a quick note by me, this is how colonization and invasion occurs, first you overtake an area then you remove all symbolism from that area that has any connection to the original inhabitants past, This Muslim Guardian writer automatically assumes the left leaning readers will sympathize with his view of the crusades as as " brutal and bloody invasion of Muslim lands", in order to tie in the defensive Crusades with European colonization so as to evoke perpetual victimization status upon poor downtrodden Muslims. Thus forcing mainstream British society into dropping all symbolism from it's past in order to placate his sense of grievance. Here are some basic facts however:

Some historical events that preceded the First Crusade ...

AD 632 -- Muhammad’s death.

AD 635 -- Christian Damascas fell to invading Muslims.

AD 636 -- Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.

AD 638 -- Christian Jerusalem,and later Alexandria,fell to invading Muslims.

AD
650 -- Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the
same period Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete
and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves. AD 668 -- Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.

AD 711 -- Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.

AD 717 -- Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.

AD 732 -- Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.

AD
792 -- The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of
France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed
by the French. AD 827 -- Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorised monks,and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.

AD 846 -- Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.

AD 848 -- France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.

AD 1059 -- Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.

--Golem











Euro 2012: I want to be an England fan and a Muslim. Why's that so hard?

England football fans dressing up as Christian knights from the Crusades doesn't endear Muslims to the cause





As England play their first games of Euro 2012, I'd like to be an England fan. But even though I'm English, it's hard.

For
a start, as a British Muslim, I am unsettled by the sight of England
supporters dressed as Christian knights and jovially waving Crusader
shields at the European championships in Poland and Ukraine. Footage of
last night's cagey opener with France was interspersed with close-ups of
young men dressed in the armour of Knights Templar hordes. There's an
irony in the fact that images of Polish supporters chanting antisemitic
slogans and giving Nazi salutes have been met with such deserved
outrage, but to brandish a sword and recall the brutal and bloody
invasion of Muslim lands is portrayed as harmless banter.There is
an obvious difference of course. I don't for a second believe that
those dressed as Christian knights do so to offend Muslims – I hope not,
anyway – whereas there is obvious menace in the sickening behaviour by
neo-Nazis. But this doesn't make it any less disturbing an image for the
Muslims in this country and around the world.The Crusades are
romanticised in the west as heroic battles to win back the holy lands in
the name of Christianity. But for Muslims they are remembered as two
centuries of brutal and unprovoked attacks on Arab lands. To celebrate
this in fancy dress recalls a bloody and divisive chapter in
Muslim-Christian relations. That may not be the intention of those
donning the fake chainmail and helmets but there's no denying it's a
uniform of war that certainly doesn't instil a feeling of inclusiveness
in me.I wonder how England supporters would react to scenes at
the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, were masses of Arab fans to dress up in
Saladin turbans and brandish Saracen swords emblazoned with Qu'ranic
verse. I'm not sure it would be seen as friendly high jinx.As a
British Asian, moreover, I find it very difficult to get behind Team
England because I abhor the fact that it includes an individual facing
criminal charges for racist abuse in the workplace. The fact that the
accuser's brother is missing from the squad and hasn't been picked on
merit makes me feel extremely uncomfortable about supporting my country.
John Terry may be innocent until proven guilty, but he and his legal
team forfeited an opportunity to clear his name by requesting a delay to
the court case until after the tournament. If I was facing such serious
charges, I would have been suspended pending trial. I find the FA's
decision to strip him of the captaincy and yet allow him to play both
inconsistent and disgraceful.I've been among England supporters
in the past and felt less than welcome. They've chanted various songs
either in my presence or even in my direction. I particularly enjoy the
pointed lyrics "You never had an empire!" – and I suppose I should be
flattered that so many of my fellow countrymen would rather be of
Pakistani origin than Turkish extraction.It goes hand-in-hand
with the jingoistic nationalism we're subjected to by certain sections
of the press. Not for nothing is it called a campaign. On one level it's
just plain xenophobia. On another level it's a handy reminder that we
were at war with many of these beastly foreigners at one time or
another, and we killed lots of them and came out on top. I say we,
although I'm not entirely sure I want to be included in that number. And
I guess the feeling's mutual.Don't get me wrong, the John Terry
issue is the obstacle for me in getting behind the England team. It
genuinely offends me and it sends out a horrible message. It tells me
that if I'm racially abused by someone at work who is seen as good at
their job, I should keep my mouth shut. I am sure the whole
Crusader-fancy-dress-thing is done in all innocence. But in the context
of the English Defence League and their anti-Islam rhetoric it doesn't
exactly fill me with patriotic fervour. It makes me feel Muslim, rather
than English, and I'd much rather feel both.