Take a look at the fact-based posts by Mr. Kobayashi and Malthus. Good, solid, yeoman efforts at honest research, with data and some interpretation.
Learn, and endeavor to follow. Just saying “Because I said so” doesn’t cut it on a fact-based discussion forum.
That was an absurd speculation based on an ignorance of history. The reason is simply there are not any modern Mongol connected interventions which can make allegories to. It has not any modern productivity as propaganda. It has no point to be raised. Maybe if the PRC became an interventionist power in the region it would then have a productivity as discourse, but otherwise…
However, the takfiri salafistes draw on the certain anti-mongol medieval writers in their justifications to attack ‘false muslim’ mongols created an initial opening for their modern takfiri ideology.
the facile speculation that is promoted as ‘fighting ignorance’ observations about the region has not ceased to surprise me again and again.
Yes, it was their demarche to put a religious emphasis on the much more common discourse that is about the wrongs - the real ones and the attributed ones - of the colonizers, which is 19th century and 20th century. But that discourse did not have the same differentiating propoganda value for the takfiri movements as the crusader discourse.
So yes, it is not “muslims” in general nor arabs nor scholars, but the salafistes mostly and the takfiri even more so among them that have driven the reference.
It is thus modern and recent. The American scholar of the ancient islamic periods, Lewis even has noted in his book on The Muslim Discovery of Europe (1982) the Islamic world did not pay historically great attention to the Crusades, it is more a European discourse and obsession imported oddly by the Salafistes.
What a strange criticism about the use of the word when the person hugely distorts the reality of the Crusades hitting as much the Orthodox Christians as the Muslims while the Crusaders practiced Roman/Latin supremacy and attacked and suppressed the non-Latin christians… It was oppressed Christians who opened the doors in the first place… Weirdly distorting this criticism itself, ironic.
That’s true. But they didn’t go there to sack Constantinople. It just sort of happened on the way.
All right, calm yourself down, I was just asking. Not saying they should’ve but why don’t they, if we’re talking historical grievances.
What fact?
The fact I said I “heard” “it”?
And the claim ain’t some outrageous thing nobody has ever heard before?
Where did I indicate I spoke of Constantinople? I was speaking of the regions of the Islamic control, not the added side hypocrisies.
If this is a thing, I don’t think it’s a “Muslim” thing. It’s a Middle Eastern thing. I spent years living in a Muslim part of Africa, and I only heard the Crusades mentioned once, when visiting a library in Timbuktu stocked with medieval manuscripts I was told were brought over for safe keeping during the Crusades.
I’m guessing that the Crusades don’t really resonate as much with Muslims in, say, Indonesia or Kazakhstan either.
not even that, it is a takfiri thing.
it s by the way nonsense told to the toubabs tourists because they think the white people are flattered by this idea and maybe self flattery to inflate the importance of Timbouctou.
the manuscripts of the libraries of Timbouctou are essentially Maghrebi in the textual origin, nothing to do with the crusades.
I’ve heard that as well, that the Crusades have generally been viewed as just another series of wars.
I’ve also read some speculation that the Crusades have not been a major focus of Arabic scholarship because the counter-effort to expel the Christian rulers has been viewed as primarily Turkish-led. I don’t know how much it’s been written about among Turkish scholars.
Its not just the Muslims. In college the atheist bozos were always harping the line of “religion has caused more wars than anything else” (which is a LIE). They point to the crusades as proof.
Thanks. I suspected the story didn’t make a lot of sense, but didn’t have any way to research it further at the time.
You’re conflating two points which educated atheists are known to make: 1. That “religion has caused more wars…” (may or may not be true, depending on how you define “religion,” “war,” and “cause”); 2. That, viewed over the longue durée, there’s nothing particularly “peaceful” about Christianity as compared to Islam (this is obviously true, and it’s when your educated acquaintances would mention the Crusades).
It is unlikely that the STMB is home to many Muslim scholars. If you are seriously interested in pursuing this question, you should have no problem finding answers elsewhere.
What specific question are you referring to? The OP made the claim that there was “incessant harping on the Crusades” by Muslim scholars, and this particular claim has yet to be backed up.
What?
That is also nonsense.
In the era of the crusades this is ahistorical and has not any sense, the Ayyubids of SalahEddine - which the Islamic scholarship has not been shy of at all - were of the Kurdish origin.
Same reason that Bubba-Ray Skeeter would go on about Lee’s invasion of Gettysburg, because it was the high water mark of the Confederacy. Islam is still supposed to eventually conquer the entire world and the Crusades were the closest it came to, if it weren’t for those meddling infidels… 
Now I am picturing some some muslim/islamic version of the General Lee with something like the Turkish Flag painted on top.
Just some good ole Muslims
Never meaning no harm
Beats all you ever saw
Just imposing Sharia law
Since the day they were born
I assumed that’s what you were referring to when you mentioned non-Latin Christians.
Whites have an odd fascination with redeeming themselves for existing. Its called the “Western Christian ethic” and I don’t care if you’re a dyed in the wool atheist or bible thumper, whites are guided by those basic principles.
This is completely ignorant nonsense. It was the Western europeans attacking, not the muslims and the greatest extent of the central islamic empire is not in any way effected by the crusades.
the gross ignorance of the americans about any history outside of a handful of wars they like to make movies about is truly impressive, as is the extremely badly informed analogies they draw off of their action movie history knowledge.
Why?
The historian spoke of the crusades and the holy lands. the orthodox christians were the majority of the population and the Latins were very happy to oppress and deny them their access for being the wrong kind of christians. The idea that the Latin Roman Crusades were really for all christians is a laughable piece of hypocrisy to the arabic or the aramaic speaking orthodox. We do not even need to look to the greek speakers on the island of Cyprus or elsewhere. The statements of the president Obama are not less accurate than the supposed critic who glosses over these things for a unifying narrative.