How the Europeans Saved Islam
A study of Western History shows that on many occasions Islam was on its deathbed only to be rescued by Western intervention. The civilizational struggle we now face is one of our own making. The enormity of this abysmal lunacy becomes apparent when one realizes that by the mid-nineteenth century so complete was Islam's collapse that at every point where it survived, it did so only because of imprudent Western assistance. The monster we now face is a resuscitated corpse, and like that of Frankenstein, it has consistently turned on the creator who gave it life.
In 1492, the Muslims surrendered Granada to Catholic Spain. The loss was enormous. The forfeit of the Iberian peninsula -- which the Arabs called Andalusia -- is mourned to this day.
But defeat was not total. To cut down on casualties, Ferdinand and Isabella made breathtaking concessions to persuade the Muslims to surrender in the Treaty of Granada. Some of the agreed -upon liberties would come in under the umbrella of religious tolerance -- altogether admirable -- but others were concessions that simply defy comprehension. Muslims who remained in Spain were to be exempt from general taxation for a number of years. If a Christian laughed at a muezzin's call to prayer, he was to be punished -- and this was 520 years before Innocence of Muslims ignited a similar call for Sharia censorship. Even in defeat, the Muslims insisted on superior rights. What is amazing is that the Spaniards, who had just won the war, granted such terms. Obama's groveling is nothing new. It is standard Western practice.
Initial tolerance in Spain rapidly decayed. It is not clear who violated the terms first, the Catholics or the Muslims, but Muslims soon rose up in insurrections. Over the next 117 years, the Spanish were faced with a rebellious Muslim population that also posed a demographic threat. In 1609, Spain decided to end the problem once and for all. The final expulsion of the Moriscos was certainly brutal, but it may have saved Spain.
Less well known is that 16th century France signed an alliance with the Ottomans against the Hapsburgs, who ruled Spain, Austria, Italy, parts of Germany, and the Netherlands. The Turks were allowed to station their fleet in France, from which they raided Hapsburg territory. Between the French and the Ottomans, Hapsburg Italy was ravaged, with the Muslims taking 10,000 Christian slaves at Otranto, Italy alone. The Ottomans would also carry off 2,500 Christian captives from Nice, at that time under Hapsburg control. Ottoman Turkey's first advance against Vienna in 1529 came as a result of a weakened Hapsburg empire. Although the French alliance was considered scandalous for a Christian country, the French maintained it for decades. The French must accept responsibility for reviving Muslim fortunes after their defeat at the hands of Spain in 1492, and later in the naval battle of Lepanto in 1571.
A lot of Protestants supported the Turks, believing them more tolerant than the Catholics. French Huguenots conspired with Spain's Moriscos against Catholic Spain. Some Huguenots criticized the alliance, but they were ignored. One wonders how much the French-Ottoman alliance contributed to the mood leading to the slaughter of Huguenots in Paris during the St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre. The memory of Catholics carried off into slavery -- as a consequence of the Franco-Ottoman alliance, approved by the Huguenots -- might well have contributed to the ugliness of the Catholic mob.
While no one in his right mind would support the Spanish Inquisition, was an alliance with Islam an acceptable remedy for Protestants? Couldn't the Protestants and Catholics have worked out a modus vivendi? The end result of these wars was a weakened Catholic Hapsburg empire that not only lost the contest with Protestant northwest Europe, but also a southeastern Europe that was ravaged for over a century and a half by a strengthened Ottoman empire. Northwest Europe was free, but at a frightful unnecessary cost.
Europe had such a technological superiority -- even then -- that Islam could have been crushed, and Constantinople liberated and restored to Greece. One doesn't know whether to blame the pope or the Calvinists more. So scandalous was this arrangement that the Lutherans preferred Catholics over their Calvinist brethren, whom they called Turco-Calvinists.
After America's assault on the Barbary Pirates and the end of Napoleonic Wars, the superiority of Western Civilization was overwhelming. Algeria fell to France in the 1830s-40s. By 1832, the Christian Greeks had won independence from the Turks. At the same time, the British, Austrians, and Russians had been initially opposed to Greek Independence; they were worried that the status quo might be upset.
Lebanese Maronites rose up against Turkish tyranny from the 1840s - 1860s. They were initially successful until the British, who feared French influence in the area, decided to arm the Druze, who are affiliated with Shi'a Islam. The Druze and Turks then embarked on a genocidal massacre of Christians throughout their empire, and only a French intervention in 1860 halted the extermination. Britain's action resuscitated Islam. Today, there are 15 Million Lebanese Christians in the New World, and little more than a million Christians in Lebanon. Thank Britain for this.
In 1853, Britain and France fought and defeated Russia in the Crimean War, to protect Turkish control over the Holy Land. Russia's insistence on being the protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Holy Land was altogether reasonable. France objected, preferring the area to be under exclusive French Catholic protection. As bizarre as it seems, a major issue was whether Catholics or Orthodox would control the keys to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Britain was afraid of Russian expansion/influence over the Bosporus and Dardanelles. The fact that such expansion would be primarily a restoration of Christianity over land stolen by Muslims eluded the Western Powers. The Greeks had no illusions and some volunteered to fight for the Russians.
That Turkey had to concede extraterritoriality to Christians in the Holy Land was an indication of just how weak the empire was. The Czar only wanted authority over Eastern Orthodox Christians. What possessed France to insist on total Catholic control? What possessed Protestant Britain to support the French? In the end, Turkey, the "sick man of Europe," was propped up. Britain and France, with their global empires, could not tolerate the possibility that the Czar might gain a warm water port in the Black Sea. Apparently, only the British were allowed to expand and control vital waterways. Did the Czar intervene to liberate Gibraltar for the Spanish? Hypocrisy and arrogance are universal qualities.
By 1878, the Russians in a second war had throttled the Turks and were moving on historically Christian Orthodox Constantinople to liberate it. The British Navy again stopped them. To the British mind, only Britain is allowed to have an empire.
By the same year, the Ottomans had lost Tunisia to the French and Cyprus to the British.
By 1882, the British were in control of Egypt, partly to protect the Suez Canal. Why this was acceptable -- and Czarist Russia's ambitions over the Dardanelles and Constantinople was not -- was never really addressed. Britain ruled the waves and waived the rules.
By 1911, even Italy was strong enough to wrest Libya from Turkey.
A year later, Morocco was forced to become a protectorate of France and Spain. Spain?! Decrepit, senile Spain? Yes, even Spain could overwhelm Islam.
Islam was for all intents and purposes dead. Turkey was on life support. If the Europeans had gone after Islam in 1914, instead of after each other, Islam would have vanished the way of the worship of Zeus.
But there is a real villain here; even worse than the British, if that be imaginable. A villain of gargantuan proportions almost no one knows about.
In 1898, in order to annoy the British, Kaiser Wilhelm II declared himself the Protector of Muslims worldwide. This was not minor news. This imbecile -- and there is no other word adequate to describe him -- noted that were he not Christian, he would be a Muslim. The Muslim street started calling him Hajj Wilhelm -- presaging the later Abu Ali Hitler. There arose a belief among the Muslim street that Wilhelm might indeed be Muslim. Should a war arise between Germany and Europe, Wilhelm hoped to harness 100 million angry Muslims to Germany's cause.
The Turkish army was modernized with German help. The Baghdad-Berlin Railroad was started. This was a first. The French had once allied with the Ottomans; but they never tried to industrialize the Turks.
Wilhelm also worked to limit the number of Catholics in the German Officer Corps. Although the Kaiser's Imperial Germany was one-third Catholic, Wilhelm feared Catholics more than Muslims.
During the initial weeks of 1914, a shortage of German officers -- who would have been available had Catholics been more easily admitted to the officer corps -- was responsible for a breakdown of discipline on the front lines, and the loss of the First Battle of the Marne, thus ensuring an eventual German defeat in World War I.
Wilhelm's bad decisions are rarely considered. Hence we recapitulate them.
This list goes on and on. The British, under T.E. Lawrence, encouraged an Arab revolt, though the British did not need them to beat the Ottomans. This resulted in the MacMahon - Hussein correspondence with Emir Faisal which gave the Arabs a competing claim to Palestine which they press to this day.
During WWII, British use of Muslim troops from India encouraged the partition of India rather than a unified country where the Hindu majority could have controlled Muslim excesses.
Recent Western support for Islamic revolutions lead me to conclude that the West may be too stupid to survive.
The author goes by the pen name of Mike Konrad. He runs a website http://latinarabia.com/.com where he considers how the Arabs in South America assimilated so wonderfully, primarily because they are mostly Christiaishes his Spanish were better.