Islamic Aggression Past and Present

The Issue

Islam has been at war with other religions and civilizations since its inception. They have spread predominantly through force and mass migration, overtaking traditionally Christian lands (and others). Given this history, it is hard to make the claim that Islam is a religion of peace.

Here is a very condensed timeline:

634–638 CE (Early Islamic Conquest of the Levant): Muslim forces conquered Syria and Palestine from the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem surrendered in 638 CE, bringing the Holy Land under the Rashidun Caliphate.
1009 CE (Destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre): Islamic leaders ordered the complete destruction of Jerusalem's primary Christian holy site, shocking Christian Europe and straining relations between Islamic rulers and Western pilgrims.
1071 CE (Battle of Manzikert & Seljuk Expansion): The Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantine Empire, seizing control of Anatolia and Jerusalem. Seljuk restrictions on Christian pilgrims prompted the Byzantine Emperor to appeal to Western Europe for military assistance.
1095 CE (Call for the First Crusade): At the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called on Western European Christians to launch an armed pilgrimage to reclaim Jerusalem and assist the Byzantine Empire.
1096–1099 CE (The First Crusade & Capture of Jerusalem): Crusader armies marched across Europe and Anatolia, capturing Antioch and taking Jerusalem in July 1099. They established four "Crusader States" (Outremer), including the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
1144–1149 CE (Fall of Edessa & The Second Crusade): Muslim forces recaptured the County of Edessa in 1144. European monarchs launched the Second Crusade in response, but it ended in failure after an unsuccessful siege of Damascus.
1187 CE (Battle of Hattin & Fall of Jerusalem to Saladin): The Crusader army was crushed at the Battle of Hattin and recaptured Jerusalem, ending 88 years of Crusader control over the holy city.
1189–1192 CE (The Third Crusade): Led by King Richard the Lionheart of England and Philip II of France, Western forces recaptured key coastal cities like Acre, but failed to retake Jerusalem. A treaty with Saladin permitted unarmed Christian pilgrims access to the city.
1202–1204 CE (The Fourth Crusade & Sack of Constantinople): Intended to attack Egypt and retake Jerusalem, the crusade was diverted by Venetian interests and internal Byzantine politics, culminating in Western Crusaders sacking the Christian city of Constantinople instead.
1291 CE (Sack of Acre & End of the Crusader States): The Mamluk Sultanate captured Acre, the last major Crusader stronghold in the Levant, effectively ending Western military presence in the Holy Land.

Moral & Worldview Impact

Values at Stake: Religious Liberty, National Sovereignty, Historical Truth, Preservation of Christian Heritage

It has been claimed that our current conflict in Iran is just because our president is a puppet of the State of Israel, and that we are just doing their bidding. However, it seems that the conflict has been going on for far longer than that. Western civilization has been at war with them for many centuries.

In fact, as seen above, the Crusades were started because Christians in the Holy Land begged Europe for help and protection from attacks, murders, and enslavements by the Muslim invaders. While I don't intend to justify any and all actions taken by either side during these times, it is clear that the Islamic invasions and treatment of Christians and Jews was the primary catalyst.

In early American history, from the time of our Revolutionary War period, shortly after the founding of our country, Barbary pirates from Islamic states were attacking American shipping and enslaving American sailors, with no obvious provocation. In fact, the United States had nothing to do with the European Crusades/Muslim wars or any other attacks on Islam at that time. The motivation of the Muslims was that this was a war about whose religion would win, and conquest of "Christian nations" furthered that goal.

Why Should I Care?

Understanding this history is critical because the modern narrative often misrepresents both the origins of historical conflicts and the intentions of America's founders. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams reported to John Jay, the current Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in 1786:

"We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation."

"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all who should be taken as Prisoners, and that every [Muslim man] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

At that time (since 1776) we had lost the protection of the British Navy, and we did not have a standing Navy which could defend our shipping, people, and commerce. That soon changed, however. By the time Jefferson became President, he sent warships from our new Navy to the Mediterranean to protect our interests, since we refused to pay their demanded tribute.

Even after George Washington became president in 1789, negotiations continued to make peace with these Muslim nations. Sadly, they continued to attack us. Every time a peace agreement was made, it was broken (sound familiar?) These states felt that they were justified in lying to the infidels.

Foundational Principles and Concepts

"The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean... with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack." — Thomas Jefferson, First Annual Message to Congress, 1801

"To chastise their insolence—by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & vessels wherever you shall find them." — Thomas Jefferson, Instructions to Naval Commanders

"Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence."
(Note: "Infidels" is often substituted in popular paraphrases, but Washington's exact term was "enemies to mankind.") — George Washington, Letter to Lafayette, 1786

"In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?" — George Washington, Letter to Lafayette, 1786

Summary:

Islam has been at war with us for centuries (basically since its founding). It is not compatible with Christianity, and it cannot survive in America without destroying it. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact that gives one group the freedom to destroy other's freedom of religion. While the Founding Fathers, who were overwhelmingly Christian in their worldview and practice, wrote the First Amendment as being compatible with allowing others to practice their own religions, it was never intended to be used to eliminate Christianity in public life as Islam intends. When a country or religion states that its goal is to destroy you, maybe you should take it seriously!

References and Links

The Interface | Apologia Worldview Series

Examining Firsthand Accounts, Biblical Support, and the Distinction Between Agreement and Loyal Commitment.

The Issue

In the wake of public debates surrounding the Middle East, rumors and media narratives surfaced alleging that Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk had abandoned his support for Israel or pivoted toward hostility against the Jewish state. Critics and commentary channels frequently conflated Kirk’s legitimate questions regarding government policy, foreign aid, or donor pressure with an abandonment of pro-Israel principles.

A biblical and worldview analysis of Christian allyship, government accountability, and national sovereignty highlights several critical distinctions:

Firsthand Eyewitness vs. Media Rumor: Dr. Frank Turek ** — a Christian apologist, close mentor, and father figure to Kirk — provides direct eyewitness evidence refuting claims that Kirk had "turned against" or abandoned support for Israel.
Love vs. Approval: Biblical principles make a clear distinction between supporting a nation's right to exist and blindly endorsing every political decision of its secular government.
The Reactionary Reflex: A major point of friction was not Israel itself, but the immediate labeling of any nuanced critique or foreign policy question as "antisemitism."
Geopolitical Realities & Moral Clarity: True moral clarity recognizes Israel as a vital democratic ally in the Middle East facing existential threats from terror organizations like Hamas, whose charter explicitly calls for jihad and the destruction of the Jewish people.

TLDR

Key Takeaways & Eyewitness Insights

Eyewitness Account on September 9: On September 9, 2025 (the day before Kirk was tragically killed on September 10), Kirk participated in a strategy meeting co-hosted by Frank Turek and three Israelis (one in person, two joining via Zoom from Israel). The explicit objective was to refine defense strategies and craft compelling, accurate answers for college students asking about the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Refusal to Equate Critique with Abandonment: Turek emphasizes that Kirk remained an unwavering "champion" for Israel's defense, but was deeply frustrated by donor ecosystems that treated any policy debate or question on foreign aid as automatic antisemitism.
The Theological Distinction of "Blessing": Scripturally, "blessing" a person or nation (Genesis 12:3) does not require rubber-stamping every political decree. Turek frames it logically: loving someone involves desiring their highest good under God, which can include constructive disagreement or correction.
Biblical Precedent: In Scripture, the ancient governments of Israel were frequently apostate or flawed, yet God maintained His covenantal relationship with the people and land. Modern secular government imperfections do not negate Israel's fundamental right to exist and defend itself.
Countering False Narratives: Turek’s account directly dismantles post-assassination conspiracy theories (e.g. Candice Owens), media spins, and narratives that Kirk was pivoting away from a firm pro-Israel stance.

Moral & Worldview Impact

Theological Nuance: Loving Israel Without Deifying Policy

At the core of this discussion lies a vital theological distinction that modern political commentary often overlooks. In Genesis 12:3, God commands a posture of blessing toward Abraham and his descendants. However, "blessing" a child, a friend, or a nation is not synonymous with approving every action they take.

"Love does not mean approval; love means seeking what's best for the other person according to the will of God." — Dr. Frank Turek

Just as a loving parent corrects a child when necessary, a true friend to Israel can uphold her right to exist, defend her people against terror, and still raise questions about specific military strategies, economic aid packages, or government actions.

Just War and Moral Equivalence

From a Christian worldview perspective, there is no moral equivalence between a sovereign nation defending its citizens and a terrorist organization (or nation) operating under a charter of jihad. While Christians can debate operational nuances in military conflicts under Just War principles, primary moral culpability rests with the aggressor. How would we expect our country to react if the same percentage of citizens were murdered on the Texas border while attending a Taylor Swift concert, and the Mexican cartels claimed credit? Did the Allies of WWII use kid gloves against Germany or was there widespread destruction and killing, including many civilians?

Kirk recognized that Israel remains a key democratic anchor in the region while facing enemies committed to its total annihilation. Navigating an "America First" perspective on foreign aid or questioning political expediency does not diminish the moral duty to oppose antisemitism and defend an ally's right to self-defense.

Conclusion

The narrative that Charlie Kirk "turned his back on Israel" falls apart under the weight of firsthand evidence and sound theological reasoning. As Frank Turek's eyewitness account demonstrates, Kirk died as he lived — actively equipping young people to defend truth, stand against terror, and support Israel's right to survive, even while advocating for open, honest dialogue on political strategy.

I have previously authored a series of post on Israel:

** I personally have followed Frank's apologetics ministry for years and trust his veracity. Frank was even on the stage with Charlie when he was killed. He often does on campus debates and presentations, taking all questions and giving reasons for the Christian faith. If you want to impeach his testimony and call a him a liar, then you need to provide solid evidence, not supposition or baseless claims. Truth wins!

The Interface | Apologia Worldview Series

Sunday, August 30, 2026