Link back to comment

Haven’t you? Let me remind you what you said above.

You first quoted me, accurately, as saying:

‘The quest for Islamic conquest has been going on for 1400 years. The Crusades, for example, often portrayed as pure unprovoked Western Christian villainy (and there were, of course, some awful atrocities) without reference to that all important historical context that they were preceded by four centuries of unremitting Islamic conquest that subjugated the Arabian peninsula and then what used to be the centre of gravity of the Christian world, the Middle East and North Africa, vanquishing the Zoroastrian empire in Persia, extending later into Europe with the conquest of Spain, the Balkans and – most bloody of all – the Indian subcontinent. The Crusades were a belated and limited pushback.’

To which you replied:

‘This is a comic book version of history in which a satanic force, unlike any other, sprang out of some dark souk and, like an amalgam of Dracula and a zombie, started on an unrelenting, endlessly devious and fanatical, multi-millennia world conquest obsession. It's dramatic, it's exciting, it's got colour and motion, but it's not history.’

So when I list and number each of my cited historical events, and ask you to specify which are inaccurate, you say you were never challenging any of them. So what, exactly, were you contesting?

You now accuse me of saying all this is 'evidence of Islam's enduring and irredeemable evil'. I have never said that - those are your words not mine, another silly caricature. I did assert these historical events as constituting a consistent pattern of imperial conquest and subjugation in Islam (when the correlation of forces permits it) following on from the Islamic texts and Muhammad's example.

You really need to stick to a consistent line of argument David. But it is good that you finally confirm that you are not challenging any of the historical events that I listed.