Jihadists Mass Executing Christians in Syria


Apparently ISIS has been executing Christians for refusing to convert to Islam – they were ordered to convert or die. The phrase “Islam was spread by the sword” refers to how Islam spread. Many non-Muslims were offered the choice of “convert or die.” If they refused, they got the sword – they usually got their heads chopped off. This is how Islam spread – by the mass murder of non-Muslims, often Christians.

We now have proof of an incredible 100,000 Georgians beheaded or burned alive because they refused to convert to Islam. The martyrs of Otranto are 813 Italian Christians beheaded because they refused to convert to Islam. In 1389, there was a mass slaughter of Copts in Egypt. Many had been converted at the point of the sword, but later they marched into Cairo, stating that they were returning to Christianity. All of the men were seized by the Muslims and beheaded in an open square in front of their women. This was done in order to terrorize the women, but the women refused to be fazed, so all of the women were then killed.

The most recent case involves 12 Christians – men, women and a 12 year old boy – who were seized by ISIL in Aleppo and ordered to convert in front of a crowd. They refused. The boy had his fingertips chopped off. He was then badly beaten. The three men were then badly beaten. Then all four were crucified, causing their deaths.

Next eight Christians, six men and two women between the ages of 29-33 were brought before the large crowd and ordered to convert. They refused. The two women were then raped in public. While they were being raped, the women prayed which caused their captors to beat them even harder. Then all eight were beheaded. After they were killed, their headless bodies were then crucified and left up for two days.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

0 thoughts on “Jihadists Mass Executing Christians in Syria”

  1. Reading about and knowing all the atrocities Muslim armies did/do, it is infuriating to see Liberals defend Islam and sweep under the rug all the genocides committed by Islamic groups and empires. The liberals who do call out Islam (Dawkins, Maher) get roasted by Liberals and so called progressives.

    The left essentially gives Islam a pass . It is just disgusting behavior by Western liberal leaning academics and journalists. Huffpo is especially guilty of whitewashing Islam.

    1. Yes, they call it Islamophobia. The Academy is like that also. I am on Academia.edu and there are so many pro-Islam, whitewashing Islam papers being written you would not believe it.

    2. A truly white supermacist state like Aparthied South Africa, had to adopt tactics similar to what we see in Islamic States in order to maintain order. That included censorship (TV hadn’t come to SA until 1976), police brutality, extreme control over the people (which makes the Patriot Act look like sissy stuff 😆 ). I even saw on one Aparthied movie that the cops carried bullwhips with them.

        1. I don’t think this one was. Of course your white nationalists want to bash any liberal movie, but either the South African cops carried bullwhips or they didn’t.

  2. What ISIS is doing is very much in keeping with Islamic tradition. This is how Islam has been and is. South East Asia is the exception , i.e. Islam was spread by merchants as opposed to conquest.

    1. White supremacy is like Isam in that it can only be spread by force, and only enforced with brutality. Most people don’t like a truly white supermacist state, as it conflicts with the human desire for freedom.

      For instance, say you like TV. Well, under a white supremacist regime, they might consider sexual immorality as leading to race mixing, and a weakening on thier grip on power, so they might ban or heavily censor TV etc. The internet? My gosh 😆 You know that’s going to be banned.

      1. That would make the internet pointless, the gobs and gobs of easily available porn is the one good thing about it.

        1. You really think a white supremacist state or Islamic one is going to tolerate porn of any kind? Especially, the easily available 24 hour buffet available on the internet.

        2. If they want my support they will. I’m only commenting on here for reload time before I watch more porn. I think I’ll go with granny trannys this time.

          I kid I kid, I know the internet has other uses besides porn, like sending women pictures of my penis and going on and on about how I and my 8th grade education know more about heart surgery than a heart surgeon with 20 years of experience.
          Dunning–Kruger ya’ll

        1. Actually, Islam did not historically force people to convert at swordpoint. The truth is actually worse. Islam at the beginning was a protection racket disguised as a religion. Jews and Christians were “tolerated,” so long as each individual paid an exorbitant tax called “jizya.” In return, the were “protected.” Protected from what, you ask? Protected from what the Muslims would do to them if they did not pay the tax. In the early centuries of Islam, there were actually efforts to stem the tide of converts because it was eating into the prophet’s profits.

        2. @Matt

          I am aware of Jizya and why Muslim empires actually preferred in some cases to not convert conquered peoples so as not to lose Jizya tax revenue. This is a why many people in the Northern Indian SubContinent also remained Hindu.

          This does not negate the argument that Islam was spread by the sword in most of the lands where Islam is present today because as you yourself say people converted so as to avoid paying Jizya . If they didn’t pay they were punished so that is conversion with threat of force hanging over their head.

          Islamic armies converted people when it suited them and allowed some people to remain non-Muslims when it suited them (i.e. Jizya tax revenue)

  3. Hi Mr Lindsay Father zakaria a Coptic orthodox priest said Islam is not religion but an idealogy. In fact he says the only thing islam ahs brought is the continuation of the old testament

  4. So what weren’t both Islam and Christianity both spread by the sword?
    Of the 3 major world religions (Christianity, Islam and Buddhism) only Buddhism wasn’t spread by the sword.
    The problem isn’t what was done in the 14th century everyone was pretty awful back then, but why are a particular sect of Islam (Wahhabi Sunnis) so bent on returning to the 14th century today.
    The very fundamentalist Shiite clerical leadership in Iran doesn’t cotton to the wholesale slaughter of non-believers.

    1. From what I know, Christianity was spread by the sword in Latin America. As far as brutality goes, Christianity was also a major justification for the Jim Crow South.

      1. Also the brutality of Aparthied South Africa, as I mentioned in other comments, was justified heavily by a white supremacist reading of the Bible.

        In fact, SA was your ultimate apocolyptic KKK “white identity” state. One threatened by atheism, Communism, liberal moral values, hordes of hostile blacks to the north and inside etc.. all wanting to destroy it.

        1. True, I think that fact is overlooked in history books. Also, the Crusades were more of a defense against Islam, rather than an attack on it. Of course, there was a lot of money to be made in the Crusades, but the main goal of the Crusades was to push Islam out (before it pushed Christianity out).

        2. Right, but some of the Pagans, Vikings especially, there was no choice. Look at how brutal the Vikings were. It just wasn’t a “Mr. Rogers” kind of world, It was a brutal world and violence was always needed. It’s kind of like how Africa is now.

        3. That’s a problem with modern people. They see things from a very “safe” prosepective. They don’t understand that world history is full of brutality, much as like you see with Africa now. You can’t see things like war, slavery, all that terrible stuff, without taking into account that fact.

        4. I view the crusades as a barbarian invasion. A less advanced culture attacked and invaded a more advanced culture.
          A if not the major reason for the calling of the first crusades was to give the knights and nobility something to do besides pillaging the countryside with no more pagan invaders to fight in Europe.

    2. What do you define as awful? What difference is there between machine gun fire and bombs, and swords? Communist nations of the 20th century (and Hitler) killed millions. The US also bombed millions as part of a war (I won’t comment on whether it was justified or not.)

    3. The difference with Christianity is that the doctrine does not urge one to spread the faith by the sword, quite the contrary, Christianity is a pacifist faith but Europeans exploited the faith to conquer. In Islam the doctrine implores the faithfull to kill the unbelievers and Muhammed was a warlord who slaughtered tribes and people who wouldn’t acquiesce. This is the opposite of Jesus who said to turn the other cheek and would not even fight against the Romans.

      1. The ancient Israelis did eventually fight against the Romans and that turned out none to well for them.
        I’m less interested in the ideal than in practical application and Christian powers were just as fond of the sword as Islamic powers.
        As much as the New Testament may be extra crunchy hippy dippy peace and love the Old Testament is bit a more stern and unforgiving, Alex in A Clockwork Orange summed up the dichotomy of the Bible nicely.

        1. Well it matters that Islamic ideology actually preaches violent domination while Christ’s teachings did not because we are constantly being reminded and lectured by the media and Muslim groups that the extremists are a minority and they don’t represent Islam .

        2. I’ve said before and I guess I have to say again, the problem with Islam is that the extreme Wahhabi Sunni sect are the Muslims with the money, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states.
          It would be as if snake handling Pentecosts were the Christians with the bulk of the cash.

        3. The problem with Islam is …Islam . Even without the Wahabis, Islam would still be intolerant and hellbent on global domination. Muhammed was not a pacifist like Jesus, he was a warmonger . Muhammed was no different to Genghis Khan or Spanish Conquistadors except for inventing a religion.

        4. The problem with Islam is …Islam . Even without the Wahabis, Islam would still be intolerant and hellbent on global domination. Muhammed was not a pacifist like Jesus, he was a warmonger . Muhammed was no different to Genghis Khan or Spanish Conquistadors except for inventing a religion.

          They’re massive hypocrites screwing thier female slaves, castrating the male ones, and killing babies after they screw the women. Since this appeared on a such a large scale among richer Muslims thru history, it makes the religion seem like an outright lie.

  5. Yeah, a price comes for an orderly society. The Jim Crow south, Islamic States, and Aparthied South Africa all have/had low crime. However, the cost was a terrible police state and heavy censorship. (TV hadn’t even come to South Africa until 1976 :roll:)

    We look upon all the killing as horror, but to those enforcing the rules, they view anarchy as 1000 times more evil.

    1. The bottom line is that for a lot of places, order and stability can only come with a massive loss of freedom. That’s why the middle east loathes/hates American freedom. Of course, the Christians didn’t really do anything to threaten order, but the enforcers feel like that to be truly “alpha male” bad-asses :rolleyes: They have to enforce everything to the absolute limit, even the stuff unnecessary, to show they’re the rules, they’re in control.

    1. Looking at the Arab slave trade, either Islam is a satanic religion, or a large group of them are massive hypocrites. Yet David Duke and other Semites want to lay all blame on Jews for slavery, while showing empathy for the Islamic religion. Yet, the kinder of the two slave trades (even if we assume for argument’s sake is run by Jews) was the western slave trade.

  6. Why are all these Sunni Muslims in Northern Iraq and Syria soo hellbent on genociding the minorities? The Sunni Arabs are the same as the Arab non Sunnis ; it was Islamic invaders from Arabia that converted their forefathers from Christianity to Islam. Egypt is the same, the Muslim Egyptians aren’t all that different to the Copts, but the Muslims oppress and harass the Copts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)