Friday, October 07, 2005

Remember Lepanto

 
Kilo Echo 4 reminds us that today, October 7th, is the 434th anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto. In the fall of 1571 an alliance of Christian nations assembled off the coast of Greece and defeated the Turks.
     One thing is historically provable: the clash between Islam and the West (Christianity and Judaism) is the LONGEST STANDING CONFLICT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD! What we are seeing today is only the advancing wave from a ripple that began over 1400 years ago! The Middle East is surely at the heart of the struggle, and Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are without doubt the biggest symbols and prize for each side. Capture of Jerusalem and possession of the Temple Mount is like capturing the enemy’s battle flag or standard on the battlefield! It symbolizes the tide of the battle and eventual promise of victory.
And I believe that we must also see things in this larger historical context, because the enemy certainly does, and to ignore history is only to deceive ourselves. Remember Lepanto!
The Great Islamic Jihad had been going on for centuries as of 1571 and 1683.

In 1967 and 1979 and 1982 and 2001 it had been going on for more than a millenium. And so it continues to this day.

Remember Lepanto!


Update: CDR Salamander has an excellent post on this topic. With a better title ,too.

11 comments:

Evanston said...

I do not agree that "Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are without doubt the biggest symbols and prize for each side." At least not for Christians (though possibly for Jewish people). One irony about Iraq is watching muslims claim this-or-that city or mosque is "holy" while they kill people brutally and indiscriminately. For a Christian, even a "fundamentalist" Christian, the heart of one person is more important than "possession" of Jerusalem. Now I grant that the author talked about Jerusalem and the Temple Mount as "symbols" but he also called them a "prize." They are prized, properly, only insofar as Islam is anti-Christian, but political control by non-muslims does not connote being with Christ (as we know all too well in the "Christendom" of the U.S. and EU).

Baron Bodissey said...

Evanston -- you've got a good point. I suggest making the same comment to Kilo Echo 4.

PD111 said...

I posted this a couple of years ago.
--------------------------------
In the long term though, any gain of Islam in sovereignty over Jerusalem, has far greater implications for us winning or loosing the war. If Islam ever managed to secure this goal, then the whole of the Christian world, from the US to Philippines, will have to defer to Muslim wishes. For instance to secure access to Christian Holy sites, the West may have to grant a special place to Sharia law. Thus the whole process of Dhimmification of the non-Muslim world will gather pace, as more and more concessions are demanded.

Islam's claim to Jerusalem is totally spurious. Jerusalem is a Holy place for Judaism and Christianity only, and in that order. I therefore believe that Jerusalem is the key to the West's survival. We need to continuously remind ourselves, that the forces of jihad do not accept compromises, except as a short term measure, when faced with defeat.

PD111 said...

evanston posted: For a Christian, even a "fundamentalist" Christian, the heart of one person is more important than "possession" of Jerusalem.

That may well be for some Christians in the West. It is not so for the vast majority in Latin America, Phillipines and other places.

But religious conviction is not the issue here. What is at issue is the political ascendacy that islam gains in capturing Jerusalem. Its claim that allah has effectively handed over the keys of Christendom to islam, will affect the political climate. Such claims will also have immense effect on the vulnerable in the West, and they will succomb to dawa. Demographic conquest due to huge muslim birth rates is already a nightmare, no need to make it worse.

DP111

a4g said...

pd111 -

I wonder if your analysis doesn't bend too far to European sentiments, by far the weakest link in the Christian chain.

I fail to see how the national temperaments of Christian South America, Africa, Asia, or the US would take to dhimmification by the sword of Damascus-cles held over Jerusalem.

I suspect, instead, that Islam's long history of overstretching its lines of communication would, once again, not end in Islam's favor.

A pot, which quickly reaches a simmer, still takes a long time to boil, because the majority of energy required to "vaporize" is not in the heating, but consumed by the phase shift.

When the phase shift comes, it comes quickly, and surprises those who do not understand their physics.

MorseBlog said...

If one wants to trace the origins of the conflict between the West and Islam you need to know of Charles Martel. Wikipedia has some words though I prefer Victor Davis Hansen's "Culture and Carnage" chapter where I first learned of the conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel

Kilo Echo 4 said...

The actual possession of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are, today, more of an issue between the Jews and Moslems. So I would agree with that statement in general. And as long as the Jews have Jerusalem, Christians are not restricted from going there, so it has not been an issue.

However, in the past, actual possession of Jerusalem meant that Christians were able to travel to the Holy Land and visit those sites that were important to orthodox Christianity without being molested or killed, and wars were fought to ensure Christians access to the Holy Land. I submit that if Jerusalem were to fall totally under Islamic control today, that Christians might once again find it very difficult to visit the holy sites there. Given the state of affairs today, that is a real possibility. THEN it would become important again to Christians, as it was long ago.

But I was speaking more symbolically in my article. If the Moslems retake Jerusalem, it will embolden Islam even more to go out and conquer the entire world for Mohammed and allah. The goal of the jihadists like bin Laden is a worldwide caliphate under sharia law. But the first goal of the jihadists is to end the existence of the State of Israel, and the capture of Jerusalem represents to them the destruction of Israel and driving the Jews out for good.

Since Judaism and Christianity lie at the spiritual heart of Western Civilization, and since their origins are in Israel and Jerusalem, those symbols reflect the underlying reality of the Western world view. And because symbols represent underlying realities, there has been many a soldier who, when the standard bearer fell in battle, knowingly risked and lost his own life to rush forward and pick up that standard. When symbols fall, civilizations are often not far behind.

But my remarks in the article were meant to point out that Israel and Jerusalem represent, symbolically, the clash of Islam and the West. And they are a "prize" in the sense that both sides have claims there.

And the Bible, of course, sees Jerusalem as the focal point of end times, and the battles that will rage around it.

Kilo Echo 4 said...

"If one wants to trace the origins of the conflict between the West and Islam you need to know of Charles Martel. Wikipedia has some words though I prefer Victor Davis Hansen's "Culture and Carnage" chapter where I first learned of the conflict."

Yes, Martel. The "Hammer of the Franks."

I was, however, primarily tracing the conflict on the eastern front.

I did not cover Spain in depth.

Kilo Echo 4 said...

I just added a section on Martel.

CDR Salamander said...

Ohhhhh, Baron B., you missed my post.

I had a better title.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2005/10/row-row-row-your-boat-gently-toward.html

Baron Bodissey said...

CDR, you are right! A good post, and definitely a better title. I have added an update above.