NationStates Jolt Archive

I just think theyre and interesting topic, and Commando3's topic was rather biased and is now locked.
So, free discussion of any of the Crusades, or topics directly related to the Crusades, EXCEPT for comparative religion.
Religion is fine, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE leave the "Christianity/Islam is evil!" (I dont think Ive ever seen a 'Jews are evil' topic...) in the many threads posted for the purpose of accepting them.

Orthodox Catholic is evil!


sorry.

While the crusaders themselves did some bad things (massacre of Jerusalem), the crusades were glorious and noble. In 1095 the Muslims banned Christians from the Holy City, and Blessed Pope Urban II rallied the brave knights of Christendom to save the Holy Land. Also Islamic armies had been threatening to invade Europe for years, so the crusades were a defensive war. If not for the crusades Europe may have fallen to Islam and the world would be awful today.

The crusades,while bloody and senseless,provided a much needed culture shift for the Europeans and the Middle Easterners.Both learned a few things throughout the crusade period.Regrettably,tolerance wasn't one of them.

The Knights Templar and their deception is my favorite storyline. :D

I would still love to see commando's responce to the 4th crusade. For those unfamiliar with the 4th and final crusade...

Crusaders stopped in Venice on the way to the holy lands. On this stop they partied and decided to stay in the city. When presented with the bill, they went and sacked Constantinople ( present day Istanbul). They never made it to the holy lands.

I would still love to see commando's responce to the 4th crusade. For those unfamiliar with the 4th and final crusade...

Crusaders stopped in Venice on the way to the holy lands. On this stop they partied and decided to stay in the city. When presented with the bill, they went and sacked Constantinople ( present day Istanbul). They never made it to the holy lands.

And Pope Innocent III excommunicated the crusade for its violence against fellow Christians.

As I recall nearly every crusade sacked Constantinople...
But then, they didnt count as Christians back then :P

You know who never gets any credit Peter the hermit he did the first crusades. he was a monk and led a reg tag group of pesants to fight in the holy land.

http://historymedren.about.com/library/who/blwwhermit.htm a site to give the basics.

I would still love to see commando's responce to the 4th crusade. For those unfamiliar with the 4th and final crusade...

Crusaders stopped in Venice on the way to the holy lands. On this stop they partied and decided to stay in the city. When presented with the bill, they went and sacked Constantinople ( present day Istanbul). They never made it to the holy lands.

They sacked Constantinople because some Byzantine emperor wannabe promised Gold to help depose the current Byzantine emperor. They helped and the wannabe become the Byzantine emperor but did not pay the promised Gold on the advice on his advisors. So they took the city instead for the broken promise.

As I recall nearly every crusade sacked Constantinople...
But then, they didnt count as Christians back then :P

Twas only the 4th "crusade" my friend.

Commando3']While the crusaders themselves did some bad things (massacre of Jerusalem), the crusades were glorious and noble. In 1095 the Muslims banned Christians from the Holy City, and Blessed Pope Urban II rallied the brave knights of Christendom to save the Holy Land. Also Islamic armies had been threatening to invade Europe for years, so the crusades were a defensive war. If not for the crusades Europe may have fallen to Islam and the world would be awful today.

Not sure what history books you're reading from or if this is a case of glorious sarcasm that I have blatantly missed but to call the Crusades "glorious" is a bit far fetched....more like insane and unbelievably lucky (well the first one anyway)....

Pope Urban II rallied Western Christendom to "save the holy Land" but after the request of the Emperor of Byzantine asked for some shock troops (i.e. some heavy Norman knights), instead he got (as someone has mentioned) in the "People's Crusade" under Peter the Hermit a rag bag bunch of (arguably) fanatical Christian peasants that basically semi-pillaged their way through central Europe before perishing at the hands of a Hungarian Army (a Christian Hungarian army mind). The real troopers that followed were a bunch of self-serving and ruthless commanders like Bohemond I who after the capture of Acre ended his "holy crusade" to setup his own personal fiefdoms. The proper First Crusade only made it to Jerusalem and (I don't know how) managed to capture it and survive a counter-attack by the indigenous Muslims because the Muslim's were so divided at the time. If they had been united they would have slaughtered the Crusaders. One only has to look at the quick collapse of the Crusading states after the First Crusade once the indigenous Muslims were united to see this. Also look at Richard the Third's inability to recapture Jerusalem in the Third Crusade due to the Muslim's being united under Saladin and his own nagging problems with Philip I back in Europe.

And the Muslim threat to Europe had been battered in the 9th century (this is from history memory now, so I might be slightly out) by the ancestral predecessor of Charlemagne. The Muslim's only threatened Europe again in the 15th century and again they got battered. The Crusades didn't hinder this, (and I don't see how you can call it a defensive war), in-fact they properly united the Muslim's in seeing the Europeans as a threat that should be dealt with, while some argue that the sacking of Constantinople (as it was then known) in the Fourth Crusade weakened it to such an extent that it indirectly lead to its later capture by the Turkish Muslims.

I have done this all from memory, so correct me if I'm widely wrong.....

Not sure what history books you're reading from or if this is a case of glorious sarcasm that I have blatantly missed but to call the Crusades "glorious" is a bit far fetched....more like insane and unbelievably lucky (well the first one anyway)....

Pope Urban II rallied Western Christendom to "save the holy Land" but after the request of the Emperor of Byzantine asked for some shock troops (i.e. some heavy Norman knights), instead he got (as someone has mentioned) in the "People's Crusade" under Peter the Hermit a rag bag bunch of (arguably) fanatical Christian peasants that basically semi-pillaged their way through central Europe before perishing at the hands of a Hungarian Army (a Christian Hungarian army mind). The real troopers that followed were a bunch of self-serving and ruthless commanders like Bohemond I who after the capture of Acre ended his "holy crusade" to setup his own personal fiefdoms. The proper First Crusade only made it to Jerusalem and (I don't know how) managed to capture it and survive a counter-attack by the indigenous Muslims because the Muslim's were so divided at the time. If they had been united they would have slaughtered the Crusaders. One only has to look at the quick collapse of the Crusading states after the First Crusade once the indigenous Muslims were united to see this. Also look at Richard the Third's inability to recapture Jerusalem in the Third Crusade due to the Muslim's being united under Saladin and his own nagging problems with Philip I back in Europe.

And the Muslim threat to Europe had been battered in the 9th century (this is from history memory now, so I might be slightly out) by the ancestral predecessor of Charlemagne. The Muslim's only threatened Europe again in the 15th century and again they got battered. The Crusades didn't hinder this, (and I don't see how you can call it a defensive war), in-fact they properly united the Muslim's in seeing the Europeans as a threat that should be dealt with, while some argue that the sacking of Constantinople (as it was then known) in the Fourth Crusade weakened it to such an extent that it indirectly lead to its later capture by the Turkish Muslims.

I have done this all from memory, so correct me if I'm widely wrong.....

Islam was created and spread by the sword. While Jesus and his disciples peacefully gathered converts in the face of the oppressive Roman Empire, the Muslims slughtered their way through the ME, capturing Syria, N. Africa, and Palastine, once heavily Christian lands.

They tried to invade at Tours but Charles Martel put an end to that. Nevertheless Islam would not forget its warlike ancestery and would continue killing helpless pilgrims in the Holy Land. They even burnt down the Church of the Holy Sepulchure in Jerusalem, the most sacred Church to Christians.

Enough was enough. Blessed Pope Urban II needed to not only help his christian allies the Byzantines (who were being attacked by the war-like arabs), but he needed to protect Europe and Jerusalem. And so was the glorious crusade.

BTW the peasent "crusade" was not an official crusade.

I would like to add Peter the Hermit died at the hands of a Muslim army not a hungarian.

[QUOTE=HardNippledom]I would like to add Peter the Hermit died at the hands of a Muslim army not a hungarian.[/QU

Yep, sorry, got mixed up another band of no-hopers led by Volkmar and Emich of Leiningen....my bad....

Commando3']Islam was created and spread by the sword. While Jesus and his disciples peacefully gathered converts in the face of the oppressive Roman Empire, the Muslims slughtered their way through the ME, capturing Syria, N. Africa, and Palastine, once heavily Christian lands.

They tried to invade at Tours but Charles Martel put an end to that. Nevertheless Islam would not forget its warlike ancestery and would continue killing helpless pilgrims in the Holy Land. They even burnt down the Church of the Holy Sepulchure in Jerusalem, the most sacred Church to Christians.

Enough was enough. Blessed Pope Urban II needed to not only help his christian allies the Byzantines (who were being attacked by the war-like arabs), but he needed to protect Europe and Jerusalem. And so was the glorious crusade.

BTW the peasent "crusade" was not an official crusade.

Hold on.....you've already said that the "glorious crusade" had a slight fault with slaughtering Jew, Christian and Muslim in Jerusalem when they captured it in 1099. From what I have read the Muslims were tolerant of all religious creeds when they held the city, for example they allowed Christian pilgrims to continue their trips to the city. If you read the sources the local population preferred Muslim than Christian rule. And the killing of pilgrims on their trips was not a pre-determined attack on Christians per se but just local bandits like you would find anywhere.

And again you could counter the your fact about the burning of the Holy Sepulchure with the sacking of Constantinople, which you've already addressed. Not very Christian like and it was one of the holiest cities for the Christians at the time.

The Crusades, for the Catholic Church, was a perfect opportunity for the power of the Pope gather some form of physical and thus political strength against the secular kings of Europe. Thus the call for the Crusades to "kill the infidel", which doesn't sound very peace-like to me, and went against all tenets of Christian theology that you've listed, was as much a political as religious, (and demographics and economics came into it which I won't go into), so I again query your "glorious" soubriquet.

And protecting Europe? How was it protecting Europe if you had the Byzantine's as a big buffer in front of you and the Muslims no where near until the 15th century (which I've explained)?

And to label the whole of Islam a "war-like" religion is a bit narrow minded when Christians had been killing each other for years and would do in European history until the Enlightenment and the division of religion and state (and the birth of reason I suppose)....

And the people's crusade was not an offical Crusade but they were inspired by Urban's call, so isn't he partly to blame?

Well, you can say whatever nasty things you want about the crusaders, but I won't believe you. Orlando Bloom was a crusader and he was very honourable and noble.

Dark is the light,
The man you fight,
With all your prayers, incantations,
Running away, a trivial day,
Of judgment and deliverance,
To whom was sold this bounty soul,
A gentile or a priest ?
Who victored over the Seljuks,
When the holy land was taken?

We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens

Was it the riches of the land,
Powers of bright darkness,
That lead the noble, to the East,
To fight the heathens

We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens

We must call upon our bright darkness,
Beliefs, they're the bullets of the wicked,
One was written on the sword,
For you must enter a room to destroy it,
International security,
Call of the righteous man,
Needs a reason to kill man,
History teaches us so,
The reason he must attain,
Must be approved by his God,
His child, partisan brother of war,

Of war, we don't speak anymore,
Of war, we don't speak anymore,
Of war, we don't speak anymore,
Of war, we don't speak anymore,

We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens
We will fight the heathens, We will fight the heathens

Commando3']Twas only the 4th "crusade" my friend.
And the first...and the second...and they strongly considered it in the third, I think.
And Im not your friend, according to YOU Im a "Protestant Secular Humanist".

And to label the whole of Islam a "war-like" religion is a bit narrow minded when Christians had been killing each other for years and would do in European history until the Enlightenment and the division of religion and state (and the birth of reason I suppose)....


He was talking about the respective founders of Christianity and Islam. Mohammad spread Islam by killing everyone who didn't agree (see battle of Badra) where as Jesus was far more peaceful. Both religions of course have bloody pasts but the point the person that you responded to was making is that in terms of its founding, Islam was far more vilonent.

I have said this over and over and over about the Crusades, they were as much a war of religion as the second world was was a war of ideologies. Both sets of beliefs (Christian/Muslim and Capitalist democracy-Communist authoritianism/Facist totalitarnisim) lived side by side for a long period, strongly disliking one another but not fighting. Then one side got overzelous and attacked the other (Islam for crusades and Nazis for WW2) and the war began. Both wars were started and fought over territory, not religion. Religion may have been a fuel but it was not the fire itself.

In the end it's all about power and wealth. The rest is an excuse.

"International security,
Call of the righteous man,
Needs a reason to kill man,
History teaches us so,
The reason he must attain,
Must be approved by his God,
His child, partisan brother of war"

Do you understand?

The leaders need a good reason to give to their population, their partisans, brothers. Be it religious, political, humanitarian, whatever. But in the end it's about their own interests.

He was talking about the respective founders of Christianity and Islam. Mohammad spread Islam by killing everyone who didn't agree (see battle of Badra) where as Jesus was far more peaceful. Both religions of course have bloody pasts but the point the person that you responded to was making is that in terms of its founding, Islam was far more vilonent.
That's a biased and untrue statement. Islam didn't even spread far during Muhammad (PBUH)'s lifetime. Muhammad was nowhere close to being a violent man, give me a source for that. The Battle of Badr was self-defense. The Quraish army was going to invade Medina and I don't think the Medinites and were going to sit back and let themselves be killed. The Prophet (PBUH) showed his compassion for everyone, even the enemy by making sure every dead body was given a proper burial. He also took care of the prisoners of war and made sure they were set free.

He was talking about the respective founders of Christianity and Islam. Mohammad spread Islam by killing everyone who didn't agree (see battle of Badra) where as Jesus was far more peaceful. Both religions of course have bloody pasts but the point the person that you responded to was making is that in terms of its founding, Islam was far more vilonent.

If you take the teachings of Jesus....i.e. the New Testament...if you look at the Old Testament you could say that the roots of Christianity was steeped in the smiting of God's enemies and tenets of violence. I am now going to be a scary person and quote you scripture:

"'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" (Gn. 9:6)

Is one such example.....

And even if a religion is founded in violence does that mean it will always be violent? As I mentioned before the teachings of Jesus were peaceful, but Christianity has not been an entirely peaceful religion, as the Crusades is a case in point. My argument was calling the Crusades "glorious" which I don't think can really apply.

If you take the teachings of Jesus....i.e. the New Testament...if you look at the Old Testament you could say that the roots of Christianity was steeped in the smiting of God's enemies and tenets of violence. I am now going to be a scary person and quote you scripture:

"'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" (Gn. 9:6)

Is one such example......

Tell me, why do you think Christianity is called CHRISTianty. Thats a big hint. The origins of mosiac laws and Jewish nation were replaced by Jesus. If you read the new testement, you will see why


And even if a religion is founded in violence does that mean it will always be violent? As I mentioned before the teachings of Jesus were peaceful, but Christianity has not been an entirely peaceful religion, as the Crusades is a case in point. My argument was calling the Crusades "glorious" which I don't think can really apply.

I agree, but my point was arguing that Islam was indeed founded by vilonet means. I dont think that Islam is a particually vilonet religion now (although it might be interesing for someone to analysie why Islam seems to generate the most fundementalists of late, it could just be recent media reporting or other things).

That's a biased and untrue statement. Islam didn't even spread far during Muhammad (PBUH)'s lifetime. Muhammad was nowhere close to being a violent man, give me a source for that. The Battle of Badr was self-defense. The Quraish army was going to invade Medina and I don't think the Medinites and were going to sit back and let themselves be killed. The Prophet (PBUH) showed his compassion for everyone, even the enemy by making sure every dead body was given a proper burial. He also took care of the prisoners of war and made sure they were set free.

That may be true, but there are any number of ways that Mohammad could have resisted them non vilonetly. He could have simply left the area and spread the word somewhere else. Or he could have simpley given themselves over as prisoners to the Quraish. Certianly, compared to how Jesus reacted when his life was threatened, Mohammad is indeed vilonent. Jesus offered no resistance and simpley gave himself to die, which he did.

Interesting article on the history and motivation for the crusades: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html

Nice insight on how the Crusades have impacted current Muslim attitudes towards the West: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/006/2.46.html

That may be true, but there are any number of ways that Mohammad could have resisted them non vilonetly. He could have simply left the area and spread the word somewhere else. Or he could have simpley given themselves over as prisoners to the Quraish. Certianly, compared to how Jesus reacted when his life was threatened, Mohammad is indeed vilonent. Jesus offered no resistance and simpley gave himself to die, which he did.
Jesus' word had been spread and his death would have cause numbers to grow. The word of Islam had not been fully revealed and Muhammad's death would only cause Islam to be abandoned before it had begun. Mecca was to be the center of Islam and giving up and letting the pagans keep it was not an option.

As always, religion was attempted to be used to justify wars, the Crusades being no exception. However, we forget why it originally started. A desire for the Holy Land was just part of the equation. I see it in part as a defensive operation. In the 730s, the Arabs invaded southern France. In the 800s, the Arabs briefly ran a caliphate in Italy. And of course, the Turks harrassed the Byzantines. Remember, Urban II preached a crusade in part because he recieved a plea from the Byzantines for assistence, as they were overruning Anatolia.
Finally, the Crusades were partly successful. Everyone thinks that they happened only in the Middle East. This isn't entirely true. During this period there was a great flurry of militaristic missionary activity. Finland was neutralized and Christianized, as were the Baltic states and East Prussia. And finally, this triggered the Reconquista, which I think is one of the most successful campaigns in Mideival Europe.

Tell me, why do you think Christianity is called CHRISTianty. Thats a big hint. The origins of mosiac laws and Jewish nation were replaced by Jesus. If you read the new testement, you will see why

I agree, but my point was arguing that Islam was indeed founded by vilonet means. I dont think that Islam is a particually vilonet religion now (although it might be interesing for someone to analysie why Islam seems to generate the most fundementalists of late, it could just be recent media reporting or other things).

Errrr.....so the Ten Commandments are a load of mosaic laws and have no relevance in contemporary Judeo-Christian inspired legal institutions? To ignore the roots of Christianity, which the Old Testament surely is, again, I believe, is a bit narrow minded. You can say Jesus created a "New Covenant" or what have you but Christianity is mutated/spawned/derived (whatever word you choose to use) from Judaism that, as you pointed out, is what the Old Testament is. The roots of Christianity have their fair share of violent tenets. And the ignoring of the Old Testament creates problems for you if you adhere to Creationalism which follows the literal truth of the world being created by God in 7 days.....

To your second reply: Doesn't that suggest to you the comments made by the earlier writer who claimed the Crusades were "glorious" is a bit suspect if you agree that a religion setup by violent means does not translate as a continued violence shown by that religion, (which I believe he/she used to argue the "glorious" nature of the Crusades in defending the "peaceful" Christians and Europe against the violent Muslim attackers)?

And Christianity has its own brand of fundamentalists, an example being those Pro-life supporters whom target abortionist clinics and/or doctors.

I would like to add Peter the Hermit died at the hands of a Muslim army not a hungarian.

Peter the Hermit and everyone else on the peasant crusade died because they marched through Hungary when the hungarian king didnt want them to. They started a riot in the capital and ended up being slaughtered by the Hungarian army/police force. about 2000 of these 'crusaders' lived and continued onto Antioch where the Turks finished them off. Peter the Hermit somehow survived this, went back to Constantinople and ended up living in turkey somewhere untill he died in his 80 somethings

Commando3']While the crusaders themselves did some bad things (massacre of Jerusalem), the crusades were glorious and noble. In 1095 the Muslims banned Christians from the Holy City, and Blessed Pope Urban II rallied the brave knights of Christendom to save the Holy Land. Also Islamic armies had been threatening to invade Europe for years, so the crusades were a defensive war. If not for the crusades Europe may have fallen to Islam and the world would be awful today.


The Turks had no intrest in taking over europe. They had occupied 'the holy land' because it is the second most important place on this earth in their religion.

As I recall nearly every crusade sacked Constantinople...
But then, they didnt count as Christians back then :P

no, only the 4th one sacked constantinople, and the people of byzantium were recognized as christians, even though at the time of the 4th crusade the emporer had been excommunicated by the pope

The Turks had no intrest in taking over europe. They had occupied 'the holy land' because it is the second most important place on this earth in their religion.

Well, now they have... :D

And the first...and the second...and they strongly considered it in the third, I think.
And Im not your friend, according to YOU Im a "Protestant Secular Humanist".

they didnt sack constantinople on the first crusade. The second crusade they went by ship, not through constantiople, and the third the englsih didnt go thorugh constantinople and since the french left palestine by boat i assume they arrived by boat also and so probably did not stop to pillage istanbul. it was just the 4th one

[QUOTE=Neo Cannen]He was talking about the respective founders of Christianity and Islam. Mohammad spread Islam by killing everyone who didn't agree (see battle of Badra) where as Jesus was far more peaceful.QUOTE]

its funny that that is brought up while were discussing the crusades, a period of 250 years where eurpoean men in fighting shape mass migrated to another continent to wipe out people of a different religion

As always, religion was attempted to be used to justify wars, the Crusades being no exception. However, we forget why it originally started. A desire for the Holy Land was just part of the equation. I see it in part as a defensive operation. In the 730s, the Arabs invaded southern France. In the 800s, the Arabs briefly ran a caliphate in Italy. And of course, the Turks harrassed the Byzantines. Remember, Urban II preached a crusade in part because he recieved a plea from the Byzantines for assistence, as they were overruning Anatolia.
Finally, the Crusades were partly successful. Everyone thinks that they happened only in the Middle East. This isn't entirely true. During this period there was a great flurry of militaristic missionary activity. Finland was neutralized and Christianized, as were the Baltic states and East Prussia. And finally, this triggered the Reconquista, which I think is one of the most successful campaigns in Mideival Europe.

I'm still not convinced you can call the Crusades a defensive war. Its like saying when/if China invades Taiwan that for them its a defensive war as it puts to end the existance of a rebellious province that has been militarily toughened through US military loans and subsidies. Again you could say that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a defensive war because they did not want a satellite state turning away from a Communist dominated system and felt threatened. I don't like the term defensive war. Anything could be a defensive war if you interpret it in the right way and thus gets around any internationally agreed laws on the illegality of aggressive war. Where do you draw the line? Unless you have real evidence of threat or are directly inavded I don't see how you could claim an invasion into another/against a land and/or people is anyway defensive.

The Crusades, I believe, was not launched because the West was threatened at the time. You could say Christianity was threatened but again I have suspicions of that because of the 1049 schism between the East and West Christian church. The Byzantine Emperor did not want a load of fanatical ill-equipped and unruly mobs but a small shock force of Norman knights. To me this does not suggest Byzantium and thus Western Christians were under any real direct threat, which makes the "defensive war" claim a bit dubious. Byzantium merely wanted its empire back, an agenda that the Christian Crusaders merely ignored once they had re-conquered the lost lands. The creation of personal fiefdoms at the expense of the Byzantium pleas suggests to me the Crusades for many were for booty and glory not to "save Christendom".

Hmm Islam spread first by the word, and then when they were getting killed and tortured they relocated from Mecca to Medina (who had invited Muhammad to bring unity to their city). This upset the Pagan Mecca’s as it was very close to one of their most important trade routes and thus launched an attack on Medina. Your right Muhammad isn't Jesus, he was not going to let the Meccan’s commit genocide and unlike Jesus his followers didn't leave him in his time of need. Though outnumbered they won a victory (at Badr) but if I recall lost a major one a year later (Uhud) leading to nearly 10 years of peace. In that time Islam grew in number due to the religion spreading. Then some pagan Arabs attacked some Muslims starting a new war (the pagans who attacked were not following orders as by this time their leadership knew they were completely out-numbered). Then the Muslims with an army 10, 000 strong marched into Mecca without resistance and won the war. The Kabba built by Abraham and Ishmael to worship God (Allah in Arabic. In the bible Abraham does indeed visit Ishmael I recall) was cleansed of idols (yes the Arabs were monotheists worshipping God but over time their religion was corrupted. It mustn't be forgotten that even in the time of the Pagans that they still believed in the God of Abraham, its just they began to associate partners, daughters with him). Muhammad died some time after.

The Byzantine Empire seeing this threat sent 100, 000 troops to wipe out Islam starting a major war. At this time they held Syria, Egypt, Palestine, etc. They were led away by less than 5000 Arabs and sustained heavy casualties. Later the Muslims beat them at the pivotal battle at Yarmuk defeating the Byzantine army completely and later claiming many of these Byzantine provinces. What followed was a war going west fighting the Byzantines and a war going east fighting the Persians. It must also be kept in mind that the Muslims used to keep to themselves in make shift military towns. But eventually their stay became permanent and due to Muslim men being able to marry 4 wives started to assimilate the natives. Many also converted seeing Muhammad as a Prophet but some converted to gain tax breaks. So many converted that later Caliphs tried to discourage conversion lol Thus though the Islamic State enlarged by war (often imposed on it) the religion spread by more peaceful means.

Muslims at this time lived only within a hundreds years of Mohammed’s death and thus the Koran was taken more seriously than it is today:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

So ends the history lesson. Check it out if you don't believe but please don't use right wing Christian source, go for balance. It may be hard for many in the US and parts of Europe to believe but people don’t usually convert and stay in a horrible religion ;)

(Just a little but of info: unbelievers in the Koran does not refer to Jews or Christians as they believe in God. It refers specifically to the Meccan pagans).

The Crusades were over all just a geostrategic powerplay by the Catholic Church (which at that time had more similarities with a mafia organization than an actual church). It was done because it was profitable (that's also the reason why the later pillage of Canstantinople was done). The official "defense of Christianity" explanation was just official propaganda.

Regarding islam, the things are different, but equally bad, if not worse. Nonetheless, the Muslims at the time of the crusades were the defenders and they had the right to defend themselves. However in many ways (especially in it's first days as well in the form of fundamentalism in nower days), Islam is not a religion but more a totalitarian (fascistoid) ideology, and the crimes that have been commited in the name of islam are at least as numerous and atrocious as those that have been commited in the name of Christianity, if not far worse...

As I see it the crusades happened for two reasons:

1. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was burnt by the Mad (yes he was known as the mad) Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah the sixth Fatimid Caliph of Egypt. It was later allowed to be rebuilt by his successors. Before him pilgrimage was allowed, there was no killing of Pilgrims and after him it became like this again.

2. The Pope thought it would be much better, rather than Christians killing Christians if they killed Infidels (yes it’s a Christian word). This was reinforced by the Byzantines asking for assistance to help their crumbling empire.

And so began the Crusades! There were other reasons but these are by far the main two.

The first crusade was surprisingly successful though not really due to the Crusaders, more Muslim disunity. When they first took Jerusalem it should not be forgot: Muslims, Jews and the majority of Eastern Christians were put to death. People who say it was a glorious war are clearly immature and lack knowledge.

Islam is not a religion but more a totalitarian (fascistoid) ideology, and the crimes that have been commited in the name of islam are at least as numerous and atrocious as those that have been commited in the name of Christianity, if not far worse...

Care to elaborate and back yourself up?

edit: i.e why is it fascistic?

Care to elaborate and back yourself up?

edit: i.e why is it fascistic?

Examples? Look through 6th to 9th centuries... i just see bloodshed and conquests ther. And look what happened in the more current history.

And then look at the position of women in Islam. Look what happened in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Or think about stoning for adultery. That uncivilized and barbarious behaviour is just really a shame. And if you look at what rights Islamic law grants to the members of other religions, that's just a pathetic joke (the number of violations of human rights are just amazing!).

Why it is fascistic? Because of it's claim to have not only religious but also cultural and political supremacy. It's supposed to consume the entire society. That's a trait of fascism...

This should clear some things up about...

http://home.att.net/~a.f.aly/jihad.htm

With my opinion, I feel the Muslims were more tolerant of other religions at this time, and provided a civilization of sophistication, allowing non-Muslims to study at their universities. Pilgrims were able to come the Holy Land, and Jews served high positions in the Islamic world. The coming of the Christians massacred many and gave rise to modern anti-semitism. The coming of the Middle Ages further shows the coming of fundamentalism that Christianity would come to demonstrate.

Examples? Look through 6th to 9th centuries... i just see bloodshed and conquests ther. And look what happened in the more current history.

And then look at the position of women in Islam. Look what happened in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Or think about stoning for adultery. That uncivilized and barbarious behaviour is just really a shame. And if you look at what rights Islamic law grants to the members of other religions, that's just a pathetic joke (the number of violations of human rights are just amazing!).

Why it is fascistic? Because of it's claim to have not only religious but also cultural and political supremacy. It's supposed to consume the entire society. That's a trait of fascism...

As I said the Islamic state expanded but it was mainly at the cost of the Byzantines who started the war in the first place. Lets not mix up religion with what the followers do. The majority of real Muslims in the world wouldn’t call the 9/11 hijackers Muslims would they? Thus it is wrong to generalise to the religion.

In Islam the position of women is not all that bad. There are extremes but that is far removed from Islam. I always hear about how the Hijab is oppressing women… Men are urged to cover up, as well you know. Has anyone ever thought that perhaps its better if both sexes dress up to hide their goodies from one another, if you think about it, it must go a long way in defeating adultery. It also allows women to express their faith, their culture, allows them to about their businesses without being stared at, saves their body for their loved ones, etc. Has anyone even considered the fact that more women convert to Islam in the West than men? If you look at paintings from the past in Christianity you will see women wear the veil as well. It is a universal sign of piety. Hell Roman emperors used to wear the veil lol And for stoning, it is the same for the Jewish religion as well but that’s not the point. It’s supposed to act as deterrence and it does indicated by the low rated of adultery in Muslim states. Many say execution is bad no matter what the circumstances but many would disagree with that. I think your looking through Western eyes and judging a religion by modern interpretation. Compared to most major religion Islam is quite lenient.

And can a believer be compared to an unbeliever? In a theocracy no. Think about it, its true. Should a Hindu in an Islamic state have the same benefits as a Muslim? Remember we’re talking theocracy here not modern Western Democracy. Not to mention that most religions under Islamic states (real Islamic states) had protected status and were exempt from the army, paying charity tax, etc. Your talking as if Islam is some united, monolith when it isn’t. Saying the human rights violations in Islam is silly as it differs from state to state and is in no way allowed in the Koran.

In Islam religion and politics is one and permeates every facet of life. That’s not inherently bad. If you say this, you have to say it about every faith. Don’t look at Western Christianity. The separation of Church and state here was forced by secular powers and is not natural for that faith.

At the bottom of that text it says:

Muslims are not the enemy terrorizing the West.* They are the victims of the nonstop Crusades.* Islam is not a threat to the West.
That is a blatant lie.

It is the only religion that can solve the social and moral problems of the West.

And that again is sick euphemism. What about their own social and moral problems? :headbang:

As I said the Islamic state expanded but it was mainly at the cost of the Byzantines who started the war in the first place. Lets not mix up religion with what the followers do. The majority of real Muslims in the world wouldn’t call the 9/11 hijackers Muslims would they? Thus it is wrong to generalise to the religion.

In Islam the position of women is not all that bad. There are extremes but that is far removed from Islam. I always hear about how the Hijab is oppressing women… Men are urged to cover up, as well you know. Has anyone ever thought that perhaps its better if both sexes dress up to hide their goodies from one another, if you think about it, it must go a long way in defeating adultery. It also allows women to express their faith, their culture, allows them to about their businesses without being stared at, saves their body for their loved ones, etc. Has anyone even considered the fact that more women convert to Islam in the West than men? If you look at paintings from the past in Christianity you will see women wear the veil as well. It is a universal sign of piety. Hell Roman emperors used to wear the veil lol And for stoning, it is the same for the Jewish religion as well but that’s not the point. It’s supposed to act as deterrence and it does indicated by the low rated of adultery in Muslim states. Many say execution is bad no matter what the circumstances but many would disagree with that. I think your looking through Western eyes and judging a religion by modern interpretation. Compared to most major religion Islam is quite lenient.

Well, yeah, i am looking through western eyes. And, i'm scared by islamic totalitarianism and intolerance. It scares me in the same way as Nazism and Communism scare me.

And can a believer be compared to an unbeliever? In a theocracy no. Think about it, its true.

Yeah, why should a totalitarian state tolerate it's enemies?

Should a Hindu in an Islamic state have the same benefits as a Muslim? Remember we’re talking theocracy here not modern Western Democracy. Not to mention that most religions under Islamic states (real Islamic states) had protected status and were exempt from the army, paying charity tax, etc. Your talking as if Islam is some united, monolith when it isn’t. Saying the human rights violations in Islam is silly as it differs from state to state and is in no way allowed in the Koran.

Still, try to build a mosque in a western country. No problem, we tolerate it. Try to build a church in an islamic country, that's impossible. Don't you notice something?

In Islam religion and politics is one and permeates every facet of life. That’s not inherently bad. If you say this, you have to say it about every faith. It is bad. What freedom is there left if all aspects of life are controlled by a totalitarian ideology, be it political or religious?

Don’t look at Western Christianity. The separation of Church and state here was forced by secular powers and is not natural for that faith.

You're wrong regarding Christianity. Back in his time, Jesus stated that "Give them Emperor what belongs to the Emperor and give God what belongs to God". This is generally regarded as the base of secularism.

Well, yeah, i am looking through western eyes. And, i'm scared by islamic totalitarianism and intolerance. It scares me in the same way as Nazism and Communism scare me.



Yeah, why should a totalitarian state tolerate it's enemies?



Still, try to build a mosque in a western country. No problem, we tolerate it. Try to build a church in an islamic country, that's impossible. Don't you notice something?

It is bad. What freedom is there left if all aspects of life are controlled by a totalitarian ideology, be it political or religious?



You're wrong regarding Christianity. Back in his time, Jesus stated that "Give them Emperor what belongs to the Emperor and give God what belongs to God". This is generally regarded as the base of secularism.

My point is that saying Islam is inherently bad is wrong. Islam is not one big monolith and so to generalise by saying Islam is intolerant and totalitarian is silly. You have Indonesia, which is the largest Muslim country in the world, a democracy (if my memory serves) and never touched by a Muslim invader, then you have pre-war Afghanistan… see what I’m getting at? Its open to interpretation. Compared to other faiths at the time Islam was (and is) lenient. I mean what do you want from a religion? Something that makes you feel better but let you do anything you want?

Concerning Churches: it differs from state to state. I know back in the early days and according to Islamic law, Jews and Christians (and later Hindus, etc) were allowed to build places of worship, keep their own courts, etc. And if the West wasn’t secular do you still think mosques would be allowed to be built?

And I’m sure your bible quote contradicts nearly 80% of Christian history… but hey. edit: I mean most seperations of Church and state was forced...

The site may be a little biased, but it provides insight on Muslim view. Muslims today can be compared to Europeans of that day. Both are considered indiginous and dangerous, while the Western world of today and the Muslim world of that day were highly sophisticated and tolerant. The Christians of that time used religion in order to get power and stop a growing religion, while Muslims today are using religion in order to create fear and gain power in the Western world.

The coming of the Christians massacred many and gave rise to modern anti-semitism.[/QUOTE]

Yes, not only arabs died when the crusaders entered Jerusalem. Many jewish did too.