NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people have here criticised the Islam conception of martyerdom and other elements regarding Islam which allows itself to be interpreted in such a way as to mean that it allows for the slaughter of many many innocent people. However people would then respond with saying that Christianity is just as bad because of the Crusades. There is however a major difference. The Crusades were over 900 years ago. That sort of thing was normal for a medievil mindset. And the Christian Church, has developed out of that because unlike Islam it seems, a viloent element is not somehow linked to the faith itself. Whereas the Islamic Extremeist mindset which resembles very much the medievil idea is still perpetuating even today. Where the Church has left the medievil age behind, the extremest Islam section has continued in its medievil granduer. This is why contiunally pulling out the Crusades in these debates is flawed. I would ask kindly for it to stop.

A lot of countries in this world are in the middle ages. For them the Enlightenment is what happens when your village gets a generator and some lightbulbs.

Many people have here criticised the Islam conception of martyerdom and other elements regarding Islam which allows itself to be interpreted in such a way as to mean that it allows for the slaughter of many many innocent people. However people would then respond with saying that Christianity is just as bad because of the Crusades. There is however a major difference. The Crusades were over 900 years ago. That sort of thing was normal for a medievil mindset. And the Christian Church, has developed out of that because unlike Islam it seems, a viloent element is not somehow linked to the faith itself. Whereas the Islamic Extremeist mindset which resembles very much the medievil idea is still perpetuating even today. Where the Church has left the medievil age behind, the extremest Islam section has continued in its medievil granduer. This is why contiunally pulling out the Crusades in these debates is flawed. I would ask kindly for it to stop.
Naw it is still a good example that the flaw exists in the mindset of the people rather then the religion.

It is also a good example that any religion can be used as justification for a horrible act.

darn extreme muslims

Oi! There are just as many mad men in the BNP.

I'm not sure what you're getting at or if anyone is saying stuff like Crusades cancel out suicide bombings, but if you want to talk about historical atrocities I have to point out that quite a few happened in Europe 65 years ago and the industrialized murder that occured made a medevil mindset look good by comparison. It's not as if Europe has been on it's best behaviour for the past 900 years.

A lot of countries in this world are in the middle ages. For them the Enlightenment is what happens when your village gets a generator and some lightbulbs.
The Church-core lives in places like Rome, Paris, London. Islam's core lives in places like Baghdad, East Jerusalem, Kabul and Mecca.
"Where the Church has left the medievil age behind, the extremest Islam section has continued in its medievil granduer."
The extremist Islam is fed by the oppression and misery imposed by corrupt leaders, who are sometimes supported by western governments, who often go to church. They may not be the church, but they are inevitably associated with it. It's a problem that only the Church could solve by CLEARLY condemning western leaders for some things they are doing in the Middle East. After all, these leaders are supposedly their sheep.

I agree with you that it is not right to bring up the Crusades without a good reason, but I believe it's logical to do it, if your are trying to understand (not justify) what is going on in the minds of those living in the Middle East. It is not right to say "they are right for doing it, because you did it", but it isn't wrong to ask "did we do similar things in similar social-religious circumstances?". We should try to learn from your own mistakes and manage the situation with that knowledge. Otherwise, it's History repeating itself yet again [sigh].

Civilisation, when unevenly spread around the world, seems to separate the civilised person from the societies acts rather than actually reduce the acts. Witch Burnings were festivals. The Crusades were celebrated for their violence. Very few Germans ever saw inside a Concentration Camp - at least, and left again. Only the SS. Himmler visited a work camp once, never went to any others, and he was the only cabinet member to go to one. In Napoleonic period up till the American Civil War people went to watch a battle as if it were sport. Now only soldiers, journalists (and not all/many) and those with the bad luck to be stuck there see war first hand...

Crusaders cannot be compared to suicide bombers, since the first crusades were aimed at kicking the Muslim invaders out of Europe. See what preceded the Crusades. Muslims had taken over Southern Europe.

Oi! There are just as many mad men in the BNP.

Fortunately society has helped to civilize most of these mad men so that they rarely act upon what they say. Where society doesn't fill this role, mad men can do much damage.

Crusaders cannot be compared to suicide bombers, since the first crusades were aimed at kicking the Muslim invaders out of Europe. See what preceded the Crusades. Muslims had taken over Southern Europe.
Yeah unlike the Jews and how Israel took over part of Palestine ... and Palestinians are just trying to kick the Jewish invaders out …

Oh wait…
:rolleyes:

No, the Muslims had taken over Turkey from the Byzantines. I recently had an exam in this. The Muslims HAD invaded Byzantine territory. But the Byzantines were hardly local, a mix of Greeks and Romans, it was the decaying left-over of the Roman Empire.

Yeah unlike the Jews and how Israel took over part of Palestine ... and Palestinians are just trying to kick the Jewish invaders out …

Oh wait…
:rolleyes:


The reverse can be said as well, as Arabs didn't expand into present-day Israel (or North Africa) until the 7th century. The names of all the places in Israel today appear in the Bible in Hebrew, but do not appear in the Quran in Arabic, because Arabs didn't live there at the time.

Crusaders cannot be compared to suicide bombers, since the first crusades were aimed at kicking the Muslim invaders out of Europe. See what preceded the Crusades. Muslims had taken over Southern Europe.
Shhh! You're not supposed to talk about that. The crusades are supposed to be nothing more than agression by white people against brown people.

The reverse can be said as well, as Arabs didn't expand into present-day Israel (or North Africa) until the 7th century. The names of all the places in Israel today appear in the Bible in Hebrew, but do not appear in the Quran in Arabic, because Arabs didn't live there at the time.
Yes ... and same can be said of the romans in europe and just about every society.

This shows that things are more the "same" then they are different.

Different tactics but like with most human interactions rather simmilar

I agree with this thread mostly, but i feel there is a larger problem. People just wont realise the difference between a faith with many corrupt people in = Christianity, and a faith with very corupt messages = Islam. People seem to attack Christianity itself rather then the people.

Shhh! You're not supposed to talk about that. The crusades are supposed to be nothing more than agression by white people against brown people.
Naw more about aggression between one religion and another ... (well agression spawned by land and religious disputes)

I really have not seen it ever used in a thread as an example of racism before, more as an example of some of the flaws in religion

Actually, the Muslims were killing Christian pilgrims, attacking Byzantine territory, had secured pretty much all of north africa, and were in the process of invading Spain and France (Thus Charles Martel and the Moores.)

Many people have here criticised the Islam conception of martyerdom and other elements regarding Islam which allows itself to be interpreted in such a way as to mean that it allows for the slaughter of many many innocent people. However people would then respond with saying that Christianity is just as bad because of the Crusades. There is however a major difference. The Crusades were over 900 years ago. That sort of thing was normal for a medievil mindset. And the Christian Church, has developed out of that because unlike Islam it seems, a viloent element is not somehow linked to the faith itself. Whereas the Islamic Extremeist mindset which resembles very much the medievil idea is still perpetuating even today. Where the Church has left the medievil age behind, the extremest Islam section has continued in its medievil granduer. This is why contiunally pulling out the Crusades in these debates is flawed. I would ask kindly for it to stop.

Every religion goes through its corruption stage. Sadly, now it's the Muslims' turn. During the Crusades and prior, the Islamic states were what kept the West alive so to say. There is no flaw in pulling out the Crusades. It is exaclt the same, except the Crusades were called by the mainstream religion and endorsed by every Christian leader.

Actually, the Muslims were killing Christian pilgrims, attacking Byzantine territory, had secured pretty much all of north africa, and were in the process of invading Spain and France (Thus Charles Martel and the Moores.)
The Christians were far more bloody and intolerants. By the third crusade, the Byzantines allied with the Muslims and in the next crusade or two, Catholic Western Europe attacked the Byzantine Empire. After Spain was taken back for Christianity, the queen and king held the Spanish Inquisition killing who knows how many people - Muslim, Jew, and Christian. I havn't even mentioned antisemitism.

I agree with this thread mostly, but i feel there is a larger problem. People just wont realise the difference between a faith with many corrupt people in = Christianity, and a faith with very corupt messages = Islam. People seem to attack Christianity itself rather then the people.

Islam doesn't have any more corrupt a message than Christianity. It currently has many corrupt followers, but the (original) message was both feminist and peace-loving. :cool:

Oh, I'm a Christian.

Sure, you can have the Crusades. They were getting boring anyway.

How about the KKK?

General Franco?

Mussolini?

Hitler (debatable)?

The Lebanese Civil war?

Missionaries who spread previously unencountered diseases to remote tribes (and still do to this day)?

The lies spread about contraception and AIDS?

All of them in the 20th century, can we still use them?

Of course we could just accept that people of all religions and none have the capacity to be arseholes.

Sure, you can have the Crusades. They were getting boring anyway.

How about the KKK?

General Franco?

Mussolini?

Hitler (debatable)?

The Lebanese Civil war?

Missionaries who spread previously unencountered diseases to remote tribes (and still do to this day)?

The lies spread about contraception and AIDS?

All of them in the 20th century, can we still use them?

Of course we could just accept that people of all religions and none have the capacity to be arseholes.

Agreed ... usually it is used as an example of how people in general can be assholes

Also a good example that any religion can be an amazing motivator to do good or horrible things

Religion is a tool, like any tool it can be used for good or bad

(Just think of it, motivation that deliberately circumvents reason and goes right for feeling and faith. Not only that but a motivation (god) that is by definition outside the bounds of what is falsifiable) There really is no other better non contradictable motivator.

Crusaders cannot be compared to suicide bombers, since the first crusades were aimed at kicking the Muslim invaders out of Europe.
Actually, as far as I know, this is not accurate. The crusades were an attempt of conquering Jerusalem and the Holy Land, starting in the 1095 CE, involving European armies and sanctioned by the pope. The Iberian Peninsula (now Portugal and Spain), was indeed populated by Moors at the time but, at least in Portugal, there are no report of any crusades.
See what preceded the Crusades. Muslims had taken over Southern Europe.
While this is correct, these events are not directly related. After the fall of the Roman empire, there were violent splits within the Iberian Catholic population. In the 5th century, the peninsula was invaded by German tribes, the last ones dominating being the Visigoth. In 587 CE, the Visigoth King was converted to Catholicism. The Moors then conquered the peninsula in 711 CE. Portugal was recognised a nation in 1143 CE (so more than 400 years later) and the part-expulsion of Moors (some converted and staid) from the Iberian Peninsula was done by the first Portuguese kings (probably by Spanish kings as well, not sure), who built the kingdom from the North until completing their conquer of the South around 1250. The Templar Knights did help the first king, but this order wasn't founded until after the First Crusade, to protect Catholic pilgrims in the Holy Land.

Saying "See what preceded the Crusades. Muslims had taken over Southern Europe" is a bit over the top, as it makes it look like the crusades were a direct consequence of a contemporary Moorish invasion, when there is a gap between these events of more than 400 years. In any case, their prime goal was conquering the Holy Land, not Iberia. The crusades were a "Holy War" against Islamic rule in the Middle East.

In case you're curious about what happened to the Templar Knights, they later became directly involved in the following Crusades (a total of 4), since they were based in the Holy Land. After the Crusades, the French king pressed the pope to persecute them (and their richness) and they were condemned by the Inquisition, who tortured them to confession (for heresies), burned them at the stake and extinguished the Order.

Mediaeval History is a a repeat of the same stories of pacts being broken, treason and cross-treason, regicide, homicide, genocide, senseless killing and torturing... Catholicism was just another tool of power and was used and abused to justify the most horrendous crimes, just like it's done today with Islam in the Middle East. In the end, organisations like Al Qaeda or Hamas are as Muslim as the Inquisition was Christian.

Many people have here criticised the Islam conception of martyerdom and other elements regarding Islam which allows itself to be interpreted in such a way as to mean that it allows for the slaughter of many many innocent people. However people would then respond with saying that Christianity is just as bad because of the Crusades. There is however a major difference. The Crusades were over 900 years ago. That sort of thing was normal for a medievil mindset. And the Christian Church, has developed out of that because unlike Islam it seems, a viloent element is not somehow linked to the faith itself. Whereas the Islamic Extremeist mindset which resembles very much the medievil idea is still perpetuating even today. Where the Church has left the medievil age behind, the extremest Islam section has continued in its medievil granduer. This is why contiunally pulling out the Crusades in these debates is flawed. I would ask kindly for it to stop.

The crusades were a response to the Muslim invasion of the holy lands. It was also launched by, of all things, the catholic church, which can HARDLY be considered Christian after some of the barbarities it has committed in the name of itself.

Many people have here criticised the Islam conception of martyerdom and other elements regarding Islam which allows itself to be interpreted in such a way as to mean that it allows for the slaughter of many many innocent people. However people would then respond with saying that Christianity is just as bad because of the Crusades. There is however a major difference. The Crusades were over 900 years ago. That sort of thing was normal for a medievil mindset. And the Christian Church, has developed out of that because unlike Islam it seems, a viloent element is not somehow linked to the faith itself. Whereas the Islamic Extremeist mindset which resembles very much the medievil idea is still perpetuating even today. Where the Church has left the medievil age behind, the extremest Islam section has continued in its medievil granduer. This is why contiunally pulling out the Crusades in these debates is flawed. I would ask kindly for it to stop.
How do you know that a violent element is linked to the Islamic faith? Objectively, we see that some Muslims preach 'medieval' martyrdom dogma, but surely there are many other factors involved besides mere religious doctrine. The Bible has as much questionable content as the Koran. Christianity, however, is older, and is concentrated in the more developed countries. Also, not all Muslims are violent extremists.