The Cannibals of Ma 'arra : Utah IMC

The Cannibals of Ma’arra

From the very beginning, during the Crusades (1096-1100 A.D.), the Crusaders gained themselves a reputation for their barbaric behavior amongst the Muslim inhabitants of Syria, and much of that reputation would appear to have been founded on the horrific events which occurred at Ma’arra al-Numan. Following the fall of Antioch, the Crusaders raided the surrounding countryside in the lean winter months failing to bring in anything like sufficient supplies to feed their large numbers. They laid siege on the town of Ma’arra al-Numan. As many as 20,000 of its inhabitants are reported to have been massacred, despite assurances that their lives would be spared.
But if such events were common during those times, what happened next was certainly not. The Christian soldiers started to cannibalize Muslim Men, Women and Children. Men and Women were boiled then eaten. Children were barbequed on spits, somewhat like a shish-kabob. In a letter to the Pope one of the Crusader commanders wrote; Radulph of Caen wrote explicitly how: "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults alive in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." For centuries afterwards, the image of the Crusaders as fanatical cannibals lived on in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish literature. Some Arab commentators have even suggested that the behavior of the Crusaders was born not of necessity, but rather out of fanaticism, their religious fervor leading them to view the Muslims as lower than animals. Thus Amin Maalouf, in his book The Crusades through Arab Eyes, points to the words of the Crusader chronicler, Albert of Aix, who wrote: "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!” What is interesting to note is that if these Christians were really on a “Holy” mission to oust the “heathen” Muslims…then why did they break Christian morals and values to eat Muslim Men, Women, and Children?

Whoever penned the above essay alleging that Christian crusaders became cannibals during their campaigns in the Holy Land is in serious need of Remedial History 101. This is an out-and-out fabrication--an old-fashioned lie, born not out of any particular ignorance or misunderstanding about the historical facts, but an out-and-out hatred toward Christians and Westerners in general. Why must this myth be perpetuated? If any group could be accused of being "cannibals" or particularly barbaric toward the enemy, anyone without a biased view of the historical record knows that Turks, Saracens and other groups routinely ate their dead and slaughtered innocent men, women, children--and stockyard animals--as a matter of course. We owe it to our children to tell the truth. God help us all if we go down the path some antiwestern revisionists have chosen to follow. Why don't you talk about the merciless killing of Byzantine citizens? Why don't you talk about how the Muslims burned the surviving works in the Library of Alexandria because the texts contained information not pertaining to the Koran? The Crusaders were occasionally brutal, but nothing like you revisionist historians describe!

An unholy crusade of cannibals?
From the very beginning, the Crusaders gained themselves a reputation for their barbaric behaviour amongst the inhabitants of Syria, and much of that reputation would appear to have been founded on the horrific events which occurred at Maarat al-Numan. Following the fall of Antioch, the Crusaders had been plagued by a shortage of food, their raids on the surrounding countryside in the lean winter months failing to bring in anything like sufficient supplies to feed their large numbers. They laid siege on the town of Maarat al-Numan while many were already dying from malnutrition and starvation. As many as 20,000 of its inhabitants are reported to have been massacred, despite assurances that their lives would be spared.

But if such events were common during those times, what happened next was certainly not. In desperation, the starving Crusaders appear to have resorted to cannibalism. In a letter to the Pope one of the Crusader commanders wrote; "A terrible famine racked the army in Ma'arra, and placed it in the cruel necessity of feeding itself upon the bodies of the Saracens." Another Crusader chronicler, Radulph of Caen, wrote even more explicitly how: "In Ma'aarra our troops boiled pagan adults alive in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." For centuries afterwards, the image of the Crusaders as fanatical cannibals lived on in Arabic literature. Some Arab commentators have even suggested that the behaviour of the Crusaders was born not of necessity, but rather out of fanaticism, their religious fervour leading them to view the Muslims as lower than animals. Thus Amin Maalouf, in his book The Crusades through Arab Eyes, points to the words of the Crusader chronicler, Albert of Aix, who wrote: "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!".

Pillars of wisdom
St Simeon Stylites (literally 'St Simeon of the Pillar') was born in 386 AD, the son of a Cilician farmer. At the age of 16 he joined the monastery of Teleda on the slopes of Mount Hermon, and stayed there for 16 years. In 412 he joined the recently established monastic community of Deir Samaan (then known as Telanissos or Tell Nisheh, literally the 'mountain of the women' in Greek and Aramaic respectively).

Increasingly drawn to a life of asceticism, he gained permission to withdraw from the main community and lead a life of solitude and meditation on the hill where the Church of St Simeon now stands in northern Syria. He soon gained a reputation for his extreme piety and asceticism and began to attract large numbers of pilgrims from far and wide. Wishing to maintain his detachment in the face of so much attention, he had a 3 m tall pillar constructed with a platform on top.

From then onwards, until his death in 459, 42 years later, he lived his life on top of a pillar, or in fact a series of pillars, each taller than the one before, culminating in one between 17-20 m high. And as if living on top of a pillar, utterly exposed to the elements for years on end was not a sufficiently extreme act of asceticism in itself, he spent most of his time standing, with his arms raised to heaven in prayer, or else bowing repeatedly. Once a week his disciples brought him food by means of a ladder (quite what arrangement he had for relieving himself is unclear).

Perhaps in keeping with the times, his attitudes towards the opposite sex were severe; no women were allowed to come anywhere near him, he even refused to see his own mother. From his vantage point he preached to the pilgrims who continued to arrive in ever increasing numbers, gave advice on their problems and mediated disputes. According to one of his contemporaries, Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus, his fame was such that pilgrims came from as far away as France, England, Spain and Italy, while in Rome representations of him stood in every workshop. Such was his influence meanwhile that the Byzantine emperor himself was said to have sought his advice several times on doctrinal matters.

After his death, despite fierce local opposition, his body was taken by imperial troops of the Byzantine court to the cathedral at Antioch where he was buried. At a later stage his body appears to have been moved to Constantinople. Work began almost immediately on the church of St Simeon, which was built around his famous pillar. Meanwhile his unusual form of asceticism, though not original, popularized the cult of stylites, with numerous others following his bizarre example both during his life and after.

— December 12: The small city of Ma'arra east of Antioch, falls to the crusades. The crusaders shocks the Muslim world by eating human flesh from the adults and children massacred following their conquest. The Frankians would forever be referred to by Turkish historians as "cannibals".

above is from the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE ORIENT:

http://i-cias.com/e.o/crusades_05.htm

Yumm...
by Moslem Master made me Do it! Monday February 23, 2004 at 11:05 AM

Looks like the Emir gave the order...the Emir of course, would be a member of the "religion of peace"
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/classes/His311/Lecture%20Five/CannibalCrusader.html

The Crusaders cannabalising on Musim Men,Women and Children is written in every history book that has to do with the Crusades! Why do you think that Middle Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims refer to Crusaders as "Cannibals" in thier respective languages of Farsi, Turkish, Arabic, Urdu, Hindi etc.?
1098 A Christian state was established in Edessa by the Crusader king, Baldwin I. In December of this year, Crusader forces led by Raymond de Saint Gilles, Count of Toulousse, and Bohemond, the Frankish governor of Antioch massacred the entire population of the Syrian town of Ma'arra al-Numan (10,000 people). The starving Crusaders cannibalized some of their victims. The Frankish chronicler Radulph of Caen reported, In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled. (in Amin Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, trans. Jon Rothschild (News York: Schocken Books, 1984), 39). A line from another Crusader chronicler and soldier who fought at Ma'arra, Albert of Aix, convinced many Arabs from those times to the present that the Franks cannibalized not out of hunger but out of dogmatic fanaticism: Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens (Muslims); they also ate dogs! (Maalouf, 40). Reports circulated of Frankish Crusaders roaming the countryside around the town boasting of having chewed the flesh of Saracens.

HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES:

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/crusades.htm

GOOGLE SEARCH ON MA'ARRA:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=ma%27arra

I hear they taste like chicken
(But seriously folks...tales of Crusaders eating Arabs come form the same source that tells us Jews need blood to make Matzoh, and Barbie is a Jewish plot...)

These reports are in every history book dealing with Ma'arra.

Guess the account of the cannibals at Mara'a upsets your image of the Christians as the "heroes", doesn't it? Whether or not it were true, the Crusaders earned a reputation for brutality amongst Middle Eastern Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. They allegedly killed so many people when seizing Jerusalem that their horses waded in blood! Rape and looting were considered rewards, condoned by the Church! Now I'm not saying that ALL Crusaders were bad (Richard the Lion Hearted springs to mind, negotiating treaties with Saladin) BUT at the same time, they were in it for political and economic rewards, and quite frankly couldn't (or chose not to) recognize Christians and Jews from Muslims.

As far as cannibal "saracens", that would be a myth. Islam forbids cannibalism, or even the eating of an animal which could have eaten man. The term Saracen is, of course, made up by Europeans and refers to generic Near Easterners. Arabs, Jews, Maronites, Indians, Armenians and so on are all "Saracens". As for the Turks, when they arrived from China they originally did follow a tribal system with many religions (Nestorian Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, shamanism and Manichaeism) and it is possible some of the pagan tribes were cannibals, but I don't know enough about them to be sure. Certainly their modern kin like the Yakuts in Siberia aren't.

And as for antiwesternism, Byzantium was never part of the west. It was the "EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE" for crying out loud! And beside that, the Fourth Crusade was the one that seiged Constantinople without ever going to the Muslim lands! Yes, the Catholic Church approved of the fall of the Orthodox Church. Oh and as for the Library at Alexandria, check your history book again. It was destroyed around 300 AD.... Before Mohammad was even born. Unless your time travelling Arab fanatics had a time machine and some disguises, the real reason for its destruction lie with a group of Christian fanatics. Probably the same lot that murdered the Alexandrian philosopher Hypatia on account that she was an educated woman (gasp!) who could read (gasp!) and was also a Neoplatonist (gasp!).

Yes, you admit that the Crusaders were brutal. But yet you justify it? Has it ever occured that maybe people are just brutal in general? After all, your so willing to ascribe violence to one side but not to another. Not a good sign for a historian

"Oh and as for the Library at Alexandria, check your history book again. It was destroyed around 300 AD.."

It seems as though the library was assaulted on several occasions both by Christians and Moslems...the library was not destroyed in the 4th century, but the Christians undoubtadly damaged many of the "books".
The Moslems put the nails in the coffin:

Early in the year A. D. 642, Alexandria surrendered to Amrou, the Islamic general leading the armies of Omar, Caliph of Baghdad. Long one of the most important cities of the ancient world and capital of Byzantine Egypt, Alexandria surrendered only after a long siege and attempts to rescue the city by the Byzantines. On the orders of Omar, Caliph of Baghdad, the entire collection of books (except for the works of Aristotle) stored at the Library of Alexandria were removed and used as fuel to heat water for the city's public baths.

Islam Has Brought Peace and Harmony to the Middle East All Through History

HARUN YAHYA

Palestine, and particularly Jerusalem at its heart, has been holy for Muslims since the beginning of the history of Islam. Muslims' seeing Palestine as holy has enabled them to bring peace and harmony to the region. We shall be considering some historical instances of this in this article.

There are two fundamental reasons why Jerusalem is holy for Muslims: It is the first direction to which Muslims used to turn to pray. Furthermore, what can be seen as one of Prophet Mohammed's greatest miracles, his ascent to heaven, was from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid al-Aqsa, in other words from Mecca to Jerusalem. This fact is revealed in the Koran in these terms:

Glory be to Him who took His slave on a journey by night from the Masjid al-Haram to the Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, in order to show him some of Our Signs. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing. (Surat al-Isra: 1)

In stories about the Prophets in the Koran, those holy verses that discuss Palestinian lands refer to them as 'blessed lands' and 'holy lands.' In the above verse about the ascent to heaven, Masjid al-Aqsa is described as a land 'whose surroundings We have blessed.' In Surat al-Anbiya, in which the migration of the prophets Abraham and Lot is recounted, the same territory is described as 'a land We have blessed.' All Palestinian soil, where many prophets from the tribe of Israel have lived, fought in the path of God, and been martyred or died and buried, is holy for Muslims.

Consequently, Muslims have brought "blessings", i.e. peace and security to Jerusalem and Palestine over the last 1,400 years.

The Peace and Justice brought to Palestine by Khalif Omar

Jerusalem was the capital of the Jews until A.D. 71. In that year, the Roman Army made a major assault on the Jews, and exiled them from the area after great savagery. As the time of the Jewish diaspora began, Jerusalem and its surrounding area was becoming an abandoned land.

However, Jerusalem once again became a center of interest with the acceptance of Christianity during the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Roman Christians built churches in Jerusalem. The prohibitions on Jews settling in the region were lifted. Palestine remained Roman (Byzantine) territory up until the 7th century. The Persians conquered the region for a short time, but the Byzantines later reconquered it.

An important turning point in the history of Palestine came in the year 637, when it was conquered by the armies of Islam. This meant the genesis of a period of peace and harmony in Palestine, which had for centuries been the scene of wars, exiles, looting and massacre, and which saw new brutality every time it changed hands, a frequent occurrence. The coming of Islam was the beginning of an age when people of different beliefs in Palestine could live in peace and harmony.

Palestine was captured by Omar, the second caliph after the Prophet himself. The entry of Omar into Jerusalem, the incredible tolerance, maturity and kindness he showed towards people of different beliefs, introduced the beautiful age that was beginning. The British historian and Middle East expert Karen Armstrong describes the capture of Jerusalem by Omar in these terms in her book Holy War:

The Caliph Omar entered Jerusalem mounted on a white camel, escorted by the magistrate of the city, the Greek Patriarch Sophronius. The Caliph asked to be taken immediately to the Temple Mount and there he knelt in prayer on the spot where his friend Mohammed had made his Night Journey. The Patriarch watched in horror: this, he thought, must be the Abomination of Desolation that the Prophet Daniel had foretold would enter the Temple; this must be Antichrist who would herald the Last Days. Next Omar asked to see the Christian shrines and, while he was in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the time for Muslim prayer came round. Courteously the Patriarch invited him to pray where he was, but Omar as courteously refused. If he knelt to pray in the church, he explained, the Muslims would want to commemorate the event by erecting a mosque there, and that would mean that they would have to demolish the Holy Sepulchre. Instead Omar went to pray at a little distance from the church, and, sure enough, directly opposite the Holy Sepulchre there is still a small mosque dedicated to the Caliph Omar.

The other great mosque of Omar was erected on the Temple Mount to mark the Muslim conquest, together with the mosque al-Aqsa which commemorates Mohammed's Night Journey. For years, the Christians had used to the site of the ruined Jewish Temple as the city rubbish dump. The Caliph helped his Muslims to clear the garbage with his own hands and there Muslims raised their two shrines to establish Islam in the third most holy city in the Islamic world. [1]

In short, Muslims brought 'civilization' to Jerusalem and all of Palestine. Instead of barbaric beliefs that showed no respect for other peoples' sacred values, and which killed them simply out of differences of belief, there reigned the just, tolerant and moderate culture of Islam. After its capture by Omar, Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in peace and harmony in Palestine. Muslims never tried to use force to make people convert, although some non-Muslims did so of their own free will.

The peace and harmony in Palestine lasted as long as Muslim rule in the region. However, at the end of the 11th century, an invader entered the region from abroad, and the civilized land of Jerusalem was barbarically and savagely plundered, in a way never before seen. These barbarians were the Crusaders.

A historical testimony of Muslim tolerance to the Christians: Muslim Dome of the Rock next to the Christian Church.

The Savagery of the Crusaders

Crusaders plundered Jerusalem and killed all its non-Christian inhabitants.
While members of all three religions were living in peace and harmony in Palestine, the Christians in Europe decided to organize the 'Crusades.' Following a call by Pope Urban II on 25 November 1095 at the Council of Clermont, more than 100,000 people from all over Europe set out for Palestine to 'Free the Holy land from the Muslims' and find the fabled wealth of the East. After a long and wearying journey, and much plundering and slaughter of Muslims, they reached Jerusalem in 1099. The city fell after a siege of nearly five weeks, and the Crusaders moved in. And they carried out a savagery the like of which the world has seldom seen. All Muslims and Jews in the city were put to the sword. In the words of one historian, 'They killed all the Saracens and the Turks they found... whether male of female." [2] One of the Crusaders, Raymond of Aguiles, boasted of this violence:

Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shoot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted ... in the temple and the porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. [3]

In two days, the Crusader army killed some 40,000 Muslims in the barbaric ways just described. [4] The peace and harmony in Palestine, which had lasted since Omar, ended in terrible slaughter. The Crusaders violated all the ethical laws of Christianity, a religion of love and compassion, and spread terror, allegedly in the name of Christianity.

The Justice of Saladin

The barbaric Crusader army made Jerusalem their capital, and established a Latin Kingdom whose borders stretched from Palestine to Antioch. However, the Crusaders who brought savagery to Palestine did not last long. Saladin gathered all the Muslim kingdoms under his banner in a holy war, and defeated the Crusaders at the battle of Hattin in 1187. After the battle, the two leaders of the crusader army, Reynauld of Chatillon and King Guy, were brought in Saladin's presence. Saladin executed Reynauld of Chatillon, who had won fame with the terrible savagery he had committed against Muslims, but he let King Guy go, as he had not committed the same crimes. Palestine once again saw the true meaning of justice.

Immediately after Hattin, and on the very same day that Prophet Mohammed had been taken from Mecca to Jerusalem in one night, the day of the ascent, Saladin entered Jerusalem and freed it from 88 years of Crusader occupation. When the Crusaders had taken the city 88 years earlier, they had killed all the Muslims inside it, and for that reason they were afraid that Saladin would do the same thing to them. Whereas he did not touch even one Christian in the city. Furthermore, he merely ordered the Latin (Catholic) Christians to leave it. The Orthodox Christians, who were not Crusaders, were allowed to live in the city and live and worship as they chose. The British historian Karen Armstrong describes the second Islamic capture of Jerusalem in these words:

On 2 October 1187 Saladin and his army entered Jerusalem as conquerors and for the next 800 years Jerusalem would remain a Muslim city... Saladin kept his word, and conquered the city according to the highest Islamic ideals. He did not take revenge for the 1099 massacre, as the Koran advised (16:127), and now that hostilities had ceased he ended the killing (2:193-194). Not a single Christian was killed and there was no plunder. The ransoms were deliberately very low...

Saladin was moved to tears by the plight of families who were rent asunder and he released many of them freely, as the Koran urged, though to the despair of his long-suffering treasurers. His brother al-Adil was so distressed by the plight of the prisoners that he asked Saladin for a thousand of them for his own use and then released them on the spot...

When Imad ad-Din saw the Patriarch Heraclius leaving the city with chariots crammed with treasure, he urged Saladin to confiscate it. But Saladin refused. The Koran said that oaths and treaties must be kept to the letter and it was essential that the Muslims should observe the legalities... Heraclius paid his ten-dinar ransom like everybody else and was even provided with a special escort to keep his treasure safe during the journey to Tyre. [5]

In short, Saladin and the Muslims in his command treated the Christians with great mercy and justice, and even showed them more compassion than their own leaders had.

Richard the Lionheart, was not very "noble" at all.
After Jerusalem, the Crusaders continued their barbarity and the Muslims their justice in other cities in Palestine. In 1194, Richard the Lionheart, who is portrayed as a great hero in British history, had 3,000 Muslims, among whom were many women and children, basely executed in Acre Castle. Although the Muslims witnessed this savagery, they never resorted to the same methods. They abided by God's command "Do not let hatred for a people... incite you into going beyond the limits" (Surat al-Ma'ida) and never used violence against innocent civilians. They never employed unnecessary violence, not even against the Crusader armies they defeated.

The savagery of the crusaders and the justice of the Muslims once more revealed a historic truth: Only an administration built on the principles of Islam could allow people of different faiths to live together in Palestine. This fact continued to be demonstrated for 700 years after Saladin, particularly during the Ottoman period.

The Ottoman Empire's Just and Tolerant Rule

In 1514, Sultan Selim captured Jerusalem and the surrounding area, and some 400 years of Ottoman rule in Palestine began. As in other Ottoman states, this period would enable Palestine to enjoy peace, stability, and the living together of different faiths.

The tolerance of Islam continued in the Ottoman Empire. Church, synagogue and the mosque coexisted peacefully.
The Ottoman Empire was administered under what is known as the 'nation (millet) system,' the fundamental feature of which was that people of different faiths were allowed to live according to their own beliefs and even legal systems. Christians and Jews, described as the 'People of the Book' in the Koran, found toleration, security and freedom in Ottoman lands.

The most important reason for this was that although the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic state administered by Muslims, it had no desire to force its citizens to adopt Islam. On the contrary, the Ottoman state aimed at providing peace and security for non-Muslims, and to govern them in such a way that they would be pleased with Islamic rule and justice.

Other major states at the same time had a much cruder, oppressive and intolerant view of government. The Kingdom of Spain could not tolerate the existence of Muslims and Jews on the Spanish peninsula and inflicted great violence on both communities. In many other European countries, Jews were oppressed just for being Jews (for instance they were imprisoned in ghettoes), and were sometimes the victims of mass slaughter (pogroms). Christians could not even get on with one another: the fighting between Protestants and Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries turned Europe into a lake of blood. The Thirty Years War between 1618 and 1648 was one result of this Catholic-Protestant conflict. As a result of that war, central Europe turned into a battleground, and in Germany alone, one-third of the population of 15 million perished.

In such an environment, it is an indisputably important truth that Ottoman rule was exceedingly humane.

Many historians and political scientists have drawn attention to this fact. One of these is Columbia University's world-famous Middle East expert Professor Edward Said. Himself from a Jerusalem Christian family, he continues his research in American universities. In an interview in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz he recommended the 'Ottoman nation system' if a permanent peace is to be built in the Middle East. What he said was:

A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived. …it worked rather well under the Ottoman Empire, with its millet system. What they had then seems a lot more humane than what we have now. [6]

Koranic Morality: The Source of Islamic Tolerance

The fundamental reason for the establishment of exceedingly tolerant, just and humane administrations in the Ottoman Empire and other Muslim states is that such government is commanded by the Koran. The reason for the justice and civilization displayed by Omar, Saladin, the Ottoman sultans and many Muslim rulers (and this is accepted by the West today), was their faithfulness to God's commands in the Koran. These are some of the commandments that make up the basis of the Islamic view of government:

God commands you to return to their owners the things you hold on trust and, when you judge between people, to judge with justice. How excellent is what God exhorts you to do! God is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. (Surat an-Nisa : 58)

You who believe! Be upholders of justice, bearing witness for God alone, even against yourselves or your parents and relatives. Whether they are rich or poor, God is well able to look after them. Do not follow your own desires and deviate from the truth. If you twist or turn away, God is aware of what you do. (Surat an-Nisa: 135)

God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. (Surat al-Mumtahana: 8)

There is a phrase in politics that 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' This means that everyone who comes by political power becomes somewhat morally corrupted by the opportunities this power brings with it. This really does apply to most people, because they shape their morality in line with social pressure. To put it another way, they avoid immorality because they are afraid of society's disapproval or of punishment. Power gives them strength however, and decreases social pressure. As a result, they become corrupted, or come to easily make concessions regarding morality. If they possess real power, in other words if they rule a nation, they may try all means of satisfying their desires.

The only human model where the 'law of corruption' does not apply is those who sincerely believe in God, who embrace religion out of fear and love of Him, and live according to that religion. Because their morals are not defined by society, not even the most absolute power can affect them. In the Koran, God gave the Prophet David as an example of this ideal ruler, with the way he governed even those who questioned his authority, and the way on the other hand that he prayed with complete submission to God. (Surah Sad: 24)

The fact that the history of Islam is full of just, merciful, humble and mature rulers stems from this morality that God teaches Muslims in the Koran. Since a Muslim ruler fears God, no opportunity that he may be given will make him corrupt, proud or cruel. (Of course rulers who became corrupt and departed from Islamic morality do crop up in the history of Islam, but their numbers and influence were very small).

Conclusion

History reveals that Islam is the only system of belief to offer a just, tolerant and compassionate way of government in the Middle East. The Pax Ottomana, which came to an end with the withdrawal of the Ottoman Empire from the region, has still not been replaced. After the Ottomans, the Middle East first passed into the hands of European colonialists, and then became the target of Israel's policies of occupation and aggression.

There is one fundamental reason for the current conflict in the Middle East: The fact that the sides do not want to make peace. What Israel must do is to abide by U.N. resolution 242 and withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, and recognize and grant the rights of the Palestinian people. What the Palestinians (and other Arabs) should do is to abandon such aims as "pouring Israelis into the sea" and accept living together with the Jews. The most important thing of all is not to dirty just causes with barbaric acts of terrorism against civilians.

In short, in order for there to be peace in the Middle East, both sides have to agree to be moderate and tolerant, and make a genuine effort to rid themselves of Jewish racism (Zionism) or Arab chauvinism. The vision that is needed for this is hidden in the virtues that Islamic morality has blessed the Middle East over the past centuries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes

1- Karen Armstrong, Holy War, MacMillan, London, 1988, p. 30-31
2- Geste Francorum, or the Deeds of the Franks and the Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, trans. Rosalind Hill, London, 1962, p. 91
3- August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants, Pinceton & London, 1921, p. 261
4- August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants, Pinceton & London, 1921, p. 262
5- Karen Armstrong, Holy War, p. 185
6- 18.8.2000, Ha'aretz Newspaper; MiddleEast.Org, August 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was scolded by a couple of readers who pointed to one comment from a reader last week, and I must agree that his statement was rather adamant and all-inclusive. Reader Richard Schultz pointed out the inhuman activities of Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin, and he summed up his observation:

It seems to me that to blame history's most heinous acts on theists or theism makes about as much sense (i.e. not much) as to blame them on atheists or atheism, and to do so is not only an example of the classic statistical error of confusing correlation with causation, but in my opinion may actually prevent people from making a serious effort to try to understand the causes of such evil and how it might prevented.

I think the point to make here is that any irrational, fanatical, belief can lead to unspeakable atrocities. German soldiers went into battle with "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) inscribed on their belt-buckles. The Crusades — eight of them, between 1095 and 1270 C.E. — were expeditions undertaken in fulfillment of a solemn religious vow to deliver the Holy Places from the rule of Islam, resulting in the slaughter of countless humans. The gruesome history of the Holy Inquisition speaks for itself. The segregation of races here in the United States, and slavery, were justified by Biblical references. Adolf Hitler himself was a Christian, and stated in his autobiography, Mein Kampf, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Agreed, one has to wonder just how truthful he was in that statement, but he did marry Eva Braun just hours before they exited life, and that certainly was a religious act.

I am certainly not arguing that theists bear the major burden of blame for atrocities; I merely oppose the supposition, so widely held, that atheists are so much worse than theists. We are all capable of cruelty and indifference to others.

The Collapse of Athiesm:

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php

I must say that the similarity between the cannibal Christian Crusaders who ate men, women and children in Ma'ara are no different than our modern day versions in Abu Ghraib. They have done things that are worst than death! I am ashamed of being an American. Save your responses for your conscience and God. I don't want to hear any sort of Neo-Con rhetoric.

So, the Crusaders ate Muslim’s. Who cares! I am sure that the Muslims were not angels either, after all people of the time (Europeans, N-Africans etc) were all Barbarians after the fall of the Roman Empire (476AD)

From what the author is saying (or hinting at) is all Crusaders were savage human flesh eating animals, which I am sure they were not. This is just a typical one sided opinion of a wannabee Islamic Fanatic.

> I must say that the similarity between the cannibal
> Christian Crusaders who ate men, women and
> children in Ma'ara are no different than our modern
> day versions in Abu Ghraib. They have done things
> that are worst than death!

I think the similarities are quite striking too. The question that needs to be asked now is what they want as an end result? They say certain keywords like "freedom" and "democracy" but what do they really mean? Do they mean "Americanization", "spread of Christianity" or "western political power"? Those are all pretty important questions to be asking.

> Aetius Praetorian

Neo-Roman empire eh? I'd say that history seems to be repeating itself, save for the fact that our current president isn't nearly so fun or entertaining as Caligula, Nero or Domitian. Unfortunately.

> So, the Crusaders ate Muslim’s. Who cares!

I think its the fact that the Franks are presented as heroes in the west when historically they were brutal mercenaries interested more in conquest than higher ideals. I mean, they DID destroy Constantinople for crying out loud.

> I am sure that the Muslims were not angels either,

Except for the fact that the Muslims were defending their traditional homelands, and didn't indulge in things like baby murder, rape or cannibalism! Add to that the fact that you had some of the greatest scientists, scholars and philosophers in the world residing in Cairo, Baghdad, Cordoba and other cities and it seems clear that it was in fact the Franks who were the backwards ones.

> after all people of the time (Europeans, N-Africans
> etc) were all Barbarians after the fall of the Roman
> Empire (476AD)

Huh? Yes, Rome fell but that didn't turn people into barbarians. The Germanic, Celtic, Slavic and Berber peoples had been around since before the Roman Empire. Besides some (like the Visogoths and Berbers) HAD adopted Roman civilization. And, Rome didn't fall in the east. Have you forgotten that Constantinople stuck around long after Rome had fallen? That aside, getting into Asia the Sassanid Empire remained a power for a while after Rome fell too. So in the Middle East you had the Romans (Byzantines), Sassanid Persians and Ethiopians, all of whom were quite civilized.

Beyond that, the Islamic world was just about the only place where Roman science and philosophy was preserved. The Catholic Church tried to keep Europe dark and oppressed, mainly to keep power if nothing else. Sure, not everyone in the world was so high and noble, but lets face it. Given a choice between living in Christendom or the Islamic lands during the dark ages, I think most people would choose the Muslim lands (particularly Spain or north Africa). I mean, people like things like medicine, sanitation, public lighting, regular baths, not being a serf, religious freedom, etc.

> From what the author is saying (or hinting at) is all
> Crusaders were savage human flesh eating
> animals, which I am sure they were not.

So what were the Crusades about then? Glory for the Church? Face it, the Franks mostly went along with it for loot. Do you honestly expect that they cared all that much about faith? If you'll recall they slaughtered Jews and Christians along the way, particularly in Jerusalem. And of course they sackec Constantinople as well. To the Church, it wasn't about Christianity; it was about the spread of Roman Catholic power (yeah, Roman Catholic; Europe didn't have religious freedom as the Cathars or Jews could tell you).

> This is just a typical one sided opinion of a
> wannabee Islamic Fanatic.

Seems to be by a historian to me. But regardless, wouldn't the Franks be fanatics by the very definition? Killing everyone who isn't Roman Catholic AND European seems pretty fanatical to me.

add your comments

In other words, eat me, you piece of shit.

nessie has chased me all over the planet for a fake name, even resorted to violent threats. I say it's time for nessie to prove ownership of all names, or shut up and quit following me like a puppy in heat. I want to see a list. I want that nutless and guttless brown Shirt to formally declare it's names.

I did post that.

Someone has been going around the IMC network posting things in my declared names.

For details, see:

http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/8749_comment.php#8930

This guy:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1644537_comment.php#1688757

Okay, one thing for sure is the Muslim nations were more advanced than the "Franks" were at the time.

My reference to the Roman Empire collapsing in 476AD was meant as only the Western Empire. Sure the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) endured for almost a 1000 years longer, but I only refer to the Roman Empire as the Empire that existed before 500AD as the "original" Roman Empire.

As far as the 'Franks" being barbarians and flesh eating animals, there is no doubt some truth to that, after all every myth or legend has some roots in fact and I am sure there were lots of these Crusaders who were out for more than enriching their souls.

I do not believe that the majority were cannibals though. Especially when it comes down to the Knights Templar or Hospitalars and other orders. Sure the Knight Templar were persecuted by the very church they chose to fight for, but we all know what the Catholic Church stands for today. Money, Power, Greed. (Sorry if I step on any Catholics feet, but that is fact) That was the main reason for the destruction of the Templar order by the King of France, and the end betrayal by the Catholic Church.

Religion has always seemed to be the root for wars and conflict and this one was no different. Were the Islamic people cruel or wrong in trying to stop Christians from going to their Holy places? How about the Europeans who for whatever reasons wrong for trying to secure the Holy lands for their use?
(An thus denying its use to the Islamic people)

Who knows, one thing is for sure though, the world has not seen an end to these types of conflicts and I am sure the present "Crusade" by the U.S. and its allies will not be the worst one seen so far.

I agree with Aetius on the Franks and N-Africans as being barbarians once the WESTERN Roman Empire fell. It was not until the beginning of the 11th Century before the Europeans started to get their shit together. After all, the Eastern Roman Empire pretty much stayed out of the way of Western Europe and focused on defending themselves from the encroaching Persians.

And no, not all Crusaders were Mercenary's who cared little for Christ! What would posses people to march 2000+ miles in 100 degree heat with little or no water, food! Always under attack, by Muslim soldiers, Bandits even the Byzantines. And let’s not talk about diseases and other sicknesses. And for what? Gold? Jewels? Most of these "Mercenary's" never survived the years of war to enjoy such treasure. And to put the Templar’s or other groups who truly fought to the death for the church in the same boat a Mercenary’s or “Frankish Man eating butchers” show’s the writers lack of knowledge in the matters of the Crusading Orders.

I truly believe that most people who embarked on such a "Crusade" did it for the love of God. Yes I now it is fanatic, but is it any more fanatic to see the so called gentle Islamic people cutting off heads of Civilians trying to help rebuild a nation that has been oppressed for better than 20 years?

Koran 'nuff said
by Veritas vos liberabit Tuesday July 20, 2004 at 12:30 AM

Some quotes from the humble, peace loving, nice Muslim people's Koran.

"kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191);
"fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (9:5);
"slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter" (5:34).

If the Muslims are so tolerant of other beliefs then why is any type of Christian Churches or mass forbidden in a country like Saudi?

> but I only refer to the Roman Empire as the Empire
> that existed before 500AD as the "original" Roman
> Empire.

Right, but remember that the Byzantines DID consider themselves to be Rome. And most other people "in the east" agreed. Incidentally, after the fall of Constantinople, the "eastern" world looked to Moscow as the third Rome.

> As far as the 'Franks" being barbarians and flesh
> eating animals, there is no doubt some truth to that,
> after all every myth or legend has some roots in fact
> and I am sure there were lots of these Crusaders
> who were out for more than enriching their souls.

Exactly my point. And I suspect they were more numerous than you state.

> Especially when it comes down to the Knights
> Templar or Hospitalars and other orders. Sure the
> Knight Templar were persecuted by the very church
> they chose to fight for

But those seem to be more exceptions to the rule than anything else. Also remember that the Templars adopted many Middle Eastern cultural traits, which is part of the reason the Franks disliked them.

> but we all know what the Catholic Church stands fo
>r today. Money, Power, Greed.

Ummm but remember that every Christian in the West was a Catholic. And the Church was no different then.

> Religion has always seemed to be the root for wars
> and conflict and this one was no different.

But you are talking about an age in which religion and politics were innately intertwined.

> Were the Islamic people cruel or wrong in trying to
> stop Christians from going to their Holy places?

Except that the Muslims never did bar Christian pilgrims from Jerusalem until the Crusades started. Hell, there were (and are) Christian communities in the Middle East then too.

> How about the Europeans who for whatever
> reasons wrong for trying to secure the Holy lands for
> their use?
> (An thus denying its use to the Islamic people)

In other words kicking people out of their homelands.

> I am sure the present "Crusade" by the U.S. and its
> allies will not be the worst one seen so far.

Difference being that this "crusade" is led by a fundamentalist born-again-nutcase who thinks hes Jesus-emissary on earth, and its goal is to secure the Middle East for McDonalds, Justin Timberlake, Abercrombie & Fitch and all the other mass produced BS of the modern west.

> I agree with Aetius on the Franks and N-Africans as
> being barbarians once the WESTERN Roman
> Empire fell.

They were considered Barbarians by the Romans, not after. After all, they were the ones preserving the last vestiges of civilization.

> It was not until the beginning of the 11th Century
> before the Europeans started to get their shit
>together.

North Africa was dominated by the Byzantine empire for a long time, and later converted to Islam. By the seventh century the north Africans were far ahead of the Europeans.

> After all, the Eastern Roman Empire pretty much
> stayed out of the way of Western Europe and
> focused on defending themselves from the
> encroaching Persians.

Thats in the pre-Islamic era. After the coming of Islam the Persians actually were conquered by the Arabs, which wound up producing a Muslim culture in Persia and creating a rennaisance of Persian art, culture and language.

And, incidentally the Byzantines WERE active through much of the Mediterranean.

> And no, not all Crusaders were Mercenary's who
> cared little for Christ!

> What would posses people to march 2000+ miles in
> 100 degree heat with little or no water, food! Always
> under attack, by Muslim soldiers, Bandits

Many of the Crusaders never reached the Holy Land. Besides that, you forget that it was very much about money, land, glory, "fun" and extending Catholic power.

> the Byzantines.

Which prooves my point. The Greeks were Christian too, so why would they be so hostile?

> I truly believe that most people who embarked on
> such a "Crusade" did it for the love of God.

Love of God? By slaughtering everyone in their path? You are kind of forgetting that they did massacre Muslim civilians. And eastern Christians for that matter.

> the so called gentle Islamic people cutting off heads
> of Civilians trying to help rebuild a nation that has
> been oppressed for better than 20 years?

Well first and foremost you are painting the entire nation of Iraq as if it were a land of fundamentalist terrorists. Obviously you aren't paying attention to the thousands of innocent Iraqis who didn't do that act. And, I'm not sure the contractors count as civilians. Alot of them are ex-military or even mercenaries. Black water securities... does that sound like a peaceful bunch to ya?

> Koran 'nuff said
> Veritas vos liberabit

Ha. Don't care to live up to your name much do you? At least you could try and spread truth and freedom rather than spreading obedience to some crazy fundie Christian bunk.

> Some quotes from the humble, peace loving, nice
> Muslim people's Koran.

And theres also a bunch of quotes in favor of peace and co-existence. Hell, the Jews and Christians are considered people of the Book.

Surah 4:171:
"O People of the Book,
do not be fanatical in your faith,
and say nothing but the truth about God.
The Messiah who is Joshua (Jesus), son of Mary
was only an Apostle of God and a command of His
which He sent to Mary as a mercy from Him.
So believe in God and His apostles
and do not call Him a Trinity
Abstain from this for your own good
for God is only one God
and far from His glory
is it to beget a son."

In other words, Jesus, Mary and the Apostles are all inspired by God.

Surah 3:64
"Tell them (the People of the Book)
let us come to an agreement
on that which is common between us.
That we worship no onee but God
and make none his companion
and that none of us take any others for God except Him
If they turn away, say to them
Bear witness that we submit to God"

In other words, make a common peace with Christians and Jews. If they turn away, say that you worship God to.

> "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191);

"thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18).

Disbeliever in this context again refers to pagans. Not Christians and Jews. And guess what? The OT, which is considered holy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, ALSO condones killing pagans. Does this mean the Bible supports violence?

In fact, while on the subject lets not forget that all through Exodus God sets a number of curses on the Egyptians. Why? Because they don't worship him. So he kills off their food (and countless other innocent animals), curses them with pain and misery, and ultimately kills all first-born sons. Yeah. All of them. And then all of Egypt's army too. Including Pharaoh. Now you could say "but Pharaoh didn't free the Hebrews, so it's okay" (as if one man's cruelty justifies killing an entire generation of children) but the thing you'd also be forgetting is that Exodus makes it clear that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart".... in other words, God set the whole thing up like a video game.

> "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer
> them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem"
> (9:5);

Geez, as if there aren't enough references in the Old Testament to slaughtering pagans so that the Hebrews can have the whole of the Levant.

Numbers 1: 51 orders you to kill any strangers who come into your land.
Numbers 21 describes what happens to the Ammorites. I believe later theres something about throwing a spear through a woman's womb pleasing God so he spares the Hebrews.
Genesis 19:24 has God destroying an entire pagan city.
AND
Genesis 17 describes what happens to the Amelkites.

In other words, a lot of people get slaughtered by God because they are pagan. Nice stuff eh?

> "slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the
> unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with
> disgrace and that they shall have a great
> punishment in world hereafter" (5:34).

I'd point out to you that the "unbelievers" mentioned in this context ARE the pre-Islamic worshippers of al-Ussa. I know you are trying to imply Jews and Christians, becuase that makes others more likely to support your own point of view. Just like you don't mention how Jews and Christians are Ahl-i-Kitab.

> If the Muslims are so tolerant of other beliefs then
> why is any type of Christian Churches or mass
> forbidden in a country like Saudi?

Well first and foremost you are forgetting that Saudi Arabia is controlled by Wahhabists, so it doesn't reflect on the Islamic world in general. There are Christians there though, as well as NATIVE Jews. One of the royal familities is Jewish for crying out loud. Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, Morocco, Turkey, Tunisia, Senegal, Pakistan, Singapore, Indonesia, Nigeria and others all have well represented Christian, Sikh, Zoroastrian and/or Jewish communities. How do you explain those then?

Besides that, many Muslims hold that Mecca and Medina are holy sites, so non-Muslims really don't have any business being there. I tend to agree, since nobody else claims them. I don't think that the entirety of Saudi Arabia needs to be "anti-foreign", but certainly theres nothing wrong with the Hejaz protecting its own culture integrity.

What if I claimed Vatican City is repressive because it only allows Catholicism? Its true, it IS a Catholic Theocracy. They don't allow people to built any other religious structures.

That aside, you make ONE big mistake when talking about this. Most Muslims have never had any problem with the local Christians. They have been neighbors, friends and allies, part of a shared community and culture, since time immemorable. This shared respect, and the strong cultural ties, make it easier to get along. Foreign Christians DO try to force western culture on people, encourage a break from community and (in general) make a nuisance of themselves by trying REALLY HARD to convert people against their will. Especially the post-11-9 ones who start spewing the same anti-Islamic rhetoric over and over again. Its like having the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons harass you.

Of course, this applies mainly to the Protestants. Particularly the wacky evangelicals, born agains and baptists. It takes a certain kind of insanity, i guess, to have phone conversations with god, give money to some charlatan on tv, trust in faith healing over "sinful modern medicine" and fling venomous snakes around. In my experience Catholics and the Orthodox Churches are more respectful.

Well one thing I have to admit, you are rather well educated on the whole subject. Although I do not totally agree with some of the points you make I still have to yield on others.

As far as comparing the Koran with the Bible in killing pagans, I refer to the 10 Commandments, Thou Shall not kill. I think that pretty much does it as far as killing Pagans, unbelievers etc. Sure God killed the unbeliever/pagans by the thousands but after all he is God and can do what he wants, right?

And now to the current "Western Crusade" I agree with you on the G W Bush. I did not vote for him (Hell there is no I really have faith in now to vote for) And I was worried about the mess we were getting into (I work overseas for the Military and am a veteran myself) It is always easier to go in and conquer somebody than it is to hold and occupy the same country.

I feel it is not only for spreading the American culture (although that is part of it for sure) but also control of the oil rich nations. Is not Iraq the 2nd largest oil reserve nation in the Middle East? And who is next to them (that the US has positioned more "Legionnaire" troops/bases) Saudi and Kuwait, which also have the highest oil out-put in the world.

I went to a lecture a few years back and the professor giving it stated that if a super power like the US or China (Russia in the 80's) were to control the oil in these area's they could control Europe as well as Japan (since they both supposedly receive most of their oil from these nations) I never really thought about that until recently. It does make a person wonder. I am not sure how the world will look 5 to 10 years from now. What will the next big 9/11 be like? I shudder to think.

But it does seem like we (Muslim and Christian alike) are heading toward a brink, an abyss if you will. If things do not start to cool off, which I doubt especially with the latest saber rattling from Israel to Syria.

Until then though, peace be with you, God Bless, Praise Allah, and Shalom

bla
by sdgd sdad Monday April 25, 2005 at 11:40 PM
ffgfg@dfsf.com 1123456789 25654 E Sun LAne

Randall is wrong! Crusaders are rotten and evil. (Besides imbecillic, cannibalistic, and fanatics.)

For more about forgeries on Indymedia, see:

Sometimes they take something that an anti-Zionist has written, subtly alter it’s meaning by changing a few words, and post it under the name of the original author.

Randall -

What Saracaen wrote is true to the historic record rather than a fabrication as you suggest.

Radulph of Caen was on-hand at the siege of Maara. He was among other things the chronicler of the events for the Franks, a Frank himself. Caen and the Franks did not see the Muslims as humans and he documented it shamelessly, because, after all, if the Muslims were nothing but animals, what's wrong with eating them? The historic explanation for the mass cannibalism was that the siege starved to death a huge number of the Frank invaders. They were quite hungry by the time they were able to penetrate the city's defenses. It took so long that there was no food inside the city either. The only source of nutrition remaining were the inhabitants themselves.

The Crusades were quite horrific. You should get to a library and educate yourself rather than claim that the historic record itself is wrong simply because you do not believe it.

Mr.John Riggs,you are free to leave America and take up residence in a country with people who were responsible for making streets flow literally with Christian blood.Try it.

the crusaders ate the muslims because they were starving. In the middle of the syrian desert its not like there is plenty of food to feed an army in the tens of thousands.

"he crusaders ate the muslims because they were starving"

I hear they taste like Chicken!

So if God instructs the Hebrews to take for themselves,they are all wrong,and yesterday's and today's modern secular heathens or whatever are moral and just?Based on whichever way the wind blows?Also,what is your knowledge of the Roman Catholic empire?You are too subjective.

I AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU.CRUSADERS DID WHAT WAS NECESARY.GOOD FOR THEM.SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
YOU TRYING TO TELL ME THAT IF IT WASN'T MUSLIMS ATTAKIGN CHRISTAINS IN THE DESERT THEY WOULDNT DO THE SAME THING.NEWAY, ITS UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE.

You cant really blame them....Ive heard that muslims are delicious boiled with Rosemary and tyme, or flame roasted and served with gravy and a fine Don Perignon...........mmmmm.

"You cant really blame them....Ive heard that muslims are delicious boiled with Rosemary and tyme, or flame roasted and served with gravy and a fine Don Perignon...........mmmmm."

Filet your moslem, fry it gently in bacon fat. Warm a pita, open it and place the fried moslem inside with shrimp. Top it with cucumber and onions, finely chopped cilatnro and a mild cream sauce....ENJOY!

Just wondered if Tobasco would add a little kick!

Well I see the Crusaders and Islamic's are still at it on this thread!

" Just wondered if Tobasco would add a little kick!"

It would indeed, but for moslems from south of the border, I generally add jalepenos, and finish with cilantro, onions and a mild green salsa.
Serve with gaspacho and warm flour tortillas. The dish is called "La Cucaracha" in honor of the moslem donor.

If there was only one crusader witness or only Muslim witnesses which speak of crusader cannibalism it could be said that the events are untrue or at least exaggerated, but there are a few crusader witnesses.

Fulcher of Chartres - A chronicler of the First Crusade and appointed chaplain of Baldwin of Boulogne in 1097, was an eye witness and stated in his chronicle, chapter XXV "The Invasion of the Cities. The Siege Undertaken at Archas and the Journey and Arrival of the Franks as Jerusalem" stated

"I shudder to tell that many of our people, harassed by the madness of excessive hunger, cut pieces from the buttocks of the Saracens already dead there, which they cooked, but when it was not yet roasted enough by the fire, they devoured it with savage mouth."

Radulph of Caen - A Crusader commander wrote in a letter to the Pope, "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults alive in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled."

Albert of Aix - "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!"

It would be hard to believe that these people would lie, indicating that Christians had committed cannibalism. They would have every reason to cover it up. I think it is a testament to thier integrity that they included it in their letters and chronicles.

In defense of cannibalism under the circumstances. Many of the crusaders were dying of hunger and thirst. To apply our current moral values on their actions is truly insane. The hardships these chroniclers describe elsewhere would be beyond anyone living in a modern country to comprehend. Two of the chroniclers, Fulcher of Chartres and Radulph of Caen, seem to agree on the following points. First, the eating of Saracens was done only on one occassion. Second, that on that occasion there was a great famine among the crusaders. Third, that only some of the crusaders ate people. Albert of Aix's account is ambiguous. Its hard to tell if he is indicating that eating Saracens was normal for his troops or that the troops where so hungry that they did not hesitate.

"cut pieces from the buttocks of the Saracens already dead there, which they cooked, but when it was not yet roasted enough by the fire, they devoured it with savage mouth"

These days, you have to make sure that your moslem buttocks are fully cooked. I use a turkey thermometer to insure that the temeperature inside the buttock is high enough for consumption. It kills the bacteria that moslems are prone to contracting.
If the moslem buttocks haven't been cooked properly, it could lead to a massive outbreak of Moslem Flu. Currently, there is no vaccine for this deadly disease/

Crusaders out of fanaticism and their religious fervor lead them to view the Muslims as lower than animals.

The Cannibals of Ma’arra

From the very beginning, during the Crusades (1096-1100 A.D.), the Crusaders gained themselves a reputation for their barbaric behavior amongst the Muslim inhabitants of Syria, and much of that reputation would appear to have been founded on the horrific events which occurred at Ma’arra al-Numan. Following the fall of Antioch, the Crusaders raided the surrounding countryside in the lean winter months failing to bring in anything like sufficient supplies to feed their large numbers. They laid siege on the town of Ma’arra al-Numan. As many as 20,000 of its inhabitants are reported to have been massacred, despite assurances that their lives would be spared.
But if such events were common during those times, what happened next was certainly not. The Christian soldiers started to cannibalize Muslim Men, Women and Children. Men and Women were boiled then eaten. Children were barbequed on spits, somewhat like a shish-kabob. In a letter to the Pope one of the Crusader commanders wrote; Radulph of Caen wrote explicitly how: "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults alive in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." For centuries afterwards, the image of the Crusaders as fanatical cannibals lived on in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish literature. Some Arab commentators have even suggested that the behavior of the Crusaders was born not of necessity, but rather out of fanaticism, their religious fervor leading them to view the Muslims as lower than animals. Thus Amin Maalouf, in his book The Crusades through Arab Eyes, points to the words of the Crusader chronicler, Albert of Aix, who wrote: "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!” What is interesting to note is that if these Christians were really on a “Holy” mission to oust the “heathen” Muslims…then why did they break Christian morals and values to eat Muslim Men, Women, and Children?

Crusaders out of fanaticism and their religious fervor lead them to view the Muslims as lower than animals.

Meanwhile, Moslems say they're just slightly above animals. Obviously their perspective is different.

Firstly, I would like to state that the peoples who lived during the crusades had a very different culture than we peoples of today, where "barbarism," as you put it, could have possibly been a virtue and not a vice. Secondly, war is the playground of hate, spite, murder, and all manner of "evil" thoughts and acts. As a good historian one must look at all sides of a conflict and understand that all sides are people. It is too easy to cast blame to an opposing side, one must see that when war is in act or was in act that all sides are most likely going to be "barbaric." War is murder, war is hate, war is the slaughtering and butchering of the inocent, and most importantly, all men that wage war are the same.

As I was leaving my neighborhood en route to Tarawih prayers last night, a car ran through a stop sign and nearly crashed into my vehicle. Fortunately, I was able to swerve and avoid any contact. Reverting back to some pre-Islamic ghetto instincts, I immediately reversed, and sped up the street behind the reckless perpetrator. I caught up with the car about half a mile up the road and shouted at the driver, “Why don’t you learn how to drive!” The driver, a female, shouted back, “f____ you! Terrorist!” Apparently my Kufi, and my wife’s Hijab were sufficient evidence to indicate that we were Muslim. The word “terrorist,” dripping with deep contempt and hatred, based on a prejudiced view of two total strangers, sounded eerily like another word that symbolizes the worst sort of prejudicial hatred this country has known, namely, “nigger.”

Something foul is happening in this country as we move deeper into this post 9-11 world. The growing racist hatred and denigration currently directed at Muslims is indicative of a deep sickness. The most disturbing aspect of this malady is that it is being deliberately induced. The strategists behind the campaign may be motivated by their selfish service to a foreign power, they may be motivated by an attempt to justify massive security budgets, they may be motivated by a deep hatred of Islam. Whatever their motivation, they know that the climate they are creating is one that is often characterized by pogroms, and sometimes by genocidal slaughter.

This climate is fueled by fictitious e-mails speaking of fictitious diatribes uttered by fictitious Imams urging the Muslim faithful to indiscriminately kill the “infidels.” It is fueled by the reckless jingoism of hatemongering radio personalities. It is fueled by government misinformation campaigns that create a public perception of imminent danger to the people of this country from a technologically backwards, politically divided, socially truncated Middle East. It is also fueled by the ill-conceived, strategically counterproductive actions of a handful of misguided Muslims who call themselves Mujahideen.

If the current climate deepens and manifests in concerted campaigns of violence against the Muslims of this country it will not be an anomalous situation. The genocide that destroyed the Indian nations that once occupied this land took place in a similar climate. In the 1880s Chinese immigrants were shot in the streets of some western cities and hamlets like stray, rabid dogs. Those pogroms could only take place because a climate of hatred and bigotry had been created. The internment of the Japanese during World War Two took place in a climate of hate that was cultivated throughout the 1930s. Finally, it was in a climate of bigotry and hatred that dehumanizing violence was visited upon successive generations of African Americans.

During such times, it takes a tremendous amount of courage to resist and demand that the country live up to the meaning of those lofty words that accompanied her inception, “We hold these words to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This week one of the giants who dared to make such a demand has passed on. On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks made the fateful decision to remain seated in the “white” section of a Montgomery, Alabama bus. For that decision, she will forever stand in our memories. Many Muslims, especially those who are new to this country may ask, “What do we find to honor in this non-Muslim lady? She did not do anything big.” Let us be explicit in answering that query. In the climate of hatred that provided the context for Rosa Parks’ simple act of defiance, many people were being brutally murdered for far less. In that climate, what she did was monumental, and she suffered because of it. She and her family were harassed relentlessly in the aftermath of her arrest. The pressure became so great that in 1957 her husband, Raymond Parks, suffered a nervous breakdown. That same year she left the south to reside in Detroit, Michigan.

That said, her act of defiance in and of itself could be considered small. It was not even the first incident of its kind in Montgomery. However, God decreed that on that day, Rosa Parks would sit. And because she sat Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood up; because she sat the city of Montgomery, Alabama stood up; because she sat the South stood up; because she sat a nation’s conscience was roused.

In the ensuing agitation, civil and voting rights legislation was passed, affirmative action legislation was passed, a black man ascended to the bench of the Supreme Court, and most significantly, for most of those reading this message, immigration laws were amended allowing a flood of Muslim immigrants to enter this land. Now the political winds are changing and the current mood is a harbinger of a struggle ahead for American Muslims. We may well face the kind of climate faced by Rosa Parks deep down in Dixie. That climate will challenge us in ways that it challenged Mrs. Parks.

History remembers Rosa Parks favorably, just as it remembers the legions that preceded her in demanding a dignified existence for African Americans in this country. As we embark on our struggle to maintain our dignified existence here, we should ask ourselves, “How will history remember us?” The answer to that question lies in how we respond to another question, the simple question that was presented to Rosa Parks, “Will we stand or will we sit?”

Convert or Die
by Moslems want Your Babies Thursday November 10, 2005 at 09:53 AM

Front of the bus, back of the bus....fahgetaboutit...if yu're not a member of the Religion of Peace, you willlnot be permitted to ride the bus....
Sharia gonna get ya. Allahu Akbar Kaboom

CHRISTIANS 0, CHRISTIANS 0 (Necromongers O Negromongers)

Even during the persecutions of the Romans against the Christians, churches were cleft by rivalry and schism.
- Samuel Laeuchli, The Serpent and the Dove: Five Essays on Early Christianity

____________________________

The full record shows clearly that the prime object of Christian hatred, at all times, were not pagans but "heretics" who saw themselves in fact as the "real" Christians. Within that conflict lay an unresolved tension between the command to love one's enemies and the equally strong command to reject Satan and all his works. For in any given situation a Christian does not automatically know which of those two commands to follow. By attacking heretics as tools of Satan, Christian militants seized the rhetorical high ground and shifted the focus from loving one's enemies to opposing Satan - using Jesus' own words to do so?

Hatred of heresy (setting one Christian against another) was not new in the fourth century. What was new, however, was the option of bringing to bear the coercive power of the state?

Heresy was also the issue that mobilized the monks behind a message of coercion instead of love. Pagan critics provide vivid accounts of rampaging, black-robed mobs, and even the Christian emperor Theodosius is known to have remarked that "the monks commit many crimes." The potential for organized violence in these spiritual communities - whose inhabitants, by mid-century, are said to have numbered tens of thousands - should not be underestimated. The monks also wielded a spiritual authority that turned what otherwise might have seemed senseless acts of violence into moral crusades.
- H. A. Drake, "Lambs Into Lions: Explaining Early Christian Intolerance," Past and Present, No. 153, 1996

____________________________

In the fourth century, Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans.
- William Manchester, A World Lit Only by Fire ? The Medieval Mind and The Renaissance

____________________________

When the Emperor Constantine repented the murder of his wife, his son, and "some of his nearest relatives," he was told by a Roman philosopher that such guilt as his could not be eradicated. When some Christian bishops, however, informed him that he could be purified by baptism, he was delighted, and became a Christian. Afterwards, he always carried a priest with him and accepted baptism only on his deathbed so that he might commit sin with impunity to the very end?

Constantine was induced by the bishops to issue a decree outlawing all Christian sects ("the Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, Montanists," etc.) other than the one he had converted to. They were "in league with the devil," and he "commanded all their houses of prayer be made over to the Catholic Church; that no facility whatever be left for any future gathering."

Ironically, scarcely was the signet dry on this edict when Arianism erupted in the East, Donatism split the northwestern African churches into warring camps, and Manichaeism began to spread throughout Christendom?

There is only one phase of ancient Christian persecution which remains fully recorded: the five decades in which Arian and Athanasian Christians contended for supremacy and in which several hundreds of thousands must have perished while millions suffered distress or exile.
- Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins

____________________________

[Murderous riots broke out between Christians over the appointment of Arian or Athanasian bishops.] Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in two years (A.D. 342-343) than by all the persecutions by pagans in the history of Rome.
- Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4, The Age of Faith

____________________________

From the very first the Church was faced with the task of establishing dogmas. For Christianity abounds in problems more hinted at than answered in the New Testament...

The first ecumenical church council, the Council of Nicea, assembled in the year 325 in the imperial palace of the first Christian emperor, Constantine. Once the discussions started the participants threw their episcopal dignity to the wind and shouted wildly at each other. They were concerned primarily with improving their positions of power. Diplomacy was wielded as a weapon, and intrigues often replaced intelligence. There were so many ignorant bishops that one participant bluntly called the council "a synod of nothing but blockheads." Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith hammered out at the council. In this way unity was achieved...

The council also pronounced Arius a heretic. People who owned his writings were ordered to deliver them up on pain of punishment. Arius was banished. And the emperor declared that to side with Arius was a crime. Violent repression of the Arian heresy, however, accomplished the opposite, and served to spread rather than crush the heresy...

Someone close to the emperor intervened on Arius' part and in 330, Arius was reinstated to his priesthood. The hoped for reconciliation between Arius and Athanasius, failed; the factional struggle continued and became intertwined with political disputes. Then, ten years after being condemned, Arianism gained the upper hand, was proclaimed truth, and the opposing party condemned as advocates of error. In 335 it was Bishop Athanasius' turn to go off into exile...

But then, on the eve of his reinstallation to ecclesiastical power, Arius died (or was possibly murdered). History is dumb as to the means of his death, but Athanasius circulated his own version of what happened. He said that Arius fainted in a public privy, and, like Judas Iscariot, his bowels poured out of him, his liver emerged, covered with blood, and then, suffering the most violent pain, he discharged his heart, the seat of all his wickedness. To crown these horrors, Arius' whole body became thinner and thinner until at last the heretic fell through the opening of the privy into the sewer beneath. Which no doubt tells us more about the character of Athanasius, who spread such a repulsive story, than about what really happened to Arius...

At the church council held at Ephesus in 449 the discussion became so inflamed that the delegates went at one another with clubs, until one party held the field and could enforce the decree it desired. Fanatical bands of monks terrorized the assembly of Church notables. Envoys from the church at Rome were set upon and soundly thumped. Leo the Great called it "The Robber Council," nor was this the only one of its kind. There were other councils at which the Church Fathers became so incensed that they hurled the Bible at each other's heads.
- Walter Nigg, The Heretics

____________________________

In 380 A.D. the Christian Roman Emperor, Theodosius, passed a decree that read: "We shall believe in the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."
- J. N. Hillgarth, The Conversion of Western Europe

____________________________

Christianity created dissension throughout the Roman Empire as Christian fought Christian?After Donatist Christians were persecuted by anti-Donatists of the Empire, leaving their fertile province pillaged with fire and sword, the Donatists welcomed the Vandal invaders of their province with joy, and North Africa was lost to Rome.

Following this, the disputes of the third and fourth general Christian councils alienated Egyptian Christians from the Christians of Asia Minor and Constantinople. The Emperor Justinian enacted measures to win back the Egyptians to orthodoxy. But that only infuriated them more, and, when the Arabs invaded Egypt the Egyptians received them as deliverers, and fell in fury on their Greek defenders, and drove them into the sea. One Egyptian Christian said to Amrou, the Saracen general, "With the Greeks I desire no communion, either in this world or the next, and I adjure forever the Byzantine tyrant, and his Christian synod of Chalcedon."

Nestorian Christians were forced from the Empire, and went into Asia, establishing what became for a while the largest church in Christiandom. "Under the rod of persecution, Nestorian and Monophysite Christians degenerated into rebels and fugitives; and the most ancient and useful allies of Rome were taught to consider the emperor not as the chief, but as the enemy of Christians." (Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire)

Differences of opinion regarding the date of Easter grew in intensity over time, and constituted a major factor in bringing about the separation of the churches of Rome (Catholic) and Constantinople (Orthodox) that exists today.

Ebionite Christians and Gnostic Christians were treated poorly, although Ebionites were in all likelihood the truest adherents of primitive Christianity, and the Gnostics were the "Christian humanists" of their day.

The hatred between Christian groups was extraordinary. In the middle of the fifth century they disputed whether the words, "who was crucified for us" should be added to the Trisagion (the "Holy, holy, holy" song sung eternally in heaven according to Isaiah and the book of Revelation). Over this dispute, the city of Constantinople suffered a series of riots, Thrace was depopulated, and as many as tens of thousands of Christians on the wrong side of the argument were slain. The Emperor was forced to go into hiding to beg for mercy.
- Madalyn Murray O'Hair, "Gibbon, the Historian, and Christianity," An Atheist Speaks

____________________________

After one "election meeting" in a church, in October 366, the "ushers" picked up from the floor one hundred and sixty Christian corpses! It is sheer affectation of modern Roman Catholic writers to question this, as we learn it from a report to the emperor of two priests of the time. The riots of the Christians which filled the streets of Rome with blood for a week, are, in fact, ironically recorded by the contemporary Roman writer, Ammianus Marcellinus.

In one day the Christians murdered more of their brethren than the pagans can be positively proved to have martyred in three centuries, and the total number of the slain during the fight for the papal chair (in which the supporters of Pope Damasus literally cut his way, with swords and axes, to the papal chair through the supporters of the rival candidate Ursicinus) is probably as great as the total number of actual martyrs. If we add to these the number of the slain in the fights of the Arians and Trinitarians in the east and the fights of Catholics and Donatists in Africa, we get a sum of "martyrs" many times as large as the genuine victims of Roman law; and we should still have to add the massacre by Theodosius at Thessalonica, the massacre of a regiment of Arian soldiers, the lives sacrificed under Constantius, Valentinian, etc.

This frightful and sordid temper of the new Christendom is luridly exhibited in the murder of Hypatia of Alexandria in 415. Under the "great" Father of the Church, Cyril of Alexandria, a Christian mob, led by a minor cleric of the church, stripped Hypatia naked and gashed her with oyster shells until she died (though I have read that she was clubbed to death before her flesh was stripped off her bones - Skip). She was a teacher of mathematics and philosopy, a person of the highest ideals and character. This barbaric fury (of the Christians) raged from Rome to Alexandria and Antioch, and degraded the cities with spectacles that paganism had never witnessed...

Salvianus, a priest of Marseilles of the fifth century, deplores the vanished virtue of the pagan world and declares that "The whole body of Christians is a sink of iniquity." "Very few," he says, "avoid evil." He challenges his readers: "How many in the Church will you find that are not drunkards or adulterers, or fornicators, or gamblers, or robbers, or murderers - or all together?" (De Gubernatione Dei, III, 9) Gregory of Tours, in the next century, gives, incredible as it may seem, an even darker picture of the Christian world, over part of which he presides. You cannot read these truths, unless you can read bad Latin, because they are never translated. It is the flowers, the rare examples of virtue, the untruths of Eusebius and the Martyrologies, that are translated. It is the legends of St. Agnes and St. Catherine, the heroic fictions of St. Lawrence and St. Sebastian that you read. But there were ten vices for every virtue, ten lies for every truth, a hundred murders for every genuine martyrdom.
- Joseph McCabe, "How Christianity Triumphed"

____________________________

Art, philosophy, literature, the very psychology of Western man, all suffered by the victory of the bishops.
- John Holland Smith, The Death of Classical Paganism

____________________________

The Christian zealots for conversion took to the streets or criss-crossed the countryside, destroying no doubt more of the architectural and artistic treasure of their world than any passing barbarians thereafter.
- Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire

____________________________

There was a time when religion played an all-powerful role in European politics with Protestants and Catholics organizing themselves into political factions and squandering the wealth of Europe on sectarian wars. English liberalism emerged in direct reaction to the religious fanaticism of the English Civil War. Contrary to those who at the time believed that religion was a necessary and permanent feature of the political landscape, liberalism vanquished religion in Europe. After a centuries-long confrontation with liberalism, religion was taught to be tolerant?

In the sixteenth century, it would have seemed strange to most Europeans not to use political power to enforce belief in their particular sectarian faith. Today, the idea that the practice of religion other than one's own should injure one's own faith seems bizarre, even to the most pious churchmen. Religion has been relegated to the sphere of private life - exiled, it would seem, more or less permanently from European political life except on certain narrow issues like abortion...

Religion per se did not create free societies; Christianity in a certain sense had to abolish itself through a secularization of its goals before liberalism could emerge...

Political liberalism in England ended the religious wars between Protestant and Catholic that had nearly destroyed that country during the seventeenth century: with its advent, religion was defanged by being made tolerant.
- Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man

____________________________

The Thirty Years' War began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Sweden, France, and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate stated that due to the war and resulting famine and pestilence, Germany's population dropped from eighteen million to four million. In the end nothing was settled.
- James A. Haught, Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness

____________________________

Herbert Langer in The Thirty Years' War, says that more than one quarter of Europe's population died as a result of those thirty years of slaughter, famine and disease. Ironically, the majority of Europeans who killed each other shared such orthodox religious beliefs as Jesus' deity, the Trinity, and even "creationism." So you can't blame the horrific spectacle of the Thirty Years' War on modern day scapegoats like atheism, humanism or the theory of evolution. Such a war demonstrates that getting nations to agree on major articles of faith does not ensure peace. Far from it. Some of the most intense rivalries exist between groups whose beliefs broadly resemble one another but differ in subtle respects.
- Skip Church

____________________________

In 1844 Protestants besieged Catholic neighborhoods in Philadelphia with cannon fire, pistols, and by setting houses aflame, because the Catholics had protested the use of the Protestant's King James Bible in public schools. Martial law was declared, and it took two thousand federal troops to quell the rioting; eighteen people were killed and scores more were injured.
- Michael Feldberg, The Philadelphia Riots of 1844: A Study of Ethnic Conflicts

____________________________

Neighbors say the trouble began eight years ago when a second storefront church opened next door to an existing one in Brooklyn. From that time on there were accusations of slashed tires, hung-up phone calls, and parking in each others' driveways. The differences were resolved, however, when the pastor of the Prince of Peace Disciples and his three sons confronted members of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and accused them of firing gunshots at their building. The pastor's sons then took out their guns and fired away, killing one of the parishioners and wounding the other two.
- J. D. Bell, "Nuts in the News," The American Rationalist, May/June 1997

____________________________

A holy war was set off in Brazil when a Pentecostal pastor, opposed to the "image-worship" of the nations 110,000 Catholics, displayed a statue of a black version of the Virgin Mary called Our Lady of Aparecida, and referred to it as "a horrible, disgraceful doll" while kicking and slapping it. Screaming, rock-throwing crowds surrounded the church of the Pentecostal pastor while thousands of Catholics protested by carrying images of the Virgin through the streets.
- J. D. Bell, "Nuts in the News," The American Rationalist, May/June 1997

____________________________

A 32-year-old Catholic woman was beaten to death after she refused to enter an evangelical church in northeastern Brazil. She was passing by the Church of the Kingdom of God when two pastors ordered their followers to bring her inside to attend a ceremony. When she refused, the group held her ten-year-old daughter while the pastors dragged her by the hair and beat her in order to "exorcise the devil from her."
- J. D. Bell, "Nuts in the News," The American Rationalist, Nov./Dec. 1994

____________________________

There has never been a kingdom given to so many civil wars as that of Christ's.
- Charles de Montesquieu

INDIANS 0, CHRISTIANS 1
On average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess."

Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Wars are far less bloody," so that there usually was "no great slaughter of either side." Indeed, "They might fight seven years and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children.

In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idle ... did run away unto the Indians" - to live among them. "Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he appointed to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheels, others to be staked and some shot to death.'" Of course these elegant measures were reserved for fellow Englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down.

On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the Peqout War. The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England. When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked. Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-