Exactly. I’ll see your London Muslims and raise you the Phelps family (shudder).
That is certainly not true… Its true at the end of the day Muslim nations ended up with the upper hand, but that has far more to do with the weakness of the Byzantine empire than inherent violence of Islam. Remember the CHRISTIAN Byzantine empire was just aggressive and expansionist as the pagan roman one (they had just finished a long campaign of conquest in western Europe), just generally less succesful.
There is some reason to consider that warfare and being a warrior is more sanctioned for in the Islamic religion than in the Christian. But there is very little evidence that this is reflected by the actions of the members of those religions. Judaism and Sikhism are also religions where being a warrior and warfare are sanctioned but neither are any more warlike than Christians when it comes down to it.
The only difference I see if that if a Christian or Buddist goes to war there is some level of hypocracy in the way war contradicts the main tennants of those two religions. Most other religions are more direct in the allowance of religious warriors. Dispite this both Christianity and Buddism have had more than their share of religious warrior groups.
Whatever! Like any of the modern “jihads” are sanctioned by the Q’ran? Nuts! They’re supported by twisitng it up, raping it and then largely ignoring the relevant bits that would forbid them.
Think the Red Men would have been exterminated if they were Christians? Part of the reason they got so little sympathy and protection from the White Man was because they were Godless Heathens.
What time period are we talking here? Early, mid or late 19th century?
Actually, some of them were Christians. It was prejudice (and land lust), pure and simple, that did them in.
Not sure I’m seeing your point here. Sure, the Byzantine empire was well into decline by the time Islam came along, and they did their share of marauding against the neighbors. I don’t see how this materially affects my point. The early Muslims still made extensive use of military conquest to expand their realms, usually at the expense of Christendom.
What I was referring to above is that the prejudice and land lust of the Whites did the Native Americans in.
Saying the crusades was justified response to Arab agression is a bit like saying Germany actions during WW2 was justified response to the injusitce of the versialle treaty.
The muslims that were massacred in their tens of thousands the Crusaders took Jerusalem (along with Jews and Orthodox chrisitans) had been there for as long as Europeans have been the US.
So you’re saying it was okay for Muslims to conquer Christian lands but wrong for Christians to conquer Muslim lands?
But not primarily *because * they were Muslims. The losers didn’t lose because they were Christians.
Well…I mean be fair. The Germans got hammered on that one.
Yes but the aggression was not “one sided”, as you originally said, it was not one peace-loving “turn the other cheek” christians being bullied by violent Muslims. It was a conflicy two aggressive military empires, both with run by monothesistic estabished religions. If just so happened that at that moment in history one was in ascendancy and one was in decline.
Hogwash. The Muslims justified their conquests with their religion. Religious doctrine was as important to the Jihadists as it was to the Crusaders.
According to the Snopes article, it was about 500 to 700. Which, obviously, is more than enough to draw conclusions about the nature of Islam as a whole, and the character of all Muslims worldwide.
It was an incredibly violent era, conflict and brutallity was considered the norm. By modern standard the behaviour of both was totally unjustified. But the original point was the that Islam was a more violent religion, which is simply not supported by history.
Also even by the standards of the time actions of the christian crusaders, both in the holy land, and in the Albigensian(effectively a church planned genocide) stood out as incredibly vicious.
Listen, we can go back and forth forever concerning abuses of people who claim to be
adherents of one religion of another.
I’m talking about the religion itself (see below links).
(also in regards to Christianity, I don’t see any violent statements made by Jesus or the
Apostles)
http://www.geocities.com/realitywithbite/
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/why_critique_only_islam.htm
http://www.geocities.com/realitywithbite/islamandunbelievers.htm
See my above comments about rationalization. Conquest first, publicly-acceptable justification after. If it hadn’t been religion, it could have been anything else. But to get your populace to support a war, it has to be something.
Captain Amazing, I think you’d agree that Carter’s brand of Christianity is more than somewhat different than Bush’s.
But you see, it wasn’t only against the Byzantines. If they were merely responding to Byzantine aggression, why did they invade Italy and Spain? Here’s a partial list of Muslim military actions and other agressions against Christians and pagans prior to the Crusades:
630 Two years before Muhammad’s death, he launches the Tabuk jihad, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians.
632-634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr a jihad reconquers and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. Pagans are given a choice of convert-or-die.
633 Jihad against the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today’s Iraq). Huge numbers of inhabitants are beheaded.
635 Jihadists besiege and conquer Damascus
636 Muslim jihadists defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk. This marks the first major wave of Muslim conquests outside of Arabia.
637 Muslim jihad conquers Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (sometimes dated 635 or 636)
638 Muslim jihad conquers and annexes Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.
638-650 Muslim jihad conquers Iran, except for areas along Caspian Sea.
639-642 Muslim jihad conquers Egypt.
641 Muslim jihad controls Syria and Palestine.
643-707 Muslim jihad conquers North Africa.
644-650 Muslim jihads conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establishes Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind…
673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople
691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad’s death.
710-713 Muslim jihad conquers the lower Indus Valley.
711-713 Muslim jihad conquers Spain and imposees the kingdom of Andalus.
719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor
732 Muslim jihad stopped at the Battle of Poitiers.
807 Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem
809 Muslim jihad conquer Sardinia, Italy
813 Christians in Palestine are attacked. Many flee the country
831 Muslim jihad captures Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy
850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer
855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)
837-901 Aghlabids conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France
869-883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq
909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim jihadists occupy Sicily, Sardinia
928-969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)
937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places
937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked
960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam
966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem
969 Fatimids conquer Egypt and found Cairo
1003 First persecutions by al-Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed
1012 Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians
1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed
1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection
1071 Battle of Manzikert, jihadists defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia
1076 Muslim Jihadists conquer western Ghana
1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies
1086 Almoravids (Muslim Jihadists) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca
1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Jihadists) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands
1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory
1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099
But the old testament tracts which DO justify violence and brutallity against other races are just as much part of the Christian dogma as the new testament. Of course you could say (as I was taught) that for Christian those tracts should be intrepreted as guidaince for Spiritual conflict against conceptual evil rather than physical conflict against real people. But exactly the same thing could be said about the concept of Jihad in the Islamic religion.