Turkey and Islam

How the Turks shed their blood, fighting the Jihad for Four Hundred years and finally gave up and embraced Islam, and later became the tormentors themselves to carry the bloodied tradition of Jihad into Anatolia (modern Turkey) and the Balkans up to Austria. The Turks in Pre-Islamic times Today we read in history that the […]

How the Turks shed their blood, fighting the Jihad for Four Hundred years and finally gave up and embraced Islam, and later became the tormentors themselves to carry the bloodied tradition of Jihad into Anatolia (modern Turkey) and the Balkans up to Austria.

The Turks in Pre-Islamic times

Today we read in history that the Ottoman Turks carried the Jihad into Europe. The Turks besieged and sacked Constantinople. To many of us, the Turks before Ataturk reformed Turkey into becoming the Muslim world’s first secular republic, were ruthless Jihadis, whose king was the Caliph till 1924, when Ataturk abolished the Caliphate. But we know little of the bloodied struggle that the Turks waged against Islam for four hundred years from 650 up to 1050. The first clash of the Turks with the Islamic Jihad took place when the Muslims in their surge through Persia reached the borders of the Sassanid Empire in Khorasan, near Central Asia. In those days the Turks ruled Central Asia. They have been referred to as Turanians by the ancient Persians of Zoroaster’s time.

The Turks were, so to say, a multi-ethnic tribal cluster who were united with the bonds of language. Since ancient times, apart from grazing cattle, the Turks also used to attack settled people in Persia and live off the booty.


turks before Islam
Tengri is the god of the old Turkic, Mongolian and Altaic religion named Tengriism. The Mongols called him Tengri, (depicted as Blue Sky) was the highest God of Turks and Mongols. The name “Tengri” (Tana-Gra) means “Ruler, Master of the Land”; there might be some connection with the Sumerian word for god Dingir.

In the pre-islamic Turkish worship of celestial objects, lies the usage of Turkish Muslims of the crescent Moon as their symbol. Incidentally, the crescent moon, was borrowed by other non-Arab Muslims from the Turks. We may note that the Arabs never use the crescent moon as their symbol.


The Huns, Bulgars, Ughirs, Seljuks, Qarluqs were some of the different tribes that made up the vast Turkish nation. Of these the Huns and the Bulgars embraced Christianity and the rest of the Turkish clans embraced Islam. Before embracing Islam or Christianity, in the 3rd and 4th centuries the Turks (Huns, also called White Huns) had attacked the Roman empire, the Sassanid and Achaemenian empires in Persia and had also invaded India. They were a warlike race, who would not easily be subjugated and led a nomadic life. They were hardy tribal race who had strains of Caucasoid and Mongoloid ancestry.

The pre-Islamic religion of the Turks was centered around their celestial god named Tengri (or Tanri)

Tengri is the god of the old Turkic, Mongolian and Altaic religion named Tengriism. The Mongols called him Tengri, (depicted as Blue Sky) was the highest God of Turks and Mongols. The name “Tengri” -(Tana-Gra) means “Ruler, Master of the Land”; there might be some connection with the Sumerian word for god Dingir.

In the pre-islamic Turkish worship of celestial objects lies the usage of Turkish Muslims of the crescent Moon as their symbol. Incidentally, the crescent moon, was borrowed by other Muslims from the Turks. We may note that the Arabs never use the crescent moon as their symbol.

The core beings in Tengriism are Sky-Father (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) and Mother Earth (Eje/Gazar Eej). In history, Chinggis Khan (Gengis Khan), the unifier of the Mongolian nation, based his power on a mandate from Tengri himself, and began all his declarations with the words “by the will of Eternal Blue Heaven.”

The symbols of Tengri were a cross (betraying Christian influences), the skies and the sun. It is often confused with a sun-worshipping religion, but the sun is merely a symbol of Tengri.


turks before Islam
Deep in history neither the Mongols nor the Turks were Muslims, but in fact had waged a bloodied struggle against Islam. The Turks and Mongols were neighbors and had mixed ancestry since antiquity. Both held Central Asia between them when the Arab Muslim invaders appeare d on the scene, after over-running the Persian Sassanid Empire in the year 651. Ironically the Turks had to struggle with Islam which came to them through the medium of the Islamized Persians who had been newly converted to Islam at the point of the sword by the Arabs.


In modern Turkish, the word “Tanri” is used as the generic word for “god”, and is also often used today by practicing Muslims to refer to their God in Turkish as an alternative to the word “Allah”, the – originally Arabic – Islamic word for “God”.
Khan is pre-Islamic title

Khan is a typical Turkish royal title and is, by default today, considered to be a Muslim name. But Genghis Khan and Hulagu Khan were not Muslims, they were in fact were inveterate enemies of the Muslims. They laid waste a large swathe of the Islamic crescent in the 13th century, till their descendants were ultimately defeated by the Muslims and were forced to convert to Islam. After this conversion, till today we have come to believe that the name Khan is a Muslim name and that the Turks and the Mughals (Mongols) have always been Muslims.

Deep in history neither the Mongols nor the Turks were Muslims, and had waged a bloodied struggle against Islam before their forcible conversion. The Turks and Mongols were neighbors and had mixed ancestry since antiquity. Both held Central Asia between them when the Arab Muslim invaders appeared on the scene, after over-running the Persian Sassanid Empire in the year 651.

The Defeat of Sassanid Persia, opened up the Turkish domains of Central Asia to the Jihadis

After clearing these pockets of Persian resistance, the Arabs made the main Persian town of Merv the target of attack. Merv was the capital of Khurasan and here the last Sassanid king Yazdgard had sought refuge with his courtiers who had being fleeing before the advancing Arab Muslims, since the Arab invasion of Persia in 637 after the disastrous battle of Qadisiyyah. The Persian army was now in tatters and in no position to put up any effective resistance to the invading Arabs. On hearing of the Muslim advance, Yazdgard left for Balkh. No resistance was offered at Merv, and the Muslims occupied the capital of Khurasan without lifting their swords.


arab invasion of turkey
When the Arabs first invaded Turkish lands, it was reported to the Arab commander Ahnaf that the practice with the Turks was that the war commenced at dawn and before the war could start three heralds blew bugles and then the Turkish force marched to the battle. To subvert the Turks, before the night of the war, Ahnaf hid himself in a safe place outside the Turkish camp. As soon as the Turkish herald came out of the Turkish camp to blow the bugle, Ahnaf overpowered him and killed the Turk with his sword. When the second herald came he met the same fate. The third herald also met the same fate. So on that day the bugles did not blow for the Turkish army.

When the bugles did not blow, the Khan of Farghana came out of the camp to see what had happened to the heralds. When he saw that all of them were dead, he regarded this as a bad omen. At the spur of the moment he decided that the Turks should not involve themselves with the Muslims. He ordered his force to withdraw and march back to Farghana.

This is how the Arab Muslims deceived the Turks into retreating. The Islamic Jihad had drawn the first Turkish blood through subterfuge.


The Arab commander Ahnaf stayed at Merv for some time to reorganize the administration and to await further reinforcements from Kufa. In the meantime the Persian forces gathered in considerable strength at Balkh. Yazdgard sought aid from the neighboring Turkish state Farghana and the Khan of Farghana personally led a Turkish contingent to Balkh.

Having received reinforcements, Ahnaf led the Muslim forces to Balkh. The Muslims had experience of battling with the Persians but they had little experience of war with the Turks. Ahnaf wanted to avoid war with the Turks, and in this connection he thought of devious ways whereby the Turks should abandon the cause of Yazdgard.

So when the Arab Muslims first invaded Turkish lands, the Muslims decided to use subterfuge. It was reported to the Arab commander Ahnaf that the practice with the Turks was that the war commenced at dawn, and before the war could start three heralds blew bugles; and then the Turkish force marched to the battle. To subvert the Turks, before the night of the war, Ahnaf hid himself in a safe place outside the Turkish camp. As soon as the Turkish herald came out of the Turkish camp to blow the bugle, Ahnaf overpowered him and killed the Turk with his sword. When the second herald came he met the same fate. The third herald also met the same fate. So on that day the bugles did not blow for the Turkish army.

When the bugles did not blow, the Khan of Farghana came out of the camp to see what had happened to the heralds. When he saw that all of them were dead, he regarded this as a bad omen. At the spur of the moment he decided that the Turks should not involve themselves with the Muslims. He ordered his force to withdraw and march back to Farghana. This is how the Arab Muslims deceived the Turks into retreating. The Islamic Jihad had drawn the first Turkish blood thru subterfuge.


Islamic conquest of Turkey
In the space of 650-1050 AD a number of events of importance transpired in Central Asia. These four hundred years were the fiercest in the Turkish struggle against the Islamic Jihad. The next four hundred years were to see the gradual transformation of the pagan Turks into Muslims. The Turks shed their blood fighting the Jihad for four hundred years but finally gave up and embraced Islam, to later become Jihadis themselves, to carry the bloodied tradition of aggression and forcible conversion into Anatolia (modern Turkey) and through the Balkans up to Austria and Poland.


The next three hundred years witnessed the untold story of the Turkish resistance to Islam. Ironically the Turks had to struggle with Islam which came to them through the medium of the Muslim Persians who had been newly converted to Islam at the point of the sword by the Arabs.

The Persian converts to Islam overthrow the Arab Umayyad Caliphs and replace them with the Persianized Abbasid Caliphs

In the space of 650-1050 AD a numbers of events of importance transpired in Central Asia. These four hundred years were the fiercest in the Turkish struggle against the Jihad. The next four hundred years were to see the gradual transformation of the pagan Turks into Muslims. The Turks shed their blood fighting the Jihad for four hundred years and finally gave up and embraced Islam, to later become the tormentors themselves to carry the bloodied tradition of Jihad into Anatolia (modern Turkey) and Balkans up to Austria and Poland.

In the year 750, an important event that transformed Central Asia. This event was the overthrow of the Umayyads Caliphate and its replacement by the Abbasid Caliphate. While Umayyads of Damascus were Arabs who had descended from Abu Sufyan the Chieftain of Mecca at the time of Mohammed. The newly converted Zoroastrian Persians wanted to regain their pre-eminent power in Persia. They organized themselves and marched against the Umayyad army. The two armies met at a place called Zab. Here the Persian Abbasids defeated the Arab Umayyads and established a new caliphate near Ctesiphon the site of the ancient capital of the Sassanid Persians. They named this city Baghdad which was to be the capital of the Abbasids from 750 up to its sack by the Mongols in 1258.

A leading commander of the Abbasid army was a Zoroastrian convert to Islam named Behzadan, who had assumed the name Abu Muslim. He played a leading role in the war and deposed the Umayyad caliph, and placed the Persianized Abbasids as Caliphs and as the head of the Muslim world. With this revolution the leadership of the Muslim world had passed from Arab hands into Persian hands, a leadership which they had lost a century earlier, when the Arabs had destroyed the Sassanid Persian empire.

An important change now was that the Persians who as Zoroastrians a century earlier who were victims of Islam had now embraced Islam and had become the new vanguard of the bloodied creed of Islam. Their victims were to be the Turks of Central Asia.

Abu Muslim a Zoroastrian Persian convert to Islam, attacked and Islamized the Turks

Shortly after victory at the battle of Zab, and the establishment of the Abbasid Caliphate at Baghdad, Abu Muslim was commissioned to conduct a Jihad in Central Asia to exterminate the Kaffirs once and for all. It was a great low point for the Western branch of the Blue Turks. Their great Khan Su’lu who was a bulwark against the Moslems and the Chinese in the wars of 720 and 723, was assassinated by the Arabs. The pagan Turkic rulers of Samarqand and Bokhara came under a heavy assault from the Ghazis after the fall of Su’lu, when the Arabs with 300 giant trebuchets stormed the cities and forcibly imposed Islam with the destruction of the pagan places of worship.

Defeat of the Chinese at the Battle of the Talas River with the invading Muslims sealed the fate of the Turkish resistance to Islam

Archaeological evidence shows that these Turkic cities were cosmopolitan: Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and the Tengri cults of the Altaics were the various creeds that were practiced. The Arabs under Abu Muslim savagely crushed the last attempt made by the populations of Samarqand and Bokhara to rid themselves of the murderous Muslim Ghazis. Abu Muslim sent his victorious commander of these wars, Ziyad ibn Salih, with a band of 40000 ghazis, to wage a Jihad on the Chinese. The Arab army marched from the south towards Talas. The Chinese general Kao (of Korean origin), decided to resist the Muslim invasion and marched towards Aulie-Ata on the Talas river with 100,000 Chinese troops in cavalry and infantry divisions.

In the Battle of the Talas river, the Betrayal of the Qarluq Turks led to the defeat of the Chinese at Arab hands

On July 10th 751 AD the Arab and Chinese armies took to the field in Aulie-Ata on the backs of the Talas river. The Chinese cavalry seemed to initially overwhelm the Arab cavalry, but the Arabs had worked out a deal with one of the many Turkish contingents of the Chinese army viz., the Qarluq Turks, by promising them wealth and freedom in return for embracing Islam and betraying their Chinese masters. The Qarluqs who held a grudge against the Chinese for having reduced them to vassalage, viewed this as an opportunity to throw off the Chinese yoke by using the Arabs, and had planned to later throwing off the Arab yoke as well and regaining their freedom from both the Chinese and the Arabs. The Qarluq Turks later played the main role in converting other Turkish tribes notably the Seljuk Turks to Islam.

At the battle of the Talas river where the Arab and the Chinese armies clashed, the Qarluqs who were a part of the Chinese army, opened a breach in their own ranks and allowed the Arabs to ford the river and helped them to encircle a part of the Chinese infantry, butchering it to the last man.


Ataturk

It was Mustapha Kemal Pasha (fondly called Ataturk ‘ father of the Turks) who saw beyond Islam and wanted to build for the Turks a future bereft of Islam. He based his vision on three precepts:

  • Modernization by abolishing the Caliphate
  • Westernizing by de-islamizing Turkey
  • Retuning to Turkish roots by taking on ethnic Turkish names in place of Arabic Islamic names.


The Qarluq archers then surrounded their paymaster, the general of the Chinese army Kao, and treacherously shot him down. Now the Arabs followed their heinous practice of sticking the severed head of an enemy and parading it before the enemy army. The Chinese not being used to such grisly war tactics, fell into confusion and disarray, not knowing who had betrayed them, and their General Kao. They broke ranks and fell back into confusion, shaking the Chinese center, which was rapidly assaulted by the Arab heavy cavalry and destroyed. Thus due to Muslim subterfuge and savagery the infallible Chinese war machine gave way under combined assault of the Arabs and the traitor Qarluqs, and they faced a heavy rout. From behind, the treacherous Qarluqs fell upon the Chinese baggage trains and supplies carrying away all they could, and receded back into the steppe.

The Arabs rounded up tens of thousands of Chinese and their non-Qarluq Turk allies and took them to Samarqand from where Abu Muslim sent them to Baghdad and Damascus to be sold as slaves, each worth a dirham. One Chinese survivor mentions being kept as cattle in the Arab prison camps. Abu Muslim and Ziyad made huge financial gains out of this slave trade and used it to pay their armies. More importantly the Arabs forced the Turk and Chinese prisoners to teach them the art of making siege trains and catapult machines, which the Islamized Turks were to use successfully in their attacks on the Byzantine cities.

The Qarluq Turks aimed at playing the Chinese and the Muslims against each other to gain their own independence

The Qarluq Turks wanted independence from the Chinese so they made a pretence of embracing Islam to obtain Arab support to defeat the Chinese. The Qarluqs had planned to later throw off the Arab yoke as well by repudiating Islam and regaining their freedom from both the Chinese and the Arabs. But little did the Qarluqs realize that in working out a deal with the Arabs, while they would succeed in throwing off the Chinese yoke, they would have to bring themselves into the fold of Islam, from which there was no escape! The Qarluqs were forced to remain Muslim and whenever any of them reneged their Islamic faith, they were put to death while the luckier among them were enslaved by the Arabs and Persian Muslims.

The later history of the Qarluqs was as Muslims who resigned themselves to remaining as satellites of the Arabs after having thrown off the Chinese yoke and with it also the only possibility of liberating themselves from the grip of Islam. It was this devious conversion of the Quarluqs that triggered the conversion of the greater Turkish nation to Islam in the next three centuries from 750 to 1050.

The Turks who had zealously retained their freedom from their neighbors the Chinese, and the Zoroastrian Persians for more than a millennium, finally began succumbing to Islam due to a tactical pretense of the Qarluqs of embracing Islam, for securing Arabs support and throwing off Chinese suzerainty. A deal that proved costly for Turkish independence that was now permanently enslaved into the prison of Islam. The Turks henceforth would remain satellites of the Arabs, a position they sought to reverse, by themselves becoming more aggressive champions of Islam, and reducing their Arabs masters to vassalage status when they established their Seljuk and later Uthman (Ottoman) dynasties.

Turkish Resistance to Islam

But before they would finally resign to their fate to being Muslims the Turks waged a bloodied war against the Muslim incursion of their homeland in Central Asia. After the Battle of the Talas river, the Arabs captured many of the non-Qarluq Turks who were allies of the Chinese and deported them as salves to Baghdad. They are reported to have totaled up to seventy thousand. Not only were these enslaved Turks were forced to become Muslims, but enslavement was the tactic used by the Islamized Turks to convert the non-Muslim Turks to Islam.

The Conversion of the Seljuk Turks to Islam

The next Turkish clan to be converted to Islam was the Seljuks. They were a proud imperial clan among the Turks, and after the conversion of the Qarluqs to Islam, it was the Seljuks who held the banner of Turkish resistance to Islam. The Seljuks remained unsubdued for another century and half. But the Arabs, Persian and Islamized Turks mounted many bloodied campaigns against them and other non-Muslim Turks who were allied to the Seljuks. In this series of battles the fortunes fluctuated from one side to the other, at times the Muslims were victorious and at others the Turks emerged victorious.

Tactics used by the Muslims to convert the Turks to Islam

In this unwritten chapter of the Turkish resistance to Islam, the Muslims (who in this case were mainly the Zoroastrian Persian converts to Islam), devised new tactics and subterfuge to enslave a proud and fiercely independent people which characterized the Turkish clan. In this battle the Turks did not lack in bravery, as they were born warriors and spent a large part of their lives on horseback. But whenever the non-Muslim Turks were victorious, they destroyed the Muslim camps, slaughtered their armies, destroyed their cities, and torched their fields, but it did not cross their minds, to enforce any religion on the defeated Muslims. Those of the Muslims that the Turks set free, either went back to the Muslim controlled cities, or stayed on in the Turkish areas and attempted to spread Islam. A mindset that was totally absent among the non-Muslim Turks. (It was only when the Christians of Europe liberated Muslim lands, did they attempt to re-convert the Muslims to Christianity.) But the pre-Islamic Turks knew of no such tactic and they made no attempt to roll back the tide of Islam when they were victorious over the Muslims.

So while the Christians of Europe succeeded in turning back the tide of Islam in the middle ages, the Turks failed to resist Islam. Herein lies an important factor in defeating Islam, by forcing the reconversion of the defeated Muslims out of Islam. If the defeated Muslims are allowed to retain their faith (which is nothing but a cult of death and murder), the venom of Islam will become powerful once again to overwhelm the non-Muslim victors to ultimately defeat them. So whenever the Muslims are defeated and subjugated they need to be made to give up Islam, at the pain of death if necessary. But Islam has to be wiped out of peoples’ minds if the victory over Islam has to be consolidated and made permanent. As long as a person remains a Muslim, he/she remains an ever present danger to any non-Islamic (civilized) way of life. This is true as much today as it was in the past, and shall remain as true, as long as Islam infests this planet!

Muslims held Turkish princes as captives to be brought up as Muslims

In their struggle with the pre-Islamic Turks the tactic of the Muslims was to use every victory to press Islam on the defeated Turks. At every negotiation with the Turks, when the Turks faced a defeat, the Muslims would ask for custody of the princes and princesses of the Turkish royal family on the excuse of holding them as a guarantee that the Turks would keep their word given during the negotiations. These royal captives would be brought up in the Islamic tradition and their minds jaundiced in favor of Islam. In many cases when their Muslim captors were satisfied that the royal captives had mentally accepted Islam, the Shahada (declaration of the acceptance of Islam) was pronounced to them, and they were released to return to their kingdoms, whenever they had to ascend the throne in their clans and tribes.


ataturk
Most important of all, Ataturk visualized that in future there could be folks like Abdullah Gul and Erdogan who might want to undo the revolutionary secular reforms initiated by Ataturk and roll back Turkey into the Islamic age. To prevent this, he made the Turkish military the custodian of secular traditions. The Turkish military has intervened to upset any Islamist take of Turkey on many occasions during the last ninety years. It is quite possible the military will be called upon to take the reins of power once again, especially with the impending partition of Iraq and the coming of Kurdistan as an independent country with its destabilizing effects on Turkey’s Kurds and Erdogan taking advantage of this scenario to sideline the military to seize more power for himself and his Islamist party.


With a Muslim at the helm in a non-Muslim Turkish clan, the conversion of the rest of the clan to Islam was only a matter of time. This was one of the tactics used by the Muslims to infiltrate Islam into the Turkish nation. By the middle of the eleventh century, most of the Turks had embraced Islam, and thenceforth it was they who became the vanguard of the Jihad to carry the bloodied trial of Islam into Anatolia and the Balkans. It was these Islamized Seljuk Turks who kept up a constant pressure on the Byzantine Empire inflicting on the Byzantines a string of defeats starting from the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 in Eastern Anantolia. It was these steady attacks and migration of the Seljuk Turks into Anatolia which gave the present Turkish character to Anatolia making it the Turkey of today.

The Seljuk (and later the Ottoman) Turks also carried with them the tradition of taking child hostages and bringing them up as Muslims, a tactic of which they had earlier been victims at the hands of the Arab and Persian Muslims. This led to the institution of the Turkish Jannisaries. The Jannisaries (Mercenaries from Jan = Life and Nisar = given away. The Muslims will have you believe that Janisarry comes from Yeni = new and Chery = soldier, but this is an eyewash meant to hide Muslim atrocities on non-Muslims) where Christian children taken captive by the Turks when they invaded Anatolia and the Balkans. The Jannisaries is a practice derived by the Turks from the Arab and Persian Muslims tactics used against them (the Turks) during their pre-Islamic days.

But the irony of history is that the Islamization of the Turks and the Mongols also started their migration from the traditional homelands in the Steppes of Central Asia into Anatolia and onwards in the Balkans. Today the word Turk is not mainly identified with the Turkic peoples of Central Asia who make up the Kazakh, Uzbek, Khirgiz and Tajik people (all of whom were called the Turanians in ancient times). Today the word Turk implies an inhabitant of Anatolia which is called Turkey. But in ancient times the inhabitants of Anatolia were not the Turks, they were Hittites (and Indo-European people) who later mingled with the Greek speaking inhabitants who built the Hellenized kingdoms of Sardis and Troy.

Hulagu’s invasion – The Turko-Mongol attack on Muslim Iran and Middle East was similar to the Crusades, in that it was a Non-Muslim Counterattack on Islam.

Returning to pre-Islamic Central Asia, we need to bring attention to another curious fact that today not many historians have pointed out that the subterfuge, savage cruelty and other foul tactics which the Muslims used to convert the Turks to Islam, had led to a gradual accumulation of bitterness and a desire for revenge against the Muslims in the Turks and their related clans the Mongols.

Over the centuries many Persian Zoroastrians, the Persian Nestorian Christians, the Turks, Chinese and the Mongols had nursed within themselves a grievance against the Muslims expansion into Persia and Central Asia. It is this accumulation of grievances that led to the burst of the Mongol attack on Islamdom from 1200 that culminated in the sack and slaughter of Baghdad in 1258 under Hulagu Khan who was egged on to this path by his Nestorian Persian Christian wife.

Historians have failed to interpret the attack of the Mongols on Muslim Persia, and the Middle East as the Turko-Mongol counterattack on Islam; as were the Crusades, a Christian counterattack against Islam in the 11th century, We shall examine this in detail in the chapter on the Mongol resistance to Islam. Suffice it to note here that Hulagu’s attack on Islamdom was a collective expression of resistance to Islam from the pre-Islamic Persians who had settled in China and Mongolia, and the Turks who had been waging a struggle against Islam in the 8th to the 10th centuries. It was a result of historical wrongs committed by the Arab Muslims on the Zoroastrian Persians, and by the Arab Muslims along with the Islamized Persians on the Turks, and in turn, by the Arabs with the Islamized Persians and the Islamized Turks on non-Islamic Turks and Mongols and Chinese.

Ataturk the Visionary

It Mustapha Kemal Pasha (fondly called Ataturk ‘father of the Turks) who saw beyond Islam and wanted to build for the Turks a future bereft of Islam. He based his vision on three precepts:

  • Modernization of Turkey by abolishing the Caliphate
  • Westernizing by de-islamizing Turkey
  • Retuning to Turkish roots by taking on ethnic Turkish names in place of Arabic Islamic names

Ataturk’s first and revolutionary measure was to abolish the Caliphate. Thus with one stroke he dealt two blows to Islamic orthodoxy. With the Caliphate abolished by a Turkish nationalist military commander, Turkey was no longer the focus of the Islamic world. He severed Turkey’s most critical link with the Islamic world. Atatirk supplemented this with the abolition of the Arabic script and replaced it with the Latin script. He abolished the Chador (for ladies ) and Fez for men (Islamic cap with a tuft), and replaced it with Western dress. Women were to don Western skirts, while men were to be in Western three piece suits.

Ataturk banned the growing of beards by men and the wearing of even scarves by women. He outlawed the issuing of the Muezzins call for prayer and made this a private affair, with even the Muslim prayer leaders, priests and preachers having to be beardless and don Western dress!. He encouraged the next generation of Turks to take on ethnic pre-Islamic Turkish names like Bulent Ecevit, Turgut Ozal, Mesut Yilmaz, Necmettin Erbakan and Tansu Ciller, etc.

Most important of all, Ataturk visualized that in future there could be folks like Abdullah Gul and Erdogan who might want to undo the revolutionary secular reforms initiated by Ataturk and roll back Turkey into the Islamic age. To prevent this, he made the Turkish military the custodian of secular traditions. During the last ninety years the Turkish military has intervened to upset any Islamist take of Turkey on many occasions. It is quite possible the military will be called upon to take the reins of power once again, especially with the impending partition of Iraq and the formation of Iraqi Kurdistan as an independent country with its destabilizing effects on Turkey’s Kurds and Erdogan taking advantage of this scenario to sideline the military to seize more power for himself and his Islamist party.

Genghis Khan and Islam

Einshalom note: This article is from the History of Jihad The historyofjihad.org website was started by Robin MacArthur with Mahomet Mostapha and Naim al Khoury. While the site is still active, it is apparently no longer updated regularly. The site contains valuable historical information about the Muslim conquest in the Mideast, Asia and Europe, and […]

Einshalom note: This article is from the History of Jihad The historyofjihad.org website was started by Robin MacArthur with Mahomet Mostapha and Naim al Khoury. While the site is still active, it is apparently no longer updated regularly. The site contains valuable historical information about the Muslim conquest in the Mideast, Asia and Europe, and I am reproducing the articles here (with minor editing) because I believe the information is very valuable.


The relatively unknown story of how the Jihadis tormented the Mongols and Turks leading to a fierce and vicious counter-attack by the Mongols on Islamdom from 1200 to 1258. An attack that was fiercer than the Crusades and which nearly wiped out Islam

Reasons for the Mongol attack on Islamdom

Many Muslim historians look upon the Mongols as looters and plunderers. They tell us that the Mongols were like the Goths and Vandals, destroying everything in their way with the only aim to loot established rich civilizations. These historians allege that the civilization of the Muslims at Baghdad was the richest in the 13th century. This is wrong, while Baghdad was a rich and well endowed city, the Caliphate owed its riches to the constant looting of Persia, Central Asia, North Africa, Spain which the Muslim armies had been indulging from the beginning of Islam in 630 C.E., till they were checked by Charles Martel in France in 732 C.E. and till their brutal march across Central Asia towards China was reversed with equal brutality by the Mongols from 1200 C.E.


Genghis Khan
The Man who almost destroyed Islam – Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan attacked the Turko-Persian Muslim Khwarazmian empire of Samarkand to avenge the attacks being launched by the Arab and Persian Muslims in to Tartary (Central Asia). The Khwarazmıan empire was established by Turkmen and Kipchak Turks who had converted to Islam due to Persian and Arab depredations against them from the 7th century onwards. The Kipchak Turks had converted along with the Quarluqs after the Chinese defeat against the Arabs in the battle of the Talas river. By the 10th century, the nobility of the Kipchak Turks had interbred with the Persians and Arab Muslims and had established a large empire over Central Asia. This Turko-Persian Muslim Khwarazmian empire had carried on the Muslim tradition of attacking neighboring non-Muslim peoples. Their depredations against other non-converted Turks and Mongols from the 8th century onwards, gradually built a simmering resentment among the non-Muslim Turks and Mongols against the Turko-Persian Muslim Khwarazmian empire.

Genghis Khan’s intention was not primarily to loot, but to destroy the enemy. Had the Mongols been motivated purely by intentions of looting the Caliphate (which ironically was itself a center where loot was collected and stored by the Muslims), the Mongols need not have traversed some four thousand miles from their homeland in Mongolia, to reach Baghdad, they could have as well attacked nearby Japan and Korea which were hardly a few hundred miles from their homeland and were more rich and endowed than Baghdad.


Genghis Khan was the man who led the Mongol attack on Islamdom. He was followed by his grandson Hulagu (or Halaku) Khan. These two bold visionaries liberated all of Persia and most of Mesopotamia from the yoke of Islam and almost destroyed Islam.

Genghis Khan had attacked the Turko-Persian Muslim Khwarazmian empire of Samarkand to avenge the attacks being launched by the Arab and Persian Muslims in to Tartary (Central Asia). His intention was not primarily to loot, but to destroy the enemy. Had the Mongols been motivated purely by intentions of looting the Caliphate (which ironically was itself a center where loot was collected and stored by the Muslims), the Mongols need not have traversed some four thousand miles from their homeland in Mongolia, to reach Baghdad, they could have as well attacked nearby Japan and Korea which were hardly a few hundred miles from their homeland and were more rich and endowed than Baghdad.

The real reason why the Mongol horsemen made their way from Mongolia and started rolling back the Muslims from areas which are today known as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, finally reaching Iran, Iraq, and Syria lay in the subterfuge, savage cruelty and other foul tactics which the Muslims had used to convert the Turks and Mongols to Islam This had led to a gradual accumulation of bitterness and a desire for revenge against the Muslims amongst the Turks and their related clans the Mongols.

Foul tactics used by Muslims and their legendary cruelty against the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazaks, led to the Mongol invasion of Iran and Iraq

From the seventh to the thirteenth centuries many Persian Zoroastrians, the Persian Nestorian Christians, the Turks, Chinese and the Mongols had nursed within themselves a grievance against the savagery which Muslims used to convert the non-Muslim population of Persia and Central Asia to Islam.


Genghis Khan

The Mongol attack on Islamdom was a collective expression of resistance to Islam from the pre-Islamic Persians who had settled in China and Mongolia, and the Turks who had been waging a struggle against Islam in the 8th to the 10th centuries. It was a result of historical wrongs committed by the Arab Muslims on the Zoroastrian Persians, and by the Arab Muslims along with the Islamized Persians on the Turks, and in turn, by the Arabs along with the Islamized Persians and the Islamized Turks on non-Islamic Turks, Mongols and Chinese.


It was this accumulation of grievances that led to the burst of the Mongol attack on Islamdom from 1200 that culminated in the sack and slaughter at Baghdad in 1258 under Hulagu Khan who was egged on to this path by his Nestorian Persian Christian wife. Historians have failed to interpret the attack of the Mongols on Muslim Persia, and the Middle East as the Turko-Mongol counterattack on Islam as were the Crusades, which were the Christian counterattack against Islam in the 11th century.

We shall examine this in detail the chapter on the Mongol resistance to Islam, before some of the Mongols themselves succumbed Islam and carried forward the Muslim tradition of subterfuge and savagery to other non-Muslim people. Suffice it to note here that Hulagu’s attack on Islamdom was a collective expression of resistance to Islam from the pre-Islamic Persians who had settled in China and Mongolia, and the Turks who had been waging a struggle against Islam in the 8th to the 10th centuries. It was a result of historical wrongs committed by the Arab Muslims on the Zoroastrian Persians, and by the Arab Muslims along with the Islamized Persians on the Turks, and in turn, by the Arabs with the Islamized Persians and the Islamized Turks on non-Islamic Turks, Mongols and Chinese.

Humble Origins of Genghis Khan

In 1200, a Mongol named Temujin (Temüjin) rose as a khan over his and various other clans by dint of extraordinary bravery and skill at warfare. He was a good manager, collecting under him people of talent. He was vassal to Ong Khan, titular head of a confederacy that differed in its being better organized than the other, normally scattered clans of Mongols. Temujin expressed his loyalty and joined Ong Khan in a military campaign against Tatars to their east. In 1202, Temujin defeated these Tatars, and with this success, the aging Ong Khan declared Temujin his adoptive son and heir.

Ong Khan’s natural son, Senggum (Senggüm), had been expecting to succeed his father, and plotted to assassinate Temujin. Someone leaked the plans to Temujin. Those loyal to Temujin defeated those loyal to Senggum, and Temujin became ruler of what had been Ong Khan’s coalition. In 1206, Temujin the adopted son, took the title Universal Ruler, which translates to Genghis Khan. Genghis (Changez) Khan’s Invasion of Central Asia and Iran

The Nestorian (Persian) Christian influence on the Mongols

The Mongols had living among them a significant number of descendants from the Zoroastrian and Nestorian (Persian) Christian refugees who had fled the Muslim persecution in Persia since the 7th century and had settled in Western China and Mongolia. Among the Nestorian (Persian) Christian refugees many had intermarried with the Mongols and held powerful positions of influence within the Mongol ruling hierarchy. They had also made many Christian converts among the powerful Mongol clans.


Mongol attacks
In the 13th century, the Mongols finally decided to repel the Muslims who had been making incursions from Kazakhstan into Western Mongolia and China for six hundred years. But in this interregnum of six hundred years, Nestorian Christianity had also made some headway among the Mongol elite at least, certainly those of Kereit clan in origin, most notably the womenfolk in the royal family. The Persian Christian religious identity and activities of Dokuz Khatun, Hulagu’s wife, is documented. Mention can be made of other notable Christian Mongols, such as Kitbugha and Il-Siban, respectively the military commander of Syria in 1260 and the governor (shihna or na’ib) of Damascus who were also Nestorian Mongol Christians.

We need to realize that the ultimate cause for the Mongol attack on Islamdom were the Muslim attacks on Tartary from Persia from 650 up to 1250.


But the Zoroastrian Persians who lived among the Mongols were not allowed to propagate the Zoroastrian faith according to the tenets of their own faith, and so they dwindled in number over the six hundred years in their adopted homeland of China and Mongolia. It was after a six hundred year interregnum starting from the Muslim occupation of Persia in 650, up to 1250 that the Mongols finally decided to repel the Muslims who were making further incursions from Kazakhstan into Western Mongolia and China.

But in this interregnum of six hundred years, Nestorian Christianity had made some headway among the Mongol elite at least, certainly those of Kereit clan, most notably the womenfolk in the royal family. The Persian Christian religious identity and activities of Dokuz Khatun, Hulagu’s wife, is documented. Mention can be made of other notable Christian Mongols, such as Kitbugha and Il-Siban, respectively the military commander of Syria in 1260 and the governor (Shihna or Na’ib) of Damascus who were also Nestorian Mongol Christians.

The Christian and Zoroastrian influences on the Mongols to attack Islamdom, found an immediate provocation for war when a Mongol caravan of several hundred merchants approached a recently acquired Central Asian provinces of the Persian Muslim Khwarazmian empire at Samarkand. The sultan of this kingdom claimed that there were spies in the caravan. Genghis Khan sent envoys, and the sultan had the chief of the envoys killed and the beards of the others burned, and these others he sent back to Genghis Khan. This affront was the last straw and Genghis retaliated, sending his army westwards towards the Persian Muslim Khwarazmian empire of Samarkand.


US president Bush with Mongol horsement
President Bush with Mongol horsemen. President Bush can as well learn a lot from the Mongols who were the only ones in History to have come nearest to destroy Islam. The failure of the Mongols to do so was due to the fact that although they hated the Muslims, they did not realize that the brutality of the Muslims originated from Islam and eventually the Mongols themselves embraced Islam to become part of the Muslim psyche they so hated to begin with.

Any one who wants to fight the Muslims, needs to understand Islam, and he needs to fight Islam and not just its practitioners – the Muslims. Or else, like the Mongols, after defeating the Muslims on the battlefield, that leader would end up embracing Islam, and become a part of the problem he started out to unravel.


In the coldest of months the Mongols rode across the desert to Transoxiana with no baggage, slowing to the pace of merchants before appearing as warriors before the smaller towns of the sultan’s empire. Their strategy was to frighten their opponents into surrendering without battle, benefiting the Sultan’s own troops, whose lives he valued.

Those frightened into surrender were spared violence, those who resisted were slaughtered as an example for others, which sent many fleeing and spreading panic from the first border towns upto the major city of Bukhara. People in Bukhara opened the city’s gates to the Mongols and surrendered. Genghis Khan told them that they, the common people, were not at fault, that high-ranking people among them had committed great sins that inspired God to send him and his army as punishment. Subsequent to the fall of Bukhara, the Sultan’s capital city, Samarkand, also surrendered. The Sultan’s army surrendered, and he fled.

Genghis Khan and his army pushed more deeper into the Sultan’s empire – into Afghanistan and then Persia. It is said that the Caliph in Baghdad was hostile toward the Sultan and supported Genghis Khan, sending him a regiment of European crusaders who had been his prisoners. Genghis, having no need for infantry, freed them, with those making it to Europe spreading the first news of the Mongol conquests.


Mongol horsemen at war

The Mongol horsemen came as a whirlwind into Islamdom, and pierced through Islamic countries as a hot knife trough cheese, overwhelming Islam utterly. Initially the Mongols did not torture, mutilate or maim the Muslims, but their Muslims enemies did. Captured Mongols were dragged through streets and killed for sport and to entertain city residents. To begin with the Mongols did not partake in the gruesome displays that Muslim rulers often resorted to elicit fear and discourage the Mongols – none of the patented Muslim torture and mutilation practices that had been happening under Muslim rule happened initially in Bukhara or Samarkand which were overrun by the Mongols. Only after the Mongols were provoked by Muslim torture like stretching, emasculating, belly cutting and hacking to pieces, were the Mongols far more ruthless than their Muslim foes and that led to the wholesale slaughter of Muslims by the Mongols at Baghdad.


Genghis Khan had 100,000 to 125,000 horsemen, with his Uighur and Turkic allies, engineers and Chinese doctors — a total of from 150,000 to 200,000 men. To show their submission, some Uighurs offered food to the Mongols, and Genghis Khan’s force guaranteed them protection. Some cities surrendered without fighting. In cities the Mongols were forced to conquer, after killing its fighting men, Genghis divided the survivors by profession. He drafted the few who were literate and anyone who could speak various languages. Those who had been the city’s most rich and powerful he wasted no time and killed them, remembering that the rulers he had left behind after conquering the Tangut and Ruzhen had betrayed him soon after his army had withdrawn.

The Mongol Invasion marks the first successful defeat of the Islamic Caliphate by non-Muslims

Initially the Mongols did not torture, mutilate or maim the Muslims, but their Muslims enemies did. Captured Mongols were dragged through streets and killed for sport and to entertain city residents. To begin with the Mongols did not partake in the gruesome displays that Muslim rulers often resorted to elicit fear and discourage the Mongols – none of the patented Muslim torture and mutilation practices that had been happening under Muslim rule happened initially in Bukhara or Samarkand which were overrun by the Mongols. Only after the Mongols were provoked by Muslim torture like stretching, emasculating, belly cutting and hacking to pieces, were the Mongols far more ruthless than their Muslim foes and that led to the wholesale slaughter of Muslims by the Mongols at Baghdad.


Mongolian man

The Mongols were a peace-loving nomadic pastoral people who kept to themselves till they had been provoked by Muslim incursions in to their homeland. Before Islam, there is no record of a Mongol invasion anywhere, neither do we hear of Mongol ruthlessness. But when the Mongols were provoked by the Muslims, their instincts for self-preservation were aroused and they slaughtered their Muslim tormentors by the millions – literally at Tabriz, Shiraz and Baghdad.


But when the Mongols were provoked, they were far more ruthless than their Muslim foes. When the city of Nishapur revolted against Mongol rule and the Genghis Khan’s son-in-law was killed, it is said, his daughter asked that everyone in the city be put to death, and, according to the story, they were.

The Mongol encounter with the Crusaders

While Genghis Khan was consolidating his conquests in Persia and Afghanistan, a force of 40,000 Mongol horsemen pushed through Azerbaijan and Armenia. They defeated Georgian crusaders, captured a Genoese trade-fortress in the Crimea and spent the winter along the coast of the Black Sea. As they were headed back home they met 80,000 warriors led by Prince Mistitslav of Kiev. The battle of Kalka River (1223) commenced. Staying out of range of the crude weapons of peasant infantry, and with better bows than opposing archers, they devastated the prince’s standing army. Facing the prince’s cavalry, they faked a retreat, drawing the armored cavalry forward, taking advantage of the vanity and over-confidence of the mounted aristocrats. Lighter and more mobile, they strung out and tired the pursuers and then attacked, killed and routed them.

In 1225, Genghis Khan returned to Mongolia. He now ruled everything between the Caspian Sea and Beijing. He looked forward to the Mongols repeaing the benefits of caravan trade and drawing tribute from agricultural peoples in the west and east. He created an efficient pony express system. Wanting no divisions rising from religion, he declared freedom of religion throughout his empire. Favoring order and tax producing prosperity, he forbade troops and local officials to abuse people.

But soon again, Genghis Khan was at war. He believed that the Tangut were not living up to their obligations to his empire. In 1227, around the age of sixty-five, while leading the fighting against the Tangut, Genghis Khan, it is said, fell off his horse and died.


mongolian horseman

A Mongol Horseman who could be unimaginably ruthless if provoked. We have an example of this when Hulagu Khan had asked the Abbasid caliph, al-Muta’sim, to recognize Mongol sovereignty. But the arrogant Khalifah (Caliph) who called himself the prince of the faithful (Ameer-ul-Momeenin) overconfident of his own prestige, sent word to the conqueror that any attack on his capital would mobilize the entire Muslim world, from India to north west Africa (Much like the Jihadis today threaten Bush, Blair and the Western world).

Not in the least impressed by the Caliph’s boastful threats, the grandson of Genghis Khan announced his intention of taking the city of Baghdad by force. Towards the end of 1257 he led hundreds of thousands of Mongol cavalrymen who began advancing towards the Abbasid capital – Baghdad. On their way they destroyed the Assassin’s (Hashishin) sanctuary at Alamut and sacked it’s library where the Assassins had collected techniques of murder and terror, thus making it for impossible for future generations to gain any in-depth knowledge of the evil doctrine and nefarious activities of this sect. Thus the Mongol’s did a service to humankind with this one act.

The massacre of the Assassins at Alamut, presaged what to come soon thereafter at Baghdad, which was then the seat of the Islamic Caliphate (Khilafat).


Taking opportunity of Genghis Khan’s death, the Iranians rose in revolt, overthrew their Mongol overlords and slaughtered the Mongol garrisons. In response the next Padishah (Emperor) Hulagu Khan, grandson of Genghis, launched the second invasion of Iran. It was now onwards that the Mongols became ferocious in their treatment of the Muslim residents of Iran and other countries they overran. (Note: The title Padishah for king was derived from the old Avestan term Pati-Kshatra which means head of the warriors. The use of this term for their King by the Mongols, displays the influence that Persian (Zoroastrian) culture had on the Mongols. This was due to the presence of a significant number of Zoroastrian and Christian (Nestorian) Persian refugees and mercenary soldiers amongst the Mongols from the 7th up to the 13th centuries)

The Mongol’s besiege and capture Baghdad in 1258

Prior to his invasion of the Middle East, Hulagu asked the Abbasid caliph, al-Muta’sim, the thirty-seventh of his dynasty, to recognize Mongol sovereignty as his predecessors had once accepted the rule of the Seljuk Turks who were of a clan distantly related with the Mongols.

The Khalifah (Caliph) who called himself the prince of the faithful (Ameer-ul-Momeenin as does Osama Bin Laden today) overconfident of his own prestige, sent word to Hulagu Khan that any attack on his capital would mobilize the entire Muslim world, from India to north west Africa. Not in the least impressed, the grandson of Genghis Khan announced his intention of taking the city of Baghdad by force.

Towards the end of 1257 he lead hundreds of thousands of Mongol cavalrymen who began advancing towards the Abbasid capital. On their way they destroyed the Assassin’s (Hashishin) sanctuary at Alamut and sacked it’s library where the Assassins had collected techniques of murder and terror, thus making it for impossible for future generations to gain any in-depth knowledge of the evil doctrine and nefarious activities of the sect. When the caliph finally realized the extent of the threat, he chickened out and decided to negotiate.

The Caliph’s envoy, Ibn al-Jawzi arrived from Baghdad bearing a message filled with entreaties for Hulagu to turn back, in exchange for which the caliph would remit whatever would be agreed upon to the treasury annually. The Caliph also proposed that Hulagu’s name be pronounced at Friday sermons in the mosques of Baghdad and that he be granted the title “Sultan”. But it was too late, for by now the Mongol emperor had definitely opted for force. After a few weeks of desperate resistance, the “prince of the faithful(sic)” had no choice but to capitulate.

The use of deceit by Hulagu to secure Baghdad and slaughter its defenders and residents

Hulagu Khan had ridden against Baghdad – the capital of the Caliphate from all directions and hemmed in the Abbasid caliph in an impossible position. Fearing that Baghdad would be destroyed, the caliph and his three sons, Abu’1-Fadl Abdul-Rahman, Abu’l-Abbas Ahmad, and Abu’l-Managib Mubarak, came out on Sunday the 4th of Safar 656 [February 10, 1258]. With him were three thousand Sayyids (nobles), imams (priests), and dignitaries of the city.

When the Caliph shivering with fright approached Padishah Hulagu Khan, the Padishah did not exhibit any anger but asked after his health kindly and pleasantly. This was a leaf that the Khan had taken out of the book of Muslim psychological war of playing a ‘cat-and-mouse’ game with an enemy he had ensnared. After that he said to the Caliph, “Tell the people of the city to throw down their weapons and come out so that we may make a count.” The caliph sent word into the city for it to be heralded that the people should throw down their weapons and come out.

The Muslim defenders of the seat of the Khalifah disarmed themselves and came out in droves to the Mongols.

But Hulagu had given his word to the Caliph in deceit. As soon as they were disarmed, as had been premeditated amongst the Mongols all the Muslim fighters were exterminated. After that the Mongol horde fanned out through the prestigious city demolishing buildings, burning neighborhoods, and mercilessly massacring men, women, and children.


Hulagu Khan enactment
The way in which the victorious Hulagu Khan humiliated the defeated Last Caliph Musta’sim, was history’s ironical way of seeking retribution for the humiliation of the last Persian Emperor Yazdgard in the same city (then known as Ctesiphon) in 637 by the victorious Arab Muslims. In one full swoop the Mongol army went into Baghdad and burned everything except a few houses belonging to Nestorians and some foreigners. On Friday the 9th of Safar [February 15] Hulagu Khan went into the city to see the caliph’s palace. He settled into the Octagon Palace and gave a banquet for the commanders. (In a way reminiscent of the way the Muslims had stormed the White Palace of the defeated Sassanid King six hundred years before at the same spot. History had avenged that injustice and humiliation)

Summoning the caliph, Hulagu said, “You are the host, and we are the guests. Bring whatever you have that is suitable for us.” The Caliph – the ruler of all Muslims, trembled in fear. He was so frenzied that he couldn’t tell the keys to the treasuries one from another and had to have several locks broken. He brought two thousand suits of clothing, ten thousand dinars, precious items, jewel-encrusted vessels, and several gems. Hulagu Khan paid no attention and gave it all away to the commanders and others present.

Hulagu said to the trembling Caliph “The possessions you have on the face of the earth are apparent,” and added, “Tell my servants what and where your buried treasures are.” The caliph confessed that there was a pool full of gold in the middle of the palace. They dug it up, and it was full of gold, all in huge ingots. An order was given for the caliph’s harem to be counted. There were seven hundred women and concubines and a thousand servants. When the caliph was apprised of the count of the harem, he begged and pleaded, saying, “Let me have the women of the harem, upon whom neither the sun nor the moon has ever shone.” Of these seven hundred, choose a hundred,” he was told, “and leave the rest.” The caliph selected a hundred women from among his favorites and close relatives and took them away. That night Hulagu Khan went to the Ordu (Mongol military camp) to ravish some of the Caliph’s most alluring wives and concubines!


All the residents of Baghdad were slaughtered in cold blood. Howsoever, ghastly this act was, with this one act the Mongols repaid all the six hundred years of Muslim bloodshed. Nearly eighty thousand people in all were slaughtered in Baghdad in a matter of two days. Here Hulagu picked a leaf from the tactics of the Muslims and used it against them.

Only the Christian community was spared, thanks to the intercession of the Khan’s Christian wife. According to estimates, nearly 8,00,00 (Eight Hundred thousand) Muslims were slaughtered by the Mongols in and around Baghdad.

The end of the Caliphate with the slaying of the Caliph, and his family

After the carnage at Baghdad was done Hulagu ordered that the Caliph and his sons were to be taken captive and held as prisoners in tents at the Kalwadha Gate at Ket Buqa Noyan’s camp. Several Mongols were set over them as guards. The caliph wept over his imminent doom and regretted having abandoned the battlefield and having rejected good advice.

The way Hulagu humiliated the defeated Last Caliph Musta’sim, which was history’s ironical way of seeking retribution for the humiliation of the last Persian Emperor Yazdgard in the same city in 637 (then known as Ctesiphon) by the victorious Arab Muslims

On Wednesday the 7th of Safar [February 13] the pillage and general massacre began. In one full swoop the Mongol army went into Baghdad and burned everything except a few houses belonging to Nestorians and some foreigners. On Friday the 9th of Safar [February 15] Hulagu Khan went into the city to see the caliph’s palace. He settled into the Octagon Palace and gave a banquet for the commanders. (In a way reminiscent of the way the Muslims had stormed the White Palace of the defeated Sassanid King six hundred years before at the same spot. History had avenged that injustice and humiliation)

Summoning the caliph, Hulagu said, “You are the host, and we are the guests. Bring whatever you have that is suitable for us.” The caliph, thinking he was speaking seriously, trembled in fear. He was so frenzied that he couldn’t tell the keys to the treasuries one from another and had to have several locks broken. He brought two thousand suits of clothing, ten thousand dinars, precious items, jewel-encrusted vessels, and several gems. Hulagu Khan paid no attention and gave it all away to the commanders and others present. Hulagu said to the trembling Caliph “The possessions you have on the face of the earth are apparent,” and added, “Tell my servants what and where your buried treasures are.” The caliph confessed that there was a pool full of gold in the middle of the palace. They dug it up, and it was full of gold, all in huge ingots. An order was given for the caliph’s harem to be counted. There were seven hundred women and concubines and a thousand servants. When the caliph was apprised of the count of the harem, he begged and pleaded, saying, “Let me have the women of the harem, upon whom neither the sun nor the moon has ever shone.” Of these seven hundred, choose a hundred,” he was told, “and leave the rest.” The caliph selected a hundred women from among his favorites and close relatives and took them away. That night Hulagu Khan went to the Ordu (Mongol military camp) to ravish some of the Caliph’s most alluring wives and concubines.


Mongolian victory
Hulagu Killed the Caliph, without spilling a drop of his blood on the ground.

After giving this order to cease all slaughter, Hulagu Khan decamped from Baghdad on Wednesday the 14th of Safar [February 20] on account of the foul air emanating from the rotting corpses and camped in the village of Waqaf-u-Jalabiyya. He sent one of his most fearsome commanders to conquer Khuzistan. Hulagu summoned the Caliph to Waqaf. Having been subjected to such bad commands before, he was extremely afraid.

At the end of the day on Wednesday the 14th of Safar 656 [February 20, 1258], the caliph, his eldest son, and five of his attendants were executed in the village of Waqaf. The next day the others who had camped with the Caliph at the Kalwadha Gate were also martyred. Next came the caliph’s turn. Here Hulagu faced a problem. According to Mongol ethics, no king could have his blood spilled on the ground. This would be ill omen. (The Mongols considered the Caliph to be a king of the Muslims). So Hulagu devised a novel way of killing the Caliph. He wrapped the Caliph in a thick carpet and they with his cavalry stomped the caliph to death. Thus the caliph died due to suffocation and the stomping, without his blood being spilled on the ground!


The next morning Hulagu ordered Su’unchaq to go into the city, confiscate the caliph’s possessions, and send them out. The items that had been accumulated over six hundred years, from the treasures of the Zoroastrian Persian Sassanids whom the Arab Muslims had defeated and plundered. These treasures were all stacked in mountainous piles. Most of the Muslim holy places like the caliph’s mosque, the Musa-Jawad shrine, and the tombs in Rusafa were burned down.

Hulagu’s first mistake that led to the eventual defeat of the Mongols by the Muslims

While this terrible slaughter and destruction, was proceeding, the people of the city sent Sharafuddin Maragha’i, Shihabuddin Zanjani, and Malik Dilrast to request amnesty.

In response an order was given, saying, “Henceforth the killing and pillaging will cease, for the kingdom of Baghdad is ours. Let them dwell as they were, and let everyone get on with his business. Sheathe your swords, for they are granted quarter.” This was the first mistake that the Mongols did, for taking advantage of this amnesty, the Muslims began to re-organize and re-arm themselves, and waited for the day, when the Mongols would lower their guard, so that the Muslims could lunge at them when they least suspected and take the revenge that they so fervently sought against the Mongols.

How Hulagu Killed the Caliph, without spilling a drop of his blood on the ground

After giving this order to cease all slaughter, Hulagu Khan decamped from Baghdad on Wednesday the 14th of Safar [February 20] on account of the foul air emanating from the rotting corpses and camped in the village of Waqaf-u-Jalabiyya. He sent one of his most fearsome commanders to conquer Khuzistan.

Hulagu summoned the Caliph to Waqaf. Having been subjected to such bad commands before, he was extremely afraid and despaired for his life So to buy time he requested permission to go into the bath to renew his ablutions. Hulagu Khan said he could go in with five Mongols. To which the Caliphh replied “I don’t want the companionship of five myrmidons of hell,” he said as he recited two or three lines from the Quran, the first line of which is as follows: We woke up in the morning in a palace like paradise, but we went to bed without a palace with which we could not dispense yesterday. Soon the Caliph’s worst fears were realized. At the end of the day on Wednesday the 14th of Safar 656 [February 20, 1258], the caliph, his eldest son, and five of his attendants were executed in the village of Waqaf. The next day the others who had camped with the Caliph at the Kalwadha Gate were also martyred. Next came the caliph’s turn. Here Hulagu faced a problem. According to Mongol ethics, no king could have his blood spilled on the ground. This would be ill omen. (The Mongols considered the Caliph to be a king of the Muslims). So Hulagu devised a novel way of killing the Caliph. He wrapped the Caliph in a thick carpet and they with his cavalry he stomped the caliph to death. Thus the caliph died due to suffocation and the stomping, without his blood spilling on the ground!


in Iraq
In Iraq, the Mongols paid back the Muslims in the same coin of subterfuge, trickery and cruelty which was till then exclusively the signature of the Muslims. In fact, it was for this reason that the Mongols scored their spectacular victories against the Muslims and were the first non-Muslim power to storm the capital of the Islamic Caliphate of Baghdad. The reasons for the success of the Mongols should be a lesson for us Americans today. We realize that we Americans cannot be as gory as the Mongols were. But the point to note is that the Muslims only understand the language of blood and death, they respect only an adversary more ruthless than themselves, they despise qualities like chivalry, fair play, compassion, and forgiveness. These qualities, are for the Muslims, a signature of an adversary’s weakness and stupidity. We Americans who are the primary foes of the Jihadis today, need to realize what can succeed against the Muslims and use modern day equivalents of mass slaughter like our nuclear and neutron arsenal, to achieve what the blades of Mongol swords achieved in the 13th century.


After the Caliph ws done in for, his other sons and relatives were stuffed into barrels which had nails protruding from the inside and they were rolled down a slope of a hill. This way even their blood was not spilled, and the hoary Mongol custom was honored. After this no Abbasid who could be found was left alive.

Hulagu’s second Mistake led to the gradual conversion of the Mongols to Islam

After this massacre of the Caliph’s family, only the Caliph’s youngest son survived. Hulgau decided to spare him and he was given to Oljai Khatun, who sent him to Khwaja Nasiruddin in Maragha. He was married to a Mongol woman who bore him two sons. This was Hulagu’s second mistake. When he allowed the marriage of of Mongol women to captured Muslims and also of Muslim women to Mongol warriors, Islam made a back door entry into the Mongol camp, and influenced by their wives, the Mongol warriors slowly turned towards Islam and in a generation after Hulagu’s death, they openly started professing Islam. In fact it was these Muslim converts among the Mongols who invaded India and established the Mughal (derived from Mongol) kingdom.

By Friday the 16th of Safar [February 22] all the caliph’s sons and relatives were dispatched to their deaths and the reign of the House of Abbas, which had mounted the throne after the Umayyads, came to an end. Their caliphate had lasted five hundred twenty-five years, and there were thirty-seven Caliphs starting with Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Abu Muawiya ibn Sufyan of which Musta’sim, was the last one to be killed by Hulagu Khan.

Lessons from the Battle of Baghdad

In Iraq, the Mongols paid back the Muslims in thee same coin of subterfuge, trickery and cruelty which was till then exclusively the signature of the Muslims. In fact, it was for this reason that the Mongols scored their spectacular victories against the Muslims and were the first non-Muslim power to storm the capital of the Islamic Caliphate of Baghdad.

The reasons for the success of the Mongols should be a lesson for us Americans today.


Mongolian victory
Hulagu’s march onwards from Baghdad and how the surrendered Muslims showed deference to the Mongols

On Friday the 23rd of Safar [March 1] Hulagu Khan left the environs of Baghdad and camped at Shaykh Makarim Dome. From there he proceeded stage by stage to the Mongol camp at Khanaqin established by the advance guard of the Mongol Cavalry. When Baghdad was besieged, several learned Alims had come from Hilla to request a Shahna (royal pardon as an instrument of surrender).

Hulagu Khan sent Tukal and Amir Nahli Nakhjiwani there, and on their heels he dispatched Oljai Khatun’s brother Buqa Temiir to test the people of Hilla, Kufa, and Wasit. The inhabitants of Hilla, knowing what had happened at Baghdad, surrendered without a fight and came out to greet the Mongol army, made bridges over the Euphrates for the Mongols to cross over, and pretended to be joyous at the arrival of the Mongols.

The Shiites betrayed the Sunni ruling Caliphate and sold their loyalty to the Mongols in return for being spared their lives

In some measure this joy was real, for these Muslims were Shiites and they were happy to be relieved of the yoke of the Sunni Caliph. Much the same way as the Shiites welcome us for having overthrown Saddam.


While fighting and defeating terrorism, we realize that we Americans cannot be as gory as the Mongols were. But the point to note is that the Muslims only understand the language of blood and death, they respect only an adversary more ruthless than themselves, they despise qualities like chivalry, fair play, compassion, and forgiveness. These qualities, are for the Muslims, a signature of an adversary’s weakness and stupidity. We Americans who are the primary foes of the Jihadis today, need to realize what can succeed against the Muslims and use modern day equivalents of mass slaughter like our nuclear and neutron arsenal, to achieve what the blades of Hulagu Khan’s swords achieved in the 13th century.
Hulagu’s march onwards from Baghdad and how the surrendered Muslims showed deference to the Mongols

On Friday the 23rd [March 1] of Safar Hulagu Khan left the environs of Baghdad and camped at Shaykh Makarim Dome. From there he proceeded stage by stage to the Mongol camp at Khanaqin established by the advance guard of the Mongol Cavalry. When Baghdad was besieged, several learned Alims had come from Hilla to request a Shahna (royal pardon as an instrument of surrender).

Hulagu Khan sent Tukal and Amir Nahli Nakhjiwani there, and on their heels he dispatched Oljai Khatun’s brother Buqa Temiir to test the people of Hilla, Kufa, and Wasit. The inhabitants of Hilla, knowing what had happened at Baghdad, surrendered without a fight and came out to greet the Mongol army, made bridges over the Euphrates for the Mongols to cross over, and pretended to be joyous at the arrival of the Mongols. In some measure this joy was real, for these Muslims were Shiites and they were happy to be relieved of the yoke of the Sunni Caliph. Much the same way as the Shiites welcome us for having overthrown Saddam.


khuzistan

After the sack of Wasit, Hulagu Khan went to Khuzistan, taking Sharafuddin Ibn al-Jawzi as a hostage with him to get the city of Shushtar to surrender. Some of the caliph’s soldiers and Turks fled and others were killed. Basra and other towns like Najaf and Karbala also surrendered without a fight. Ironically, the chief Shiite cleric, Amir Sayfuddin Bitigchi pleaded with Hulagu Khan to send a hundred Mongols to Najaf to guard the shrine of the Commander of the Faithful Ali and the inhabitants there. Imagine Muslim seeking Kafirs to protect a Muslim shrine. This was Muslim morale at its abject lowest, an ebb, which it has rarely reached ever since.

But when faced with a tolerant and liberal adversary, the hallmark of Muslim psyche is their arrogance, cruelty and brazenness, as seen in Netherlands, UK (the Al Mujahiroun) in France and even in the USA (9/11 being just its most dramatic expression). But it was the Mongols under Genghis Khan and Hulagu Khan who taught the Muslims not just humility, but also servility for the short time during which they had trashed the Caliphate into the trashcan of history.


The Mongol commander Buqa Temi saw no threat from the people of Hilla and Kufa and on the 10th of Safar [February 16, 1258] he marched on and set out for The Sunni majority fortress town of Wasit, arriving on the February 23. The people of Wasit did not surrender, so he camped and took the city, massacring and plundering. Nearly forty thousand people were put to death at Wasit, in the same way the Muslims had done when they had ravaged the same area then held by the Zoroastrian Persians in 637.

After the sack of Wasit, Hulagu Khan went to Khuzistan, taking Sharafuddin Ibn al-Jawzi as a hostage with him to get the city of Shushtar to surrender. Some of the caliph’s soldiers and Turks fled and others were killed. Basra and other town in the area like Najaf and Karbala also surrendered without a fight. Ironically, the chief Shiite cleric, Amir Sayfuddin Bitigchi pleaded with the court to send a hundred Mongols to Najaf to guard the shrine of the Commander of the Faithful Ali and the inhabitants there. Imagine Muslim seeking Kafirs to protect a Muslim shrine. This was Muslim morale at its abject lowest, an ebb, which it has rarely reached ever since. When faced with a liberal and civilized adversary, the hallmark of Muslim psyche is their arrogance, cruelty and brazenness, as seen in Netherlands, UK (the Al Mujahiroun) in France and even in the USA (9/11 being just its most dramatic expression). But it was the Mongols under Genghis Khan and Hulagu Khan who taught the Muslims not just humility, but also servility for the short time during which they had trashed the Caliphate into the trashcan of history.

The Mongol Invasion of Syria and Palestine

damascus

An extract from Hulagu’s letter to the Governor of Damascus; “We stopped in Baghdad in the year 656 (of the Muslim Calendar which translates as 1258 of the Gregorian calendar), and an evil morning it was unto those who were warned in vain. We called upon its lord (the Caliph) to surrender, but he refused, so he suffered. We chastised him with a heavy chastisement. Now we call upon you to obey us. If you come, well and good; if you refuse, woe betide you. Do not be like one who digs his own grave or bloodies his own nose lest you be one of those whose works are vain, whose endeavor in the present life hath been wrongly directed, and who think they do the work which is right. Neither will this be difficult with God. And peace be with him who follows the right path.”

Hulagu’s letters (rather ultimatums) to the Governor of Damascus and earlier to the Khalifah (caliph) of Islam were quite reminiscent of the letters the Muslim prophet Mohammed-ibn-Abadallah sent to the Persian and Byzantine Emperors to Embrace Islam and be safe, or face a Muslim Invasion. With Hulagu sending similar letters, it was the chickens coming home to roost!

This translation of Hulagu’s letter is from Jumi’u’t-Tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles): A History of the Mongols, translated by W.M. Thackston(Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 45, 1998-99).


On the 12th of Rabi` I [March 19] Buqa Temur arrived at the camp, and on the 19th [March 26] the emissaries from Aleppo and Damascus in Syria who had come to Baghdad were sent home carrying a letter to the people of Damascus and Aleppo Khwaja Nasiruddin Tusi had written in Arabic as per Hulagu Khan’s order to do so. This letter stated : “We stopped in Baghdad in the year 656 (of the Muslim Calendar which translates as 1258 of the Gregorian calendar), and an evil morning it was unto those who were warned in vain. We called upon its lord (the Caliph) to surrender, but he refused, so he suffered. We chastised him with a heavy chastisement. Now we call upon you to obey us. If you come, well and good; if you refuse, woe betide you. Do not be like one who digs his own grave or bloodies his own nose lest you be one of those whose works are vain, whose endeavor in the present life hath been wrongly directed, and who think they do the work which is right. Neither will this be difficult with God. And peace be with him who follows the right path.” Damascus surrendered soon after.

Hulagu’s letter (rather ultimatum) to the Khalifah (caliph) of Islam was quite reminiscent of the letters the Muslim prophet Mohammed-ibn-Abadallah sent to the Persian and Byzantine Emperors to Embrace Islam and be safe, or face a Muslim Invasion. With Hulagu, it was the chickens coming home to roost! This translation of Hulagu’s letter is from Jumi’u’t-Tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles): A History of the Mongols, translated by W.M. Thackston (Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 45, 1998-9).

Hulagu’s return to Mongolia and the consequent defeat of the Mongols in Palestine

The Mongol armies were thought to be unstoppable after they were able to overcome the defenses of both Baghdad and Damascus. In 1260 Hulagu sent envoys to Saif ad-Din Qutuz the Mamluk ruler in Cairo demanding his surrender; Quduz responded by killing the envoys and displaying their heads on the gates of the city. But unfortunately, as Qutuz prepared for a Mongol invasion, Hulagu returned home to attempt to seize power when his brother the Great Khan Mongke died.

Qutuz allied with a fellow Mamluk, Baubars, who had fled Syria after the Mongols captured Damascus. The Mongols also attempted to ally with the remnant of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, now centered on Acre, but Pope Alexander IV forbade this. The Christians remained neutral. This was the Cardinal Christian folly for which the Crusaders were to pay dearly very soon after the defeat of the Mongols at Ayn Jalut.

When Hulagu Khan departed from Syria, he sent a Mongol emissary with forty liege men on a mission to Egypt, saying, “God the great has elevated Genghis Khan and his progeny and given us the realms of the face of the earth altogether. Everyone who has been recalcitrant in obeying us has been annihilated along with his women, children, kith and kin, towns, and servants, as has surely reached the hearing of all. The reputation of our innumerable army is as well known as the stories of Rustam and Isfandiar. If you are in submission to our court, send tribute, come yourself, and request a Shahna (royal pardon as an instrument of surrender) otherwise be prepared for battle.”

The Mongol march towards Egypt

After sending this ultimatum, the Mongols overran Damascus and Aleppo, without much of a fight, they began to their march towards Egypt though Palestine. The Egyptians trembled at the thought that they would be the next to be slaughtered by the unstoppable Mongols. They decided to meet the Mongols before the enemy reached Egypt. So they sent out an army in Palestine. Both Muslim and Mongol armies encamped in Palestine in July of 1260.

At that time in Egypt had been ruled by a Muslim dynasty called the Kamilites. But in 1260 there was no one left of Kamilite lineage worthy of ruling, and a Turcoman upstart named Quduz had become ruler when the last Kamilite king had died. The king had left an infant child named Muhammad, who was elevated to his father’s position with Quduz as his Atabeg (regent’s protector). But the child prince Muhammad was murdered by Quduz, who proclaimed himself the ruler of Egypt. He curried favor with the people through largesse. Most of the soldiers of the Muslim armies in Syria were the defeated troops of Sultan Jalaluddin who had fled from the gates of Baghdad and fled to Syria and then to Egypt ahead of the advancing Mongols. Their leaders and commanders were Barakat Khan and Malik Ikhtiyaruddin Khan.

When Hulagu Khan set out for Syria, they went into hiding in the surrounding areas, and after he pulled out, they reassembled and headed for Cairo in Egypt, where they told their sad story to Quduz of the merciless Mongol massacre of the Muslims in Baghdad and Damascus. Quduz showed them favor, sympathized with them, and gave them largesse in the form of resources and money. In turn they became wholehearted supporters of the upstart Quduz’s rule.


ain jalut

When the Mongol and Muslim armies finally met at Ain Jalut (in today’s Israel)on September 3, with both sides numbering about 20 000 men (the Mongol force was originally much larger, but Hulagu took most of it when he returned home). The Mamluks drew out the Mongol cavalry with a feigned retreat, and were almost unable to withstand the assault. Quduz rallied his troops for a successful counterattack, along cavalry reserves hidden in the nearby valleys. Quduz had stationed his troops in ambush and, himself mounted with a few others, stood waiting. When the unsuspecting, Ket Buqa arrived with the main Mongol cavalry, Quduz pounced on him clashed with him and his several thousand cavalry, all experienced warriors, at Ayn Jalut.

The Mongols attacked, raining down arrows, and Quduz pulled a feint and started to withdraw. Emboldened, the Mongols lit out after him, killing many of the Egyptians, but when they came to the ambush spot, the trap was sprung from three sides. A bloody battled ensued, lasting from dawn till midday.


When the Mongol emissaries arrived, Quduz summoned the Muslim refugees from Baghdad and Damascus and consulted with them on what to do. They told him; “Hulagu Khan has proceeded from Turan with a huge army into Iran, and no one, caliph, sultan, or malik, has the ability to withstand his onslaught. Having conquered all lands, he has come to Damascus, and were it not for the news of his brother’s death he would have added Egypt to his conquests too. In addition, he has stationed in this area Ket Buqa Noyan, who is like a raging lion and fire-breathing dragon lying in ambush. If he attacks Egypt, no one will be able to contend with him.”

In reply Quduz said, “At the present time, everywhere in Diyarbekir, Diyar Rabi’a, and Greater Syria is filled with lamentation. The land from Baghdad to Anatolia lies in ruins, devoid of farmers and seed. If we don’t make a pre-emptive strike and try to repulse them, soon Egypt will be destroyed like the others. Given the multitudes with which he is proceeding in our direction, one of three things must be done: we must make a truce, offer resistance, or go into exile. Exile is impossible, for there is nowhere we can go other than North Africa, and a bloodthirsty desert and vast distances lie between us and there.” “A truce is also imprudent,” said Nasiruddin Qaymari, “for their (Mongol’s) word is not to be trusted.” The other commanders said, “We do not have the power to resist either. You must say what you think the best plan is.” ”My opinion,” said Quduz, “is that we go out to battle together. If we win, fine; otherwise, we will not suffer blame from the people.”

After that, the amirs agreed, and Quduz consulted with Bunduqdar, his chief amir, in private. “My opinion,” said Bunduqdar, “is that we should kill the Mongol emissaries and ride as one to attack Ket Buqa. Win or die, in either case we will not be blamed, and we will have people’s gratitude.” Quduz approved this plan, and by night he had the emissaries beheaded and stuck their heads on poles at the gates of his capital city Al Fustat (Cairo).

Amir Baidar, who was the leader of the Mongol yazak [advance troop], sent a man to Ket Buqa Noyan to inform him of this outrage and of the movement of the Egyptian troops.

The Battle of Ayn Jalut (September 3, 1260)

When Ket Buqa heard of this he ordered his troops to prepare for battle and commended them to “Stay where you are and wait for me.” But before Ket Buqa arrived, Quduz attacked the Mongol advance guard and drove them to the banks of the Orontes. Ket Buqa Noyan, his zeal stirred, flared up like fire with all confidence in his own strength and might. The two armies finally met at Ain Jalut on September 3, with both sides numbering about 20 000 men (the Mongol force was originally much larger, but Hulagu took most of it when he returned home). The Mamluks drew out the Mongol cavalry with a feigned retreat, and were almost unable to withstand the assault. Quduz rallied his troops for a successful counterattack, along cavalry reserves hidden in the nearby valleys. Quduz had stationed his troops in ambush and, himself mounted with a few others, stood waiting. When the unsuspecting, Ket Buqa arrived with the main Mongol cavalry, Quduz pounced on him clashed with him and his several thousand cavalry, all experienced warriors, at Ayn Jalut.

The Mongols attacked, raining down arrows, and Quduz pulled a feint and started to withdraw. Emboldened, the Mongols rode out after him, killing many of the Egyptians, but when they came to the ambush spot, the trap was sprung from three sides. A bloody battle ensued, lasting from dawn till midday. The Mongols were powerless to resist, and in the end they were put to flight. Ket Buqa Noyan kept attacking left and right with all zeal. Some encouraged him to flee, but he refused to listen and said, “Death is inevitable. It is better to die with a good name than to flee in disgrace. In the end, someone from this army, old or young, will reach the court and report that Ket Buqa, not wanting to return in shame, gave his life in battle.


ket buqa
After the battle of Ayn Jalut, the Muslim armies surged throughout Syria as far as the banks of the Euphrates, overthrowing everyone they found, plundering Ket Buqa’s camp, taking captive his wife, child, and retainers, and killing the tax collectors.

Only those Mongols who were warned escaped, and when the news of Ket Buqa Noyan’s death and his last words reached Hulagu Khan, he displayed his grief over his death and the fire of zeal flared up to avenge this defeat. But another Mongol invasion of the Muslim world was not to take place. Hulagu remained confined to the affairs of his homeland and could never bring himself to launch another invasion. After his death, the Mongol Golden Horde did rule the largest empire till then, that stretched from China to Muscovy (modern Moscow).

But a tendency that had started to gain hold among the Mongols was the creeping conversion to Islam. This was to put paid any further Mongol attempts to threaten Islamdom. Meanwhile the truculent Muslim armies did not stop at ejecting the Mongols from the Middle East, but they also give the final push to the Crusaders who were in occupation of Acre and Antioch, by capturing the last Crusader bastion in 1291. While they had the chance the Crusaders scorned the Mongols and did not form an alliance with them against the Muslims. Now the Muslims defeated their enemies one after the other, and both the Mongols and Crusaders became history in the Middle East.


Ket Buqa Noyan’s last words were “Tell my Padishah Hulagu Khan that he should not grieve over lost Mongol soldiers. Let him imagine that his soldiers’ wives have not been pregnant for a year and the mares of their herds have not folded. May felicity be upon the Padishah. When his noble being is well, every loss is compensated. The life or death of servants like us is irrelevant.” Hulagu was told about Ket Buqa Noyan that although many Mongol soldiers left him, he continued to struggle in battle like a thousand men. In the end his horse faltered, and he was captured. Near the battlefield was a reed bed in which a troop of Mongol cavalrymen was hiding. Quduz ordered fire thrown into it, and they were all burned alive. After that, Ket Buqa was taken before Quduz with his hands bound.” Despicable man,” said Quduz, “you have shed so much blood wrongfully, ended the lives of champions and dignitaries with false assurances, and overthrown ancient dynasties with broken promises. Now you have finally fallen into a snare yourself.”

When the one whose hands were bound heard these words, he reared up like a mad elephant; and replied, saying, “O proud one, do not pride yourself on this day of victory.” “If I am killed by your hand,” said Ket Buqa, “I consider it to be God’s act, not yours. Be not deceived by this event for one moment, for when the news of my death reaches Hulagu Khan, the ocean of his wrath will boil over, and from Azerbaijan to the gates of Egypt will quake with the hooves of Mongol horses. They will take the sands of Egypt from there in their horses’ nose bags. Hulagu Khan has three hundred thousand renowned horsemen like Ket Buqa. In me you may take only one of them away.” Quduz said, “Speak not so proudly of the horsemen of Turan, for they perform deeds with trickery and artifice, not with manliness like us Muslims(sic).” As long as I have lived,” replied Ket Buqa, “I have been the Padishah’s servant, not a mutineer and regicide like you! Finish me off as quickly as possible.” Quduz, in typical Muslim style, ordered his head severed from his body and displayed to the retreating Mongol soldiers.

With Ket Buqa dead, the Mongols were forced to retreat, into Syria and then towards Baghdad. But Quduz did not live long to savor his victory. On the way back to Cairo, his troops who were loyal to the old royal dynasty killed Quduz.

After the battle of Ayn Jalut, the Muslim armies surged throughout Syria as far as the banks of the Euphrates, overthrowing everyone they found, plundering Ket Buqa’s camp, taking captive his wife, child, and retainers, and killing the tax collectors. Only those Mongols who were warned could escape, and when the news of Ket Buqa Noyan’s death and his last words reached Hulagu Khan, he displayed his grief over his death and the fire of zeal flared up to avenge this defeat.


crusaders
The Lost Opportunity for a Mongol-Crusader Alliance. After the Mongols had destroyed the Muslim Empire of Khwarazmian in Central Asia, they sent feelers to the Crusaders and thru them to the Pope for a broad anti-Muslim alliance. On being informed that the Mongols were well-disposed towards Christianity, Pope Innocent IV sent them Giovanni di Pianocarpini, a Franciscan, and Nicolas Ascelin, a Dominican, as ambassadors. Pianocarpini was in Karakorum 8 April, 1246, the day of the election of the great Khan, but nothing came of this first attempt at an alliance with the Mongols against the Muslims.


But another Mongol invasion of the Muslim world was not to take place. Hulagu remained confined to the affairs of his homeland and could never bring himself to launch another invasion. After his death, the Mongol Golden Horde did rule the largest empire till then, that stretched from China to Muscovy (modern Moscow). But a tendency that had started to gain hold among the Mongols was the creeping conversion to Islam. This was to put paid any further Mongol attempts to threaten Islamdom.

Meanwhile the truculent Muslim armies did not stop at ejecting the Mongols from the Middle East, but they also give the final push to the Crusaders who were in occupation of Acre and Antioch, by capturing the last Crusader bastion in 1291. While they had the chance the Crusaders scorned the Mongols and did not form an alliance with them against the Muslims. Now the Muslims defeated their enemies one after the other, and both the Mongols and Crusaders became history in the Middle East.

The Lost Opportunity for a Mongol-Crusader Alliance

After the Mongols had destroyed the Muslim Empire of Khwarazmian in Central Asia, they sent feelers to the Crusaders and thru them to the Pope for a broad anti-Muslim alliance. On being informed that the Mongols were well-disposed towards Christianity, Pope Innocent IV sent them Giovanni di Pianocarpini, a Franciscan, and Nicolas Ascelin, a Dominican, as ambassadors. Pianocarpini was in Karakorum 8 April, 1246, the day of the election of the great Khan, but nothing came of this first attempt at an alliance with the Mongols against the Muslims.

However, when St. Louis, who left Paris on June 12, 1248, had reached the Island of Cyprus, he received there a friendly embassy from the great Khan and, in return, sent him two Dominicans.

Many other kings, especially that of Hayton, King of Armenia (1307, ed. Armenian Documents, I), considered an alliance between the Christians and the Mongols who had then overrun Persia and Mesopotamia, before making their way into Syria and Palestine. A Christian-Mongol alliance was indispensable for success against the common enemy – the Muslims.

In fact, from the end of the thirteenth century many missionaries had penetrated into the Mongolian Empire; in Persia, as well as in China, their propaganda flourished. St. Francis of Assisi, and Raymond Lully had hoped for the conversion of the Mongols to Christianity. Some of the Mongols who were also members of the Nestorian Church, received these delegations willingly.


crusaders
By thus leading up to an alliance between Mongols and Christians against the Muslims, the crusade had produced the desired effect; early in the fourteenth century the future development of Christianity in the East seemed assured. Unfortunately, however, the Mongols met with a defeat at the Battle of Ayn Jalut (Eye of the Goliath) in Palestine (today’s Israel). This led to a gradual ceasing of contacts between Christendom and the great Khan of the Mongols. And so finally, the contemplated alliance with the Mongols was never fully realized and most of the Mongols ultimately turned to Islam making Central Asia a Muslim land.


During the pontificate of John XXII (1316-34) permanent Dominican and Franciscan missions were established in Persia, China, Tatary and Turkestan, and in 1318 the Archbishopric of Sultanieh was created in Persia. In China Giovanni de Monte Corvino, created Archbishop of Cambaluc (Beijing), organized the religious hierarchy, founded monasteries, and converted to Christianity men of note, including the great Khan himself. The account of the journey of Blessed Orderic de Pordenone (Cordier, ed.) across Asia, between 1304 and 1330, shows us that Christianity had gained a foothold in Persia, Central Asia, and Southern China.

By thus leading up to an alliance between Mongols and Christians against the Muslims, the Crusades had produced the desired effect; early in the fourteenth century the future development of Christianity in the East seemed assured. Unfortunately, however, the Mongols met with a defeat at the Battle of Ayn Jalut (Eye of the Goliath) in Palestine (today’s Israel) and internal changes which occurred in the West, the weakening of the political influence of the popes. This led to a gradual ceasing of contacts between Christendom and the great Khan of the Mongols and the only Turko-Mongol people to embrace Christianity were the Bulgar Turks (Not many of us know that the Bulgars were Turkic in origin and the word Bulgar is derived from the Turkish word Bulgha which means to mix)


crusaders

The Mongol Crusader alliance had the potential of wiping off the Islamic threat to civilization in the 13th century itself. But both the Crusaders and mainly the Pope failed to see beyond their immediate interests. The leaders of the Crusade and especially the Pope, insisted on the conversion of the Mongols to Christianity, before an alliance could be formed. This was the main hurdle for the Crusaders joining forces with the Mongols in 1260 at the Battle of Ayn Jalut (Eye of the Goliath). The fallout was that both the Mongols and the Crusaders were individually defeated by the Muslims. At the end both the Mongols and the Crusaders lost to the beastlike Muslims and civilization continued to be under the threat of Islam, as it is up to this day.


So finally, the contemplated alliance with the Mongols was never fully realized. It was in vain that Argoun Khan of Persia, sent the Nestorian monk, Raban Sauma, as ambassador to the Pope and the princes of the West (1285-88); his offers elicited but vague replies from the Pope and most of the Mongols turned to Islam making Central Asia a Muslim land.

Prominent amongst those Mongols who had been converted to Mohammedanism, was Timur the lame who showed his hostility to the Christians by taking Smyrna from the crusaders for the Muslims. This was the final break between the Christians and the pagan Mongols and henceforth most Mongols (except those of Mongolia proper) became Muslims. The Muslim Mongols comprise the Kazaks, Ughirs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Khirgiz of today. When the Mongols lost to the Muslim enemy, the Crusaders lost their last possible ally and thus by the end of the 13th century, the Crusades came to an end.

Lessons from the Lost Opportunity of a Mongol-Crusader Alliance

Mongolian warrior
A resolute Mongol Warrior

Today we Americans should realize that apart from mending fences with Russia, a powerful ally in the battle against the Jihad, we need to join up with the Chinese who have been able to tame the Jihad in China. The Chinese symptomatically represent the Mongols of yore. The Chinese come from the same ethnic stock and carry in their genes, the art of war as propounded by Sun Tzu. They along with the Russians, can become our valuable allies in the War against Terror.

We need to remember that after the Crusader and Mongol invasions of Islamdom, the Muslims took only one century to regroup, and they launched their renewed invasion of Europe which culminated in the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and eventually took the Muslims to Vienna in 1683 and up to the borders of Poland and Prussia


The Mongol Crusader alliance had the potential of wiping off the Islamic threat to civilization in the 13th century itself. But both parties failed to see beyond their immediate interests. The leaders of the Crusade and especially the Pope, insisted on the conversion of the Mongols to Christianity, before an alliance could be formed. This was the main hurdle for the Crusaders joining forces with the Mongols in 1260 at the Battle of Ayn Jalut (Eye of the Goliath). The fallout was that both the Mongols and the Crusaders were individually defeated by the Muslims. At the end both lost and civilization continued to be under the threat of Islam, as it is up to this day.
Today we Americans should realize that apart from mending fences with Russia, a powerful ally in the battle against the Jihad, we need to join up with the Chinese who have been able to tame the Jihad in China. The Chinese symptomatically represent the Mongols of yore. The Chinese come from the same ethnic stock and carry in their genes, the art of war as propounded by Sun Tzu.

We need to remember that after the Crusader and Mongol invasions of Islamdom, the Muslims took only one century to regroup, and they launched their renewed invasion of Europe which culminated in the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and eventually took the Muslims to Vienna in 1683 and up to the borders of Poland and Prussia.

Fortunately it was the valiance of the Polish king Jan Sobeiski that kept the Turks from overrunning Vienna. And the unnamed Serb, Croat, Greek, Spanish, Frankish (French), Italian, Bulgar, Romanian, Hungarian Austrian, Russian and Prussian heroes turned back the Muslims from Europe in a struggle lasting over four hundred years from 1350 to 1918.

The Mongol Spirit is personified today in Islam Karimov

Today the Mongol spirit that once expressed itself in the person of Changez Khan and Hulagu Kan expresses itself in the person of is Excellency Islam Karimov, the President of Uzbekistan.

Islam Karimov has terminated the Islamist insurgency in Uzbekistan with an iron hand In Uzbekistan (as in the world over) the Hizb-ut-Tahirir (HUT) wants to unseat the secular regime of Mr. Karimov and replace it with an Islamic Emirate like that of the Taliban. But in Uzbekistan, the HUT develops Cold Sweat, when they realize that they have been and would be vaporized into extinction if they faced the boiling rage of Mr. Karimov (no pun intended on “boiling” here).

Many liberal commentators would castigate Mr. Karimov’s tactics as savage, but all of them would have to grudge Mr. Karimov his success against the beasts of the HUT. This is the only successful way forward the world over with Islam, if we are to win the War on Terror. This is one lesson that we should learn from Hulagu’s sack of Baghdad in 1258 and the policies of Islam Karimov today.

Real Time World Cyber Attack Map

Fascinating Map from Norse showing real time cyber attacks across the world: their source, target and type of attack. You have to wonder why China cares so much about Ferguson to be throwing massive cyber attacks against St. Louis. Seattle is also a very popular target, as is Miami. http://einshalom.com/norsemap.html

Fascinating Map from Norse showing real time cyber attacks across the world: their source, target and type of attack. You have to wonder why China cares so much about Ferguson to be throwing massive cyber attacks against St. Louis. Seattle is also a very popular target, as is Miami.

How Peace Negotiator Martin Indyk Cashed a Big, Fat $14.8 Million Check From Qatar

What is worse than the massive Nazi-like ambition, gross brutality and corruption of Islam? Treason from within. Lee Smith, Tablet Magazine September 17, 2014 One Middle Eastern nation does indeed pay to influence U.S. foreign policy. Hint: It’s not Israel. The New York Times recently published a long investigative report by Eric Lipton, Brooke Williams, […]

What is worse than the massive Nazi-like ambition, gross brutality and corruption of Islam? Treason from within.

Lee Smith, Tablet Magazine
September 17, 2014

One Middle Eastern nation does indeed pay to influence U.S. foreign policy. Hint: It’s not Israel.

martin indyk and john kerry

The New York Times recently published a long investigative report by Eric Lipton, Brooke Williams, and Nicholas Confessore on how foreign countries buy political influence through Washington think tanks. Judging from Twitter and other leading journalistic indicators, the paper’s original reporting appears to have gone almost entirely unread by human beings anywhere on the planet. In part, that’s because the Times’ editors decided to gift their big investigative scoop with the dry-as-dust title “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks,” which sounds like the headline for an article in a D.C. version of The Onion. There is also the fact that the first 10 paragraphs of the Times piece are devoted to that highly controversial global actor, Norway, and its attempts to purchase the favors of The Center for Global Development, which I confess I’d never heard of before, although I live in Washington and attend think-tank events once or twice a week.

Except, buried deep in the Times’ epic snoozer was a world-class scoop related to one of the world’s biggest and most controversial stories—something so startling, and frankly so grotesque, that I have to bring it up again here: Martin Indyk, the man who ran John Kerry’s Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, whose failure in turn set off this summer’s bloody Gaza War, cashed a $14.8 million check from Qatar. Yes, you heard that right: In his capacity as vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the prestigious Brookings Institution, Martin Indyk took an enormous sum of money from a foreign government that, in addition to its well-documented role as a funder of Sunni terror outfits throughout the Middle East, is the main patron of Hamas—which happens to be the mortal enemy of both the State of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party.

But far from trumpeting its big scoop, the Times seems to have missed it entirely, even allowing Indyk to opine that the best way for foreign governments to shape policy is “scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria.” Really? It is pretty hard to imagine what the words “independent” and “objective” mean coming from a man who while going from Brookings to public service and back to Brookings again pocketed $14.8 million in Qatari cash. At least the Times might have asked Indyk a few follow-up questions, like: Did he cash the check from Qatar before signing on to lead the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians? Did the check clear while he was in Jerusalem, or Ramallah? Or did the Qatari money land in the Brookings account only after Indyk gave interviews and speeches blaming the Israelis for his failure? We’ll never know now. But whichever way it happened looks pretty awful.

Or maybe the editors decided that it was all on the level, and the money influenced neither Indyk’s government work on the peace process nor Brookings’ analysis of the Middle East. Or maybe journalists just don’t think it’s worth making a big fuss out of obvious conflicts of interest that may affect American foreign policy. Maybe Qatar’s $14.8 million doesn’t affect Brookings’ research projects or what the think tank’s scholars tell the media, including the New York Times, about subjects like Qatar, Hamas, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other related areas in which Qatar has key interests at stake. Maybe the think tank’s vaunted objectivity, and Indyk’s personal integrity and his pride in his career as a public servant, trump the large piles of vulgar Qatari natural gas money that keep the lights on and furnish the offices of Brookings scholars and pay their cell-phone bills and foreign travel.

But people in the Middle East may be a little less blasé about this kind of behavior than we are. Officials in the Netanyahu government, likely including the prime minister himself, say they’ll never trust Indyk again, in part due to the article by Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea in which an unnamed U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the talks, believed to be Indyk, blamed Israel for the failure of the peace talks. Certainly Jerusalem has good reason to be wary of an American diplomat who is also, or intermittently, a highly paid employee of Qatar’s ruling family. Among other things, Qatar hosts Hamas’ political chief Khaled Meshaal, the man calling the shots in Hamas’ war against the Jewish state. Moreover, Doha is currently Hamas’ chief financial backer—which means that while Qatar isn’t itself launching missiles on Israeli towns, Hamas wouldn’t be able to do so without Qatari cash.

Of course, Hamas, which Qatar proudly sponsors, is a problem not just for Israel but also the Palestinian Authority. Which means that both sides in the negotiations that Indyk was supposed to oversee had good reason to distrust an American envoy who worked for the sponsor of their mutual enemy. In retrospect, it’s pretty hard to see how either side could have trusted Indyk at all—or why the administration imagined he would make a good go-between in the first place.

Indeed, the notion that Indyk himself was personally responsible for the failure of peace talks is hardly far-fetched in a Middle East wilderness of conspiracy theories. After all, who benefits with an Israeli-PA stalemate? Why, the Islamist movement funded by the Arab emirate whose name starts with the letter “Q” and, according to the New York Times, is Brookings’ biggest donor.

There are lots of other questions that also seem worth asking, in light of this smelly revelation—like why in the midst of Operation Protective Edge this summer did Kerry seek to broker a Qatari- (and Turkish-) sponsored truce that would necessarily come at the expense of U.S. allies, Israel, and the PA, as well as Egypt, while benefiting Hamas, Qatar, and Turkey? Maybe it was just Kerry looking to stay active. Or maybe Indyk whispered something in his former boss’ ear—from his office at Brookings, which is paid for by Qatar.

It’s not clear why Indyk and Brookings seem to be getting a free pass from journalists—or why Qatar does. Yes, as host of the 2022 World Cup and owner of two famous European soccer teams (Barcelona and Paris St. Germain), Doha projects a fair amount of soft power—in Europe, but not America. Sure, Doha hosts U.S. Central Command at Al Udeid air base, but it also hosts Al Jazeera, the world’s most famous anti-American satellite news network. The Saudis hate Doha, as does Egypt and virtually all of America’s Sunni Arab allies. That’s in part because Qataris back not only Hamas, but other Muslim Brotherhood chapters around the region and Islamist movements that threaten the rule of the U.S.’s traditional partners and pride themselves on vehement anti-Americanism.

Which is why, of course, Qatar wisely chose to go over the heads of the American public and appeal to the policy elite—a strategy that began in 2007, when Qatar and Brookings struck a deal to open a branch of the Washington-based organization in Doha. Since then, the relationship has obviously progressed, to the point where it can appear, to suspicious-minded people, like Qatar actually bought and paid for John Kerry’s point man in the Middle East, the same way they paid for the plane that flew U.N. Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-Moon around the region during this summer’s Gaza war.

Indeed, the Doha-Brookings love affair has gotten so hot that it may have pushed aside the previous major benefactor of Brookings’ Middle East program, Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban. The inventor of the Power Rangers will still fund the annual Saban forum, but in the spring Brookings took his name off of what was formerly the Haim Saban Center for Middle East Policy, so that now it’s just Center for Middle East Policy. Maybe the Qatari Center For Middle East Policy didn’t sound objective enough.

Another fact buried deep inside the Times piece is that Israel—the country usually portrayed as the octopus whose tentacles control all foreign policy debate in America—ranks exactly 56th in foreign donations to Washington think tanks. The Israeli government isn’t writing checks or buying dinner because—it doesn’t have to. The curious paradox is that a country that has the widespread support of rich and poor Americans alike—from big urban Jewish donors to tens of millions of heartland Christian voters—is accused of somehow improperly influencing American policy. While a country like Qatar, whose behavior is routinely so vile, and so openly anti-American, that it has no choice but to buy influence—and perhaps individual policymakers—gets off scot free among the opinion-shapers.

It turns out that, in a certain light, critics of U.S. foreign policy like Andrew Sullivan, John J. Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt were correct: The national interest is vulnerable to the grubby machinations of D.C. insiders—lobbyists, think tank chiefs, and policymakers who cash in on their past and future government posts. But the culprits aren’t who the curator of “The Dish” and the authors of The Israel Lobby say they are. In fact, they got it backwards. And don’t expect others like Martin Indyk to correct the mistake, for they have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that the problem with America’s Middle East policy is the pro-Israel lobby. In Indyk’s case, we now know exactly how big that interest is.

***
Lee Smith is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is also the author of the recently published The Consequences of Syria.

The Qualifications for Arab Leadership

Yasser Arafat: Chairman of the PLO, founder of Fatah, lifelong terrorist, murderer, liar, crook, hater of Jews. He was driven out of Jordan after a bloody attempt to take over that country, after gaining fame and experience as a mass murderer backed by Russia. He and his group then went to Lebanon, where they helped […]

Yasser Arafat: Chairman of the PLO, founder of Fatah, lifelong terrorist, murderer, liar, crook, hater of Jews. He was driven out of Jordan after a bloody attempt to take over that country, after gaining fame and experience as a mass murderer backed by Russia. He and his group then went to Lebanon, where they helped almost bring down that country in the Lebanese Civil war. Then he ran to several other Islamic countries until he was invited by Israel, under pressure from the US, to make his next terror base in Israel. This was called a peace process. In Israel he, his wife and family became rich through organized crime and embezzling, and killed many Arabs as well as Jews. His most famous relative was the Mufti of Jerusalem who was a close ally of Hitler during WWII, helping import Muslim troops to fight for Hitler and encouraging the Holocaust.

Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas):One of Arafat’s lieutenants in Fatah throughout his career, until Arafat finally died. Abu Mazen financed Yassir Arafat’s attack on the Israeli athletes at the Munich olympic games in 1972. He was educated in Syria as a lawyer and got a doctorate in Russia where he wrote a dissertation saying that Zionists helped cause and benefit from Hitler’s Holocaust, and that not as many people were killed as was claimed. Abu Mazen has taken the public stance of preferring to use law, agreements and publicity to end Israel rather than direct attacks. However, he also frequently incites and manipulates the Arab public to violence against Jews. He is considered a statesman by the US, EU an UN. He and his relatives and friends have also become wealthy in Yasser Arafat’s organized crime enterprise.

Marwan Barghouti: Convicted of 5 terrorist murders in Israel, and founder of the Al Aqsa Brigades, which is devoted to killing Jews. He was a major instigator of both the 1st and 2nd “intifadas” and called for the 3rd this year. He is very popular among Arabs with those high qualifications, and is also respected by Israeli leftists.

Muqata in the Jewish Press
Lahav and Lankari murdered by dead PA minister
Boaz Lahav (16) and David Lankri (14) – murdered by PA Minister Ziad abu Ein in 1979.

Who was this Minister of Rage, Ziad abu Ein, and what did he do to qualify for his position as a senior minister in the PA?

He didn’t do anything unusual for a Palestinian Authority Minister.

In 1979, Ziad abu Ein planted a bomb in a garbage pail in Tiberias, murdering two teenagers, Boaz Lahav (16) and David Lankri (14). 32 people were injured.

In 1982, he was sentenced to life in jail, after being extradited from the US.

But he only served 3 years.

He was released in the Jibril Rajoub prisoner swap in 1985.

Hence his qualifications to be a PA minister – he was a child killer.

His heart attack came 35 years too late, and it’s a shame this terrorist wasn’t actually beaten up by IDF soldiers.

Good riddance.

New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2

H/T to Tom Tamarkin, Fusion4freedom.us Hockey Schtick Thursday, November 27, 2014 A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a “strong and stable correlation” between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation […]

H/T to Tom Tamarkin, Fusion4freedom.us
Hockey Schtick
Thursday, November 27, 2014

A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a “strong and stable correlation” between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period.

The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find

“We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.”

Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.

a) sunspots, b) temperature, c) CO2, d-i show the amplitudes of the strongest cycle lengths (period in years) shown in the data for sunspots, temperature, and CO2
Wavelet analysis in graph a shows the most prominent solar periods in red and graph b for temperature. The most stable period for both is at ~1024 years, shown by the horizontal region in red/yellow/light blue.
The authors find a lag of 30-40 years between changes in solar activity driving temperature, likely due to the huge thermal capacity and inertia of the oceans. Lead time shown in bottom graph of 40 years shows the temperature response following an increase or decrease of solar activity lags by about 40 years. Top graph shows “the anti-phase relation between [solar activity and temperature] keeps them stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past.”

The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun’s role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year “pause” of global warming).

Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the “sunspot integral.” The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).

Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the “pause” and cooling since.

We have thus shown

  • Strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
  • Strong lack of correlation between CO2 and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
  • Solar activity explains all 6 well-known warming periods that have occurred during the Holocene, including the current warm period
  • The 20th century peak in sunspot activity is associated with a 40 year lag in the peak global temperature

What more proof do you need that it’s the Sun!

But wait, there’s more. Please see the two previous posts demonstrating that the alternate 33C greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure, not CO2 or water vapor, physical proof & observations that water vapor is a strong negative-feedback cooling agent, and physical proof that CO2 cannot cause any significant global warming. All of the above also strongly suggests the increase in CO2 levels is primarily due to ocean outgassing from warming oceans from the Sun, not from CO2 radiative forcing warming the oceans, and not primarily from man-made CO2 emissions.

Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years
X.H. Zhao, X.S. Feng
•SSN [Sunspot Number] and Vostok temperature (T) had common periodicities in past 11,000 years.
•The millennial variations of SSN and T had a strong and stable correlation.
•The millennial variation of SSN led that of T by 30–40 years.
•Correlations between CO2 and T were neither strong nor stable.
Abstract

The solar impact on the Earth’s climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO2 and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok’s local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.

arctic

Why Fusion is the Only Realistic Solution

By Tom Tamarkin – Fusion4Freedom In 2013 the United States consumed 97.4 Quads of raw energy to produce 38.4 Quads of energy used by consumers and industry. The remaining 60% was lost as heat or thermal rejected energy. That is 1.028 X 1020 Joules or 9.74 X 1017 BTU of expended raw energy. To put […]

By Tom Tamarkin – Fusion4Freedom

In 2013 the United States consumed 97.4 Quads of raw energy to produce 38.4 Quads of energy used by consumers and industry. The remaining 60% was lost as heat or thermal rejected energy. That is 1.028 X 1020 Joules or 9.74 X 1017 BTU of expended raw energy. To put that in perspective this equates to the amount of energy produced by 16.793 billion barrels of crude oil burned in one year. Today most of this energy consumed in the U.S. comes from fossil fuels.

Hydrocarbon fuels have an exceedingly high energy flux density meaning a small unit volume produces a large amount of energy. Nuclear is the only energy source of higher energy flux density than hydrocarbons but today’s nuclear fission processes may only be used for a few more decades because of nuclear waste issues coupled with public perception & policy. The energy flux density of solar, wind, geo-thermal, tidal, and the like is thousands of times lower per unit volume of collection apparatus than hydrocarbon fuels.

Fossil fuels are finite. The speed at which they are consumed is a factor of worldwide per capita energy use. Now, developed countries like the U.S., Canada, Europe, China, Russia, South Korea, Israel, and Australia are using 80% of world energy capacity. Demand is accelerating and can only continue to accelerate as the Internet and travel teaches people and countries of less developed means that they should aspire to greater means which takes more energy. Few professionals in the energy forecasting business have taken this into consideration but there is no denying this and no turning back. We must either increase energy levels for less developed countries and people or decrease it for developed societies to achieve a perceived “social equilibrium.” Needless to say, citizens of developed countries will not allow regression.

By mid-century fossil fuel reserves will no longer be economically and technically viable due the vast increase in international energy demand and the associated increases in extraction/production costs as more unconventional fossil fuel reserves must be taped coupled with environmental constraints and regulations.

Thus, an entirely new source of energy must be proven, demonstrated and commercialized over the next 2 decades or we risk destabilizing the security of all nations in the world and the health of their citizens. This energy must be extremely powerful in terms of energy flux density, abundant, clean, safe, and leave no long term waste products. The only realistic solution is fusion. There is no other scientifically conceivable energy source except the concept of matter anti-matter annihilation which is hundreds of year’s away, if ever, on Earth, as a means to produce energy.

And we must begin now because in 3 to 4 decades two significant events converge. As described above we deplete “proven reserves” which drives the cost of fossil fuels up enormously. And in the United States this is coincident with the retirement of the vast majority of our generation capacity due to their life cycle maturity or age.

power plant retirement

Short of this the only solution is a massive reduction in worldwide population to pre-industrialization 1700s level of 750,000,000 people worldwide. Today we project a 2050 population of 9 billion.

space

The Age of the Universe

An amazing article by By Gerald Schroeder One truth as seen from two vastly different perspectives and both true – literally. October 2013 One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Bible and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, […]

An amazing article by
By Gerald Schroeder

One truth as seen from two vastly different perspectives and both true – literally.

October 2013

One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Bible and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible and then add the secular rulers that followed, we come to fewer than 6000 years. Whereas, data from the Hubbell space telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the number at 14 billion years. In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, I use only ancient biblical commentary because modern commentary already knows modern science, and so it is influenced by what science says.

That commentary includes the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 400 CE), and the three major biblical commentators on the Hebrew text. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who discusses philosophical concepts, and Nahmanides (13th century Spain), the most important of the commentators who deal with the spiritual physics of the universe, often referred to as Kabala.

These ancient commentaries were finalized hundreds or thousands of years ago, long before Hubbell was a gleam in his great-grandparent’s eye. So there’s no possibility of Hubbell or any other scientific data influencing these concepts. That’s a key component in keeping the following discussion objective.

Universe with a Beginning

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, “What is your estimate of the age of the universe?” Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology – the deep physics of understanding the universe – was just developing. Several years ago, the response to that survey was republished in Scientific American – the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds – an overwhelming majority – of the scientists gave was, in essence, “Age?” There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal.”

That was 1959. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science has confirmed to the best of scientific ability that our universe had a beginning. I can’t overestimate the import of that scientific “discovery.” Evolution, cave men, these are all trivial problems compared to the fact that we now understand that our universe had a beginning. Exactly as the Bible had claimed for three millennia.

Of course, the fact that there was a beginning, a creation, does not prove that the Biblical God was the Creator. Whether that is true, that “God created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1),” is still being debated. Physics allows for a beginning without a beginner. I’m not going to get into the physics of that here. “The Science of God,” my second book, examines this in great detail. In brief, in 1973 Professor Ed Tryon published in the prestigious peer reviewed journal Nature, a article demonstrating that as per the laws of physics, the universe could be created from absolute nothing via a quantum fluctuation. According to this understanding, there was only one physical creation. All the energy / matter and all space come into being as a minuscule speck from absolute nothing. The universe expanded out from that speck of space not by having new space added on, but by the original space stretching. In doing so, the huge concentration of energy of the Big Bang creation became more dilute within the ever stretching space, and so the temperature of space decreased.

It All Starts From Adam

The question we’re left with is, how long ago did the Big Bang creation occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, fewer than 6,000 years, or was it the 14 billions of years that are accepted by the scientific community? The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the biblical calendar.

The biblical calendar age of the universe is calculated by adding up the generations since Adam. This reaches a number slightly under 6000 years. Additionally, there are six days (actually the biblical text gives 5 and a half days) from the creation of the universe to the creation of the first human, that is the first being with the soul of a human (not the first hominid, a being with human shape and intelligence, but lacking the soul of humanity, the neshama). We have a calendar that begins with Adam. The six pre-Adam days are separate from this. The Bible has two calendars, two clocks. This is no modern rationalization. The Talmud already discussed this 1600 years ago.

The reason the six pre-Adam days (Genesis 1:1 – 27) were taken out of the calendar is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. There the passage of each day is described as “There was evening and morning” with no relationship to human time. Once we come to the progeny of Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having Enosh, etc. (Genesis chapter 5). From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human-based, earth -based. But prior to that time, it’s an abstract concept: “Evening and morning.” It’s as if the Bible is looking at those events of Genesis One from a viewpoint other than the earth, a cosmic view of time. What might be the Biblical perception of the timing of those events prior to Adam relative to our earth-based measurements?

Looking Deeper into the Text

In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches, are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. Up the river at Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 100,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don’t expect that by a simple reading of those sentences, you’ll know every detail that is held within the text. It’s obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.

What is a “day?”

The usual answer to that question is let the word ‘day’ in Genesis chapter one be any long period of time. Bend the Bible to match the science. Fortunately, the Talmud in Hagigah (12A), Rashi there and Nahmanides (Gen. 1:3) all tell us that the word day means 24 hours, not sunrise and sun set. The sun is not mentioned till day four and these commentaries all relate to all six days, starting from day one. But the commentary continues in Exodus and Leviticus, that the days are 24 hours each (again, not relating to sunrise and sunset, merely sets of 24 hours). There are six of them, and their duration is not longer than the six days of our work week, BUT, the commentary continues, they contain all the ages of the world. How can six 24 hour days contain all the ages of the world?

The Flexible flow of time and the stretching of space

When a scientist states that our universe is 14 billion years old, there is a second half of that sentence rarely articulated but known very well. The universe is 14 billon years old as measured from the time-space coordinates of the earth; that is, as measured from our view, our location, within universe. But there is an aspect of the universe that changes the perception of the timing of events when those events are viewed, not “on location,” but from afar, across a great galactic distance. That is the stretching of space. The universe started as a minuscule speck, and stretched out from there. Space actually stretches. The result of the stretching of space produces the effect that when observing a series of events that took place deep in space, far from our galaxy, as the light from those events travels through space, the timing of the sequence of events is actually stretched out. In estimating the true timing of a sequence of distance events, correction for this space stretch must be accounted for. This is standard astronomy. (In The Science of God I give the logic in detail in simple easy to understand terms.)

The Creation of Time

At the end of each day of the six creation days, the day is numbered. Yet Nahmanides points out that there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. At the end of the first day, the verse says: “There is evening and morning, Day One.” But the second day doesn’t say “evening and morning, Day Two.” Rather, it says “evening and morning, a second day.” And the Bible continues with this pattern: “Evening and morning, a third day… a fourth day… a fifth day… the sixth day.” Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not “first day,” but “Day One” (“Yom Echad”). Many English translations make the mistake of writing “a first day.” That’s because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! That message, as Nahmanides points out, is that there is a qualitative difference between “one” and “first.” One is absolute; first is comparative. The Bible, he tell us, could not write “a first day” on the first day because there had not yet been a second day relative to it. Had the perspective of the Bible for the first six days been from Sinai looking back, the Bible would have written a first day. By the time the Torah was given on Sinai there had been hundreds of thousands of “second days.” The perspective of the Bible for the six days of Genesis is from the only time in the history of time when there had not been a second day. And that is the first day. From the creation of the universe to the creation of the soul of Adam (Genesis 1:27), the Bible views time from near the beginning of the universe looking forward. At the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul of humanity, the Bible perspective switches from this cosmic view of time to earth based time. From that point on, all biblical descriptions of time are human-based, earth-based, the space-time coordinates by which we live.

How we perceive time

We look at the universe, and say, “How old is the universe? Looking back in time, the universe is approximately 14 billion years old.” That’s our view of time and those years went by. But what is the Bible’s view of those billions of years looking forward from the beginning? How does it see time?

Nahmanides taught that although the days of Genesis One are 24 hours each, they contain “kol yemot ha-olam” – all the ages and all the secrets of the world. Nahmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing… but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a description for the speck: something very tiny, smaller than a grain of mustard. And he says that this is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations mentioned in Genesis One were spiritual: the Nefesh (the soul of animal life, Genesis 1:21) and the Neshama (the soul of human life, Genesis 1:27) are spiritual creations.

There’s only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nahmanides describes the essence of that first material as “dak me’od, ein bo mamash” – so very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this essence, so thin that it had no material substance, turned into matter as we know it.

Nahmanides further writes: “Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman” – from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Time is created at the beginning. But biblical time “grabs hold” when matter condenses from the substance-less substance of the big bang creation. When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no material substance, that’s when the biblical clock starts.

Science has shown that there’s only one “substance-less substance” that can change into matter. And that’s energy. Einstein’s famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change form and take on the form of matter. And once it changes into matter, biblical time grabs hold; the biblical clock begins. Energy – light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays – all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, time was passing, but until there was stable matter, nothing was present recording that passage of time. Time only grabs hold when stable matter is present. This moment of time before the clock of the Bible begins lasted less than 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and biblical time flows forward. The biblical clock begins here.

Day One and not a first day: seeing time from the beginning

Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is “evening and morning Day One”, comes to teach us that the biblical calendar begins from near the beginning looking forward.

We look back in time, and measure of the universe to be 14 billion years old. But as every scientist knows, when we say the universe is 14 billion years old, there’s another half of the sentence that we rarely bother to state. The universe is 14 billion years old as measured from the time-space coordinates of the earth, that is, from our current position in the universe.

The key is that from the creation of the universe to the creation of the soul of Adam, the Bible looks forward in time, from time-space coordinates when the universe was vastly smaller than it is today. Since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time.

A brief example of what this means is useful to establish the effect of space stretching. Far off on some imaginary galaxy a person decides to send us information about his clock. Imagine going back billions of years, close the beginning of time. Now pretend way back then, when time grabs hold, there’s an intelligent community. (It’s totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it’s going to shoot out a blast of light every second. Every second — pulse. Pulse. Pulse. And on each pulse of light the following formation is printed: “I’m sending you a pulse of light every second.” (Printing information on light, electro-magnetic radiation, is common practice. It’s what brings your phone messages and TV or radio to you.) Billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish antenna and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light we read “I’m sending you a pulse every second.”

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So at the beginning, when the light pulses are first released, the two light pulses are separated by a second of light travel time or 300 million meters. The pulses of light travel through space for billions of years until they reach the Earth. But wait. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these pulses travel through space for billions of years, the space between them is stretching. The pulses get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we read on it “I’m sending you a pulse every second.” A message from outer space! You wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because the amount of time that these pulses of light have traveled through space will determine the amount that space stretched between them. That in turn will determine how much time there will be between the arrivals of the pulses. This is standard astronomy.

14 billion years or six days?

Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 14 billion years of history and those years went by. But how would they be perceived from the Bible’s perspective of time? Looking forward from when the universe was very small – billions of times smaller – the Bible teaches that six days passed. In truth, they both are correct. What’s exciting about the last few years is that we now have quantified the data to know the relationship between the perception of time from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons (their nucleosynthesis), looking forward and our measure of the history of the universe. It’s not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same generalized number. The general relationship of the stretching of space between the era of proton anti-proton formation, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons when the first stable matter formed, and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. Space has stretched by a million million. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see a pulse every second? No. We’d see one every million million seconds. That’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe on the perception of time.

The biblical text shows us (and the Talmud confirms) that the soul of Adam was created five and a half days after the big bang creation. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of just under 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billions of years old but from the biblical perspective those billions of years compress into five and a half, 24 hour days.

The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the 15 billion years sequestered with them.

CORRECTION TO THE CALCULATION OF THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE

Following a talk I gave at AZUSA Pacific University, February 2011, a participant noted that when calculating the expansion ratio of space (that is, the fraction by which space had stretched) from the era of proton formation to our current time, I had neglected to correct for the fact that the rate of universal expansion is actually increasing. The million million expansion ratio is gotten by calculating the averaged ratio of the temperature of space now (2.76 K) relative to the threshold temperature of proton anti-proton pair production that marks the start of the biblical clock. The correction for this increase in the rate of universal expansion is in the order of 10%. Had the expansion been constant [and not super-linear resulting from the increased expansion rate], the temperature of space would be, not the currently observed 2.76 K, but 3.03 K. Introducing this correction reduces the expansion factor of the million million ( that is, a trillion) cited above, by 10% to 900 billion. As discussed above, the biblical time prior to the creation of the soul of Adam is 5 and half days. Expanding those biblical pre-Adam five and a half, 24 hour days by the expansion factor, 900,000,000,000, (i.e., 900 billion) results in age of the universe as viewed from our perspective of 13.6 billon years.

An exponential equation can be developed that details the number of years as measured from our perspective of time compressed within each of the five and half 24 hour days of Genesis Chapter One, taking each day as one “half life.” However rather than using the highly rounded off expansion factor of 900 billion, this equation uses the exact expansion factor (the ratio of the energy or temperature of space at the threshold energy of protons [10.9 x 1012 K ] to the “AZUSA” corrected current energy or temperature of space [3.03 K ]). The result gives an overall age of the universe of 13.9 billion years and also the number of those 13.9 billion years of cosmic history held compressed within each of the biblical five and a half, 24 hour days of Genesis prior to the creation of the human soul of Adam. Starting with Day One, the results are, approximately: 7; 3.5; 1.8; 0.9; 0.5; 0.2 billions of years compressed within each successive 24-hour biblical day. This is in close agreement with the NASA number of 13.7 billion years. Interestingly, several years ago an article in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Nature, used this identical approach to discuss the time from the beginning of the universe, but with a totally different agenda and so started its clock at the very creation which they projected as a singularity. The significance of this is that this respected science journal has given its stamp of approval for the methodology used here.

APPENDIX

Einstein, in the laws of relativity, taught the world that time passes at different rates in different environments. Absolute time does not exist in our universe. The passage of time is relative. In regions of high velocity or high gravity time actually passes more slowly relative to regions of lower gravity or lower velocity. (One location relative to another, hence the name, the laws of relativity) This is now proven fact. Time actually stretches out. Where ever you are time is normal for you because your biology is part of that local system. Note that the above discussion does not relate to these laws of relativity. It relates to a very different phenomenon, the effect of the stretching of space on the perception of the passage of time.

God using nature’s forces

That God might have used the laws of nature to create the universe is fully consistent in relationship to the Biblical accounts of God’s actions. The only name for God in the creation chapter, Genesis chapter one, is Elokim, God as made manifest in nature. Maimonides in his monumental Guide for the Perplexed (1190; part 2, chapter 6)) wrote that God at times uses the forces of nature to accomplish God’s goal. An example of God using nature to accomplish a goal is in the Exodus account. After our leaving Egypt, God led us to the banks of the Sea of Reeds (or the Red Sea depending upon translations; see the First book of Kings chapter 9 verse 26 for the location of the Sea of Reeds.). There trapped by the sea, God saves us from the pursuing Egyptian army by splitting the sea with a strong east wind that blew all night (Exodus 14:21). That detailed description of the wind was given to let us realize that the wind may have seemed natural. How natural? After the Israelites pass through the opened sea, the pursuing Egyptian soldiers follow right on in. After all it is just a lucky wind. (See D. Nof and N. Paldor; Are there oceanographic explanations for the Israelites crossing of the Red Sea?; published in the esteemed, peer-reviewed scientific journal The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 73; no. 3; March 1992, for a peer-reviewed account of the possibility of the wind actually opening the sea.) If the wind had seemed super-natural, the army would have fled back home. So natural-seeming was the wind that the Bible had to tell us that it was God that made the wind blow at that time. So we see that the laws of nature instilled by God at the creation are a part of God’s tools in this world, and also for creating this magnificent world in which we dwell.

Geneva Conventions

The “Geneva Convention” is mentioned frequently, especially regarding Israel. Israel’s adversaries like to call Israel an “occupying power” in regard to Judea and Samaria for instance, although Israel is the only power with a claim to those lands and can’t be considered to be occupying its own land. What is the Geneva convention actually, how […]

The “Geneva Convention” is mentioned frequently, especially regarding Israel. Israel’s adversaries like to call Israel an “occupying power” in regard to Judea and Samaria for instance, although Israel is the only power with a claim to those lands and can’t be considered to be occupying its own land.

What is the Geneva convention actually, how did it come about, and what does it actually say? Continue

Albuquerque Mosque Anti-Israel Protest 2009

In 2009, during Israel’s Cast Lead operation in Gaza, Muslims and anti-Israel groups held protests against Israel around the world, including several in Albuquerque, NM. On January 16, 2009 our pro-Israel group set up a small pro-Israel rally in front of the UNM bookstore. Our demonstration had been going peacefully for about an hour when […]

2 flags fightIn 2009, during Israel’s Cast Lead operation in Gaza, Muslims and anti-Israel groups held protests against Israel around the world, including several in Albuquerque, NM. On January 16, 2009 our pro-Israel group set up a small pro-Israel rally in front of the UNM bookstore. Our demonstration had been going peacefully for about an hour when a large group from the local mosque and their left wing anti-Israel friends arrived on the scene, hesitated for only a moment, and over ran us. Continue

וַיְרַפְּאוּ אֶת-שֶׁבֶר עַמִּי, עַל-נְקַלָּה–לֵאמֹר, שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם; וְאֵין, שָׁלוֹם. They have healed also the hurt of My people lightly, saying: 'Peace, peace', when there is no peace.