Thank you for visiting LearnTheology.com.
This section has articles and information on the Biblical Theology such as: God, salvation, spiritual gifts, The Trinity, and the Bible. This section will also compare and contrast the theological differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. If you are looking for an article on biblical theology check this section out.
Thank you for visiting. We have a small set of Theology websites that are divided or separated by category (though there is some overlap).
To learn more about our main author and admin click here to go to our information page.
If you would like to contact the author or webmaster please use our contact form.
History of Jihad Against the Hungarians (1526-1683)
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
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
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:
*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 9/1
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).
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
This Article used by permission of "History of Jihad.Com." Thank You!
© 2009 – 2011, LearnTheology.com. All rights reserved. Permission must be obtained from LearnTheology.com to use or copy any part of this post.
Leave a Reply
|© 2006 - 2014 LearnTheology.com, Arminian.com and Cwebpro.com|