The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9020899/The-crusades-...

It looks as though the establishment has been forced to swing into an informational/contextualising series of actions.  Before we had this documentary on The Crusades, we had the documentary on Jerusalem, and before that the documentary on Mohammed.  That is all within the last 6 months.  

The BBC exists to inform and educate. But for 30 years or so they've singularly failed to do that, whilst the biggest change in the population of Britain was underway.

It's hard to know if these contextualising documentaries are aimed at preventing non-muslims from becoming more radical, or aimed at teaching muslims some home truths.  Maybe both.

Views: 225

Replies to This Discussion

i wont hold my breath.  

in the life of Mohammed presented by Rageh Omaar, Robert Spencer did not get enough coverage, only 3-4 sentences, in the episode i saw.  While the likes of Karen Armstrong and Esposito and Tariq Ramadan kept getting time to spout!  Depressing really.

Plus the BBC hired a Muslim, Aaqil Ahmed to the post of Head of Religion and Ethics.  I have not done a study of any changes that have occurred since that appt in May 2009 but i know that i have listened to too many Muslims on Thought for the Day in the last few months, spouting lies about Islam.

The Mohammed documentary was not adequate.  But it was a good first step.  I fully expected it to dodge the jews of Khaybar, the issue of Aisha, etc.  It didn't do that.

The BBC is a mouthpiece for the state.  The state is having to perform a "holding operation" as people get informed.  I thought it was common knowledge, but a month or two ago, there was a riot between white people and muslims (the information was of course suppressed by the MSM). The cause of this riot?  Some kid (maybe 10 or 12) had responded to a muslim in his RE lesson who was slagging-off Jesus.  The non-muslim kid responded: "at least Jesus wasn't a paedophile, like Mohammed".  That was enough to cause a riot, involving large groups of adults.

A few years ago I had a conversation with some of the Iranian communist dissidents who campaign in the west end.  I was just finding out about all this stuff, and given their status as communist exiles from a muslim country, I asked a few of them if it was true that Mohammed had a wife who was 6 years old.  Some were outraged at the suggestion and denied it hotly.  Others looked on in embarrassment and said it was true.  If a group like that were not discussing this issue (and several muslims I've encountered since then new nothing about it), just raising that issue in a BBC documentary presented by a muslim is good.  They will understand now why people sometimes chant "Mohammed was a paedo".

So the state is having to "manage" people's understanding of the issues.  Compare this to the near total lack of context the BBC has provided on the issues of Israel, islam and the crusades over the past 30 years.  Of course, if it wasn't for the internet, the state and the BBC would be keeping people in ignorance.

It will be hard for this documentary to not mention the rise of islam and the Crusades as a response to the aggression of muslims (although I thought the Jerusalem documentary did an extraordinary job of concealing the aggressive islamic expansion - Montefiore talked of the Crusades as "christian jihad", but he had never mentioned islamic jihad at all.) 


Kinana said:

i wont hold my breath.  

I not to surprised that some where outraged, if you remember the little charade you Peter and myself had about khomeimi and mohammed and how I noted that Ashia was hated by shia moslems.  It is only in the sunni haddithes that we find out about mohammed and his child bride.

Ah. OK.  Good catch.  That does explain it.  I found the whole thing bizarre and confusing.  I just attributed it to the thought-blindness induced by communism.

shiva said:

I not to surprised that some where outraged, if you remember the little charade you Peter and myself had about khomeimi and mohammed and how I noted that Ashia was hated by shia moslems.  It is only in the sunni haddithes that we find out about mohammed and his child bride.

 Just as the docu on Jerusalem, this one sailed over the fact that the Crusades were in response to Islamic aggression. It may have helped if they'd mentioned that the reconquista was well under way as well. There was no mention of the fact that the byzantine empire had lost half their territory to the Turks, who were sunni muslims, and the fact that Jerusalem had changed hands between waring muslim tribes (shite,sunni) making it a dangerous place for the jews ands christians who lived there, and the pilgrims.

The crusaders were a bloody event, but not just due to christian expansion, which is the impression programs like this try to convey.

Then it shows what the state considers to be the biggest threat.  They don't mind contextualising Mohammed's sex with a 9 year old girl, they don't mind contextualising his war against the jews.  

What the programme on Jerusalem and The Crusades show, is that they are desperate for the history of muslim aggression to come out.  We really need to get copies of these various documentaries.  They can be used in evidence in a decade or so of how the state was trying to cover things up.

Clearly they won't be making a documentary on the islamic slave trade any time soon.

But these things are all useful in telling us where the pressure points lie from the view of the state.  Methinks it is time the EDL started to sell books from their website.  In fact, come to think of it, all the CJ sites should have a list of 10 recommended books, books that provide the true history.

paul collings said:

 Just as the docu on Jerusalem, this one sailed over the fact that the Crusades were in response to Islamic aggression. It may have helped if they'd mentioned that the reconquista was well under way as well. There was no mention of the fact that the byzantine empire had lost half their territory to the Turks, who were sunni muslims, and the fact that Jerusalem had changed hands between waring muslim tribes (shite,sunni) making it a dangerous place for the jews ands christians who lived there, and the pilgrims.

The crusaders were a bloody event, but not just due to christian expansion, which is the impression programs like this try to convey.

I don,t know about such things, but couldn't the kindle and other E.books be utilized for such a project. Thats if truthful  history books have been written into the data base's. Is there an on line libary you go to?

'It is only in the sunni haddithes that we find out about mohammed and his child bride.'

surely though the shiites do not deny this relationship and the age of aisha in particular?  after the revolution the marriageable age for girls was lowered to nine years of age, i believe.  this could only have happened because they recognise the bukhari hadiths as authentic.  right?

or are you saying that Shiites pick and choose which bukhari hadiths are authentic?

Paul

next time we meet i can give you a list of books that i have which you can borrow.  another list i have used is from JW:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/recommended-books-to-understand-jihad-dhi...

in general, i think books full of assertions about Islam without reference to the 'sacred' texts should be avoided.

'It is only in the sunni haddithes that we find out about mohammed and his child bride.'

surely though the shiites do not deny this relationship and the age of aisha in particular?  after the revolution the marriageable age for girls was lowered to nine years of age, i believe.  this could only have happened because they recognise the bukhari hadiths as authentic.  right?

or are you saying that Shiites pick and choose which bukhari hadiths are authentic?

Interesting enough they do, The shiites absalutely hate Ashia. This hatred goes as far back to the death of mohammed

Sunnis believe that Abu Bakr, the father of Muhammad's wife Aisha, was Muhammad's rightful successor and that the method of choosing or electing leaders endorsed by the Quran is the consensus of the Ummah, 

Shiites believe that Muhammad divinely ordained his cousin and son-in-law Ali the father of his grandsons Hasan ibn Ali and Hussein ibn Ali in accordance with the command of God to be the next caliph making Ali and his direct descendants Muhammad's successors. Ali was married to Fatimah, Muhammad's daughter.

She is not mentioned in the Koran, but there are two references, one of these being

Q.24: 11. Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves: think it not to be an evil to you; On the contrary it is good for you: to every man among them of the sin that he earned, and to him who took on himself the lead among them, will be a penalty grievous.

While travelling, Aisha discovered she was missing her necklace. She left her litter to find it, but got lost and the caravan left without her. She was waiting to be rescued and fell asleep. She was found the next morning by a young nomad named Safwan who brought her back to Medina. Rumors started about infidelity and Muhammad consulted some of his followers in the right path. Ali advised that the Prophet could take another wife if he wished to do so However Usama bin Zayd Bin, son of Zayd ibn Harithah, defended Aisha's reputation. When questioned, he declared 'This is all a lie - we know nothing but good of her.' His position as adopted grandson of the Prophet meant that his opinion eventually came to be highly regarded, but at this point he was about the same age as Aisha and his testimony did not hold much weight. Shortly after this, Muhammad announced that he had received a revelation from God confirming Aisha's innocence and directing that charges of adultery must be supported by four eyewitnesses. This revelation also rebuked Aisha's accusers whom Muhammad ordered to receive forty lashes in punishment.

Kinana said:

or are you saying that Shiites pick and choose which bukhari hadiths are authentic?

The Shia reject most of the narrators of Hadith that are considered reliable by Sunni Muslims, except Abu Zarr Al-Gafari. Similarly, the Shia do not accept authentic Hadith books, relied upon by Sunni Muslims such as Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, etc.

Abdullah As-Subayt (Shia scholar) states regarding Imam Al-Bukhari: "He has transmitted strange and even abominable tales unsuitable even for the minds of superstitious Berbers and old Sudani women." (Taht Rayah al-Haqq) .

I finally got round to watching this programme.

The first thing I noticed is the presenter is Dr. Tom Asbridge, a lecturer at Queen Mary College, the very place in east London where OLFA were threatened with murder by the Cellphone Jihadi last week. Asbridge is the Director of the MA in Islam and the West at the college. What's the bet that most of his students are islamic fundamentalists and politically-correct liberals? 

For those who have not been involved in academia at a professional level, they will not realise just how policing goes on of academics. The narrative that academics tell themselves and the outside world is that they are independent-minded. But they are not. They police the thoughts of themselves and their fellow academics. The evidence for this appears when the academics retire. And from chemistry to biology to linguistics, once academics are no longer constrained to worry about their "reputation" and how it will affect their employment, they are then free to write about the subjects or from angles that were "beyond the pale" whilst they were in hock to their employing institution.

He describes the 1st Crusade as an "armed pilgrimage". He says that Urban portrayed the situation in the Holy Land as one where "a race alien to god has reduced the land of christians by sword, rapine and fire". Asbridge goes on to suggest that the "armed pilgrimage" served the purposes of the papacy (rather than being a response to islamic aggression).  

Asbridge makes out that Pope Urban created the concept of "Otherness", as if islam had not already done that (and other ideologies before). Islam is all about Otherness - there are believers and non-believers, and almost every other page of the Koran is about denigrating those who are Other.  Presumably Asbridge has never read the Koran.  

He claims that Pope Urban's description of islamic aggression bears no relation to what muslims had done, and that it was 4 centuries earlier that Jerusalem "had fallen" to islam. "Had fallen"? No swords, rape, slavery or torture involved. Jerusalem simply fell it appears. No armed assault according to Asbridger.  

Yet when he goes on to explain the Crusaders first encounter with Turkish muslims, the description cited by Asbridge fits perfectly with Urban's account.  Yet Asbridge's own ideological blindness doesn't allow him to see that Urban was obviously going off reports of how muslims behaved, and the Crusders own first encounter with muslims backed that up.  This invading army of Crusaders were not prepared for the ferocity and barbarity of the Turkish muslims, even though Urban supposedly had represented them as being so evil. 

He talks about the hold that Christianity had over the minds of europeans. He goes on about how people are represented in imagery as being tortured and pulled into hell for their sins. He doesn't point out that this was all a part of islam too, and indeed there is far more of it in the Koran than in the New Testament.

He says the pope promised redemption to those who went on the Crusades, exactly as islam had promised to jihadis. He seems to think that Pope Urban was some kind of Machievellian Hitler-like figure, who got the idea of christians fighting as if it came just from Urban's evil mind, rather than it being a case of Urban (and undoubtedly other christian leaders) who saw they would have no alternative but to make Christianity more like Islam in order to fight the spread of islam. Just like a pacifist might have to decide to join the army in 1939 to stop the Nazis.

Presumably the account of this documentary comes from Asbridge's books: The Crusades – The War for the Holy Land and The First Crusade: A New History. It would be interesting to see if in these books he once agains shows a shocking ahistoricy, where Pope Urban is characterised as some Evil Genius who on a baseless whim turned christianity from a pacifist religion to a maniacal force who could be directed to go to war against a muslim force that had occupied Jerusalem for 400 years.  I am very curious to see if he accounts for the spread of islam from Medina to Cordoba and from Mecca to Kabul, and whether or not that imperial conquest happened by muslims handing out flowers and kisses.

He says that the Crusaders are "incomprehensible" as Christians.  But then he singulary fails to explain how they could become so ferocious and what world-historical events had gone on in the preceding 400 years.  The contamination by islam is something he studiously ignores.  It is ironic that 1000 years after the Crusades we should be led to believe that they still important, yet Asbridge pretends in his documentary that the events that happened in the 400 years before the Crusades were not of any importance.

It is interesting to see which languages Asbridge's works have been translated into: Dutch, German, Spanish, Danish, Polish. Now, bear in mind that most academics in those countries (maybe not Poland) will already read English, this would suggest a massive contemporary interest in the Crusades across Europe, and an interest that exists amongst the general reading public rather than academics. http://www.history.qmul.ac.uk/staff/asbridget.html

I'll get hold of copies of Asbridge's books, and see if he really is such a blinkered historian. He calls the violence of the Crusaders "an enigma". Which is just bizarre. Well, it would be bizarre, and Urban and the Crusaders' motives would be inexplicable, if one ignores the 400 preceding years of islam. Just like for politically-correct academics the Atlantic slave trade just magically appears in Portugal in the 15th century, so it appears that Asbridge has closed his mind to the contaminating influence of islam on christianity and europe.

The initial article I quoted said

So alien is the devotion – the fanaticism – that was displayed that Asbridge has to spend almost a third of the opening episode easing us into the medieval mindset, making us understand how the Pope’s promise of salvation could outweigh any worldly good or blessing.

Clearly, that is just not true.  There is no explanation of how the Crusades came about that refers to any of the pre-history concerning islam and what the muslims had done.  Either Asbridge is a rubbish historian, or he's policing his thoughts to not blame islam for the Crusades.

The only mention of Jihad in Asbridge's documentary is as an islamic response to the Crusades.  Not that the Crusades were christianity's response to jihad. No wonder he finds the Crusades "bizarre" and "incomprehensible".

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service