Friday, 20 November 2015
Tuesday, 17 November 2015
Biafra protesters tell Nigeria: You can have our oil, all we want is freedom
People supporting the independence of the Biafran
territories in south east Nigeria have staged a protest in Central
London demanding the release of their UK-based leader Nnamdi Kanu. Kanu,
head of the Indigenous People of Biafra (Ipob) group and director of
the London-based radio station Radio Biafra, was arrested in Lagos
earlier in October.
According to the Nigeria's state security service (DSS), he was released on bail, but his supporters claim that he is still being detained and has not resumed his activities on Radio Biafra.
Pro-Biafrans call for the independence of territories that constituted the Biafran Republic, established in 1967 and re-annexed to Nigeria in 1970, following a civil war that claimed between one and three million lives. Supporters of the Biafra issue hold regular marches − which they call "evangelisation" − across several states in southern Nigeria, mainly inhabited by the Igbo ethnic group. Protests have increased in the past few days in Nigeria and other states after Kanu was apprehended.
Pro-Biafrans accuse the police of violence. However, police have denied these claims, arguing that people advocating for Biafra hold violent protests disrupting peace.
Amnesty International said in an exclusive report by IBTimes UK that there is "credible evidence that pro-Biafran separatists in Nigeria are targeted by police". Meanwhile, the Nigerian government told IBTimes UK that it does not consider the separatist movement as a threat to the current leadership and defined pro-Biafrans as an "insignificant number of frustrated people who are not a threat to the existence of Nigeria".
Biafra history
After the end of the British rule in 1960, Nigeria consisted of territories that were not part of the nation before the colonisation, resulting in escalating tensions among the communities.
People in the Eastern Region − a former federal division of Nigeria with capital Enugu − mainly from the Igbo community, wanted to secede due to ethnic, religious and economic differences with other communities in Nigeria. The Eastern Region gained independence and proclaimed itself the Republic of Biafra following two coup d'etats in 1966 and 1967.
The fact that Nigeria's oil was located in the south of the country played a major role in the eruption of the war, during which medicine and food shortages in Biafra led to the death of millions of people.
Biafra has been commonly divided into four main "tribes" − the Igbos, the Ibibio-Efiks, the Ijaws and the Ogojas. The modern-day states that make up Biafra from the eastern region and midwest are: Anambra, Enugu, Imo, Delta, Bayelsa, Abia, Cross River, Akwa-Ibom, Rivers, Ebonyi, southern part of Ondo State, Igbanke in Edo State and southern part of Benue State.
Amalgamation contract and birth of Nigeria
Pro-Biafrans cite the expiration of a so-called "amalgamation contract" as one of the reasons to justify their quest to separate from the rest of Nigeria.
The contract was issued by Britain during the colonisation era and was aimed at integrating people from the north and the south within 100 years, since it was issued despite cultural, religious and economic differences among the various ethnic groups.
The contract, now at the National Archive of London, was created in 1914 by Frederick John Dealtry Lugard, the governor general of modern-day Nigeria. The document, opposed by the political class and the media in Lagos, expired in 2014.
The term "Nigeria" was created by Lugard's wife, British journalist Flora Shaw, in 1897 when she suggested to replace the "British protectorate of the Niger River" with a shorter term.
According to the Nigeria's state security service (DSS), he was released on bail, but his supporters claim that he is still being detained and has not resumed his activities on Radio Biafra.
Pro-Biafrans call for the independence of territories that constituted the Biafran Republic, established in 1967 and re-annexed to Nigeria in 1970, following a civil war that claimed between one and three million lives. Supporters of the Biafra issue hold regular marches − which they call "evangelisation" − across several states in southern Nigeria, mainly inhabited by the Igbo ethnic group. Protests have increased in the past few days in Nigeria and other states after Kanu was apprehended.
Pro-Biafrans accuse the police of violence. However, police have denied these claims, arguing that people advocating for Biafra hold violent protests disrupting peace.
Amnesty International said in an exclusive report by IBTimes UK that there is "credible evidence that pro-Biafran separatists in Nigeria are targeted by police". Meanwhile, the Nigerian government told IBTimes UK that it does not consider the separatist movement as a threat to the current leadership and defined pro-Biafrans as an "insignificant number of frustrated people who are not a threat to the existence of Nigeria".
Biafra history
After the end of the British rule in 1960, Nigeria consisted of territories that were not part of the nation before the colonisation, resulting in escalating tensions among the communities.
People in the Eastern Region − a former federal division of Nigeria with capital Enugu − mainly from the Igbo community, wanted to secede due to ethnic, religious and economic differences with other communities in Nigeria. The Eastern Region gained independence and proclaimed itself the Republic of Biafra following two coup d'etats in 1966 and 1967.
The fact that Nigeria's oil was located in the south of the country played a major role in the eruption of the war, during which medicine and food shortages in Biafra led to the death of millions of people.
Biafra has been commonly divided into four main "tribes" − the Igbos, the Ibibio-Efiks, the Ijaws and the Ogojas. The modern-day states that make up Biafra from the eastern region and midwest are: Anambra, Enugu, Imo, Delta, Bayelsa, Abia, Cross River, Akwa-Ibom, Rivers, Ebonyi, southern part of Ondo State, Igbanke in Edo State and southern part of Benue State.
Amalgamation contract and birth of Nigeria
Pro-Biafrans cite the expiration of a so-called "amalgamation contract" as one of the reasons to justify their quest to separate from the rest of Nigeria.
The contract was issued by Britain during the colonisation era and was aimed at integrating people from the north and the south within 100 years, since it was issued despite cultural, religious and economic differences among the various ethnic groups.
The contract, now at the National Archive of London, was created in 1914 by Frederick John Dealtry Lugard, the governor general of modern-day Nigeria. The document, opposed by the political class and the media in Lagos, expired in 2014.
The term "Nigeria" was created by Lugard's wife, British journalist Flora Shaw, in 1897 when she suggested to replace the "British protectorate of the Niger River" with a shorter term.
Biafra: Kanu’s mum, sister lead protest
From Chuks Onuoha, Umuahia and Petrus Obi, Enugu
The ‘release-Nnamdi-Kanu’ protest sweeping across the South-East and South-South took a new dimension, with the mother and sister of the detained Radio Biafra director joining a protest organised by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOD), yesterday in Umuahia, the capital of Abia State.
The protesting party took off from Port Harcourt on Sunday morning, with IPOD members trekking to Aba and then, Umuahia. As they trekked to Aba, the number increased.
On getting to Ubakala, close to Umuahia on Sunday night, the group was accosted by security personnel who attempted to disperse them but failed.
The protesters passed the night at Ubakala, from where they were joined by Kanu’s mum, Ugo Eze Sally Nnenne Kanu and sister, Princess Chichi Kanu as early as 5.30am yesterday.
From Ubakala, the protesters surged towards Umuahia, bearing placards with messages demanding Kanu’s release. The pro-Biafra protesters, who bore the Biafra flag, sang solidarity songs as they called for the release of their leader. The protest caused an unprecedented gridlock on the roads and streets of Umuahia.
The protesters marched through major streets of Umuahia, under the watch of security operatives who followed them from place to place, including Isi Court, in Umuahia South, Old Umuahia Road, Aba Road, Umuwaya Road, Isi Gate, Bende Road, Enugu Road and Ama Hausa, among others. One of the protesters taunted Umuahia indigenes, shouting that they should come out and join the protest, as Kanu is their son.
Before dispersing, the protesters said they would converge again today to continue the protest, which is expected to last for three days. IPOD members have been protesting in major cities in the South-East and South-South, demanding Kanu’s immediate release, who was arrested by operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS).
In a related development, the General Officer Commanding (GOC), 82 Division of the Nigeria Army, Enugu, Brigadier General Ibrahim Attahiru yesterday warned pro-Biafra activists in the South-East and South-South of its powers to suppress insurrection whenever the need arises.
Addressing newsmen in Enugu, yesterday, the GOC said: “These activities include protest marches, demonstrations and some reported cases of outright lawlessness and threat to lives and property.
“These demonstrations are being orchestrated by the Movement for the Actualisation of a Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), IPOB and other affiliated groups. These agitations and protests have led to an increased sense of insecurity across the regions.”
The GOC, who was represented by Col. Hamza Gambo from the Public Relations Department noted that while freedom of expression and peaceful assembly is guaranteed, the law does not allow for abuse of other person’s freedom and safety.
The ‘release-Nnamdi-Kanu’ protest sweeping across the South-East and South-South took a new dimension, with the mother and sister of the detained Radio Biafra director joining a protest organised by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOD), yesterday in Umuahia, the capital of Abia State.
The protesting party took off from Port Harcourt on Sunday morning, with IPOD members trekking to Aba and then, Umuahia. As they trekked to Aba, the number increased.
On getting to Ubakala, close to Umuahia on Sunday night, the group was accosted by security personnel who attempted to disperse them but failed.
The protesters passed the night at Ubakala, from where they were joined by Kanu’s mum, Ugo Eze Sally Nnenne Kanu and sister, Princess Chichi Kanu as early as 5.30am yesterday.
From Ubakala, the protesters surged towards Umuahia, bearing placards with messages demanding Kanu’s release. The pro-Biafra protesters, who bore the Biafra flag, sang solidarity songs as they called for the release of their leader. The protest caused an unprecedented gridlock on the roads and streets of Umuahia.
The protesters marched through major streets of Umuahia, under the watch of security operatives who followed them from place to place, including Isi Court, in Umuahia South, Old Umuahia Road, Aba Road, Umuwaya Road, Isi Gate, Bende Road, Enugu Road and Ama Hausa, among others. One of the protesters taunted Umuahia indigenes, shouting that they should come out and join the protest, as Kanu is their son.
Before dispersing, the protesters said they would converge again today to continue the protest, which is expected to last for three days. IPOD members have been protesting in major cities in the South-East and South-South, demanding Kanu’s immediate release, who was arrested by operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS).
In a related development, the General Officer Commanding (GOC), 82 Division of the Nigeria Army, Enugu, Brigadier General Ibrahim Attahiru yesterday warned pro-Biafra activists in the South-East and South-South of its powers to suppress insurrection whenever the need arises.
Addressing newsmen in Enugu, yesterday, the GOC said: “These activities include protest marches, demonstrations and some reported cases of outright lawlessness and threat to lives and property.
“These demonstrations are being orchestrated by the Movement for the Actualisation of a Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), IPOB and other affiliated groups. These agitations and protests have led to an increased sense of insecurity across the regions.”
The GOC, who was represented by Col. Hamza Gambo from the Public Relations Department noted that while freedom of expression and peaceful assembly is guaranteed, the law does not allow for abuse of other person’s freedom and safety.
Igbo greed and selfishness Caused Troubles for the Igbos
You can slice it and dice it anyhow but it comes down to this issues. It
all started well before independence, with Zik (ibo) thinking he would
rule over a large expanse of a country and had previously said that ibos
were some special breed of humans whom their god (not the real God) of
greed and selfishness had chosen to be rulers, would rule over the
country. Zik passed on an alliance of a more intellectual, hardworking
and forward looking West so as not to have to compete so hard for
anything as he knew he was on a long thing and chose the North seeing he
thought he could take advantage of a largely uneducated north (at that
time) and they would simply hand him high office as PM! Well he lost out
and ibo soldiers wanting to bring them into an advantage by force
killed every leader from every other region, Ironsi took over leadership
and destroyed Nigeria's federalism (regionalism) to unitary government
by his infamous decree 34 against much advise to the contrary. With ibos
ululating on their victory in the north, 6 months later the revenge
coup put ibos on their knees with much killings in th north where ibos
had been making fun of th northerners on th killings of their leaders.
No do, no do, Ojukwu without good military knowledge and common sense,
under the guise of protecting ibos declared Biafra taking all of today's
Niger Delta (SS), marching across to the militarily neutral Mid West
(Edo & Delta states) and annexing it. Then, he planned and launched
his worst military offensive against the Yoruba West deploying several
tens of thousands (maybe close to a hundred thousand or more) of fully
armed soldiers to approach from Ore, breach the SW defences and march
straight to Lagos (deep in the heart of Yorubaland), capture and destroy
it and then await orders from Ojukwu on how the West will be governed.
The order was a kill, no-capture and scorched earth policy all with the
cover of "liberation" of the West.
Ojukwu and his ibos failed massively because less than 200 Nigerian soldiers mostly from the West set up a defence about 40 km from the borders of Ore and set up strategy to funnel them into the cold pass, at the bridge. There, waves after waves of biafran soldiers were destroyed until they fled. The NA finished the business by ensuring the total capitulation of Biafra and Ojukwu fled as a cross dressed woman to Abidjan.
Ojukwu and his ibos failed massively because less than 200 Nigerian soldiers mostly from the West set up a defence about 40 km from the borders of Ore and set up strategy to funnel them into the cold pass, at the bridge. There, waves after waves of biafran soldiers were destroyed until they fled. The NA finished the business by ensuring the total capitulation of Biafra and Ojukwu fled as a cross dressed woman to Abidjan.
Causes Of Nigerian Civil War of 1966
Let's look at this topic from a neutral perspective rather than from sentiment.
Let's find out who declared war against who- Biafra led by Ojukwu or Nigeria led by Gowon?
We also want to know what really caused the Nigerian civil war also known as Biafran war.
In order for us to answer these pressing questions correctly without being bias, we will be referencing on globally recognised history articles written by foreigners who witnessed the war.
To achieve this goal, let's tackle these questions:
1. What really caused the Nigerian civil war of 1966?
2. Which region declared war against which region or territory?
Going forward, let me answer your initial question of how many Igbos living in the northern Nigeria when the pogrom of 1966 happened?
According to many books written by foreign and Nigerian war historians and according to wikipedia, between 10,000 to 30,000 Igbo people living in the northern Nigeria were massacred in the north between May 1966 - September 1966. You can read about it here>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_anti-Igbo_pogrom
Now, let's move forward with the most pressing questions:
1. What really caused the Nigerian civil war of 1966?
Immediate causes of the Nigeria civil war in 1966 included:
(A) a military coup (carried out by Maj. Nzeogwu which led to the death of Tafawa Belewa, etc)
(B) a counter-coup (led by Gowon, which led to the brutal murder of Aguiyi Ironsi, Fajuyi, etc)
(C) The 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom in the north (persecution of Igbo people living in Northern Nigeria)- this is the imminent cause of the Nigerian civil war according to local and foreign war historians.
2. Which region declared war against which region or territory?
Persecution of Igbo From June through October 1966, pogroms in the North killed tens of thousands of Igbos and caused millions to flee to the Eastern Region. September 29, 1966, was considered the worst day.
Ethnomusicolist Charles Keil, who was visiting Nigeria in 1966, recounted:
The pogroms I witnessed in Makurdi, Nigeria (late Sept. 1966) were foreshadowed by months of intensive anti-Ibo and anti-Eastern conversations among Tiv, Idoma, Hausa and other Northerners resident in Makurdi, and, fitting a pattern replicated in city after city, the massacres were led by the Nigerian army. Before, during and after the slaughter, Col. Gowan could be heard over the radio issuing 'guarantees of safety' to all Easterners, all citizens of Nigeria, but the intent of the soldiers, the only power that counts in Nigeria now or then, was painfully clear. After counting the disemboweled bodies along the Makurdi road I was escorted back to the city by soldiers who apologized for the stench and explained politely that they were doing me and the world a great favor by eliminating Ibos.
The Federal Military Government also laid the groundwork for the blockade of the Eastern Region which would go into full effect in 1967.
Breakaway of Biafra from Nigeria
On May 27, 1967, Gowon proclaimed the division of Nigeria into twelve states. This decree carved the Eastern Region in three parts: South Eastern State, Rivers State, and East Central State. Now the Igbos, concentrated in the East Central State, would lose control over most of the petroleum, located in the other two areas.
On May 30, 1967, Ojukwu declared independence of the Republic of Biafra.
The Federal Military Government immediately placed an embargo on all shipping to and from Biafra—but not on oil tankers. Biafra quickly moved to collect oil royalties from oil companies doing business within its borders. When Shell-BP acquiesced to this request at the end of June, the Federal Government extended its blockade to include oil. The blockade, which most foreign actors accepted, played a decisive role in putting Biafra at a disadvantage from the beginning of the war.
Although the very young nation had a chronic shortage of weapons to go to war, it was determined to defend itself. Although there was much sympathy in Europe and elsewhere, only five countries (Tanzania, Gabon, Côte d'Ivoire, Zambia and Haiti) officially recognised the new republic. Britain supplied amounts of heavy weapons and ammunition to the Nigerian side because of its desire to preserve the country it created. The Biafra side on the other hand found it difficult to purchase arms as the countries who supported it did not provide arms and ammunition. The heavy supply of weapons by Britain was the biggest factor in determining the outcome of the war.
Several peace accords, especially the one held at Aburi, Ghana (the Aburi Accord), collapsed and the shooting war soon followed. Ojukwu managed at Aburi to get agreement to a confederation for Nigeria, rather than a federation. He was warned by his advisers that this reflected a failure of Gowon to understand the difference and, that being the case, predicted that it would be reneged upon. When this happened, Ojukwu regarded it as both a failure by Gowon to keep to the spirit of the Aburi agreement, and lack of integrity on the side of the Nigerian Military Government in the negotiations toward a united Nigeria. Gowon's advisers, to the contrary, felt that he had enacted as much as was politically feasible in fulfillment of the spirit of Aburi.[59] The Eastern Region was very ill equipped for war, outmanned and outgunned by the Nigerians. Their advantages included fighting in their homeland, support of most Easterners, determination, and use of limited resources.
The UK-which still maintained the highest level of influence over Nigeria's highly valued oil industry through Shell-BP-[60] and the Soviet Union supported (especially militarily) the Nigerian government.- This was the main reason Nigeria won the war.
The Civil War
Shortly after extending its blockade to include oil, the Nigerian government launched a "police action" to retake the secessionist territory. The war began on 6 July 1967 when Nigerian Federal troops advanced in two columns into Biafra. The Nigerian army offensive was through the north of Biafra led by Colonel Shuwa and the local military units were formed as the 1st Infantry Division. The division was led mostly by northern officers. After facing unexpectedly fierce resistance and high casualties, the right-hand Nigerian column advanced on the town of Nsukka which fell on 14 July, while the left-hand column made for Garkem, which was captured on 12 July. At this stage of the war, the other regions of Nigeria (the West and Mid-West) still considered the war as a confrontation between the north (mainly Hausas) against the east (mainly Igbos).
Let's find out who declared war against who- Biafra led by Ojukwu or Nigeria led by Gowon?
We also want to know what really caused the Nigerian civil war also known as Biafran war.
In order for us to answer these pressing questions correctly without being bias, we will be referencing on globally recognised history articles written by foreigners who witnessed the war.
To achieve this goal, let's tackle these questions:
1. What really caused the Nigerian civil war of 1966?
2. Which region declared war against which region or territory?
Going forward, let me answer your initial question of how many Igbos living in the northern Nigeria when the pogrom of 1966 happened?
According to many books written by foreign and Nigerian war historians and according to wikipedia, between 10,000 to 30,000 Igbo people living in the northern Nigeria were massacred in the north between May 1966 - September 1966. You can read about it here>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_anti-Igbo_pogrom
Now, let's move forward with the most pressing questions:
1. What really caused the Nigerian civil war of 1966?
Immediate causes of the Nigeria civil war in 1966 included:
(A) a military coup (carried out by Maj. Nzeogwu which led to the death of Tafawa Belewa, etc)
(B) a counter-coup (led by Gowon, which led to the brutal murder of Aguiyi Ironsi, Fajuyi, etc)
(C) The 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom in the north (persecution of Igbo people living in Northern Nigeria)- this is the imminent cause of the Nigerian civil war according to local and foreign war historians.
2. Which region declared war against which region or territory?
Persecution of Igbo From June through October 1966, pogroms in the North killed tens of thousands of Igbos and caused millions to flee to the Eastern Region. September 29, 1966, was considered the worst day.
Ethnomusicolist Charles Keil, who was visiting Nigeria in 1966, recounted:
The pogroms I witnessed in Makurdi, Nigeria (late Sept. 1966) were foreshadowed by months of intensive anti-Ibo and anti-Eastern conversations among Tiv, Idoma, Hausa and other Northerners resident in Makurdi, and, fitting a pattern replicated in city after city, the massacres were led by the Nigerian army. Before, during and after the slaughter, Col. Gowan could be heard over the radio issuing 'guarantees of safety' to all Easterners, all citizens of Nigeria, but the intent of the soldiers, the only power that counts in Nigeria now or then, was painfully clear. After counting the disemboweled bodies along the Makurdi road I was escorted back to the city by soldiers who apologized for the stench and explained politely that they were doing me and the world a great favor by eliminating Ibos.
The Federal Military Government also laid the groundwork for the blockade of the Eastern Region which would go into full effect in 1967.
Breakaway of Biafra from Nigeria
On May 27, 1967, Gowon proclaimed the division of Nigeria into twelve states. This decree carved the Eastern Region in three parts: South Eastern State, Rivers State, and East Central State. Now the Igbos, concentrated in the East Central State, would lose control over most of the petroleum, located in the other two areas.
On May 30, 1967, Ojukwu declared independence of the Republic of Biafra.
The Federal Military Government immediately placed an embargo on all shipping to and from Biafra—but not on oil tankers. Biafra quickly moved to collect oil royalties from oil companies doing business within its borders. When Shell-BP acquiesced to this request at the end of June, the Federal Government extended its blockade to include oil. The blockade, which most foreign actors accepted, played a decisive role in putting Biafra at a disadvantage from the beginning of the war.
Although the very young nation had a chronic shortage of weapons to go to war, it was determined to defend itself. Although there was much sympathy in Europe and elsewhere, only five countries (Tanzania, Gabon, Côte d'Ivoire, Zambia and Haiti) officially recognised the new republic. Britain supplied amounts of heavy weapons and ammunition to the Nigerian side because of its desire to preserve the country it created. The Biafra side on the other hand found it difficult to purchase arms as the countries who supported it did not provide arms and ammunition. The heavy supply of weapons by Britain was the biggest factor in determining the outcome of the war.
Several peace accords, especially the one held at Aburi, Ghana (the Aburi Accord), collapsed and the shooting war soon followed. Ojukwu managed at Aburi to get agreement to a confederation for Nigeria, rather than a federation. He was warned by his advisers that this reflected a failure of Gowon to understand the difference and, that being the case, predicted that it would be reneged upon. When this happened, Ojukwu regarded it as both a failure by Gowon to keep to the spirit of the Aburi agreement, and lack of integrity on the side of the Nigerian Military Government in the negotiations toward a united Nigeria. Gowon's advisers, to the contrary, felt that he had enacted as much as was politically feasible in fulfillment of the spirit of Aburi.[59] The Eastern Region was very ill equipped for war, outmanned and outgunned by the Nigerians. Their advantages included fighting in their homeland, support of most Easterners, determination, and use of limited resources.
The UK-which still maintained the highest level of influence over Nigeria's highly valued oil industry through Shell-BP-[60] and the Soviet Union supported (especially militarily) the Nigerian government.- This was the main reason Nigeria won the war.
The Civil War
Shortly after extending its blockade to include oil, the Nigerian government launched a "police action" to retake the secessionist territory. The war began on 6 July 1967 when Nigerian Federal troops advanced in two columns into Biafra. The Nigerian army offensive was through the north of Biafra led by Colonel Shuwa and the local military units were formed as the 1st Infantry Division. The division was led mostly by northern officers. After facing unexpectedly fierce resistance and high casualties, the right-hand Nigerian column advanced on the town of Nsukka which fell on 14 July, while the left-hand column made for Garkem, which was captured on 12 July. At this stage of the war, the other regions of Nigeria (the West and Mid-West) still considered the war as a confrontation between the north (mainly Hausas) against the east (mainly Igbos).
Monday, 16 November 2015
"THE CRUSADES"
Cause and purpose
In our time, there is much conversation and commotion about the Crusades. There are two reasons for this.
First and foremost is the Crusades are a "bone in the throat" to Islam. Muslims continue to blame all Christianity for these Holy wars that the Roman Catholic Church commissioned to retake the "Holy Land" from Islam.
Second, many western Christians and non-Christians follow the same Islamic idea that the Crusades were only for bloodthirsty plunder by poor "Christian" adventurers. Some were that but Crusade leaders were not.
In the USA, often this is anti-Catholic sentiment has been generated and repeated by "Christians" with anti-Catholic sentiments.
Strangely, even the Roman Catholic Church has adopted this myth to chastise itself. Its' Pope has publicly apologized to all Islam for the Crusades. Why and why now?
Philip Jenkins in his book on the coming of Global Christianity, (The Next Christendom, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2002, pp 24,24), writes:
"In recent years, a powerful social movement has demanded that the West, and specifically the churches, apologize for the medieval crusading movement. In this view, the Crusades represented aggression, pure and simple, against the Muslim world, and nobody can deny the resulting wars involved their share of atrocities. Underlying the movement for apology, though, is the assumption that religious frontiers are somehow carved in stone, and that Muslim states of the Near East must always and infallibly have been destined to be part of the world of Islam. An equally good case can be made that the medieval Middle East was no more inevitably Muslim than other regions conquered by Islam and subsequently liberated, like Spain and Hungry.
"Nor, curiously, do Westerners suggest that Muslims apologize for the aggressive acts that gave them power over those various lands in the first place. Westerners have simply forgotten the [brutalization and conquest of these] once great Christian communities of the Eastern World."
(Ed. Note: Muslims never apologize for anything. They claim all their acts are by Allah's will and direction through Muhammad as recorded in the Qur'an/Koran. So, for them, no apologies are due for the 9/11World Trade Center bombing or anything else.)
The fact is that the Crusades were a "jihad" in reverse is easily proved by early Christian History. Muslims insist that Christians willingly converted to Islam. Three indisputable facts contradict that claim.
1. For the first 300 years of Christianity. the followers of Jesus would accept torture and death from the Roman Empire rather than forsake their commitment to Jesus. They believed any revocation of their declared faith would earn them a ticket into Hell. There is no reason they would have willingly changed their faith from Jesus to Muhammad except by force. Islam does not promise paradise for believers, as does Christianity. Even Muhammad said he did not know his final reward. That would only be determined on his judgment day.
2. Next, Islam had conquered Spain in addition to North Africa and the Middle East. When the Moors attempted to extend their empire into Europe, they were met at Tours by Charles Martel and were soundly defeated. From that point forward, Islam was pushed out of Spain. So, if Christians willingly converted to Islam, why did they resist it at Tours and push it out of Europe?
3. Christians never would have willingly given up their "holy" cities of Jerusalem and Alexandria.
* * * * * * * *
The following is a excerpt from an article in Crisis Magazine. Credit is given at its end.
* * * * * * * *
"So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression--an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity--and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion--has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
"With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt--once the most heavily Christian areas in the world--quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
"That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be consumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
"Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were not just a front for darker designs.
"During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to "store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt." They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love.
"Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing."
In our time, there is much conversation and commotion about the Crusades. There are two reasons for this.
First and foremost is the Crusades are a "bone in the throat" to Islam. Muslims continue to blame all Christianity for these Holy wars that the Roman Catholic Church commissioned to retake the "Holy Land" from Islam.
Second, many western Christians and non-Christians follow the same Islamic idea that the Crusades were only for bloodthirsty plunder by poor "Christian" adventurers. Some were that but Crusade leaders were not.
In the USA, often this is anti-Catholic sentiment has been generated and repeated by "Christians" with anti-Catholic sentiments.
Strangely, even the Roman Catholic Church has adopted this myth to chastise itself. Its' Pope has publicly apologized to all Islam for the Crusades. Why and why now?
Philip Jenkins in his book on the coming of Global Christianity, (The Next Christendom, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2002, pp 24,24), writes:
"In recent years, a powerful social movement has demanded that the West, and specifically the churches, apologize for the medieval crusading movement. In this view, the Crusades represented aggression, pure and simple, against the Muslim world, and nobody can deny the resulting wars involved their share of atrocities. Underlying the movement for apology, though, is the assumption that religious frontiers are somehow carved in stone, and that Muslim states of the Near East must always and infallibly have been destined to be part of the world of Islam. An equally good case can be made that the medieval Middle East was no more inevitably Muslim than other regions conquered by Islam and subsequently liberated, like Spain and Hungry.
"Nor, curiously, do Westerners suggest that Muslims apologize for the aggressive acts that gave them power over those various lands in the first place. Westerners have simply forgotten the [brutalization and conquest of these] once great Christian communities of the Eastern World."
(Ed. Note: Muslims never apologize for anything. They claim all their acts are by Allah's will and direction through Muhammad as recorded in the Qur'an/Koran. So, for them, no apologies are due for the 9/11World Trade Center bombing or anything else.)
The fact is that the Crusades were a "jihad" in reverse is easily proved by early Christian History. Muslims insist that Christians willingly converted to Islam. Three indisputable facts contradict that claim.
1. For the first 300 years of Christianity. the followers of Jesus would accept torture and death from the Roman Empire rather than forsake their commitment to Jesus. They believed any revocation of their declared faith would earn them a ticket into Hell. There is no reason they would have willingly changed their faith from Jesus to Muhammad except by force. Islam does not promise paradise for believers, as does Christianity. Even Muhammad said he did not know his final reward. That would only be determined on his judgment day.
2. Next, Islam had conquered Spain in addition to North Africa and the Middle East. When the Moors attempted to extend their empire into Europe, they were met at Tours by Charles Martel and were soundly defeated. From that point forward, Islam was pushed out of Spain. So, if Christians willingly converted to Islam, why did they resist it at Tours and push it out of Europe?
3. Christians never would have willingly given up their "holy" cities of Jerusalem and Alexandria.
* * * * * * * *
The following is a excerpt from an article in Crisis Magazine. Credit is given at its end.
* * * * * * * *
"So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression--an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity--and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion--has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
"With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt--once the most heavily Christian areas in the world--quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
"That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be consumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
"Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were not just a front for darker designs.
"During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to "store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt." They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love.
"Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)