The Dark Ages were brought on by religious barbarians, but not by the ones you were taught had done it

"Magua's heart is twisted; he would make himself into what twisted him."

-Nathaniel of the Yengeese; Hawkeye, adopted son
of Chingachgook, of the Mohican people

That line from The Last of the Mohicans, uttered regarding its murderous antagonist, reveals what can happen also to a society long-tormented: it can adopt the values and perspectives of its tormentors, a kind of societal Stockholm Syndrome.  Is it hard to understand (the exaggerated, but still un-Christian) Spanish Inquisition as a response to eight hundred years of Islamic "tolerance"?  If John Calvin -- hailed by some as a contributor to the Reformation (in reality, he was only a heretic riding Luther's coattails) -- can incorporate Islam's unholy fatalism into his ungodly Double Predestination, then what limit exists to the depravity into which a people can descend?

Islam laid siege to Christendom from the time of the genocidal pedophile's "prophetic" career until modern times when -- as Winston Churchill observed -- Europe's technological superiority delivered it from Allah's clutches.  (In fact, so thoroughly was the West rescued that it lost all memory of nearly one and one-half millennia of siege, slaughter, and slavery at Muslim hands, so that it now not only invites jihad's agents within its borders, it punishes its own citizens who dare to state merely what Islam's "sacred" texts declare about itself.)  From the Holy Land to Byzantium to Iberia to Tours to Greece to the Balkans to Vienna, if not for the grace of God and ingenuity and courage of its people, Western Christianity would have fallen entirely under Muhammad's yoke centuries ago.

In Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, John O'Neill puts the first responsibility for the Dark Ages where it belongs: Not on Romanized, baptized barbarians or the Roman Catholic Church, but on the prophet from hell and those who followed him (note the mention of Muslim mercenaries menacing the Mediterranean; even a newborn America had to deal with the menace of the Barbary Pirates):

One of the most enduring problems of history is the decline of Classical Civilization. How was it that the civilization of Greece and Rome, which had endured almost a thousand years, a civilization which prized learning, science and reason, gave way to the world of the Medieval; an age which saw, for a while, the almost complete disappearance of the rationalist spirit of Greece and Rome? The traditional view was that after their seizure of Italy in the fifth century, the Barbarian tribes of Germany and Scythia had reduced Europe to an economic and cultural wasteland, initiating a Dark Age, which was to last half a millennium. After the Reformation, another suspect was added to the list: Christianity, or, more accurately, Catholic Christianity. In this view Christianity was corrupted beyond recognition after the time of Constantine and from the fourth century onwards a power-hungry Church hierarchy, in cahoots with the Imperial authorities, kept the population of Europe in subservience and ignorance, effectively completing the destructive work of the Barbarians.

In this ground-breaking work, historian John J. O'Neill examines a great variety of evidence from many specialties and reaches an astonishing and novel conclusion: Classical Civilization was not destroyed by Barbarians or by Christians. It survived intact into the early seventh century. The Vandals and Goths who seized the Western Empire in the fifth century had become completely romanized by the start of the sixth century. Artistic and intellectual life flourished, as did the economy and the cities built earlier under the Empire. Yet sometime in the middle of the seventh century everything changed. Cities were abandoned, literacy plummeted, royal authority declined and local strongmen, or "barons", seized control of the provinces. The Middle Ages had begun.

Who or what had caused this? As O'Neill notes, by the 1920s Belgian historian Henri Pirenne had located the proverbial "smoking gun"; but it was not in the hands of the Barbarians or the Christians: it was held by those who, even then, it had become fashionable to credit with saving, rather than destroying, Classical Civilization: the Arabs. In a conclusion that will have resonance for the modern world, O'Neill argues convincingly that all we regard as "Medieval" had its origin in Islam, and that the Muslims terminated Classical Civilization in Europe just as surely as they did in the Middle East. O'Neill shows how the sudden relapse of Europe in the seventh century was due entirely to the economic blockade imposed by Islam's war against Christendom. The Mediterranean, which had previously been a cultural highway, now became a frontier, and a very dangerous frontier at it. Prompted by Islam's doctrine of perpetual war against nonbelievers, Muslim pirates scoured the Mediterranean, effectively ending all trade between Europe and the great centers of civilization in the Near East. The flow of gold ended, as did the supply of all luxury items. And so too did the supply of papyrus from Egypt, without which Europeans were forced to rely on expensive parchment. Not surprisingly, literacy plummeted. Worst of all, the great cities of the West, which depended upon the trade in luxury items from the East, began to decline.

As the dominant power of the time, ideas originating in the Islamic world now began to penetrate Europe. From their Muslim foes Christian Europeans began to think in terms that would have been unimaginable a century earlier. The idea of "Holy War" entered the mindset of Christians, and, under the influence of Islam, the rationalism of Greece and Rome began to be replaced by a literal and intolerant interpretation of "The Book." Classical civilization was dead.

"Authentic Jews" peddling inauthentic history . . . and theology

(The true) God is not racist.

Some are so tormented by sentiments of racial inferiority that they are unable to evaluate and represent facts faithfully.  Like those who want to make Jesus African, so too some want desperately for Hebrews/Jews from Abraham to Moses to the Sephardim (Iberian Jews) to be black (this trend is color-blind; some want Anglo-Saxons to be the lost tribes of Israel).  Following are a few observations on one site's false claims regarding Israel and Africa:

"This makes it seem likely that the Afroasiatic languages originated in Africa and then spread to the Asian continent."

Since all descend from Noah and his sons, and their common language was confused at Babel, no language "originated" in Africa.

"the ancient Hebrews came out of North AFRICA (Egypt)."

The Israelites came out of slavery in Egypt led by Moses, at YHWH's command, and by His power.  Their ancestors -- Jacob and his family -- entered the land as honored guests because Joseph was so esteemed that he attained a position in all of Egypt second only to Pharaoh's.  His father Jacob (Israel) was the grandson of Abraham, and he was from Mesopotamia ("Ur of the Chaldees"), not Africa.

Sometime before the Exodus, while in exile from Egypt, Moses married Zipporah, a Cushite (Ethiopian) woman, a daughter of Reuel, the priest of Midian.  Five hundred years later, King Solomon received the Queen of Sheba (Ethiopia) as a guest in Israel.  Regarding "Cushite" and "Sheba," some dispute the two terms as referencing Ethiopia, but the imperial family of Ethiopia traces its lineage to the union of Solomon and the Queen, and Josephus identified her as a "Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia."  He comments regarding the nation of Cush, son of Ham and grandson of Noah:

"For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush ["Chus"]; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites ["Chusites"]" (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6.2).

So, one branch of "authentic" Jews is Ethiopian.

The author of Authentic Jews continues:

"The largest centers of Jewish population and learning were once in Africa, NOT EUROPE."

Until Islam.  And before that, in Israel, Mesopotamia, Persia, Babylon.  Wherever Jews go, there is a center of learning.

Here is more evidence that racial grievances and the need for religious/political esteem has compromised the author's intellectual integrity:

It was April 9th, 1865, on the Roman/Gregorian calendar but, the HEBREW calendar corresponding date was the 13th day of the Hebrew month of Abib/Nissan, the Hebrew year being 5625, on a Sunday.

The news of Gen. R.E. Lee's surrender was received in Washington DC after nine o'clock on Sunday evening, April 9th, and at a somewhat later hour in other cities.

This made it Passover, for the sun was down, that is when the Hebrews in the U.S.A were freed, 1435 was when the Portuguese began removing the YIsraelites from West Afrika, and 1865 was when General Lee surrendered in the civil war.
430 Yrs is how long our forefathers were in slavery in Kemet {Egypt}.

Both times the Israelites were freed on the Passover, after 430 Years!

The author's history here is just wrong: America was not a nation until 1776 by Declaration, and in reality at the successful conclusion of our War of Independence in 1783.  American slavery ended by Proclamation in 1863 and in practice at the close of the War Between the States in 1865.  The longest "American" slavery could have lasted was 89 years.  Even if you include Colonial times, slavery there began as indentured servitude for a variety of "races;" it was not until the seventeenth century that slavery in America became distinctly racial:

in Maryland and Virginia, both of which passed laws that made black indentured servants slaves for life; these laws also segregated free blacks from European-Americans by making intermarriage between blacks and whites illegal.

If you want to consider the Atlantic (Old World/New World) Slave Trade, the earliest date I can find for the beginning of the capture, transport, and selling of African slaves is 1444 (or 1441) by the Portuguese; Brazil abolished slavery in 1888 (that's 447 years).

And none of this includes Islam's millennium of enslaving Africans, or the practice of slavery in general throughout human history, which includes African kings taking slaves for human sacrifice and the Aztecs doing the same.  As soon as one group of people was strong enough to use force against its neighbor, slavery was born.

I appreciate a person wanting to take pride in one's ancestry.  But that should be grounded in truth.  All of us are descended from Noah and his sons; the flexibility in genetic expression allowing the variety in human appearance we see today does not change the fact that we are one race.  Sadly, the "authentic Jew" is so focused on "blackness" that it's affected his ability to deal honestly with the facts.

So, who are "authentic Jews"?

A Jew might say, "It depends on the Jew you're asking;" an Evangelical might answer, "Someone who observes the Mosaic Law;" a Muslim might respond, "Those who 're-vert' to Islam;" and a liberal might reply with, "Those who vote Democrat."  But what does the God of Israel say?

The Apostle Paul, a Pharisee who referred once to himself as a "Hebrew of Hebrews" and recognized the myriad  blessings God had given to the nation of Israel, says that the "true Israel" are not those who are genetically-Jewish only, but those who live by faith in the Promised Messiah, whether they are Jew or Gentile. He writes:

"not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (Romans 9:6-8).

"no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God" (Romans 2:28-29).

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:15-16).

Christ is the Savior of the Jew first and then the Gentile, the Messiah promised to Adam, Abraham, and Moses.  He is our salvation.

The whole armor of God

The Apostle Paul wrote:

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.

Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak (Ephesians 6:11-20).

I always thought of this as a list of things that I had to do: I had to be more truthful ("fasten the belt of truth"), I had to be more righteous ("put on the breastplate of righteousness"), I had to have more faith ("take up the shield of faith"), I had to somehow be saved ("take the helmet of salvation"), I had to pray more and better ("praying at all times in the Spirit").

And isn't that what you hear from all variety of Christians? You've got to "walk the walk" and "make a decision for Christ" and "give your heart to Jesus." And if you still have a nagging suspicion that you're not good enough, if you're still sinning, then you need to "give your life over to Jesus completely." (Even years in a church that actually teaches that we can do nothing to save ourselves, I have never, ever heard a pastor say anything about this passage to disabuse me of this understanding.)

But I was wrong.

The Apostle is not telling me, a sinner, to "put on the whole armor of God" by depending on my truthfulness; Christ is the truth ("I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me," John 14:6). I can never be righteous enough, but Christ is our righteousness ("Christ Jesus . . . became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption," 1 Corinthians 1:30). I can never be faithful enough, but Christ is faithful ("Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war," Revelation 19:11). And Christ is our salvation: ". . . Jesus . . . became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Hebrews 5:7-9). As for prayer? "if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:1-2).

We "put on the whole armor of God" by "putting on Christ;" that is, by faith in Him:

"for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:26-27).

Or rather, we have been clothed with Christ.  And that is the Good News ("gospel") which Paul declared. Christ was crucified for us sinners, giving to the whole world the forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and salvation. Through Him we have peace with God.

Muslim doctor pulls the hijab over the eyes of non-Muslims by obfuscating for Muhammad's demonic hatred of women (and little girls)

Qanta Ahmed, making deceit in service to Muhammad's vile misogyny look fashionable.

In a post full of fatal, fetid falsehoods, Qanta Ahmed advances Allah's War Against Humanity by feeding one half-truth after another to non-Muslims.  (Thanks to CNN for helping her!)  Here are a few of the more criminal bits, with commentary:

A judge in Saudi Arabia has said husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi newspaper reported this past weekend. In one fell swoop, the judge debased Islam, vilified the kingdom and disregarded the ideals the Saudi monarch himself embraces.

That's reassuring!  Islam and true Muslims are against wife-beating, right?  Here comes more of the dissembling non-Muslims afraid to examine Islam's texts, tenets, and timelines for themselves swallow whole:

Islam is very clear on this issue: Both a husband physically chastising his wife for "overspending" and a judge "upholding justice" by sanctioning this abuse would be acting counter to Islam's ideals of compassion and justice.

How can a "religion" which commands the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert be considered either "compassionate" or "just"? Regardless, Muhammad claimed that his god told him, “. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . " (Qur'an 4:34).

The good doctor continues:

There is no basis in Islamic theology to support domestic abuse of any kind and specifically none pertaining to the matter of a wife's spending pattern.

Of course, Muhammad's wife-beating is not "abuse," it's Allah-pleasing, since Islam's deity calls the prophet from hell "a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

Last year, in his annual speech marking Saudi Arabia's National Day, the king first described threats to Islam from within its ranks.

By which he meant either truly decent people who through no fault of their own find themselves Muslim and work against its monstrous doctrines, or those devout Muslims waging war against hypocrites like him.

In March, more than 1,600 academics from more than 30 countries convened in Riyadh at the first symposium studying domestic violence in the kingdom. Together, international academics examined, measured and evaluated the growing reports of domestic violence and child abuse in the kingdom with a view to formulating solutions.

How does a Muslim "solve" what Muhammad and his allah committed, commanded, and condoned?  Here is one of Islam's "solutions":

"My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

"Narrated 'Aisha [Mohammed's six-year-old "bride" and nine-year-old sexual "partner"]: 'Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, so uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

The prevaricating practitioner adds the old "slavery is freedom" line:

In my time working in Saudi Arabia as an intensive care specialist, I came to learn that for most Saudi women, the abbaya is not a tool of oppression but rather one of liberation.

And that "freedom" is due to the insanely insecure and jealous Muhammad's hiding his property from others' view, realizing that since he desired to rape anything that moved, so must his followers:

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . ." (Qur'an 24:31).

"Narrated 'Aisha: 'Allah's Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: "This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?"]

Here's more insulting nonsense, as if being able to work as a physician negates centuries of absolute barbarism and degradation of women and little girls:

For the observant Saudi lady who has often been raised in an environment that highly prizes securing the beauty and guarding the modesty of their womenfolk, donning abbayas allows them to work as chemical engineers at Aramaco or as fellow intensive care physicians in intensive care units at the nation's state-of-the-art hospitals.

My Saudi female colleagues could therefore replace valves and fix aneurysms even if they couldn't make a three-point turn. I found them perfectly capable of managing the critically ill on mechanical ventilators and dialysis machines, all the while uncompromising of their values, maintaining their privacy in their veiled garments underneath their sterile gowns.

And a last insult.  To Ahmed, it is the victims of 9/11 who are guilty of persecuting Muslims ("Islamophobia"), rather than Islam itself being directly and solely responsible for one-and-one-half millennia of sending Muslim souls to hell and creating hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims:

This act of stupidity unfairly depicts the kingdom as draconian at a time when the tides of progressive reform are now waist-deep and rising. Such narrow perspectives only serve to fuel global Islamophobia that has greatly increased in the West post-9/11. Muslims around the world and within the kingdom can no longer tolerate this stance, and the king, the Custodian of the Two Holy Sites of Islam, isn't likely to, either.

Considering Muhammad's words and deeds and the totalitarian, savage ideology derived from them, "Islamophobia" is only possible among devout Muslim males.  To non-Muslims, apostates, Muslims who are not Muslim-enough, women, and little girls, no "fear" of Islam can ever be considered "irrational."

The world is "waist-deep and rising" in something from Islam, but that is neither "progress" nor "reform."

Some wound with friendly-fire those standing in our defense

Here's an exchange (containing minor formatting changes and names redacted) with someone who, while not necessarily intending to advance Allah's War Against Humanity, does wound with friendly-fire those standing in the way of Islamic supremacism and tyranny.  Since the sniping is intentional, it seems necessary to give one with decent aim but poor judgment a rap on the beezer:

"Thanks a lot for forwarding Kyle-Anne Shiver’s piece. What an old fashioned laff riot. I visited her blog but was unable to find out much about her other than how she acquired her name; that fact that she converted to Catholicism; and that she has big hair."

You can't refute the author's statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot]).

Argumentum ad hominem. The last refuge of cowards and tyrants.

By the way, my pointing out your lack of intellectual integrity does not constitute an endorsement of the author's solution to the Lesser Jihad (Islam's war against Israel). I'm responding only to what was shared here [in this e-mail exchange].

To which this gentleman responded:

Dear Mr. Matamoros,

If you wish to throw the gauntlet; if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write, I will respond. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s comment was intellectual garbage. It is your right to hate the President if you so desire. But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.

[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.

Look at your last comment. If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed. But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem. It doesn’t matter what you think; what you say; or what you do. You lack utterly the self awareness to be embarrassed.

So, bring it on if you wish . . . .

And my last step in this dance:

I'd prefer a civil discussion/debate.

Gauntlet-throwing is so Medieval, which I appreciate. But that's not what you want.  Rather than offer something substantive, you want to call names, demonize, and stifle dissent.  I'll play along.

I wrote: "You can't refute the author's statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot])."  And you respond with . . . more argumentum ad hominem.  Thanks for proving my point.  (Speaking of "an utter lack of self-awareness" . . . .)

if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write

You wouldn't know, since you don't actually read what I write.

I'll respond

With more ad hominems and name-calling, no doubt.

It is your right to hate the President if you so desire.

. . . I'd vote for Obama in 2012 if he would tell the truth and act in defense of America and against totalitarianism, rather than bankrupting and disarming the nation, betraying our friends, and aiding Communist and Muslim tyrants.

But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.

"You people"? What are you, racist?*  (And that's the online equivalent of, "I know you are, but what am I?")

[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.

"hominem." [an American Patriot] is a man.  Besides that, he's an honest and passionate defender of American Liberty.  Both facts go a long way toward explaining why you hate him.

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content.

'blogs are a free man's modern Gutenberg press.  But that's your problem, isn't it?  You don't want individuals exercising their God-given, unalienable right to speak their minds. You'd rather silence them.

You're a tyrant.

Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content

Which goes to show (again) that you don't actually read, for if you did, you'd have seen that unlike you, I did not go scrounging around her site looking for fodder for personal attacks, I responded to the actual content in the earlier e-mail.

Regarding that, you have yet to point out any error. The only (possibly-) valid criticism of that article is her citation of the "siding with Muslims" quote -- "valid" only if you believe the claim that Obama was speaking of defending innocent people against unwarranted persecution, not of protecting the ummah against non-Muslims defending themselves against jihad).

that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.

More of the Accidental Irony of the Dishonest.

Look at your last comment.

Why are you offended? Are you a leftist, a Muslim, or a cannibal?

If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed.

That's a certain text!  If you were me, at least you'd have some intellectual integrity, even if it were enough only to be embarrassed.

But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem.

More ad hominem . . . .

It doesn’t matter what you think

Yes, you wouldn't want to let facts get in your way.

So, bring it on if you wish.

How very "W" of you . . . .

(Now you're googling frantically "Amillennialist" and "Santiago Matamoros" in order to find something over which you can call me names.)

* I know that was a low blow. I'm almost ashamed. But when someone is intentionally and repeatedly rude to a good man working in defense of Liberty, a good shot to the central nervous system seems apropos.

The truth about Islam finally makes it past Hannity and onto one of his shows

Perhaps he's starting to understand that we're not at war with a tactic, but a hellish, depraved totalitarian ideology. From the indomitable Pamela Geller's site:

When bad things happen to people who thought they were too good to have bad things happen to them

Suffering.

Those with an agenda against God often use human suffering as "proof" that there is no God or, if He exists, He is not good. Even those who believe in Him can interpret their own suffering as an indication that God has abandoned them or doesn't love them quite as much as they thought.

People try to make money writing books about why "bad things happen to good people," but if we're honest, then we must admit that there is no good in us. We know that we deserve nothing good from God. We know that many times, the pain we endure is the direct result of our own stupidity (or others'). In light of our sin, the question should not be, "Why do we suffer?" but, "Why don't we suffer more?" So then comes the sneaking suspicion that, "If I'm suffering, God must be punishing me."

What does He say?

First, He says that sickness and death are the results of our sin. It's our fault in a general sense. In the Garden of Eden, in the middle of a Perfect World, Adam and Eve sinned, and we're still living with the consequences. Of this Paul writes:

sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned . . . death reigned from Adam to Moses . . . many died through one man's trespass . . . the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation . . . because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man . . . one trespass led to condemnation for all men . . . by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners . . . sin reigned in death (Romans 5).

What was God's response to our first parents' sin? Hoops through which to jump? Law after law after impossible law? Fire and brimstone? Hell itself? No, God's response was mercy, the promise of a Savior, the Messiah, a Child Who would destroy the devil's work ("crush the serpent's head"). There were consequences to Adam and Eve's sin (the Curses), but those were intended to drive us to the Savior. In this context, it is worth noting that the statements of Law, death, and condemnation in Romans 5 noted above are followed immediately by the greater mercy of God, which is found in Christ alone:

the free gift is not like the trespass . . . much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin . . . the free gift following many trespasses brought justification . . . much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ . . . one act of righteousness [Christ's] leads to justification and life for all men . . . by the one man's [Christ's] obedience the many will be made righteous . . . where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 5).

What else do we find in Scripture regarding human suffering?

The Apostle Peter warned against suffering because of our own sin: "let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler" (1 Peter 4:15). Even heroes of the faith suffered publicly for their sin. For example, Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land (however, even in this God was merciful to Moses, for not only did He allow Moses to see the Promised Land before he died, but God buried him Himself and included him in the revelation of Christ's glory to the Apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration).

Christ explained that sometimes we suffer so that God can show His power in us:

As he [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing (John 9:1-7).

Because the devil, the world, and our sinful nature war against Christ and His people, sometimes we suffer only because we're Christians. Jesus warned, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you." (John 15:18). We see also from the author of Hebrews a listing of the "great cloud of witnesses," heroes of the faith.  Notice that after listing wonderful, miraculous, glorious victories -- "conquered kingdoms . . . stopped the mouths of lions . . . became mighty in war . . . [and] resurrection," come those believers who were tortured, mocked, flogged, chained, stoned, sawn in two:

And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets-- who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated -- of whom the world was not worthy -- wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And all these, though commended through their faith . . . (Hebrews 11).

God causes us to grow through suffering:

More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (Romans 5:3-5).

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you . . . For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God (1 Peter 4:12-14, 17).

Sometimes God uses our suffering to accomplish the saving of others, as we see in Joseph and the persecution of the first Christians:

'Say to Joseph, Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.' And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father." Joseph wept when they spoke to him. His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, "Behold, we are your servants." But Joseph said to them, "Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones." Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them (Genesis 50:17-21).

And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word (Acts 8:1-4).

Sometimes when we suffer, we can't know why (see Job), but we do know that no matter what happens to us, God is with us, working through all things -- both good and bad -- for our benefit. Recall Joseph's gracious restoration of his brothers just noted and the words of the Apostle Paul:

we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28).

The ultimate answer to every question of eternal consequence is Christ. What did the Son of God endure for us? The only person in the history of the world who deserved only good endured great evil on our account. God abandoned His only Son to torture and death for our salvation:

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:3-6).

in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8).

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32).

Because of Christ, we will live what the Beloved Apostle only witnessed in his revelation:

. . . I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away

[. . .]

I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb (Revelation 21).

Thanks be to God!

Butchering the not-yet-born in ways that animals can't be is not "health care"

Whether or not the brief Tim Tebow Super Bowl spot for Focus on the Family was lighthearted is unimportant, for the topic it addresses is so grave (the ad directs viewers where to go to hear his family's story).  That subject? Whether or not to murder your baby before it's born.

How in the world can that cause controversy, except with bloodthirsty ghouls?  Abortion is the latest holocaust.

Offered in response to someone disgusted with preserving the lives of the innocent:

Disgusted's disgusting projection:

The fuss was about CBS Kowtowing to a group that promotes murder yet they won't air ads from any group sponsoring a public option and true health care reform. Maybe if Les Moonves lost a family member to a right wing murdering psychopath he might think twice next time. CBS has long since abrogated the right to use our airwaves.

You defend the slaughter of tens of millions of children as a "constitutional right," and you're calling others "murdering psychopaths"?

Butchering the not-yet-born in ways that animals can't be is not "health care."

Shame on you, murderous tyrant.

"Slaughter the Muslims!"*

Robert Spencer reports on a Muslim who, after disrupting an address by an Israeli minister at Oxford with shouts of "Slaughter the Jews!" claims that he was "misunderstood" and explains why that defense is more offensive and ominous than it might appear at first glance.  Note the vile filth Muhammad's depravity and barbarism, which included raping the wife of a man he had tortured and decapitated earlier that day:

another sleazy Islamic supremacist claims he was "misunderstood." You would think that after awhile they'd be too embarrassed to bring out this tired, lame excuse yet again, but they seem to be immune from embarrassment.

And compounding the problem here is that his explanation hardly makes matters better. He is counting on his audience not knowing anything about Khaybar. Among jihadis the slogan is familiar: "Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahoud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud" -- that is, "Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return."

Khaybar. As I explain in my book The Truth About Muhammad, Muhammad led a Muslim force against the Khaybar oasis, which was inhabited by Jews -- many of whom he had previously exiled from Medina. When he did so, he was not responding to any provocation. One of the Muslims later remembered: "When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him....We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, 'Muhammad with his force,' and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people's square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.'"

The Muslim advance was inexorable. "The apostle," according to Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, "seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them." Another biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Sa'd, reports that the battle was fierce: the "polytheists...killed a large number of [Muhammad's] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them....He killed ninety-three men of the Jews..." Muhammad and his men offered the fajr prayer, the Islamic dawn prayer, before it was light, and then entered Khaybar itself. The Muslims immediately set out to locate the inhabitants' wealth. A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of on of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" Kinana said yes, that he did know that.

Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: "Torture him until you extract what he has." One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana's chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him. Kinana's wife was taken as a war prize; Muhammad claimed her for himself and hastily arranged a wedding ceremony that night. He halted the Muslims' caravan out of Khaybar later that night in order to consummate the marriage.

Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar to go into exile, allowing them to keep as much of their property as they could carry. The Prophet of Islam, however, commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver. He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually. Muhammad agreed: "I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire." He warned them: "If we wish to expel you we will expel you." They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims. And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators' land. A hadith notes that "the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives."

Thus when modern-day jihadists invoke Khaybar, as this hate mailer did indirectly by echoing the familiar chant about Muhammad's Army, they are doing much more than just recalling the glory days of Islam and its prophet. They are recalling an aggressive, surprise raid by Muhammad which resulted in the final eradication of the once considerable Jewish presence in Arabia. To the jihadists, Khaybar means the destruction of the Jews and the seizure of their property by the Muslims.

That's what Noor Rashid is now claiming that he did say. This is supposed to reassure us.

*If you think you read, "Slaughter the Muslims!" then clearly, you misunderstood.
It's okay to threaten and actually harm and kill Jews, but don't tell the truth about Muhammad!

If you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny was a "golden age," then you've got good times ahead

Since all people are born with a natural knowledge of God, why is it that only Muslims think it is a holy thing to enslave, rape, and slaughter for their deity?

In response to someone who needs to work on his social skills, here:

Being neither Greek, Turkish nor a believer in any of the 3 middle Eastern religions I would like to make the admittedly trite point that which if any of those faiths you happen to follow depends almost entirely upon where you happen to be born. (This observation is not an invitation for Amillennialist to give me a theological treatise on why the Creator chooses to separate the righteous from the infidels at birth.)

On a purely factual point, the Ottoman Empire did not require its citizens to convert to Islam. The Millet system gave a large degree of autonomy to other cultural and religious groups. That is why the Orthodox Church and the Greek culture survived intact during 500 years or so of Turkish domination and kept the dream of Byzantium alive.

That's an interesting rhetorical technique. Do you find that insult as a form of introduction is effective in making friends and influencing people?

If not an invitation to a dissertation, your uncharitable and arrogant nescience is certainly an invitation to correction.

First, the God of the Bible does not "separate the righteous from the infidels at birth." YHWH gives life to all, Christ died to pay completely for the sins of all, and the Holy Spirit brings the saving Gospel message to all. So, it is not God who separates and condemns, it is those who persist in evil who condemn themselves. Since all people are born with a conscience, an innate understanding of right and wrong (even though it is fallible in all of us, it's there), there's no way on Earth that a Muslim doesn't know that it's wrong to enslave, rape, and butcher others solely on the basis of religious belief.

Second, the whole "3 middle eastern religions" nonsense is a false construct set up by Muhammad and Muslims in order to confuse, propagandize, and deceive non-Muslims into either conversion or submission, for how can you criticize another religion just like yours, unless you're some kind of "Islamophobe," some kind of racist?

Finally, considering the history of jihad, its resurgence, and the fact that you reject the "3 middle eastern religions," you should know that when Islam comes to town in full force, you'll be one of the first under the sword. As a pagan/atheist/agnostic (?) you will not be afforded the "protections" (against Muslims) granted the "People of the Book," those mythological creatures you've been propagandized into thinking enjoyed such a golden age under Ottoman rule.

I suppose if you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny -- which includes constant degradations, humiliations, oppressions, and violations of you and yours, including genocide and rape -- is acceptable, then you've got good times ahead.

He'll be enjoying them alone.

How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

A little more in reply to this:

I have serious problems with what Islam teaches, as you do. We must resist jihad and its attempts to attack, subvert and convert. That said we must resist the the human response of demonizing our adversaries or even more importantly, ALL Muslims.

Thank you for your courteous reply, Stavros.

I must ask, where did I "demonize ALL Muslims"? I referenced merely what Muhammad said and did and what his followers have done (and do) in obedience to him.  I even noted, "to the degree that his followers' knowledge, zeal, and resources allow."

If that's "demonizing ALL Muslims," then what does that say about their god? About those who knowingly follow such a demon?

You believe in Jesus. Then you have a responsibility to say what He says. Jesus did not preach that "living according to Christian principles" earns any favor with Him. Christ and His Apostles declared, "No one comes to the Father but by Me," and "all have sinned and . . . are justified freely by His grace . . . it is by grace you have been saved . . . not by works . . . ."

How can you think that anyone who calls Christ a "blasphemer" -- for Muhammad declared that anyone who claims that allah has a son is a blasphemer, and Christ called Himself the Son of God -- can please Him? How can anyone who extols as the "Ideal Man" (Muhammad) someone who committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in his god's name please the Living God? How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

Muhammad lied. He was a liar and murderer from (almost) the beginning of his "prophetic" career. When he claimed to represent the God of the Bible, he did so in order to gain credibility among the Jews and Christians of Arabia. When they rightly rejected his blasphemy -- and after he had achieved sufficient military capacity -- he went to war against them.

When you equate Muhammad's allah with the Son of God, you blaspheme Him. To someone who knows Jesus' words and works that should be obvious, unless you're unfamiliar with what Muhammad actually said and did. If that's the case, then here's a bit on that (linked previously):

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

The history of Greeks and Turks has always been the history of Islamic supremacism and jihad

In reflecting on the conflict between Greeks and Turks, one author observes:

"I'm not sure why I am telling you this story except to point out that we share the same God and he listens to our prayers even when they are coming from those we consider our adversaries."

While searching for images of Black Tuesday, I discovered this site. I've had a chance to read only this post and all its comments, but I have to agree with a poster there, its author's content and style is top-notch.

A few thoughts in response to several of the points raised there:

The reason there will never be peace between Greeks and Turks is because one adheres to an ideology commanding the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. The other is one of its many victims.

This goes a long way toward explaining not only the deep-seated animosity of Greeks toward Turks (how can you not feel some dissonance at 1400 years of Islamic rape, slavery, and slaughter?), but also the condescension, sense of entitlement, arrogance, and denial-of-wrongdoing by Muslims in general, and Turks in particular.

Of course, predators want to "forgive and forget" the past -- once their victims can defend themselves. That's why Muslim memories go back only a few decades and only to when they finally met "infidels" who were able to stand up for themselves. Muslims forget conveniently their nearly one and one-half millennia of genocide, slavery, rape, kidnap, and forcible conversion of non-Muslims -- including Greeks -- in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example.

. . . With all due respect, we Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. Jesus Christ committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, spoke only the truth, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies, going so far as to pray (and die!) for those who were murdering Him.

On the other hand, Muhammad committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, torture, mutilation, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-abuse, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy and taught others to do the same, claiming, "Allah made me do it." In other words, Muhammad violated all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and demanded under penalty of death that you should, too.

One should not be surprised when -- to the degree that his followers' knowledge, zeal, and resources allow -- Muslims wage war against their non-Muslim neighbors. Since conquering Rum (the Rome of the East, Byzantium) was one of Muhammad's personal goals -- and it was finally achieved on Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World, May 29, 1453, it is clear that the history of Greeks and Turks has always been the history of Islamic supremacism and jihad.

Burying your head in the sand just presents to the enemy a larger and more attractive target

Denial and obfuscation worked for 1930's Europe, didn't it?

Notice the pastor's reaction to the truth about Islam: "It's people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence." Good thing he isn't jumping to any conclusions.

Let's be perfectly clear: Those who commend, command, and commit genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife abuse, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy in the name of Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example aren't the problem, it is those who point out those commands and that example who "escalate the violence."

In other words, non-Muslims' reading of Islamic texts causes jihad.

Apparently, this "pastor" believes that if we bury our heads in the sand, then the problem will just go away, when what we're really doing is just presenting a larger and more attractive target to Allah.

Educate yourselves in Islam's texts, tenets, and timelines. Educate others. We cannot defeat an enemy we do not know and our "leaders" refuse to name.

From here (emphasis added):

An expert on the advance of radical Islam in the United States says the Muslim Brotherhood is effectively employing a strategy of presenting 'Islam lite' to organizations, including Christian churches.

Dorothy Cutter, coordinator for the Hartford, Conn., chapter of Aglow Islamic Awareness, part of a national chain of Christian fellowships that study how Islamic law motivates Muslims to participate in jihad, said she heard of a United Church of Christ congregation where an Islamic speaker was a guest.

She contacted the church to see if she would be allowed to present some of the harsher truths about Islam.

'The pastor pushed the material back at me and said, 'It's people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence,'' Cutter said.

[. . .]

The Muslim disinformation methodology is illustrated by the 2006 controversy over a speech by Pope Benedict XVI in Regensberg, Germany.

The pope quoted from Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor who was one of the last Christian rulers before the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," the pope said, citing the emperor.

Objecting vehemently to the pope's remarks, a group of 38 imams wrote an open letter to the pontiff.

"We would like to point out that 'holy war' is a term that does not exist in the Islamic languages," the imams said. "Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force."

That makes it all better, doesn't it?

One of the imams was the Islamic scholar Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who translated the classic book on Islamic Law, "Reliance of the Traveler." The book states in section 09.0, "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion."

Dismissing existential threats to Western Civilization: It's the only thing many of today's Europeans do better than Jew-hatred

Geert Wilders is today's Winston Churchill in a world full of Neville Chamberlains and Grima Wormtongues, clueless cowards and treasonous snakes typified by people like Rory Graycrow Underclass, who asks in response to the heroic Wilders' warnings to the West regarding its Islamic Enemy Within:

In 1400 years Islam has failed to take over Europe. Why is he so afraid it will happen now?

Such a question betrays a suicidal ignorance of nearly one and one-half millennia of jihad in Europe.

After Muhammad's death, his armies exploded out of Arabia and into the Holy Land, North Africa, Persia, Greater India, etc., nation after nation throughout Africa and Asia falling to Allah's butchers.  Formerly Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, animist, and other non-Muslim societies were obliterated, consumed, mutilated, and subsumed by the Religion of Insatiable Bloodlust.

Neither was Europe spared.  The fact is, Islamic tyranny in Europe goes back to its beginnings.  In the west, Spain fought for eight hundred years to regain its freedom from its Islamic overlords, succeeding finally in 1492.  If not for Charles Martel ("The Hammer"), who stopped Islam's advance into France and the heart of Europe at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732, western Europe would have fallen to Allah.  (And that would have meant no Michelangelo, no Beethoven, no Isaac Newton, no Albert Einstein, no Christopher Columbus, no George Washington, no Magna Carta, no Mayflower Compact, no Declaration of Independence, no Bill of Rights.)

The coastal areas of the British Isles and the Mediterranean also suffered jihad's depredations, both directly and by proxy.  Part of the Vikings' notorious malevolence was due to their contribution to the Islamic slave trade.  Italy, Sicily, Greece, and other coastal European regions suffered at the hands of Muslims themselves.

Eastern Europe fared no better than the rest.  Turkey is the epitome of why Geert Wilders is concerned about Islam.  Before it was forcibly secularized by Kemal Ataturk, Turkey was the Ottoman Empire; before that it was part of Byzantium, the great Christian empire.  After centuries of jihad, the Byzantine Empire was overthrown finally in 1453 when its great city Constantinople -- the "Rome of the East" -- and its magnificent church Hagia Sofia -- the jewel of Christendom -- fell to jihad.

And that doesn't include centuries of jihad in the Balkans.  Christian boys were kidnapped by Muhammad's monsters, forcibly converted, twisted into devils, and sent back to enslave and slaughter their own people.  Forget neither the Siege of Vienna in 1683, where Jan Sobieski repelled the last flagrant attempt by the ummah to conquer Europe.

What does any of that have to do with today?  Only this: Islam has not changed, its adherents are rediscovering what their god and prophet require of them, and rather than champions like Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski crushing jihad and halting the Islamization of their homelands, people like Rory Graycrow Underclass import the Religion of Pedophilia, Female Genital Mutilation, and Wife-beating.  They implement shari'a courts.  They obfuscate for, and punish criticism of, the barbaric ideology.

Why is Geert Wilders "so afraid it will happen now"?

Because it is happening now.