History of Jihad against the Hungarians (1526 -1683) Daily News on the War on Jihad

Site Map

This site brings you the history of the Islamic Jihad from its beginnings at Mecca in 620 C.E. up to 9/11, and the lessons it has for us in today’s challenging times. If we are to understand Islam, we need to understand the temperament of its founder Mohammed (PBUH*), the way victorious Muslims have treated the subject people, and above all the reasons for the victory of Islam thus far in the JIHAD.

Breaking News

What is Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran.

This site brings you the history of the Islamic Jihad from a neutral and factual viewpoint.

Outlook of this website:

This site is against all forms of fanaticism – religious and non-religious. But the emotional appeal of non-religious fanaticism like Nazism, Fascism or Communism is not as pervasive as that of fanaticism based on religion. When fanaticism and religion are mixed, we have a very potent and dangerous brew that can sustain itself for centuries unlike non-religious fanaticisms like Nazism and Communism which die out when the ringleaders are defeated. This is so, since religion is based on the psychological weakness of all humans, when we humans try to comprehend the unknown (universe). This understanding is (and perhaps will always remain) incomplete.

Religion tries to complete this incompleteness by fantasizing that the unknown is a god and that this god is the creator of all things that happen in this world and the universe. This idea that there is a god, which is assumed to be the unknown power in the universe makes the human mind paranoid because of our fear of the unknown. And this paranoia drives humans to do anything to propitiate this unknown power that is assumed to exist. This is what transforms this weakness of our human mind into a sickness. It is this sickness of the mind that drives humans to undertake wild acts like suicide bombings, fight holy wars, forced conversion, slaughter of humans who give a different name to this assumed power called god, etc, under the delusion of trying to please the unknown power that is assumed to be behind all existence.

While all forms of religious fanaticism are negative, only Islam raises slaughter of all Kafirs (non-Muslims) to a holy creed, it teaches Muslims to gloat over the killing of non-Muslims and celebrate their death. Hence Islam is the most demented and dangerous form of religious fanaticism. And it is not Islamic fanaticism that is to be blamed for this, as Islam itself is fanaticism.

From its root to its fruit Islam is the most violent, and virulent form of this delusion that the unknown universe is a god and all those who do not accept this brand of fantasizing of the unknown universe have to be slaughtered. This is so since Islamic fanaticism was born in a barren and harsh desert environment that gave birth to the paranoid mentality of the Bedouin Arabs among whom was born Mohammed (yimach shmo ve-zichro - may his name and memory be obliterated), the founder of this blood-thirsty creed – Islam.

This blood-thirsty Muslim mentality has trickled down to the newest convert to Islam be he or she Brown Black, Yellow or White. Most importantly it makes Islam the worst enemy of quest and science and of all human progress. While all religions are opposed to science as the Pope was to Galileo and Copernicus; but it is Islam which is the most blood-thirsty expression of this challenge of religion to reason. So Islam will have to be the first to be removed from the path of human progress and the reply to Islam to be effective would have to be more blood-thirsty and paranoid than Islam itself.

Those opposed to Islam will have to be like the hunter who aims his rifle between the eyes of the man-eater tiger and shoots till the tiger is dead meat. The hunter bears no enmity with the tiger, but shoots him dispassionately, so that he himself can live, and NOT end up by becoming the dinner of the man-eater.

This has to be the attitude, not based on a hate of Islam, but a determination to put a full and final end to Islam, so that Human society can progress without the hindrance of any religion obstructing its path.

After Islam is militarily defeated and then destroyed; the need of the day would be to come up with workable creative ideas, for brainwashing the remaining religious fanatics with techniques like anesthesia leading to amnesia and re-education of such brainwashed ex-religious fanatics; or the use of mass lobotomy to achieve the same result. Only such a technique could prevent religious fanaticism from being resurrected with a name other than Islam and insure the progress of human civilization without any obstacle from any religion.

To summarize, the religious outlook that claims to "know the unknown", as a god, allah, etc., is a sub-optimal human response (and so is a sub-human response). Violent monotheism is a criminal response which has brought our world to where it is today, post 11th September.

The need of our age is to start with the destruction of the most blood-thirsty form of religious fanaticism – Islam, followed up with the dovetailing of all other forms of religious fanaticism so that they move over and make way for rational-humanism. To make it more subtle; the need is for religion and religious fanaticism to move out of human minds and be replaced by rational-humanism.

Our maintaining this site, is our contribution for working towards this objective.

Chronological Jihads

The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)

The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)

The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians - modern Sudanese (650)

The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)

The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)

The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)

The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)

The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)

The Jihad against Chinese (751)

The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)

The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)

The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)

The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)

The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)

The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)

The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)

The Jihad against Rumania (1350 to 1699)

The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)

The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)

The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)

The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)

The Jihad against Albania (1332 - 1853)

The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)

The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)

The Jihad against Austrians (1683)

Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)

The Jihad against Israelis (1948 – 2004 ongoing)

The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)

The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)

The Jihad against Denmark (2005 cartoon controversy onwards)

The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao(1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)

The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)

The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)

The Jihad against Latin America (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Australia (2002 onwards)

The Global Jihad today (2001 – ongoing)

The War on Terror against Jihad today (2001– ongoing)

The Vision for the post-Islamic (and post-religious) world

History of Jihad against the Hungarians (1526 -1683)

This site is dedicated to a factual and realistic analysis of the Islamic Jihad

Here you will read about the history of the Islamic Jihad from its beginnings at Mecca in 620 C.E. up to 9/11, and the lessons it has for us in today’s challenging times. If we are to understand Islam, we need to understand the temperament of its founder Mohammed PBUH*, the way victorious Muslims have treated the subject people, and above all the reasons for the victory of Islam.

NEW Movie script on Mohammed PBUH* - the founder of Islam

The History of Jihad site is brought to you by a panel of contributors. This site is co-ordinated by Robin MacArthur with Mahomet Mostapha and Naim al Khoury, New Jersey.

Other contributors to this site include professors and members of the faculty from the Universities of Stanford and Michigan (Ann Arbor), Kansas State University, Ohio State University, and the London School of Economics. We strongly suggest that this site be recommended as additional reading for students of Islamic History.

We also invite students and professors of this subject to mirror this site on your University or private servers, link it up from your sites, to print it as a non-profit publication and refer it to students, journalists, cinematographers, military personnel, members of both houses of Congress, and Parliamentarians from your countries, members of the judiciary and most importantly to officers of the FBI, CIA, Scotland Yard, MI5, Mossad, FSB (Russian Secret Police) Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE) and to all other stakeholders in the subjects of the Islam and the Jihad.

________________________

How the Hungarians stubbornly fought back the Turks for two centuries, saving Austria, Prussia and Poland from the Islamic Jihad.

__________________________________________

Al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, in “The Laws of Islamic Governance”, states the critical connection between jihad and payment of the jizya. He notes that “The enemy makes a payment in return for temporary peace and reconciliation.” Al-Mawardi then distinguishes two cases: Primarily, payment is made immediately and is treated like booty. Secondly, payment is made yearly and will “constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established". If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. He adds “it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against the infidels in the future for converting them to Islam, in spite of their having paid the jizya.”

______________________________________

After subjecting the Balkans to their tyranny, the Ottoman Jihadis cast their covetous eyes towards central Europe. There lay the Kingdom of Hungary blocking their path towards Europe. An Ottoman attack on Hungary was inevitable. This campaign began in 1526 with the Battle of Mohacs.

__________________________________

The Hungarian sovereign Louis II attains martyrdom at the battle of Mohacs. The Battle of Mohacs was a result of the rejection by the Hungarian sovereign Louis II of a Turkish Invitation to him to embrace Islam. The stunned Louis asked the Turkish delegation as to why they were attacking Hungary, since the Hungarians had not attacked the Turks. He was told by the Turkish delegation that he had earned the displeasure of the Turks by being a Kafir (non-Muslim). On being asked how could that be so, when Hungary had no hostile designs on the Turks, he was told that refusing to accept the path of Allah, itself was an act of war, and the Turks, as Muslims were called upon to wage war, till the Hungarians either accept Islam, or are defeated and accept the status of 2nd class citizens as Zimmis (Dhimmis)!

__________________________

The Hungarian sovereign Louis II was given an Invitation to Embrace Islam (Dawat-ul-Islam) and be safe

While the objective of the Hungarians was to save their homeland, the Ottoman army was intent on achieving two tasks: to destroy the Hungarian forces and to occupy the capital. Suleiman had sent an ultimatum to the Hungarians to surrender their capital, accept Islam and be safe. When the Hungarian sovereign Louis II was given an “invitation” to Embrace Islam and be safe, he thought of this to be an opening of a parley to avoid battle, and he invited the Turkish delegation to his camp for negotiations. But the Turks were not interested in negotiating a peace, their terms were a complete surrender of Hungary, with the path being cleared for the Jihadis to march towards Austria and Prussia.

Such terms were unheard of in the wars between Europeans. No demand had been made by one adversary to another to change one’s nationality and religion. The stunned Louis rejected the Turks’ “offer of peace”. He asked the Turkish delegation as to why they were attacking Hungary, since the Hungarians had not attacked the Turks. He was told by the Turkish delegation that he had earned the displeasure of the Turks by being a Kafir (non-Muslim). On being asked how could that be so, when Hungary had no hostile designs on the Turks, he was told that refusing to accept the path of Allah, itself was an act of war, and the Turks, as Muslims were called upon to wage war, till the Hungarians either accept Islam, or are defeated and accept the status of 2nd class citizens as Zimmis (Dhimmis)!

__________________________________

The Hungarian sovereign Louis II failed to understand that how without any act of war on his part, he could become a target of attack for the Turks, and when he had accepted to negotiate with the Turks, why did they want him and his countrymen to give up the Hungarian language, the Latin script and the Christian religion so as to prevent a Turkish attack. This was Central Europe’s first brush with the Jihad!

__________________________

The Hungarian king knew what his neighbors the Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians had suffered at the hands of the Ottomans, and so they did not want to surrender his countrymen to the mercy of the Turks. What he failed to understand was that how without any act of war on his part, he could become a target of attack for the Turks, and when he had accepted to negotiate with the Turks, why did they want him and his countrymen to give up the Hungarian language, the Latin script and the Christian religion so as to prevent a Turkish attack. This was Central Europe’s first brush with the Jihad, a brush (pun intended) which had till then tarred with blood and fire the countries of Persia, Anatolia, India, North Africa, Spain, Central Asia.

Although Europe too had seen its share of invaders from Hannibal to its home grown barbarians like the Goths, Vandals, Vikings, Avars, etc, but none had set forth terms for surrender as the Turks had done.

The Battle of Mohacs was an eye opener for the Hungarians. Till he saw the rapaciousness of the Jihadis, the Hungarian king was still under the impression that the Jihadi Turks were like any other invader who wanted land and riches. But the Jihadis were there not just to grab the land and wealth of the Hungarians, but also their culture, religion, nationality and self-respect. The Islamic Jihad was the worst specimen of a soulless barbarian invasion. One that would put the Goths and Vandals into the pale of being refined gentlemen, relatively speaking.

__________________________________

The Ottoman army was arrayed on the south side of the Drava river. For a number of days the Ottomans resorted to pretensions of crossing the river at various points. This tactic confused the Hungarians who consequently had to spread their military thinly over various points at which they thought the Ottomans could cross. This deception on part of the Turks was the reason for their victory at the Battle of Mohacs.

__________________________

The sham negotiations continued for many days, during which the Turks derived the benefit of sending a large military delegation to Hungary, whose aim was to know the weaknesses of the Hungarian defenses. It was then, that the Turks realized that the Hungarians had no navy worth its name, since Hungary was a land locked nation. With this bit of espionage, under the guise of negotiations, the Turks decided that they would make their way up the rivers Drava and Sava, from where they would trap the Hungarians.

The immediate causus belli was the rejection by the Hungarians of the atrocious terms which the Turks set up. With the rejection of the Dawat-ul-Islam (invitation to embrace Islam) by the Hungarians, the aggression of the Ottoman army necessarily followed. The task of the Hungarian military leadership was to defend the nation against the Ottoman aggression.

The strength of the Ottoman army in the Hungarian theater was about 150,000; the total mobilized force of Hungary can be estimated at a mere 30-40,000. The Ottoman army was arrayed on the south side of the Drava river. For a number of days the Ottomans resorted to pretensions of crossing the river at various points. This tactic confused the Hungarians who consequently had to spread their already meager military thinly over various points at which they thought the Ottomans would cross. This deception on part of the Turks was the reason for their victory at the Battle of Mohacs.

The Turks used Mercenary Pirates to scuttle the Hungarian fleet

The Hungarians had many handicaps. First of all, after the fall of Belgrade, Hungary was generally believed to be defenseless; This consensus of Hungarian, Ottoman, and other experts implied that neither the Sava, nor the Drava, nor the Karasso was ever seen as a real chance for defense. The Hungarians had two decisive factors against them: one is not knowing where the Turks would throw of a bridge, and so concentrate their own forces at the other the bridgehead on the opposite side to oppose the bridge building operation.

As it was impossible to know just where the attackers would attempt to cross, the defense had to guard a long sector of the river bank by distributing the forces evenly.

__________________________________

At the Battle of Mohacs, the Turks had enrolled considerable numbers of pirates from the Black sea as soldiers. These blackbeards (no pun intended) helped the Turks in the use of deceptive tactics used by pirates during the skirmishes on the rivers Sava and Drava that preceded the Battle of Mohacs.

__________________________

Again the defense of a river line can be successful if there is no possibility of circumventing the defending force; hence its flanks must rest on some insurmountable obstacle, such as the sea, a neutral country, or a mountainous region. It follows from this that river defense needs to be generally more extended than an ordinary line of defense. Looking at the river defense in Southern Hungary the situation was that there could be no serious problem for the Ottomans to cross at many points. With the capture of Belgrade, Zimony, and Sabac, they had obtained strong bridgeheads across the river.

Moreover, the Hungarian Danube flotilla was far weaker than the Ottoman. According to Hungarian chroniclers the Turks had considerable numbers of pirates from the Black sea to man their boats, and used the tactics of pirates to scuttle the the Hungarian flotilla which consisted of 200 vessels. On the contrary the construction of Turkish ships and the sanjaks along the Danube, the Sava, and the Morava had been in full swing since 1524.

In contrast, the Hungarian river fleet, along with the transport barges, amounted to no more than 200 of which only a fraction was meant for war, the remainder being for transport.. The waters were thus dominated by the Ottomans, which as already mentioned, enabled them to land troops when and where they liked behind the Hungarian forces.

__________________________________

At the marshy battleground of Mohacs along the Drava river there was a large swamp that had resulted from the overflow of a riser built by the Turks to trap the Hungarian infantry and cavalry. It was extremely difficult to cross: the terrain is so swampy on the Hungarian side (the North Bank) that it could carry neither man nor horse, and wherever one stepped one was bound to sink.

__________________________

One of Suleiman’s clerks has recorded the construction of the first bridgehead in detail. The works were begun at a place where the swamp was at its widest and from where the Hungarians did not expect the Turks to attack. At that site of Mohacs, the thick bushes hid the Turkish activities from the Hungarians, who concentrated up stream near Buda, where the Turks had feigned to construct a major Bridgehead, but had intended to do this only to deflect the attention of the Hungarians away from the real Bridgehead at Mohacs.

Since between that field [i.e., the battleground of Mohacs] and the Drava there was a large swamp resulting from the overflow of a riser built by the Turks to trap the Hungarian infantry and cavalry. It was extremely difficult to cross: the terrain is so swampy on the Hungarian side (the North Bank) that it could carry neither man nor horse, and wherever one stepped one was bound to sink.

If the Hungarians had come to the edge of the swamp, set up their batteries, and fired against the attackers, they could have prevented the Ottoman Jihadis from bringing the game-pack of Jihad into Hungary. But so as far as terrain was concerned, all advantages were on the Ottoman side. While it offered the Hungarians no possibility of a sound footing, it ensured the greatest possibility of strategic maneuver for the attackers.

On a rainy night on August 15 the Turks sent their pirate mercenary battalions to engage any Hungarian ships that would come near the planned bridgehead at Mohacs. At night under the cover of darkness and rain, they very quickly started to build a bridge with pontoons and reeds across the Drava. Work continued on the 16th, and on the 17th the the construction of the bridgehead was completed; all that remained was to take the army across. That was done on the 18th and 19th. The Turkish chroniclers have recorded: “Today with Allah’s help the bridge was completed”. Thus, we can see that in addition to bridging the Drava by means of pontoons and ships, the two other necessary operations, take the infantry, cavalry and artillery, were also completed.

So in a matter of two days the Turks had the bridgehead ready. This was a feat by the standards of the 16th century. And with no telecommunications and motorized transport, the Hungarians could not move enough forces to oppose the Turks making this bridgehead.

__________________________________

Fighting to his last breath, King Louis laid down his life, with his battalion destroyed all around him. He was one of the last to fall. This sealed the fate of the Hungarians at Battle of Mohacs and as that of Hungary as a free nation for the next two centuries. After Louis fell, many of the Hungarian knights were taken captive and transported to Istanbul (Constantinople) to be humiliated by their Muslim captors.

__________________________

Finally, the Ottomans enjoyed a further advantage: they could send elite troops into the bridgehead, while the Hungarians, not knowing where the crossing would take place, had to distribute their best troops more or less evenly between the defending divisions. Thus only a small part of them could participate in the attack against the bridgehead. Hungarian military historians believed the swamps of the Karasso to be a another significant obstacle. Indeed, the area was covered by extensive marshes in that period.

A Hungarian chronicler, Brodarics writes: “In this area, not far from Mohacs, there was a stream which can be referred to as swampy water rather than an outright swamp or river. The swamp was difficult for a cavalry to pass through at a swift pace. The Hungarian forces, therefore, could not be deployed to block these Turkish approaches. Such a deployment, however, would have rendered the defense rigid, with the Hungarian cavalry being stuck in the swamps which the Ottomans would have had no difficulty in breaking through.

Incidentally, numerical superiority becomes decisive when the terrain is swampy, bushy, or Forested. Given the situation at Mohacs, the Ottoman army was destined to easily overrun the small Hungarian force. Final]y, much as in the case of the Drava, the Ottomans Planned to row up the Danube to attack the defensive positions from the rear, not to mention the fact that they could also easily circumvent the obstacle from the on the Hungarian side.”

In the circumstances, the Hungarians decided that delaying the Ottoman crossing was a more practicable matter than attempting an all-out defense along the Drava. But it was hard to see how smaller Hungarian units might have been able to delay the sultan’s armada. Maybe in our own days, in the age of rapid-fire weapons, such a maneuver would be possible, but when fighting was essentially hand-to-hand combat there was little chance of success.

The Hungarians were clearly aware of the hopelessness of such a tactic. It was in these unfavorable and tragic circumstances that the fateful Battle of Mohacs was joined.

The Battle of Mohacs (1526 AD)

At this critical battle the fate of Hungary was sealed. Hungary, which had been the "Shield of Christianity" against the Ottoman menace for over 200 years, finally caved in opening up Austria proper to the Jihadis. King Louis II of Hungary brought roughly 50,000 men to stop an Ottoman army under Suleiman the Heinous (called the Magnificent by the Turks) numbering almost a million. Trapping the Ottoman march column north of a river, Louis selected ground where he could separate the lead (and most important) part of Suleiman's army from the rest by using the river and a sheer terrace dropoff (that had been made impassible by rain) to a plain. Unfortunately for him, Louis learned that terrain works two ways!

The tactics used during the Battle

Due to the Hungarian tactic of setting up camp (the battle was fought close to dusk), the Ottoman forces north of the terrace (especially Ibrahim's left wing Sipahi Timariot which were guarding the baggage) began to unsaddle their horses and pitch camp as well. Louis' scouts reported this, and Batthyani's knights (on the Hungarian right) charged forward to destroy them. The Hungarian center (under Louis) began advancing forward, followed lastly by Perenyi's left wing, thus creating an "echelon left" with the army.

Batthyani's knights destroyed Ibrahim's Timariot before they could effectively mount up, and began to loot their baggage. As Louis' main body ground forward, his light horse and skirmishers drove off the Ottoman skirmishers, and began to receive intense fire from the entrenched and a large number of entrenched artillery. At the Battle of Mohacs, as the Hungarian center was in danger of being demolished by massed ranged fire, Louis ordered Batthyani to wheel toward the Ottoman center and outflank the Janissaries.

This could have won the day for the Hungarians except for two things:
1) the terrace dropoff that separated the Ottoman vanguard from its main body also limited the room for the Hungarian knights to "wheel" within, so that Batthyani had a hard time massing his knights against the Janissary* line;
2) Suleiman directed the Ottoman engineer corps to concentrate on attacking Louis’ personal guard with the aim of taking the Hungarian sovereign prisoner and turn the battle in the Turks’ favor. With this aim Suleiman in typical martyrdom seeking Mujahid fashion charged down onto Batthyani's flank and demolished him, and the right flank Anatolian Timariot's sipahis charged down and routed Perenyi's left wing. This left Louis (who in the dim light could not see his flanks being decimated) to continue to grind forward against the guns and bows of the Ottoman center, only to be surrounded.

*Note: These Janissaries (from Jan = Life and Nisar = given away) were Turkish the kamikaze contingents who originally were abducted Christian children and had been brought up as Muslims. The Turks will have you believe that the term “Jannisary” is derived from Yeni = New Chery = Soldier. This contrived etymology is to hide the fact that the Jannisarries were Christian children forcibly abducted to form mercenary troops in the Ottoman army to be thrown into the battle as kamikaze death-seeking martyrdom contingents to turn the tide in favor of the Turks.

The Turks who had now surrounded Louis and his personal battalion, asked him to surrender and accept Islam, an offer which Luois scornfully rejected. With this the Turks intensified their attack and closed in on the besieged king from all sides. But the valiant Louis, fought on, giving instructions that if he was martyred fighting the Saracens, the Knights were to continue the battles till they gained victory and threw off the Turks from the North bank. But fortune had willed otherwise. Fighting to his last breath, King Louis laid down his life, with his battalion destroyed all around him. He was one of the last to fall. This sealed the fate of the Hungarians at Battle of Mohacs and as that of Hungary as a free nation for the next two centuries.

So at the end of the day, Suleiman held the ground, upwards of 50,000 Hungarians and German mercenaries were dead, and when King Louis II was run down and slain in a creek north of the battlefield, the battle ended as also ended the Hungarian dynasty. Most of the Hungarian survivors were light horse who were able to flee. But many other Hungarian knights were taken captive and transported to Istanbul (Constantinople) to be humiliated by their Muslim captors. Within three years after the battle of Mohacs, the Balkans were totally within the grasp of Suleiman, and Vienna was under siege in 1529.

The Lessons from the Battle of Mohacs

The Battle of Mohacs opened with the refusal of the Hungarian king to accept Islam and surrender his land and self-respect to the Jihadi wolves. The earlier lessons of the experience which the Bulgars, Romanians, Croats and Serbs had had at the ruthless and cruel hands of the Jihadis was not entirely lost on the Hungarians. But Eastern Europe took a long time to realize the only successful way of defeating the Jihadis forever was to outmatch them in their bestiality, with the determination and ruthlessness of a hunter pitted against a wild beast.

It was (and is) senseless to negotiate with the Jihadis, it was foolish to try to talk to them. Like a broken record the Jihadis could only give their non-Muslim victims, the alternatives of Islam, or Death!. The only way to deal with the Jihadis was (and is) to fight them to their deaths and to destroy them to their last man. For the fight with them to be successful, has to be pro-active, pre-emptive and ruthless to the finish. The point is to learn from the faults of other non-Muslims in dealing with the Jihadis over the last 1400 years right from the first Jihadi razzias on the caravans of the pre-Muslim Arabs of Mecca.

All those who tried to negotiate with the Jihadis, had a sorrowful ending, either as martyrs or as slaves (Zimmis) of the Muslims. The only tactic that can ever succeed against the Jihadis is to remember vividly what they have done in the past (and which is exactly what they will repeat in the future) and to attack them when they least expect it, to lull them in a false sense of security, to betray them at the first favorable opportunity, to target them with the precision of a hunter, to lure them with a bait s does a hunter, to lie in wait for them to reach the bait and to and put the bullet between the two eyes of the Jihadi beasts to make them dead meat when they least suspect that their death is lurking round the corner.

But never leave the job half done, Do not allow a wounded beast to escape. A wounded beast is no guarantor of our safety, in fact he is more dangerous. The way a wounded tiger become a more dangerous man-eater, the only safe situation is of ensuring that we hunt down the beast till it is dead meat.

Same holds true for Jihadis, who may look like humans, but have the motivation of a wild beast, the only difference is that they are capable of making nukes to destroy the whole of humankind. Yes this is what the Jihadis explicitly say in private and now Ahmedinejad says so openly.

To win against the Jihadis, one should never forget what the Jihadis have done, and never forgive them for what they have done, and will do whenever they get an opportunity (as they did on 9/11, and 7/7). Whether one is a statesman, or a private citizen, one needs to remember always while interacting with the Muslims (all of whom are Jihadis at heart, as their Instruction Manual of Hate and Murder – the Quran asks them to be so), never open your mind to them, never discuss controversial issues with them, never enter into an argument with them and reveal what you have in mind. Nurse a grudge against them, get to know their minds, let them do the talking, you do the listening and gauge the kind of beasts they are. And above all let this recognition of the true nature and intentions of the Jihadis, build in ourselves an urge and will to destroy the Jihadis utterly and lead us to take preemptive military action to act on our deepest desires against the beastlike Muslims. It is either them or us - the choice is ours!

__________________________________

The defeat at Mohacs was not in vain. It lit the fire of freedom in many European hearts. Another seminal example that motivated future generations of Europeans to wipe out Islam from Europe, when they had the upper hand was that of Prince Vlad (1456-62) of Walachia (Romania). Around this valiant prince was woven the legend of Dracula. He never drank anyone’s blood as legend (floated by the Turks) would have you believe, but he was ruthless with the Jihadis and whenever fortune favored him on the battlefield, he slaughtered all of them on whom he could lay his hands on. He was so feared by the Turks, that since they could not defeat him in open warfare, they plotted to get him murdered thru the hands of a traitor who had converted to Islam.

__________________________

The Jihadis understand only one language – the language in which they speak to all non-Muslim – the language of subterfuge, betrayal, the language of blood and death. It is only when a large proportion of the Jihadis are done away with in a thermonuclear war, can the survivors among them see sense of living as humans, with a degree of tolerance for difference. No more Islam or death after that, since it is Islam that will be dead. If the surviving Muslims do not mend their ways after that, them we are sorry to say, all of them will have to go, if civilization is to be saved from the mortal threat of Islam.

The defeat at Mohacs was not in vain. It lit the fire of freedom in many European hearts. A seminal example that motivated future generations of Europeans to wipe out Islam from Europe, when they had the upper hand was that of Prince Vlad (1456-62) of Walachia (Romania). Around this valiant prince was woven the legend of Dracula. He never drank anyone’s blood as legend (floated by the Turks) would have you believe, but he was ruthless with the Jihadis and whenever fortune favored him on the battlefield, he slaughtered all of the enemy on whom he could lay his hands on.

Vlad was so feared by the Turks, that since they could not defeat him in open warfare, they plotted to get him murdered thru the hands of a traitor who had converted to Islam. But as long as he lived, Romania was safe from any further depredations from the Turks. His hatred of the Muslim Turks was rooted in what he had seen from his early childhood, the bloodied depredations of the Turks against the Romanians.

The one lesson from the Battle of Mohacs is not to fall into the mistake of opening up negotiations with the Muslims, ever. Fight them to their death – that is the only way out.

_____________________________

* For those uninitiated, PBUH expands to Perpetual Battle Upon Hagarism (Islam) – founded by the mass-murderer and pedophile pretender prophet Mohammed-ibn-Abdallah (Yimach Shmo – May his name and memory be obliterated).

______________________________________

Select Bibliography The Mummy, Funeral Rites & Customs in Ancient Egypt, by Ernest A. Wallis Budge, reprint of 1893 edition by Senate Studio Editions 1995

The Twilight of Ancient Egypt, First Millennium B.C.E., by Karol Mysliwiec, translated by David Lorton, Cornell University Press2000

Egypt in The Age of Cleopatra, by Michel Chauveau, translated by David Lorton, Cornell University Press, 2000

Women in Ancient Egypt, by Gay Robins, Harvard University Press, 1996

Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Source Book by Jane Rowlandson, Cambridge University Press, 1998

The Chronicle of John Coptic Bishop of Nikiu (circa 690 A.D.), translated by Robert Henry Charles, reprint from 1916 edition, APA-Philo Press Amsterdam, Holland

The Vanished Library, A Wonder of The Ancient World, by Luciano Canfora, University of California Press

The Story of The Church of Egypt, Volumes I and II, by Edith L. Butcher, reprint of 1897 edition by AMS Press Inc, New York, N.Y 1975

Coptic Egypt, by Murad Kamil, Le Scribe Egyptien, 1968

Traditional Egyptian Christianity, A History of the Coptic Church, by Theodore. Hall Patrick, Fisher Park Press, 1999

Muslim Extremism in Egypt, The Prophet and the Pharaoh, by Gilles Kepel, University of California Press 1993

Ancient Egyptian Culture, published by Chartwell Books, Edison, N.J. 1998.

Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher

Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries (Hardcover) by Paul Fregosi

The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World by Srdja Trifkovic

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer

Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam) by David Cook

Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq

Onward Muslim Soldiers by Robert Spencer

Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'Or

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Yeor

What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary by Ibn Warraq

Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad by Mark A. Gabriel, Mark A. Gabriel

A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer

The Great Divide: The failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West by Marvin Olasky

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims by Robert Spencer

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones

The Koran (Penguin Classics) by N. J. Dawood

Don't Keep me Silent! One Woman's Escape from the Chains of Islam by Mina Nevisa

Christianity And Islam: The Final Clash by Robert Livingston

Holiest Wars : Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden by Timothy R. Furnish

The Last Trumpet: A Comparative Study in Christian-Islamic Eschatology by Samuel, Ph.D. Shahid

Unleashing the beast: How a fanatical islamic dictator will form a ten-nation coalition and terrorize the world for forty-two months by Perry Stone

Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature (Religion and Politics) by David Cook

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle by Mark A., Ph.D. Gabriel

The Challenge of Islam to Christians by David Pawson

The Prophetic Fall of the Islamic Regime by Glenn Miller, Roger Loomis

Prophet of Doom : Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words by Craig Winn

The False Prophet by Ellis H. Skolfield

The Approach of Armageddon: An Islamic Perspective by Muhammad Hisham Kabbani

The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God by George Weigel

Infiltration : How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz

Unveiling Islam : An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs by Ergun Mehmet Caner

Perfect Soldiers : The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry McDermott

Islam Revealed A Christian Arab's View Of Islam by Anis Shorrosh

Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out by Ibn Warraq

The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book by Ibn Warraq

________________________________

Unfortunately for humankind, the end of the death-seeking fiery cult of Islam can only come about through a fiery death-giving weapon. Ironically such nuclear mushroom clouds would be the blazing hell-fire that the Quran talks about and acknowledges will bring about an end to Islam such that there will be no one across the globe to say “Lah ilah il Allah, Mohammed ur Rasoolallah” (There is no god but allah and Mohammed is his prophet).

_____________________________________

Exclusive Coverage

Iran preparing to launch an Electro-Magnetic Pulse Nuclear war

The Nazis of Yesterday and the Qazis and Ghazis of today!
Hitler and Khamenei - The two faces of Evil

Warrantless Wiretapping of Muslim phones and Electronic Surveillance of Radiation around Mosques

Our Resolution for the New Year - Realize, Learn and Implement the only way to destroy Terrorism - Attack the Hajj, pulverize Mecca

Shape of things to come in Iraq and the world over

Ramsey Clark as Saddam's Attorney and the politics of subterfuge and murder

Kill or Be Killed - Shiites and Sunnis in a Catch 22 trap inside Iraq

How we are making Islam self-destruct

Muslim Brotherhood raises its Hood in Egypt

Our withdrawal plans and news highlights about Sunnis being tortured by Shiite prison guards and link of these two happenings with the Saudi-Iranian Sunni-Shiite Proxy War that has already started in Iraq

Sharon turns out to be the proverbial "SHEEP" in "Wolf's" clothing!

Muslims crying about deprivation of Civil Liberties and Human Rights is like a Jackal crying “Wolf”

Najaf and Fallujah - A tale of two Cities and two strategies

The Amman Blasts – the first shots of the emerging schism between the Wahabis and the Hashemites

“We should bring our troops Home to achieve our Iraq Policy goals” - A Republican Neocon view

Why do Arabs discriminate against other Muslims from the Ummah - Reason: Muslims are thugs. As they fight with others to commit thuggery, they also fight amongst themselves while sharing the spoils of their thuggery.

Bring our Troops home - Afterall Cindy does actually have a point

Idle Minds are a Devil's Workshop, but in France we are confronting the Devils' Mind

The simple use of demographics of democracy against our enemy

Know the mind of the enemy if we are to defeat those who brought us sorrow

How are Muslims like women?

Shiite-Sunni War coming in Iraq and then across the Middle East

"Winning Muslim Hearts and Minds"

Earthquake in Pakistan - Allah's Jihad against Muslims?

Can the West win a mortal combat of the War on Terror with one hand cuffed?

Are Muslims Alienated everywhere as any civilized lifestyle is alien for them?

The effective way of defeating Pre-cultural theology-inspired Islamic terrorism

Optional Scenarios if the USA does not decimate Mullah Jihadis of Iran now

What we need to change within us to defeat Islamic Terrorism

Understanding Islamic Terrorism to enable us to destroy it once and forever

How Iraq can take the entire Middle East into Apocalypse

Musharraf's Pakistan - A friend or a foe?

What does it take to win a war against theology-inspired terror?

The Root causes of Muslim Alienation and of 9/11, 3/11, 7/7

What makes Muslims glorify murder and revenge?

The cracks and contradictions within the Communist-Islamist Alliance

The real Muslim mind revealed by an Ex-Muslim

Strategy to break the Islamist-Communist Alliance

Logic behind Iran's Mullahs' Desperation to get Nuclear Weapons.

Putin's romance with Palestinians, Iranians and Syrians - Shades of Hitler-Stalin (Ribbentrop-Molotov) Pact of 1939?

Iran's Duplicity in building Nuclear weapons under the cloak of Energy Requirements recalls Hitler's duplicity of building Luftwaffe using Flying Clubs

Vietnam War and the War on Terror - similarities and differences

Islamic Terrorists Murder Students at "Immoral Picnic" Book Review: Atomic Iran - Jerome R. Corsi Security breached at US nuclear power plant

[EDITORIAL]


A new and deadly form of Terrorism is Emerging

We are dealing with nihilists and despots who worship a death- cult. They hate modern liberalism and democracy and their ideology is the cousin of fascism and communism. When we faced Stalin and Hitler, the last thing we needed to do was agonize over why they didn't like our societies, lifestyles and systems of government. Neither should we do anything different in confronting the Osamas and Al Zarqawis. More....

Past Editorials

There will come a point when widespread Muslim terror attacks against the U.S. will no longer allow military actions as we have taken in Iraq and Afghanistan and will call for a re- appraisal of our military strategy…… More....

War on Terror News on Terror






 


What if the Muslims win the 3rd World War?
What would life be in the unlikely event of the Terrorists winning the 3rd world war? Would life be worth living then? »»

 
_______________________________________________________

Google
Search WWW Search Search historyofjihad.org

______________________________________________________________________ ____________

________________________________________

Write Letters to the Editor
Read Archived Letters to the Editor

______________________________________________


Read Current Letters to the Editor

______________________________________________

Free Hit Counter
Thanks for visiting