Why did the Muslim Middle East become so violent? Philip Carl Salzman explains how Bedouin politics became embedded in modern Islamic sociologyToday’s excerpt entitled ‘Muhammad’s Tribe’ describes how Muhammad’s Bedouin followers violently conquered the Middle East, Northern India and parts of Europe. Some samples:
The article is accompanied by an illustration showing a horse-mounted, sword-wielding "Prophet Muhammad and his followers" spreading the ‘religion of peace’.
Once united, the Bedouin warriors of the umma turned outward, teaching the world the meaning of jihad, holy war.
... Arab armies invaded and subdued much of Christian Spain and Portugal, and all of Sicily. Since the Roman Empire, the world had not seen such power and reach. All fell before the Saracen blades.
...evidence is overwhelming that vast numbers of infidel male warriors and civilians were slain, and that most of those spared, particularly the women and children, were enslaved for domestic and sexual servitude...
It is true that throughout history intergroup relations ...were.. not infrequently brutal and bloodthirsty. The world of Islam was not so much an exception to this, as exemplary of it.
So,the infidel Maclean’s magazine publishes an excerpt of infidel Mark Steyn’s book quoting a Scandinavian Imam’s words about European Muslims "spreading like mosquitos" and is hauled before an infidel Canadian Human Rights Commission on the complaint of the Canadian Islamic Congress.
Now we have the infidel ‘National Post’ printing the words of infidel author Salzman describing the bloody jihad of Muhammad and his followers, and further, committing the ‘blasphemy’ of depicting an image of the Prophet Muhammad.
If this doesn’t rate at least one complaint to a Canadian HRC against the National Post, not to mention a world-wide Muslim uprising, then I don’t know what does. Teddy bears and cartoons are small potatoes by comparison.