection of Islamic prayer niches and pulpits many monasteries and chapels became the envy of the gardens of Paradise."
Tuesday has been regarded as unlucky by superstitious Greeks ever since.
Why did this happen?
It had been a long time coming. The once-great Empire had been by the time of this last siege of Constantinople reduced to little more than the city itself. But a few chief causes can be isolated:
1. Realpolitik. Short-sighted Byzantine Emperors such as John VI Cantacuzenes made ill-advised alliances with the Ottomans; in 1347 he invited them into Europe to aid them in a dynastic dispute, and they haven't left yet.
2. Disunity. The Western European powers were themselves disunited and preoccupied with their own affairs. Compounding that was the fact that they couldn't rally much support for a bailout of the Byzantines without an ecclesiastical unity that, when it was affected on paper by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor, was rejected by the people of the Empire. The force the West finally sent was too small, and it was annihilated by the Muslims at Varna in Bulgaria in 1444. Far too many Westerners didn't see the peril of Constantinople as their peril, and far too many Easterners subscribed to the Byzantine official Lukas Notaras' quip: "Better the turban of the Sultan than the tiara of the Pope."Yes, well, Notaras found out otherwise when the Sultan took a liking to the official's teenage boys ("like pearls," Qur'an 52:24) and had them beheaded before his eyes when Notaras refused to give his blessing to the Sultan's taking them for his pleasure. The Pope, for all his enormities, was not likely to have done that.
Meanwhile, the world has forgotten what happened on Black Tuesday, and so many other days like it from India to Spain, and persists in the fantasy that Islam does not contain an imperialist impulse and that Muslims can be admitted without limit into Western countries without any attempt to determine how many would like ultimately to subjugate and Islamize their new countries, the way their forefathers did to Constantinople so long ago.
And today we see the same ill-informed games of realpolitik, pragmatic alliances made with those who would conquer and subjugate us, and the same disunity and finger-pointing at each other instead of unity in the face of this threat to our common survival. It is the same sentiment Pastor Niemöller bewailed in his famous poem -- may we be spared from discovering when they come for us that there is no one left to speak for us, for they have all already been taken.
I know that may be too much to ask. After all, you are a _____. What possible accord could you have with ______s? Fill in the blanks yourself. And remember when you do, that both groups you filled the blanks in with are on the list of those the mujahedin wish to subjugate.
It is fitting that Black Tuesday coincides this year with Memorial Day. For only a strong defense -- not just military, but cultural and spiritual, a civilizational defense -- will conquer the forces of jihad and keep there from being many more Black Tuesdays, many more Last Days of the World. May we mount that defense, and speedily.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Mohammed loved little children
Islam's own authoritative texts admit to Mohammed's multitudinous crimes against humanity. In the Internet Age, our political, academic and media elites' obfuscation on Islam is completely inexcusable and bordering on treason/criminal negligence.
His lack of clarity on the source and sustenance of Islamic terrorism (the command of Allah and the example of its false prophet) is one of President Bush's great failures and a major reason his poll numbers are failing (of course, aiding foreign agents' invasion of the United States and reckless domestic spending are also important factors).
From Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation, on Allah's apostle's "special tenderness for children":
Mohammad The Pedophile
PEDOPHILIA : [NL] (1906): sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.[Scriptural Evidence] Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]
Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).Mongomerry Watts states: "Muhammed seemed to have felt a SPECIAL TENDERNESS towards children."
The Moral Standard Muslims look upto, Prophet Mohammad : " ... Sounds like child molestation to me. It does not appear to me that the founder of Islam was a man of peace or good moral character. " - Anonymous.
Muslims Practising Islam :
Compilation of Ishaq b. Mansur al-Kasaj, ... found in Chapters on Marriage and Divorce, translated by Spectorsky, in the ruling that a woman "IS OF AGE WHEN SHE HAS REACHED HER NINTH YEAR !"
" Two iraqi men, aged 28 amd 34, who live in lincoln, nebraska, married two iraqi girls, aged 13 and 14, in a private Islamic ceremony attended by family and friends. The two men have been arrested, charged with the sexual assault of a child and could be sentenced to 50 years of prison because the marriage age in nebraska is at least 17 years of age. Their attorney argued that the men didn't know about the law and that they were merely following their religious custom of courtship and marriage. Do they really do such things in today's Iraq? " - Abdul Abdi
" The point I would like to make is that The Muslim world has been exploiting younger girls a quite sometime now in the name of Islam. These are child abuse and it does occurred in a daily basis throughout Islamic world, including your birth place, Somalia. Rich Arab Muslims have been caught on the exit ports of India and Malaysia leaving with clueless, helpless girls clutching onto their dolls and other meager belongings. " -Faisal Hassan.
"Now you want to clebrate American man made system while ignoring one of the things islamic shariah APPROVES. What a shameful statement?!!. Please note: Islamically, there is NOTHING wrong of marrying fifteen OR LESS as long as they have period and full feminhood signs. Any women reach the age of period can be married if and when she decided to ratify the contract of marraige.. That was the way our Prophet peace upon him got marry Caasha [ Ayesha ] . And that was the way our great Somali women delivered the majority of us. I DON'T THINK YOU WILL DARE TO SAY OUR PROPHET (PBUH) EXPLOITED ON CAASHA. [ Ayesha / Aisha ]" - daud7@aol.com (Daud7)
Inspired By Islam (What the most famous cleric has to say):
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 :
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.
[...]
It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.How it all began ( a long time ago in the isolated deserts of Arabia) :
Already, when Aisha (the daughter of Abu Bakr, Mohammad's closest friend and unquestioning ally) was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Ref: SAHIH BUKHARI, 5:235] and he wasted no time in realizing his dreams, inspite of the fact that object of his dreams was a mere child.Perhaps you want to assume that it is "normal" for a 50+ year old man to dream of marrying a 4-5 old child, and then ACTUALLY ask for her hand at 6?
Is it normal for an oversexed old man (Muhammad had over 9 wives and concubines) to dream of a union with a 4-5 year old girl?
Muhammad ( SAW ) was basically oversexed, his sexual relationship with Aisha is a special case, which fits his strong need for a larger latitude to satisfy his sexual urge, as is witnessed by:
"The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven)." [Bukhari.1:268]When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha's father, for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was improper, because, as he said "I am your brother"; Muhammad brushed aside Abu Bakr's reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him to marry Aisha [ Ref: SAHIH BUKHAR I7:18].
What happened to " there is no compulsion in matters of religion ?" Anyway what compulsion did Muhhammad need being a prophet his word was law, he restricted men to only four wives when he himself had more than four, that was a convenient exemption for Muhhammad.
So, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad, and 3 years later, i.e. when Aisha was 9, the marriage was consumed. And Muhammad was 53 then [SAHIH BUKHARI 5:236,7:64,7:65,7:88] .
The 3 year waiting period probably had to do with the fact that at that time Aisha had contracted some disease, whereby she, temporarily lost her hair. Aisha was then socially and psychologically still a child as is evidenced by the fact that she was still given to her toys, she was unaware of what was happening around her, and her playmates behave as would the children at present times [Sahih Bukhari 8:151,5:234].
Aisha became Muhammad's favourite wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant [ SAHIH BUKHARI .1.270, 3:36, 7:6, 3:148, 3:149, 3:150, 7:142, IbnSa'd 1pg165 ]. Later, Aisha was to be called the "mother of believers".
If you are wandering, yes, the relationship was pedophilic.
When did the sexual relations between Prophet Mohammad and his child bride begin?
Unfortunately we do not have any video recordings of such events. Neither can we expect that there would be any explicit statements regarding this. In any case it is certain that she had NOT reached puberty when she moved into Muhammad's house, which in itself, contrary to the prevailing social norms, is a tacit implication that he may indulge in whatever fantasies he may have had when he asked for Aisha's hand. And Muhammad did have fantasies.
Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:
Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, BUT the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
It is, however, very unlikely that Muhammad would have waited for the onset of the menses; or at most it could have been just after the 1st drops. The evidence is necessarily indirect.
# His strong desire to "graze of the (tree) of which nothing has been eaten before", as his other wives had not been virgins.
# Menses or fasting do not reduce Muhammad's desire and potency for sex. His nightly rounds to his wives(lastly 12-13) did require more than average potency.
# New additions to his harem lead to intensive sexual activity, e.g. arrival of Maria lead to increased, initial spurt of sexual activity to the neglect of others .
# The intervals between prayers are used for quick stands "I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it."
# Other wives try to please Muhammad by sacrificing their turns in favor of Aisha.
# During his last fatal illness he cries: "Where will I be tomorrow? Where will I be tomorrow?", seeking Aisha's turn.
Prophet Say: Marry Young Virgins
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the young virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'
Silent Children :
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."
Where sex is akin to a crime, silence is admission of your guilt. What a corruption of "fitrah" ( human nature).
What religion condones the destruction of childhood? What are we who daily avow our undying love for Allah to do against a system that ruthlessly oppresses its youngest and brightest ?
All the relevant sources (Bukhari, Ibn Hisham, Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Hanbal, etc.) maintain that Aisha was bethroted to Mohammed when she was 6, and the marraige was consummated 3 years later.
- What was Aisha's age? I have heard other figures ... (A question also known as: How many of your own sources will you deny ? )
'Mahommad - The Word of Allah' written by Anne-Marie Delcambre. (Anne-Marie Delcambre has a doctorate in 'Islamology', and taught Islamic Civilisation at the Saint Joseph University of Beyrouth in Lebanon). On page 69, it says that he was married to her when she was 9 years old.
Dates commonly accepted by scholars: Birth Muhammad(570), birth Aisha(614 or 615). Bethrothal(620 or 621), Consummation of marriage(623 or 624). In particular the "consummation" of marriage is said to have taken place after the hidjra in Shawwal 1 or 2. Between 621 and 623 Asiha is said to have contracted a disease whereby she temporarily lost her hair. (Ref 1)
She could not have been more than 10 years when she went to live in Muhammad's house. The fact that she took her toys with her to her new home indicates that she was psychologically and socially still a child. And the fact that she was allowed to play with DOLLS indicates that she had NOT reached puberty by this time. ("The playing with the dolls and similar images was(is) forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty."Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13). Besides, there is also Aisha's own statement which implies that she had NOT reached puberty when she moved into Muhammad's house[Sahih Bukhari 7.163]. I am sure she would have been able to recount accurately as to when and where she got her first menses. Most girls do remember such events rather accurately. (Refs 2)
What is "sick" is that Muhammad had started to dream of a union with Aisha already when she was 4-5 years old: "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you...(and) I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen." He was to use a similar tactic when he wanted to marry his step son's wife. A tactic which Aisha later came to understand as fraud, as in: "Aisha said: O Allah's Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you." (Refs 2)
Muhammad wasted no time in realizing what he had been dreaming. Already when Aisha was 6 "The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." Here it does not seem that Abu Bakr consented to the marriage wholeheartedly.
REFERENCES (1) Les femmes du Prophete Prof.Magali Morsi, Professor of History, University of Muhammed V, Rabat, Morocco.
(2) Shahih Bukhari: [1.229] [1.230] [1.231] [1.232] [1.233] [1.258] [1.263] [1.267] [1.270] [1.294] [1.296] [1.298] [1.299] [3.148] [3.149] [3.150] [3.853] [4.736] [5.235] [5.236] [5.731] [7.14] [7.15] [7.57] [7.48] [7.57] [7.64] [7.65] [7.86] [7.88] [7.90] [7.144] [7.163] [8.151] [9.139] [9.140]
* "And if a woman is sexually mature I see nothing wrong with her marriage in general, with a man of any age... "- A muslim.
For those Muslims who approve of the above statement ( and hold similar views ): Would you let your daughters go through this ?
Pedophile ?What are the essential features of pedophilia.?
Professors of psychiatry, Harold I.Kaplan MD and Benjamin J.Sadock MD. of New York University Medical School states the essential features to diagnose pedophilia are:
1.Identification with and narcissistic investment in immature sexual objects.
Muhammad's infatuation and relationship with Aisha fits this criterion. And Mohammad was vain too - he liked to use perfume and dye his hair (even as an old man).
2. Control, domination and seduction of children.
A slight recalcitrance on the part of his wives was met by intolerant threats like: "if he (Muhammad) divorce you, (Allah) will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins." [K 66.5]
3. Sexual activity with children is preferential and occur repeatedly.
Aisha was ever present, right up to his last fatal breath and he preferred spending his nights with her. Aisha became Muhammad's favorites wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant. [Sahih Bukhari 1.270,3:36,7:6,3:148,3:149,3:150,7:142,IbnSa'd 1pg165]
Is menses necessary indicator of sexual maturity ?Sexual maturity is NOT PURELY RELATED TO MENSES as for some peculiar reasons many Muslims have tried to say.
In the first place having or not having menses is not the criterion for sexual maturity, and thus of pedophilic behaviour. We have cases here, of abducted girls, 12, 13, 14, well past their mens, and yet preferred by pedophiles as sexual objects.
Besides when Aisha was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Sahih Bukhari 5:235]- I am sure Ayesha was not menstruating then . Or do Arab girls menstruate at the age of 4-5 ?
A must read for Muslims and non-Muslims alike
From "Why We Left Islam":
One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad'’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their "“right hand possessions"” (Quran 33:50) He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.And a sober note of warning as to why President Bush's failure to admit the truth about Islam limits our effectiveness in the War on a Technique, wasting America's most noble blood and the people's treasure:
...Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Quran. Yet a cursory look at the Quran reveals that this book is full of errors. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in this book let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged people to produce a "“Surah like it"” or find an error therein, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty.
Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer. Muslim intellectuals must realize that Islam is a false doctrine and they must let the rest of Islamic world know the truth. Islam is a religion that thrives on the arrogant assumption that it is the most logical, the most scientific and the most perfect religion. While the fact is that it is the stupidest doctrine — the most backward and absurd belief. Once the truth about Islam becomes common knowledge, it will be weakened and the Islamic fanaticism will lose its fangs. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being expended to combat Islamic terrorism, yet no effort is made to contain the ideology behind this terrorism. It is our belief that Islamic terrorism will not be eliminated unless and until the ideology behind it is exposed and eradicated. This is what we intend to do.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Another refutation of the Muslim lie that Islam's god is the Bible's YHWH
Several of the fundamental contradictions between Christ and Allah (and his false prophet) have been noted here before; this article (links in the original) provides some additional detail that one might find interesting:
Aggressive Islam is on the march. Terror attacks; violent protests over cartoons; many pushes to establish Islamic courts in Europe and Canada; demands to silence free speech, to criminalize criticism of the messenger of Allah; the President of Islam threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and writing a long and confused rant, inviting the President of the US to accept Islam; the election of Hamas.These actions are easy to detect and decipher. Islam wants its way, and no one should resist. It is the best religion, after all.
But there is something more subtle and gradual going on than this in-your-face aggression. In the name of peace and tolerance—which we all want—some lines are being blurred.
Some Muslims say that Jesus was a mere human messenger even within Islam—never mind that he lived six hundred years before Islam. He and Muhammad are virtually the same. Both preached peace, but called for the sword when necessary.
But in the final analysis Muhammad is the last and best prophet. He has the better revelation. If only we could see this! So goes the subtle strategy.
However, this list of fifteen differences between Jesus and Muhammad disagrees with this insidious message. The differences between the two are profound.
It is better to be clear than confused. The frequently preached message of Islam washes away clarity about Christianity and whitewashes its own message.
In fact, many well-meaning western scholars also muddy the waters. Some aspects and policies of the two religious leaders cannot be reconciled, and it is high time we acknowledge this. If some readers are disappointed about these irreconcilable differences, then at least they will not be confused by the time they reach the end of this list.
...The first two differences set the stage for all the others.
One: Personal sin
One suffered from sin. The other was sinless.
Muhammad
In Mecca, he receives this command about his sin.
40:55 Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin [dh-n-b] and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours. (Pickthall)
The Arabic word dhanaba (verb form) come from the root dh-n-b and is defined below in this section. This verse is unambiguous. Muhammad has sin.
It is one of the great ironies in the Quran that the next sura can be titled either “Muhammad” or “War” (qital, root is q-t-l). This verse was revealed in Medina.
47:19 So know (O Muhammad . . .) that . . . none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin, [dh-n-b] and also for (the sin of) believing men and believing women. And Allah knows well your moving about, and your place of rest (in your homes). (Hilali and Khan)
Note that Muhammad implores forgiveness from Allah not only for himself but for Muslim men and women. This means that average humans have dh-n-b, and so does Muhammad.
The final example of Muhammad’s sin comes from Sura (Chapter) 48, revealed in Medina.
48:2 That Allah may forgive you your sins [dh-n-b] of the past and the future and complete His Favour on you, and guide you on the Straight Path . . . (Hilali and Khan)
This verse was probably revealed in 628, barely four years before he died of a fever in AD 632. Does this mean that the messenger of Allah had sin before AD 628? This seems to be the case. To be forgiven of dh-n-b, one must have it first.
How is dh-n-b defined? Is it only a small weakness? Merely a minor fault?A Muslim scholar defines it thus: “Crime; Fault; Offence; Sin; Any act having an evil result” (Omar). A western scholar defines it as “a crime, fault, sin” (Penrice).
Go here for a list of verses in the Quran that describe other persons who suffer from dh-n-b. It means far more than simple errors, small mistakes, superficial weaknesses, minor faults, and brief lapses of memory. It may include these things (all humans do them), but it also has to signify sin, crime, offense, and any act having an evil result (all humans do this also, in one way or another).
What does this sin nature in Muhammad mean in practical and down-to-earth terms today? If a researcher points out an atrocity or a violent act that Muhammad committed, then for a devout Muslim the atrocity or act is not wrong or unjust or sinful. It must be right, just, and sinless, no matter what the facts say because Muhammad was sinless—again, no matter what the Quran says. And the vicious circle goes round and round....
Jesus
He poses this rhetorical question to his opponents and accusers in John 8:45-46:
Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can you prove me guilty of any sin?
In his culture, “prove guilty of sin” refers to his keeping the Law. Did he deviate from it? His opponents do not take him up on his challenge.
Next, Peter lived and walked with Jesus for at least three years. If anyone could, then the chief Apostle surely saw some minor sin in the Lord, right?
21 To this you [Christians] were called because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:21-22)
In verse 22, Peter quotes from Isaiah 53:9, which Jesus fulfilled in his suffering and death. So the chief Apostle did not find even a minor sin in Jesus Christ—no sin at all.
Finally, the Apostle John also lived and walked with Jesus for three years. What is his assessment of Jesus from his own observations?
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5)
The verdict is in: John never saw a sin in the Lord, whom he saw up close and personal.
Both declarations by Peter and John are remarkable. It is one hundred percent certain that if we had followed these apostles for three years every day, then we would have seen at least one sin. But these two did not see even one sin in Jesus.
Two: Confronting Satan
One nervously seeks refuge from Satan. The other had complete confidence and authority.
Muhammad
Sura 113, a short one, revealed in Mecca, says in its entirety:
1 Say [Prophet], “I seek refuge with the Lord of daybreak 2 against the evil in what He has created, 3 the evil in the night when darkness gathers, 4 the evil in witches when they blow on knots, 5 the evil in the envier when he envies.” (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004, his insertion; cf. Suras 7:200-201; 16:98; 41:36; and Sura 114, a short one, in its entirety)
The hadith consists of the traditions about Muhammad outside of the Quran. Bukhari is considered one of the most reliable collectors and editors. The following hadith indicates that Muhammad believes that some sort of knots on the head is the result of Satan and witchcraft.
Allah’s Apostle said, “Satan puts three knots at the back of the head of any of you if he is asleep” . . . (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith)
This next hadith demonstrates that Muhammad was so deeply influenced by magic that he believed that he was having sex with his wives, but in reality he was not.
Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. (Bukhari, and read the hadith below this linked one.)
The highly respected conservative commentator Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi (d. 1979) says that the hadiths on Muhammad’s bewitchment are sound.
“As far as the historical aspect is concerned, the incident of the Holy Prophet’s being affected by magic is absolutely confirmed” . . . (Maududi - scroll down to “Question of Holy Prophet being affected by magic”). Maududi is right. Muhammad was bewitched. And this is not part of true Prophethood.
Jesus
Throughout his three-year ministry, he exercised spiritual authority over the kingdom of darkness, wherever he went. After the Great Test (Luke 4:1-13; see no. seven, below) Luke records the first public encounter with a demon:
33 In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an evil spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, 34 “Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God! 35 “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him. (Luke 4:33-35)
Jesus cast the demons out without rituals and loud pleading. Instead, he speaks a stern command: “Come out of him!” This reveals spiritual authority and decisiveness, which is repeated time and again in Jesus’ ministry.
This article contrasts Muhammad’s fears and bewitchment with Christ’s commanding authority over Satan and dark powers. This index page references several articles and rebuttals and replies.
Three: Small-scale violence
One killed mockers and enemies. The other rises above such violence.
Muhammad
He assassinated (or threatened to murder) at least eleven men or women who insulted or threatened him. Several of his victims merely composed satirical poems.
These verses offer support of this policy. Medinan Sura 33:60-61 says:
60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. 61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, Oxford UP, 2004)
Muhammad had already assassinated some opponents for their insults and mockery before these verses were sent down, but now they give him divine endorsement.
Jesus
During the last week of Jesus life, the tension between him and the religious establishment rises. The leaders look for a way to trap and then arrest him. So they ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Apparently, they saw him as a political revolutionary who opposed Roman occupation. Would he endorse the taxation of his fellow Jews for the benefit of unclean Gentiles? However, they did not know that he was a king, but that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). So he replied with these famous words that are often quoted, though people may not know the exact reference and context (Luke 20:20-26; cf. Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17). Jesus speaks first; his opponents reply.
24 “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” 25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 26 They were unable to trap him in what he said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent. (Luke 20:20-26)
After this disarming reply, it is important to note what he did not do. He did not send Simon the Zealot, one of the Twelve, to follow an antagonistic leader, mingle in the large crowd of pilgrims during the Feast of Passover, sneak up on him, stab him, and disappear in the crowd again. These kinds of assassinations were not unknown in the decades before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
But violence was not necessary. God was with Jesus....
Four: Religious freedom
One suppressed it. The other permits it.
Muhammad
Polytheists controlled the Black Stone housed in the Kabah shrine. This was both a spiritual center (in pagan logic) and a financial center (in real terms). Muhammad eventually conquered it in early AD 630. After declaring amnesty for Meccan pagans, he changes his tone. He imposes this ultimatum on them and all other pagans. Sura 9:5 says:
9:5 Then, when the months made unlawful for fighting expire, kill the mushriks [polytheists] wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish Salat [prayer five times a day] and pay the Zakat dues [charity tax], then let them go their way. (Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 175; insertions mine)
This verse says that unless pagans say their prayers the Muslim way and pay a forced “charity” tax, they will be killed.
Next, this hadith (record of the words and deeds of Muhammad recorded outside of the Quran) from Bukhari (a highly reliable collector and editor of hadith) says that Muhammad is called to fight until people acknowledge that only Allah is the right deity and Muhammad is his messenger. The people must also give the messenger their money (parallel hadith).
Malik (d. 795) is a founder of an Islamic school of law and a reliable collector and editor of hadith. He records this tradition about Muhammad’s policy on those who leave Islam:
Yahya related to me . . . that the Messenger of Allah . . . said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!” (Source )
Jesus
He let people go their own way, if they refuse to follow him. He said, “If anyone comes after [follows] me” . . . (Matthew 17:24). The little word “if” implies freedom to accept the way of Jesus or to walk away from it. He never raised a holy army to force anyone to convert. In John 6, some disciples decided to walk away from him. He had spoken difficult words.
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:66-69)
It is important to note what Jesus did not do or say. He did not threaten them with physical death. He did not send a disciple or two to assassinate one of the deserters (a leader, perhaps), to teach the rest and the Twelve a lesson. “Follow and obey me, or else!” “Or else what?” “Or else I’ll kill you!” Those words and others like them Jesus never spoke.
This article explores why the West and other free countries around the globe must protect freedom of speech. This article analyzes Muhammad’s policy on apostates in the Quran, hadith, and Islamic law.
Five: Large-scale Violence
One launched the first Crusade. The other ordains preaching alone.
Muhammad
It is true that the word “Crusade” comes from the word “cross,” but it is used here in the broad sense of “holy war.” Muslims today forget that Muhammad was the first to launch one, long before the western Europeans responded with theirs. In the ten years that he lived in Medina, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, skirmishes and battles. Sura 9 is his last revelation in its entirety before he dies. He commissions his followers to wage war on Jews and Christians or the People of the Book or Scripture (= Bible). Sura 9:29 says:
9:29 Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (Hilali and Khan, insertions in parentheses are theirs)
This verse that commands battle against Christians and Jews is all about theology and belief. It says nothing explicit about a real and physical harm done to Islam. Muhammad launched his Tabuk Crusade in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews. They had three options: (1) fight and die; (2) convert to Islam; (3) or submit and pay the second-class-citizen jizya tax for the “privilege” of living under Islam.
Jesus
After he was resurrected from the dead and just before he ascended to rule on high, he sends forth his followers to preach the gospel without violence. In Evangelical Christianity this passage is known as the Great Commission.
18 Then Jesus came to them [the disciples] and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)
Nothing in these verses command warfare. For centuries after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, his disciples crisscrossed the Mediterranean world preaching without violence. Despite being persecuted, they turned the world right-side up and transformed it.
Here is an article which has a timeline of the Islamic Crusades. Two articles explain the differences between Muhammad’s wars of worldwide conquest and the Old Testament’s limited wars more than 3,000 years ago.
Six: Martyrdom
One promises earthly and heavenly rewards for dying in a holy war. The other says his “martyrdom” promises his followers heaven.
Muhammad
Sura 4 was revealed over a three year period in the middle of Muhammad’s career (AD 625-627). He is not quite as secure as he will be when he conquers Mecca in AD 630. For now, he needs to recruit jihadists for his raids, conflicts, and wars. One way to get them to join up is to promise earthly or heavenly rewards.
4:74 Let those fight in the cause of God Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God, – whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value) . . . . (Yusuf Ali)
Next, these two verses in Sura 4 teach that Allah has created at least a two-tier system in his Muslim ummah or community: (1) Those who “strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives”; (2) those who sit at home. The disabled are in a separate category.
4:95-96 Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; 96 Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. . . . (Hilali and Khan)
At the end of Muhammad’s life, Muhammad reinforces this two-caste system: see Sura 9:38-39, 41, 44, 86, 87.
Finally, as seen in 4:74, an economic bargain is offered to jihadists in this next verse. Allah purchases their lives in exchange for Islamic paradise. Sura 9 is the last sura to be revealed in its entirety.
9:111 Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’an. . . Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded . . . . (Hilali and Khan)
Allah and Muhammad are completely wrong about the Bible’s command to fight in bloody wars in order to bring heavenly rewards. Moses ordered wars that were time-specific (more than 3,000 years ago), location-specific (holy land), and purpose-specific. But Moses or Joshua or the judges did not promise heaven, automatically, for the express act of dying in wars.
All of these passages use win-win-win logic from Muhammad’s point of view. If a jihadist dies fighting, then he gets Islamic paradise. If he wins and lives, then he gets material spoils. If he is defeated but escapes with his life, then he gets to fight another day.
Jesus
Matthew 5:10 10:39, 19:29 speak of an uncompromising commitment to follow Christ, laying down one’s life mainly in a spiritual way, and possibly in a physical death under severe and fatal persecution. But the verses are not found in the context of a bloody religious war. Rather, Jesus calls his disciples to pick up their cross and follow him (Matt. 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27), but he also says that they should do this daily (Luke 9:23). The image of the cross means that they must follow Jesus no matter what, on a daily basis, which precludes an earthly martyrdom, which is done only once; per contra, a “daily martyrdom” is continuous. A twisted love of physical death is not in view in those New Testament passages in the context of holy wars.
The following cannot be repeated too often because it diametrically opposes the Islamic doctrine of salvation, or how to get into heaven: only Christ’s “Martyrdom” guarantees a believer’s place in heaven; only his Ultimate Good Work on the cross paves the way to God. Thus, the Christian does not (or should not) have a psychological inducement to kill himself or to be killed in battle to achieve heaven. He needs only trust in Christ.
This article explores martyrdom in the Quran and early Christianity, beyond the New Testament.
Seven: Wealth
One took it by force. The other resisted this temptation.
Muhammad
Besides forcing religious conformity and the submission of non-Muslims, he was after wealth.
Sura 48 was revealed in AD 628, after a treaty with the Meccans and during his conquest of the Jews of Khaybar. This verse predicts future spoils of war for Allah’s beloved prophet. Sura 48:20 says:
48:20 Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture, and He has hastened for you this, and He has restrained the hands of men from you, that it may be a sign for the believers, and that He may guide you to a Straight Path. (Hilali and Khan)
Maududi a respected traditional and conservative commentator, says that the clause “Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture” refers to the conquests after Muhammad’s takeover of the city of Khaybar. It communicates a general promise of the spoils of any war that he embarks on. (The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 5, p. 62, note 35
However, Allah in this verse warns Muslims and Muhammad not to get attached to material things or to get ensnared by the “love of desires.”
3:14 The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well bred horses and cattle and tilth, is made to seem [beautiful] to men; this is the provision of the life of this world; and Allah is He with Whom is the good goal (of life). (Shakir, my insertion in brackets)
This verse teaches wisdom, but Muhammad did not follow it. He is the one who desired women and married many of them—a privilege of numbers reserved only for him (Sura 33:50); he is the one who traded in slaves, a lucrative business; he is the one who owned vast herds of livestock; he is the one who said that money will expiate or atone for sins; he is the one who bought off converts; he and his successors are the ones who conquered peaceful people who did not harm Islam in the slightest; he is the one who spread out recently collected tax money in his mosque, counting the most he had ever received; he is the one who promised his jihadists heaven if they died, and plunder if they lived. If anyone had the “love of desires,” it was the Prophet of Islam.
Jesus
Satan offers Jesus the whole world at the very beginning of his ministry. But he turned down this offer. Luke 4:1-2, 5-7 says:
4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil . . . 5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instance all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will be yours.” 8 Jesus answered, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’” (cf. Deuteronomy 6:13)
In divine cooperation between Jesus and the Spirit, God allowed Satan to lead Jesus up to a high place and show him all the kingdoms of this world—their glory and political authority (exousia in Greek means political authority; cf. Luke 4:6 and 12:11, 20:20, 23:7). In addition to political authority, kingdom, by definition at the time of Christ, includes material resources, backed by a strong military. However, Jesus raises his and our vision to a spiritual transformation of the world, one soul at a time, without killing people and robbing their money by bloodshed.
the Amillennialist Contra Mundum