A five minutes timeline displaying Muslim Attacks vs Christian Attacs (aka the crusades).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
And in case you felt interested, here's the long speech (including the previous timeline)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Yes, that's history, but leftists don't have the intellect to grasp things like that. Trying to reason with them is a waste of time and effort.
shareThe thing that first sparked the crusades was that Byzantium Emperior Alexios I was threatened by the Seljuk Empire of the Turks, quickly exploited by the Pope and the European powers. Palestine was attacked by the Crusaders because at about the time of 1099 the Seljuks had been controlling that territory which they had taken from another empire, the Fatimids (and lost it back to them shortly before the Crusaders invaded the area).
Although the region of Palestine had been a Christian inhabited land and a part the Byzantium Empire, the first Muslim conquest of the region in 632 established culturally continuous Islamic governance until the Crusaders took over in 1099. It appears the Christians were largely left alone in that period:
"The majority of the population was Christian and was to remain so until the conquest of Saladin in 1187. The Muslim conquest apparently had little impact on social and administrative continuities for several decades.[56][57][58][vii] The word 'Arab' at the time referred predominantly to Bedouin nomads, though Arab settlement is attested in the Judean highlands and near Jerusalem by the 5th century, and some tribes had converted to Christianity.[60]" [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region) ]
"[...] at the time of the Arab conquest, the region had been inhabited mainly by Aramaic-speaking Miaphysite Christian peasants." [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jund_Filastin ]
"Tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Arabs and the Christian kingdoms waxed and waned. Pilgrimages by Catholics to sacred sites were permitted, Christian residents in Muslim territories were given Dhimmi status, legal rights, and legal protection. These Christians were allowed to maintain churches, and marriages between faiths were not uncommon.[23] The various cultures and creeds coexisted and competed, but the status quo was disrupted by the western migration of the Turkish tribes." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades]
"From 878, Palestine was ruled from Egypt by semi-autonomous rulers for almost a century, beginning with the Turkish freeman Ahmad ibn Tulun, for whom both Jews and Christians prayed when he lay dying[64] and ending with the Ikhshidid rulers. Reverence for Jerusalem increased during this period, with many of the Egyptian rulers choosing to be buried there.[65] However, the later period became characterized by persecution of Christians as the threat from Byzantium grew.[66] The Fatimids, with a predominantly Berber army, conquered the region in 970, a date that marks the beginning of a period of unceasing warfare between numerous enemies, which destroyed Palestine, and in particular devastating its Jewish population.[67] Between 1071 and 1073, Palestine was captured by the Great Seljuq Empire [...]" [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region) ]
"Under John Kourkouas, the Byzantines conquered the emirate of Melitene, along with Tarsos the strongest of the Muslim border emirates, and advanced into Armenia in the 930s; the next three decades were dominated by the struggle of the Phokas clan and their dependants against the Hamdanid emir of Aleppo, Sayf al-Dawla. Al-Dawla was finally defeated by Nikephoros II Phokas, who conquered Cilicia and northern Syria and recovered Crete. His nephew and successor, John I Tzimiskes, pushed even further south, almost reaching Jerusalem, but his death in 976 ended Byzantine expansion towards Palestine." [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Byzantine_wars ]
"In 972 Tzimiskes turned against the Abbasid Empire and its vassals, beginning with an invasion of Upper Mesopotamia. A second campaign, in 975, was aimed at Syria, where his forces took Emesa (Homs), Baalbek, Damascus, Tiberias, Nazareth, Caesarea, Sidon, Beirut, Byblos, and Tripoli, but they failed to take Jerusalem. He died suddenly in 976 returning from his second campaign against the Abbasids [...]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I_Tzimiskes]
A few details:
■ Wars have causes, triggers and casus belli. The cause of the crusades was the Muslim expansion towards Europe. What you were talking about was the casus belli.
■ 'Dhimmi status' was a second class legal status. The closest thing in our time would be the Apartheid.
■ Yes, intermarriages were common. Why? According to Islam, whenever the father OR the mother is Muslim, the children are Muslim BY DEFAULT. If they rejected Islam, the penalty used to be death. Intermarriages were not a sign of tolerance but a tricky way to expand the Islamic cult.
■ Muslim tolerance is a myth. In US this myth is still alive, but in Europe it's falling down and it's being heavily criticised.
https://www.elmundo.es/opinion/2017/08/24/599db272ca4741e7198b45ea.html
- The Turkic incursions were certainly a critical trigger. If the Crusades response was based on the general M,uslim expansion why didn't the Pope of the time urge action against the Moors when they invaded Spain and to a degree France? If the long-term historical Muslim expansion was a threat why not act earlier? Wasn't really more to do with the private ambitions of particular leaders rather than a generally building feeling across generations that the Muslims were a threat? Wasn't more a case that in 1099 the Europeans were stronger and better able to act than earlier centuries when they were more divided by tribal divisions of the early Dark Ages?
Without doubt the various Muslim rulers wished to expand their religion to other cultures, but as indicated the Christian states also sought to expand their political influence and their religion and to maintain basically the reach of the Roman Empire. Christianity was frequently expanded by the sword and "civilising" subjugation of indigenous peoples. The Holy Roman Empire, British Empire, Spanish colonisation, etc. were some of the vehicles for aggression. In Europe and the Near East Christian authorities approved book burnings, religious censorship, witch trails, Jewish pogroms, slaughter of pagans.
- Given the nature of the feudal societies of the Old World were there masters and slaves/rulers and subjects I feel that political discrimination would have seemed tolerable for most at the time. Many Christians were farmers and their goals in live were to survive and raise good crops and stock, and I'm fairly sure that meekly obeying authority was considered the Christian thing to do for simple folk.
- Similar to Catholicism - there is pressure to fall into line with the rules of the dominant priesthood, so when you marry a Catholic you are supposed to fall in line with their system. The Papacy was happy to see Catholics multiply in number, giving the Church power and influence in society.
- When either a Christian or Muslim ruler wanted to throw their weight around, there was limited to no tolerance shown. Similarly, anyone with aggressive tendencies or anger towards another religion show no tolerance and we see this throughout time and in both Islam and Christianity. However, what do these two religions teach which is in common? Mercy and tolerance. It's in their holy books, you can check for yourself. But it's not always convenient for followers of those religions to be tolerant - much easier for them to cherry pick ideas about wrath and war and say that is God's will.
Modern Muslim fanatics are pushing the ideas of tribal dominance and war in the name of Islam and all this is about is trying to use religion to excuse their conduct.
Modern Christianity across the denominations have their fanatics too, who call for discrimination and exclusion and sometimes violence to "fix" the problems of Muslim groups in Western countries.
■ why didn't the Pope of the time urge action against the Moors when they invaded Spain and to a degree France? If the long-term historical Muslim expansion was a threat why not act earlier?
For the same reason Hitler was not challenged when he invaded Poland. People prefer to avoid conflicts. And they react when they finally accept that the conflict will reach them sooner or later. The Muslim invasion of Spain could have been an isolated incident, and nobody would have cared if that stopped there.
■ Christian states also sought to expand their political influence and their religion and to maintain basically the reach of the Roman Empire. Christianity was frequently expanded by the sword and "civilising" subjugation of indigenous peoples. The Holy Roman Empire, British Empire, Spanish colonisation, etc. were some of the vehicles for aggression.
NO.
What you describe would not happen until centuries LATER. So the 'was' is slightly wrong. By centuries.
British Empire or Spain didn't even exist. Even the word 'Spain' wouldn't exist until centuries later.
■ Similar to Catholicism
NO.
Apostasy was a sin, but not a crime for the Catholic Church. You wouldn't go to jail or be sentenced to death.
■ However, what do these two religions teach which is in common? Mercy and tolerance. It's in their holy books, you can check for yourself
NO
The Islam is merciful and tolerant... AS LONG AS you accept the Muslim faith. But if you reject it, it's merciless.
■ Modern Muslim fanatics are pushing the ideas of tribal dominance and war in the name of Islam and all this is about is trying to use religion to excuse their conduct.
NO.
Islam is a very aggressive religion. Remember that the designer was a military leader that killed entire towns. Those nice quotas from the Q'ran were written when he was young and a bit hippie... but Mohammad himself established that the later mandates (the violent ones) have priority.
Regarding Muslim intolerance and aggression: any aggression shown is a reflection of the ideological interpretations of individuals and factions based on what they think about Islam. The actual Koran doesn't preach holy war and the destruction of nonbelievers, and violence against others is very much a matter of context and properly understanding the concepts of "jihad" and "mortal combat" in Islam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4GK2I6GMcc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZCIK8hRPh4
As to Christianity, the Church from early times becomes dictatorial and in feudal times exercised military power through kings to punish and to conquer. This is well attested by German pagans, Jews, anyone accused of witchcraft, minority Christian groups, and Muslims occupying Palestine. In the video you cited earlier showing the military conquest by Muslims of large parts of the Old World versus the Crusaders campaigns it was implied that Christians were "restrained" and comparatively non-violent compared to the "rapacious" Muslims. The full reality of the Christian history from before Islam shows regular acts of violence in each century before and after the Crusades and during the full expanse of time of the Muslim conquests and violence. Christianity tolerated violence and cruelty in the hands of governments and mobs by justifying those acts via official Church action/inaction and rationalisation by intellectuals who happily substituted their cruel ideologies for authentic Christianity in the sense of what the Bible says in full.
As a Christian before the modern period you were highly restricted by the Church. The Church was the means of achieving social respectability. If you didn't conform things were made hard for you. At any time military forces and random mobs could get you imprisoned or killed depending on the mood and fashion of the time. Cruelty of feudal lords was also tolerated because the common person had few rights until the development of the law and democracy gradually changed that situation in various European countries.
- Thirteen events of religious persecution in Europe between approximately 520 and 1520 - http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191737176.timeline.0001
- Massacres/kiilings or political violence of Jews by Muslims prior to the First Crusade in 1099:
1. "624
Mohammed watches as 600 Jews are decapitated in Medina in one day."
2. "985
A number of Jewish residents in Barcelona are killed by the Muslim leader Almanzor. All Jewish owned land is handed over to the Count of Barcelona.[33]"
3. "1032
Abul Kamal Tumin conquers Fez, Morocco and decimates the Jewish community, killing 6,000 Jews."
4. "1033
Following their conquest of the city from the Maghrawa tribe, the forces of Tamim, chief of the Zenata Berber Banu Ifran tribe, perpetrated a massacre of Jews in Fez. Fez massacre"
5. "1039
A Muslim mob raids the palace of the Jewish vizier and kills him after the ruler al-Mondhir is assassinated."
6. "1040
Exilarch Hezekiah Gaon is imprisoned and tortured to death by the Buyyids. The death of Hezekiah ended the line of the Geonim, which had begun four centuries earlier."
7. "1066
Granada massacre: Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. "More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day."[41]"
8. "1090
The Jewish community of Granada, which had recovered after the attacks of 1066, attacked again at the hands of the Almoravides led by Yusuf ibn Tashfin, bringing the golden age of Jewish culture in Spain to end."
- Massacres/kiilings or political violence of Jews by Christians from the beginning of Islam to the First Crusade in 1099:
1. "608–610
Massacres of Jews all across the Byzantine Empire."
2. "629
Byzantine Emperor Heraclius with his army marches into Jerusalem. Jewish inhabitants support him after his promise of amnesty. Upon his entry into Jerusalem the local priests convince him that killing Jews is a good deed. The only Jews that survived were the ones who fled to Egypt or the mountains."
3. "638
Jews are burned at the stake in Toledo, Spain."
4. "681
The Twelfth Council of Toledo, Spain orders burning of the Talmud and other "heretic" books."
5. "931–942
Romanos I Lekapenos decreed that all Jews should be forced to convert and subjugated if they refuse. This leads to the death of hundreds of Jews and the destruction of numerous synagogues.[30]"
6. "932
The Jewish quarter of Bari is destroyed by a mob and a number of Jews are killed.[31]"
7. "1021
A violent earthquake occurs, which some Greeks maintain is caused by a desecration of Jesus by the Jews. For this a number of Roman Jews are burnt at the stake.[38]"
8. "1096
The First Crusade. Three hosts of crusaders pass through several Central European cities. The third, unofficial host, led by Count Emicho, decides to attack the Jewish communities, most notably in the Rhineland, under the slogan: "Why fight Christ's enemies abroad when they are living among us?" Eimicho's host attacks the synagogue at Speyer and kills all the defenders. 800 are killed in Worms. Another 1,200 Jews commit suicide in Mainz to escape his attempt to forcibly convert them; see German Crusade, 1096. Attempts by the local bishops remained fruitless. All in all, 5,000 Jews were murdered.[42]" [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism ]
■ The actual Koran doesn't preach holy war and the destruction of nonbelievers, and violence against others is very much a matter of context and properly understanding the concepts of "jihad" and "mortal combat" in Islam
Ahem... to pick some quotes (far from being the only violent verses)
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (4:101) - "And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies."
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah"
(CONT...)
Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people."
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."
Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."
Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."
Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it."
(CONT...)
Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter."
Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."
Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"
■ the Church from early times becomes dictatorial and in feudal times exercised military power through kings to punish and to conquer.
Yeap, but that was no ideological mandate.
(CONT.)
■ As a Christian before the modern period you were highly restricted by the Church. The Church was the means of achieving social respectability. If you didn't conform things were made hard for you.
That's called 'History of Humanity'. That has been the standard all along History. Actually, the societies that changed that were the western societies.
- All of the verses you quoted must be understood in terms of the context of the entire Koran and the situations it addresses in its passages. This video goes into that topic:
"Violent Verses in the Quran" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpgJV5L01Cs
More on the context of the Koran as a text:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myv-j64e4U4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiTSydIqNdA
Historian explains historical context of religious ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E-nTvOA0tw
Misperceptions and the complexity and diversity of modern Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYRw-NTp_hk
"Debate: Is the Quran a Book of Peace? Shabir Ally (Muslim) vs. David Wood (Christian)":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVh_GlM2tro
I think there actually were ideological mandates even in the Dark Ages Church, eg. the development of the Holy Roman Empire, unification of the Church to repair the Schism regardless of the reality and reasons for the split, etc.
I checked the first video. It changes nothing.
Think about thoroughly.
What he says, in a nutshell, is that the violent verses in the Q'ran should be understood in the context of a war with Non-Muslims. They are verses to be understood in the context of war. And that's true.
Again. Think about it thoroughly.
In the WW1 and WW2 some statistics were made about soldiers and shootings. Actually, 90% of people didn't aim. They shot, but didn't aim. Why? Because killing is hard, and it's hard because it's morally bad.
You take your gun to defend your land, your family, your country, even the interests of your country. But still, killing is morally bad. And still you may need to do it. It's a tough contradiction, it's the reason many people can not shoot to kill, it's the reason because half the firing squad shoots blanks, so they can always tell themselves 'it was not my bullet the one that killed him' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs
But... the Q'ran tells you to kill your enemy. It's not something you have to do because it needs to be done, no matter you don't like it. On the contrary: it's something VIRTUOUS. No Muslim reaches Heaven quicker than the one that dies killing enemies of Islam. Something ticks when killing is not only a right you have in order to protect what's yours, BUT a religious mandate, the Word of God, a Moral Virtue.
Something ticks.
And now you know why the boundaries of Islam are bloody.
...who believes anything in this movie that has machine gun crossbows and archers wearing hoodies?
shareYeap, you're right. Hoods in medieval times?? That's pure fantasy!!! Everyone knows that they didn't use hoods in middle ages, they used umbrellas instead!!!
Ahem...
https://mymedievalage.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-liripipe-hood/
At any rate, it seems silly to be triggered into an anti-Islamic rant by a movie clearly not meant to be historically accurate.
shareNo it's not. The writer is an English Lit lecturer, which makes him a Marxist. There is a huge crisis with Fake Studies in universities, with plenty of revisionist history like this.
share