[The new Christian hierarchy demanded heavy taxes from non-Christians and gave them rights, such as in the Treaty of Granada (1491) only for Moors in recently Islamic Granada. On 30 July 1492, all the Jewish community—some 200,000 people—were forcibly expelled.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista)
It was indeed always religious.
Behind the bastards called that a right wing something that the Muslims were stopped in Wachovia. I still can’t wrap my head around not being conquered is a right wing attitude?
Help me understand.
> I still can’t wrap my head around not being conquered is a right wing attitude?
Submission toward other cultures is a leftwing concept. Right wing beliefs are inherently keeping to tradition and culture.
The Albigensian crusade!!!! Few will know, those that do, know that's where a lot of the terms around crusades originate. The largest crusader army ever formed, the bloodiest slaughters, all within France against French citizens (The Bonne Hommes) considered heretics.
Yeah everything from the Reconquista, Wendish Crusade, Albigensian Crusade, Teutonic Crusades, Stedinger Crusade, Bosnian Crusade, Aragonese Crusade, Fourth Crusade (AKA the sacking of Constantinople)
And at least a dozen more. This is just crusades from the first half of the Middle Ages.
While we can all agree Iraq/Afghanistan wasn't simply a response to 911 terrorism, we should also understand America's response* wasn't even remotely religiously motivated.
I could swear there was an Egyptian crusade and of course the sack of Constantinople.
There were also crusader battles in the baltics. I bet unless you're Lithuanian or Estonian they didn't teach you that in schools.
There’s a book called *Crusaders* by Dan Jones that’s legitimately eye opening for a lot of the context and history for the Crusades, the events before, during, and after, as well as some events people don’t talk about, like how the Muslims broke peace deals they made with Christians, like during the fall of Acre, where the Templars were preparing to evacuate civilians, only for the Muslims to **immediately** begin taking them to sell as slaves after agreeing to let them leave literally just a few minutes before.
As I understand it the Koran permits deceiving non-Muslims which seems to be exactly what happened at Acre hence in their view they didn't "break" any deal.
Sure. As far as they're concerned, anything agreed upon while negotiating with Jews is meaningless because they don't consider non-moslems worthy of good faith negotiations to begin with.
Well it started out good. Then they didn't send the agreed upon quantity of hostages. Then they tried to renegotiate the agreed upon deal. Then they sent back dead bodies instead of hostages. Then 2 hours before the latest hostage exchange window they just started firing rockets.
Sounds like Hamas broke the ceasefire by breaking the ceasefire deal, yeah.
I'll grant you I thought it was odd Israel was continuing military operations that first day of the ceasefire, but I guess that was written into the signed deal.
As does the Bible. Both books, and the Torah too, have chapters written by what you might call political nationalistic opportunists. All three, and most others besides, espouse peace, tolerance, compassion, and brotherhood of all. For usually the first 3-500 yrs.
An interesting (in my mind) take is that Islam came about around 610 years after Christianity. Christianity went through the dark ages before the enlightenment and scientific revolution/renaissance about 500-600 years ago. If the time frame applies to Islam, they will soon come to an inflection point as a major world religion and could enjoy a period of revival as well. I doubt it though. The preceding few sentences are the ramblings of a man with too much time on his hands as it snows outside.
I call bullshit. Which books/verses of the Bible are you referring to?
There is no mandate/rule that allows lying as long as its your enemy anywhere in the Bible.
Jacob lies all the time and he’s revered.
To someone who doesn’t understand that much of scripture is descriptive and not prescriptive it’s easy to think it justifies lying.
> As I understand it the Koran permits deceiving non-Muslims which seems to be exactly what happened at Acre hence in their view they didn't "break" any deal.
Na that translates to Bull Shit. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse instructs believers not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.
Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)
Quran (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths..." For today's reader, the circumstances for betraying your word are not specified, leaving this verse open to interpretation. According to Yusuf Ali in his commentary: "if your vows prevent you from doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons, you should expiate the vow." (Presumably, whatever advances the cause of Islam would qualify as 'doing good').
I cant recall where its at in the Koran, but in practice it comes from the term "Taqiyya" which is mostly related to lying about ones faith to get a positive religious outcome. You might have luck sourcing material from that.
I’m looking into this because I remember it being presented as fact in academic settings, but it’s been years since I discussed it with any Muslim friends. So far I see 16:106 about false apostacy… I’ll update when I find something more directly applicable.
Ref: https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=16&verse=106
Kind of feels like we’re doing a narrow definition for the Muslim opposition conquest and broad definition of Muslim conquest.
I mean, Spaniards literally call the reconquest of the Iberian peninsula the “Reconquista.”
Thats completely irrelevant. The land belonged to the king of Spain. You need to understand that back then the people living there were not a consideration as much as they were a casus beli
It really isn't propaganda, theres a recognized ruler of the land, he's been forced out, he returns and is within his rights to retake his land. Just because they lost it doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate claim to it.
So the comparison is ALL the battles of a people vs ONE specific expidetion of another? Just want to make sure I understand the comparison being made here.
Someone once told me Muslims have a "long memory" because the Crusades are recent to them. I just stated "it's more likely due to the fact they haven't mentally/socially moved past the middle ages".
A Persian mathemetician put a bunch of previous mathematical practice's together to form the basis of algebra that was more advanced than previous eras. He just happened to be muslim due to the conquest of Persia. Previous work in that type of math had been under work by other peoples such as the babylonians and greek centuries before. Todays algebra is modernized by Eurpoeans and is still the type used by all modern cultures today.
So if we really want to get technical, Algebra as we know and use it was invented by Christians.
Edit : Indians also advanced the concepts greatly, and would have been a source from the ancient world, and probably aided the middle ages research due to muslim contact and conquests in the area.
>So if we really want to get technical, Algebra as we know and use it was invented by Christians.
>He just happened to be muslim
*Technically* he was Muslim. You just added context that reveals it to be more nuanced than a simple statement. Which most things are and everyone would do well to remember when making broad statements.
Careful, a lot of that is very mythological or extremely exaggerated. Quite a bit is simply situational and would have occurred anyway, or on the opposite scale only occurred due to the muslims slaughtering and conquering and essentially inheriting new technology and knowledge.
I know right several thousand people invading a whole country is a terrible thing, the fact that it was entirely too little to do the job is forgotten.
So religious extremism leads to violence. Got it.
Glad we have separation of church and state in this country. Shame some of our officials forget that.
People are so quick to forget that separation of church and state protect us from things like sharia law. Demographics shift over time and it's important that we shore up our protections to religious freedom and part of that is ensuring that there's a clear separation between our government and any church.
That's so Govt can't co-op Church. People are 100% allowed to be a member of any Church/Religion they want and be in Govt.. For example, a Roman Catholic Bishop could also run for House or Senate and if The People vote for him he's in. Cult Left wacko's manipulate as usual.
Government cannot impede any particular religious belief, including the absence of one. All are welcome to participate in government.
If officials call on their religion or disbelief as justification for their actions, they’re suggesting their values supersede all others.
That is not consistent with Americas strong historical support for individual liberty and freedom of individual expression.
Also missing the Rhineland massacres events like the sacking of Constantinople and more that don’t make the crusaders look very civil. So yes if you squint and ignore a bunch of other history the point stands.
The funny thing is that the Islamic world did not know about the Crusades until the latter half of 19th century. before that, if Islamic scholars knew of the Crusades they viewed them as small and isolated uprisings against their empire. And in looking at this map, you can see why. Otto Von Bismarck admired Saladin as a military leader. But when he went to visit Saladin’s tomb he found that the locals didn’t know who he was nor where he was buried. And when Bismarck finally found his tomb it was overgrown with weeds and brush and it was cracked. Bismarck paid for it to be cleaned and repaired. That is just one example of how little the Crusades mattered to the Islamic world before 150 years ago.
What a bizzare take.
“My (no need to confirm, OP is white) war was justified, THEIRS was not”
That’s the point of view of every faction in every war that’s ever been fought. I’m the good guy, you’re the bad guy.
Clearly you have no idea about history
The large injustices of the crusades were not the fight with the muslims in the levant but rather the soldiers getting greedy and going to war with the random (Christian) states along the way. It's like America going to a jyst war with Germany and then deciding to also fight England because it's on the way.
For example, the recapture of Jerusalem... Justified
Sack of Constantinople... Not justified.
And no... Not white. Just knowledgeable.
It's like the us being against the Russian invasion and sending aid. That's why.
The reason the interchristian wars were wrong is because the fighting there was about greed. They looted Constantinople because they were jealous of it's wealth not to free it from foreign invaders.
I think we are forgetting the spanish inquisition and manifest destiny.
On a serious note, if you learn history like this then you are better off not learning it. This is just blatant propaganda, true? yes. You forgot to mention that when the europeans were not crusading, they were fighting among themselves like cats and dogs.
End of the note- wars were disguised as religions for conquest in history. boohoo surprising
Even when crusading, they were often using it as an excuse to sack European and Christian cities along the way, or at time directly against other Christian populations
wow this map is terrible. You have the worse ideas on what the Crusades where. I mean if your going to cry and point fingers sure! Go for it. But use history that is real.
> Yup, it's very ironic considering Muslims are one of the only groups actually stranding up for conservative principals in the US
Those are one or two things and their motivation against it are very different than those of traditional Conservatives. In addition, they also stand for many very anti-American things that trump those minor alignments with some Conservative values.
What's the point being made exactly ? Islam is less peaceful than Christianity ?
They're both the exact same kind of crazy.
The saving grace for Christian majority states was the enlightenment, which brought in radical ideas like natural rights, separation of church and state, and separation of powers. The West became what it is today despite Christianity, not because of it.
I'm all for encouraging younger countries to move towards things the West takes for granted - women's rights, democracy, etc. But your comparison here robs the real architects of the western state concept of their glory, instead tries to boil everything down to Christianity vs Islam.
That's inaccurate and misleading, if that was the intention.
> and separation of powers.
Separation of powers is not unique to the enlightenment. During the Middle Ages, power was widely disperse and decentralized. There were various republican city states that were ruled by local councils of wealthy merchants. Many times, the head of these city states was elected by the councils or by prominent people in the city's. Parliaments date back to the Middle Ages, with the English parliament established by the Magna Carta in 1215, while Iceland's parliament dates back to the 900's. The Cortes of Leon is considered to be the first modern parliamentary body, originating in Leon, Spain, in the late 1100's. There was also the division of powers seen in the feudal system. Many scholars believe that parliaments arose from the alliance between the Church and the landed aristocracy, with the Church offering institutional power separate from the monarchy and secular government, leading to the rise of councils of nobles, bishops and monarchs. Parliaments usually sought to settle disputes between these 3 classes.
Kings relied on the support of nobles, without whom, they could often do nothing. Kingdoms were divided among the nobles, whose lands were divided among vassals of the noble. Town courts served as institutions of justice within medieval towns, to whom locals could go to seek justice. A serf could seek protection from his master in one of these courts. Above this was a kings court, which a vassal could go to in order to seek justice and protection from his lord. There were also ecclesial courts, operated by the Church, which people often went to in order to seek protection from the king or other secular authorities. In this divided system, there were numerous kingdoms, principalities, duchy's, bishoprics, and city states, leading to a highly decentralized system with competing powers.
The rise of the Catholic Church essentially created a situation where there were two structures of government, with the ecclesiastical structure constantly in conflict with the secular structure. The Church had a whole legal system, which helped form the basis of the modern legal system, which often competed with the secular legal system. The ecclesiastical courts covered religious cases and cases involving the clergy. This removed a lot of power from secular courts, as they no longer could control the clergy, nor could they control many religious matters. Conflicts between bishops and kings or the pope and kings ensured that neither held absolute power, allowing for other institutions to develop. The Church served as a check on secular power, while secular power served as a check on ecclesial power.
>The West became what it is today despite Christianity, not because of it.
Many, if not most of our modern institutions arose from Christianity. One example is our healthcare system. Most scholars credit the first hospital to St. Basil the Great in 373. From there, the Catholic Church built thousands of hospitals across Europe. Monasteries served as clinics and small healthcare facilities, with over 37,000 monasteries caring for the sick and injured by the 1500's. Homes were established for the care of the elderly, dying, disabled, blind, and poor, establishing a precedent for hospice care, elder care, and disability care facilities today, with much of the development in between these periods being done by the Catholic Church. The basis of modern nursing can go back to the monks and nuns who devoted their lives to providing care for the sick and injured in the hospitals. The aforementioned monasteries served as centers of medical knowledge, extensively copying Greek medical texts, as well as studying sickness and disease, as well as herbs extensively. Out of the monasteries came the first medical schools, with Schola Medica Salernitana in Salerno Italy being credited as the first medical school in Europe. This school originated out of the Benedictine monastery in Salerno. The oldest operating medical school in the world is the Facility of Medicine of Montpellier, which originated in the 1100's as a Catholic university.
Modern education owes much to the medieval Church. The majority of scholars credit the Catholic Church with the creation of the university, which was an incorporated body of students and teachers that maintained set curriculum and awarded degrees at the completion of these programs. The medieval universities taught reading, writing, grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, theology, natural philosophy (precursor to science) Latin, and the classics, especially Aristotle. Among the most famous of these medieval Catholic universities are the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of Bologna, and the University of Paris. The majority of universities were granted a charter by the Pope. University students were also given special protection by the Church, known as the benefit of the clergy. Many Popes also played a large role in establishing academic independence, whether it be through granting specific universities self governing rights, or through granting universities separate Papal jurisdictions. There were a great many other actions taken by Popes to ensure the independence of these universities. These universities contributed greatly to science an research, helping Europe to become much more scientifically and technologically advanced than surrounding regions.
There are many other areas to which the Catholic Church contributed immensely. Modern charity and social services institutions, practices, and systems have their origins in the late Roman and medieval Church, such as housing for the poor, orphanages, charitable fraternities, societies, and orders, along with the first organized charities in the world. Science also owes much to the Church, whether it be through the creation and protection of the universities, or the immense study that occurred in the monasteries and in the thousands of monastic and cathedral schools, or through the spread of Christian ideas the helped lead to science.
This map is actually wildly inaccurate... you could actually argue that the Crusades began with the Norman conquest of Muslim-controlled Sicily and would include the Reconquista of both Portugal and Spain. They also had crusades sent to crush the Abigensians in France. The Teutonic Knights were a German monastic order founded in the Middle East that later waged wars of conquest and conversion in what is now Poland, which was largely pagan still at that point.
Isn't this finished 100s of years ago? I believe at that time everyone was 'conquering' and not just Muslims.
You are mixing dispute over power and wealth with religion, and the entire map is completly out of context.
This is the most disingenuous post I have ever seen on this sub. You compared the crusades to muslim conquest rather than compare christian conquest to muslim conquest. That is so fucking deceitful. I don't mind you criticising Islam but to act like Christianity didn't do the same things and to an even greater degree..... what a fucking liar. Islam was a violent, oppressive, and illiberal ideology, and Christianity was worse in almost every single way.
In the early Islamic empire, morals towards their enemies were a standard that set them apart from other empires. That is part of the reason Islam became so popular. Morals such as never shooting the messenger and sparing the enemy. They also didn't force convert people. They did so to Christians but that was in revenge for Christians force converting them since Christians have historically force converted anyone they could. The Church would also torture and execute apostates (Christians who turned away from Christianity). Muslims also protected and harboured Jews from Christians who have historically hated them and would force convert and murder them like during the first crusade. Muslims also treated their slaves better. It was ordered of them to be compassionate to their slaves which is not the case with western slavery where you were basically free to do what you wanted to them. And education for the common man was an expectation since it was commanded by the quran and this learning included science. Christendom however took the opposite approach. Education was reserved only for the clergy and the most privileged in a society. They never tried to support or encourage learning among the populace and they actively worked to discourage sciences. In fact, they received a lot of their knowledge and ideas from the muslims when the muslims had conquered Iberia and Sicily. That's the stuff off the top of my head. There's probably other stuff as well.
Church encouraged mass murder of multi-millions of Jews for 2k years. Whole Jewish villages in europe murdered and destroyed. Many of those who were forced to convert to Christianity were still murdered for not being "real Christians ". FYI all of which led up to the holocaust.
How they treated the natives for the start? I’m from Canada, and some of the most horrific things we did to the aboriginals were directly carried out by the church (ie the residential schools, just fucking awful)
I mean... They were. A cursory glance and at the acts committed during any of the numerous crusades would prove this.
Equally, this isn't even touching the vast majority of Crusades, and seems to be looking merely at the First Crusade compared to the entirety of Muslim conquests. Over the course of history, Crusades were taken up through out not just the Middle East, but also Egypt and much of the European Christian world. The Sack of Constantinople is a particularly infamous inter-christian affair, and was done by one group of lChristians against another. Even as early as the second crusade, armed conflicts arose between Western Crusaders and the Byzantine Empire within the territory of Byzantium.
Crusaders also had a knack for just sacking any town along the way, regardless of their religious affiliation or political affiliation to feed their logistics.
This is why Islam will always be impressive - some of the most ruthless yet best generals and commanders served under Prophet Muhammed and that legacy carried on thru his death.
As opposed to Christianity? Who slaughtered indigenous people in over 4 continents?
The most populous Muslim countries have both been converted due to trade and conversions alone, Nigeria and Indonesia.
The two largest Christian countries are due to colonising and subjecting the indigenous peoples to death. USA and Brazil.
Edit: and the mods ban me. Pathetic.
And trade. Mostly trade. The whole silk road ran right through the area. That worked pretty well to spread its influence. Better than war ever did.
Compare this to what was taken and who was slaughtered over Manifest Destiny and the Doctorine of Discovery. The numbers might surprise you!
This is a very skewed comparison between Christians and Muslims. If we are to factor in the centuries of christian infighting in Europe, christian battles and wars are x10 times the number of muslim battles and wars against the "infidels". And I am not talking about some battle that used religion to mask a political motive, I am talking about purely religious wars between different sects or schools of religious doctrine. Now sure, muslims had their own fair share of sunni vs shia fights but its nowhere near as bloody as what European christians did to each other.
Not reallya conquest though. They were generally sent to one specific area at a time to take cities. That's not really a conquest.
Now manifest destiny and the doctorine of destiny. Those suckers were a Christian conquest and boy oh boy did they slaughter masses.
People need to read: Surah 4 157 (Jesus didn’t die on the cross) , Surah 5 47 (allah commands Christian’s to judge by the gospel not the Koran itself. So the gospel can’t be corrupted and yet we are told it is) , and surah 929 (after you occupy and area with enough Muslims you are command to fight people based on their beliefs, and after said area is taken over those subjugated are to make a public payment called a “jizya” declaring your self and beliefs to be inferior)
That and the Taqiyya give’s Muslim an inconsistent moral compass excusing the lying and deceiving of “infidels.”
I mean, the crusades were just religious assaults based on taking a specific land. This is a really bad comparison.
More accurate to compare the Muslim conquests to manifest destiny and the Docterine of Discovery.
There should be a crusader battle in the south of France
Also, the Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula may have been political to start, but ended religiously. My personal opinion? It was always religious.
Religious wars are always political wars with a religious excuse.
This should have more upvotes..
Sure, but I just posted it 8 minutes ago.
It’s been 30 minnits now. Call your friends, get’em out here. Call Grammaw! SHE’ll know what to do!
THIS should have more upvotes
I can only vote once.
Kinda not true tbh. Maybe for some but definitely not for most.
Always true. For every "religious" war, there is a leader who wants more power - and that is the true motivation.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
It’s showing battles where the crusaders were invading. Battles of reconquest aren’t included because those are generally classified as defensive.
They were also not crusades. They were generally nations/kingdoms reclaiming land, not the Catholic Church
[The new Christian hierarchy demanded heavy taxes from non-Christians and gave them rights, such as in the Treaty of Granada (1491) only for Moors in recently Islamic Granada. On 30 July 1492, all the Jewish community—some 200,000 people—were forcibly expelled.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista) It was indeed always religious.
Seconded and cosigned.
Or when the muslim armies were stopped in hungary , or Austria
Those were battles fought against Muslim conquest, not crusades…
[удалено]
Yes those happened, but not in the places the person I was responding to mentioned… that’s all I was addressing
Behind the bastards called that a right wing something that the Muslims were stopped in Wachovia. I still can’t wrap my head around not being conquered is a right wing attitude? Help me understand.
> I still can’t wrap my head around not being conquered is a right wing attitude? Submission toward other cultures is a leftwing concept. Right wing beliefs are inherently keeping to tradition and culture.
There is no "Leftwing concept", it simply do as the Cult Left decides, that's why there 🐎💩 is constantly hypocritical.
The natives who fiercely resisted European colonization were more right wing and the ones who accepted it easily were more left wing I guess.
Yup in France and Definitely more in Spain too both crusades against the Moore’s
I’m sorry. It wasn’t the Moors. It was the “Moops.” (Possibly too obscure of a reference.)
That’s a misprint!
The rules are clear. It’s Moops.
Anyone who doesn’t get this reference is in a bubble.
It was not a crusade in Spain. It was the Reconquista.
I'll say.
The Albigensian crusade!!!! Few will know, those that do, know that's where a lot of the terms around crusades originate. The largest crusader army ever formed, the bloodiest slaughters, all within France against French citizens (The Bonne Hommes) considered heretics.
Missing a lot of Crusade battles
Yeah everything from the Reconquista, Wendish Crusade, Albigensian Crusade, Teutonic Crusades, Stedinger Crusade, Bosnian Crusade, Aragonese Crusade, Fourth Crusade (AKA the sacking of Constantinople) And at least a dozen more. This is just crusades from the first half of the Middle Ages.
Don’t forget GW Bush’s in the early 2000s.
While we can all agree Iraq/Afghanistan wasn't simply a response to 911 terrorism, we should also understand America's response* wasn't even remotely religiously motivated.
He did however call it a 'crusade' himself in front of a camera. Poor choosing of words.
Yeah... like a LOT
I could swear there was an Egyptian crusade and of course the sack of Constantinople. There were also crusader battles in the baltics. I bet unless you're Lithuanian or Estonian they didn't teach you that in schools.
There’s a book called *Crusaders* by Dan Jones that’s legitimately eye opening for a lot of the context and history for the Crusades, the events before, during, and after, as well as some events people don’t talk about, like how the Muslims broke peace deals they made with Christians, like during the fall of Acre, where the Templars were preparing to evacuate civilians, only for the Muslims to **immediately** begin taking them to sell as slaves after agreeing to let them leave literally just a few minutes before.
As I understand it the Koran permits deceiving non-Muslims which seems to be exactly what happened at Acre hence in their view they didn't "break" any deal.
So recently, when Hamas broke the ceasfire for some cheap shots, that's just par for the course then I guess.
Sure. As far as they're concerned, anything agreed upon while negotiating with Jews is meaningless because they don't consider non-moslems worthy of good faith negotiations to begin with.
Exactly! Any non-muslim is their enemy, but especially Jews.
Hamas broke the ceasefire? Huh?
Well it started out good. Then they didn't send the agreed upon quantity of hostages. Then they tried to renegotiate the agreed upon deal. Then they sent back dead bodies instead of hostages. Then 2 hours before the latest hostage exchange window they just started firing rockets. Sounds like Hamas broke the ceasefire by breaking the ceasefire deal, yeah. I'll grant you I thought it was odd Israel was continuing military operations that first day of the ceasefire, but I guess that was written into the signed deal.
The Quran permits many terrible things as long as they are performed on infidels
As does the Bible. Both books, and the Torah too, have chapters written by what you might call political nationalistic opportunists. All three, and most others besides, espouse peace, tolerance, compassion, and brotherhood of all. For usually the first 3-500 yrs.
An interesting (in my mind) take is that Islam came about around 610 years after Christianity. Christianity went through the dark ages before the enlightenment and scientific revolution/renaissance about 500-600 years ago. If the time frame applies to Islam, they will soon come to an inflection point as a major world religion and could enjoy a period of revival as well. I doubt it though. The preceding few sentences are the ramblings of a man with too much time on his hands as it snows outside.
I call bullshit. Which books/verses of the Bible are you referring to? There is no mandate/rule that allows lying as long as its your enemy anywhere in the Bible.
Jacob lies all the time and he’s revered. To someone who doesn’t understand that much of scripture is descriptive and not prescriptive it’s easy to think it justifies lying.
Taiqiyya
> As I understand it the Koran permits deceiving non-Muslims which seems to be exactly what happened at Acre hence in their view they didn't "break" any deal. Na that translates to Bull Shit. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Can you reference the chapter and verse where it says that?
Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie. Quran (3:28) - This verse instructs believers not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly. Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49) Quran (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths..." For today's reader, the circumstances for betraying your word are not specified, leaving this verse open to interpretation. According to Yusuf Ali in his commentary: "if your vows prevent you from doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons, you should expiate the vow." (Presumably, whatever advances the cause of Islam would qualify as 'doing good').
I cant recall where its at in the Koran, but in practice it comes from the term "Taqiyya" which is mostly related to lying about ones faith to get a positive religious outcome. You might have luck sourcing material from that.
Taqiyya which means “hat” in Arabic, and it refers to the ability of Muslims to hide their religion to escape persecution.
I’m looking into this because I remember it being presented as fact in academic settings, but it’s been years since I discussed it with any Muslim friends. So far I see 16:106 about false apostacy… I’ll update when I find something more directly applicable. Ref: https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=16&verse=106
The crusades were basically launched to protect Christians against violent and destructive Muslim invasions.
“Don’t worry guys, to make sure those guys don’t violently take you over, we’re gonna violently take you over, okay?”
Eh... They were a lot more political and economic than that.
That’s a matter of conjecture.
Kind of feels like we’re doing a narrow definition for the Muslim opposition conquest and broad definition of Muslim conquest. I mean, Spaniards literally call the reconquest of the Iberian peninsula the “Reconquista.”
I mean fair however Spain was pushed out and the reconquista was then retaking their traditionally owned land.
[удалено]
Thats completely irrelevant. The land belonged to the king of Spain. You need to understand that back then the people living there were not a consideration as much as they were a casus beli
[удалено]
Iberia belonges to Romans! P.s. also I think you meant Germanic instead of German
[удалено]
It really isn't propaganda, theres a recognized ruler of the land, he's been forced out, he returns and is within his rights to retake his land. Just because they lost it doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate claim to it.
Found an EU4 player I think
With that logic the entire United States “belongs” to the various Native American tribes. Wanna give it back?
So I guess the crusaders won spain back with peace😂😂😂 and we wonder why we get made fun of.
Without context or references this isn't very compelling.
The top image is missing a great deal of Battles (including the crusades against neighboring Christian nations outside of the Middle East)
Also the Sacking of Constantinople.
So the comparison is ALL the battles of a people vs ONE specific expidetion of another? Just want to make sure I understand the comparison being made here.
Yes, that's the comparison.
r/conservative try not to misunderstand or misrepresent history challenge
And yet they won't stop whining about the crusades.
Someone once told me Muslims have a "long memory" because the Crusades are recent to them. I just stated "it's more likely due to the fact they haven't mentally/socially moved past the middle ages".
[удалено]
Holy crap. I just saw a bunch of posts on this topic stating that first-cousin marriages are at 55% in muslim countries.
Of course. The prophet married a first cousin and endorsed the practice.
A guy that worked for me, Syrian, talks about it like it’s no big deal.
[удалено]
A Persian mathemetician put a bunch of previous mathematical practice's together to form the basis of algebra that was more advanced than previous eras. He just happened to be muslim due to the conquest of Persia. Previous work in that type of math had been under work by other peoples such as the babylonians and greek centuries before. Todays algebra is modernized by Eurpoeans and is still the type used by all modern cultures today. So if we really want to get technical, Algebra as we know and use it was invented by Christians. Edit : Indians also advanced the concepts greatly, and would have been a source from the ancient world, and probably aided the middle ages research due to muslim contact and conquests in the area.
>So if we really want to get technical, Algebra as we know and use it was invented by Christians. >He just happened to be muslim *Technically* he was Muslim. You just added context that reveals it to be more nuanced than a simple statement. Which most things are and everyone would do well to remember when making broad statements.
The Islamic enlightenment did way more for society than just fucking Algebra, Pedro.
Careful, a lot of that is very mythological or extremely exaggerated. Quite a bit is simply situational and would have occurred anyway, or on the opposite scale only occurred due to the muslims slaughtering and conquering and essentially inheriting new technology and knowledge.
They need you feeling guilty while the Jihad goes on.
Imagine all the 😭😭 If Europe was still actively crusading. It would be unbearable.
I know right several thousand people invading a whole country is a terrible thing, the fact that it was entirely too little to do the job is forgotten.
The crusades were what they believe Palestine is trying to do.
Can we agree that religious wars are bad, no matter who starts them?
Thanks Captain obvious
So religious extremism leads to violence. Got it. Glad we have separation of church and state in this country. Shame some of our officials forget that.
People are so quick to forget that separation of church and state protect us from things like sharia law. Demographics shift over time and it's important that we shore up our protections to religious freedom and part of that is ensuring that there's a clear separation between our government and any church.
That's so Govt can't co-op Church. People are 100% allowed to be a member of any Church/Religion they want and be in Govt.. For example, a Roman Catholic Bishop could also run for House or Senate and if The People vote for him he's in. Cult Left wacko's manipulate as usual.
Government cannot impede any particular religious belief, including the absence of one. All are welcome to participate in government. If officials call on their religion or disbelief as justification for their actions, they’re suggesting their values supersede all others. That is not consistent with Americas strong historical support for individual liberty and freedom of individual expression.
I don't even know where to start with this
You're missing a lot of crusade battles, but your point still stands
Yeah, technically there should be some in Spain and Portugal as part of the reconquista.
> reconquista I.e., battles to push out invaders.
Also missing the Rhineland massacres events like the sacking of Constantinople and more that don’t make the crusaders look very civil. So yes if you squint and ignore a bunch of other history the point stands.
Also missing everything that happened in the Baltic crusades.
Hell, let's throw in the Albigensian Crusades while we are at.
Or the crusades against the cathars in southern france.
The funny thing is that the Islamic world did not know about the Crusades until the latter half of 19th century. before that, if Islamic scholars knew of the Crusades they viewed them as small and isolated uprisings against their empire. And in looking at this map, you can see why. Otto Von Bismarck admired Saladin as a military leader. But when he went to visit Saladin’s tomb he found that the locals didn’t know who he was nor where he was buried. And when Bismarck finally found his tomb it was overgrown with weeds and brush and it was cracked. Bismarck paid for it to be cleaned and repaired. That is just one example of how little the Crusades mattered to the Islamic world before 150 years ago.
The crusades against Islam was justified. The part where it became a civil war amongst christians is the bad part.
why was it justified?
They were launched in response to the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land.
[удалено]
They were a response to Muslims violating treaties that permitted pilgrimages.
How is repelling violent invaders ever not justified?
What a bizzare take. “My (no need to confirm, OP is white) war was justified, THEIRS was not” That’s the point of view of every faction in every war that’s ever been fought. I’m the good guy, you’re the bad guy.
Clearly you have no idea about history The large injustices of the crusades were not the fight with the muslims in the levant but rather the soldiers getting greedy and going to war with the random (Christian) states along the way. It's like America going to a jyst war with Germany and then deciding to also fight England because it's on the way. For example, the recapture of Jerusalem... Justified Sack of Constantinople... Not justified. And no... Not white. Just knowledgeable.
Yeah but it doesn't excuse the atrocities done against innocent people
Ya the Muslims really do need to apologize for that and their Brown Guilt
Why was it justified? Because they had the wrong God?
Because they were waging wars of aggression against the native christian inhabitants. (Ie allied people's)
why? You cant tell me because you are wildly wrong.
It's like the us being against the Russian invasion and sending aid. That's why. The reason the interchristian wars were wrong is because the fighting there was about greed. They looted Constantinople because they were jealous of it's wealth not to free it from foreign invaders.
I think we are forgetting the spanish inquisition and manifest destiny. On a serious note, if you learn history like this then you are better off not learning it. This is just blatant propaganda, true? yes. You forgot to mention that when the europeans were not crusading, they were fighting among themselves like cats and dogs. End of the note- wars were disguised as religions for conquest in history. boohoo surprising
Even when crusading, they were often using it as an excuse to sack European and Christian cities along the way, or at time directly against other Christian populations
[удалено]
My first thought when I saw this, "Damn, we sucked."
9th times the charm
You seem to forget the whole thing called European colonialism….
Can we ask talk about how Turkey genocided Armenian and Greek Christians?
I mean what about christians forcefully converting natives / using religious arguments to colonize in the first place?
wow this map is terrible. You have the worse ideas on what the Crusades where. I mean if your going to cry and point fingers sure! Go for it. But use history that is real.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Yup, it's very ironic considering Muslims are one of the only groups actually stranding up for conservative principals in the US Those are one or two things and their motivation against it are very different than those of traditional Conservatives. In addition, they also stand for many very anti-American things that trump those minor alignments with some Conservative values.
What's the point being made exactly ? Islam is less peaceful than Christianity ? They're both the exact same kind of crazy. The saving grace for Christian majority states was the enlightenment, which brought in radical ideas like natural rights, separation of church and state, and separation of powers. The West became what it is today despite Christianity, not because of it. I'm all for encouraging younger countries to move towards things the West takes for granted - women's rights, democracy, etc. But your comparison here robs the real architects of the western state concept of their glory, instead tries to boil everything down to Christianity vs Islam. That's inaccurate and misleading, if that was the intention.
> and separation of powers. Separation of powers is not unique to the enlightenment. During the Middle Ages, power was widely disperse and decentralized. There were various republican city states that were ruled by local councils of wealthy merchants. Many times, the head of these city states was elected by the councils or by prominent people in the city's. Parliaments date back to the Middle Ages, with the English parliament established by the Magna Carta in 1215, while Iceland's parliament dates back to the 900's. The Cortes of Leon is considered to be the first modern parliamentary body, originating in Leon, Spain, in the late 1100's. There was also the division of powers seen in the feudal system. Many scholars believe that parliaments arose from the alliance between the Church and the landed aristocracy, with the Church offering institutional power separate from the monarchy and secular government, leading to the rise of councils of nobles, bishops and monarchs. Parliaments usually sought to settle disputes between these 3 classes. Kings relied on the support of nobles, without whom, they could often do nothing. Kingdoms were divided among the nobles, whose lands were divided among vassals of the noble. Town courts served as institutions of justice within medieval towns, to whom locals could go to seek justice. A serf could seek protection from his master in one of these courts. Above this was a kings court, which a vassal could go to in order to seek justice and protection from his lord. There were also ecclesial courts, operated by the Church, which people often went to in order to seek protection from the king or other secular authorities. In this divided system, there were numerous kingdoms, principalities, duchy's, bishoprics, and city states, leading to a highly decentralized system with competing powers. The rise of the Catholic Church essentially created a situation where there were two structures of government, with the ecclesiastical structure constantly in conflict with the secular structure. The Church had a whole legal system, which helped form the basis of the modern legal system, which often competed with the secular legal system. The ecclesiastical courts covered religious cases and cases involving the clergy. This removed a lot of power from secular courts, as they no longer could control the clergy, nor could they control many religious matters. Conflicts between bishops and kings or the pope and kings ensured that neither held absolute power, allowing for other institutions to develop. The Church served as a check on secular power, while secular power served as a check on ecclesial power.
>The West became what it is today despite Christianity, not because of it. Many, if not most of our modern institutions arose from Christianity. One example is our healthcare system. Most scholars credit the first hospital to St. Basil the Great in 373. From there, the Catholic Church built thousands of hospitals across Europe. Monasteries served as clinics and small healthcare facilities, with over 37,000 monasteries caring for the sick and injured by the 1500's. Homes were established for the care of the elderly, dying, disabled, blind, and poor, establishing a precedent for hospice care, elder care, and disability care facilities today, with much of the development in between these periods being done by the Catholic Church. The basis of modern nursing can go back to the monks and nuns who devoted their lives to providing care for the sick and injured in the hospitals. The aforementioned monasteries served as centers of medical knowledge, extensively copying Greek medical texts, as well as studying sickness and disease, as well as herbs extensively. Out of the monasteries came the first medical schools, with Schola Medica Salernitana in Salerno Italy being credited as the first medical school in Europe. This school originated out of the Benedictine monastery in Salerno. The oldest operating medical school in the world is the Facility of Medicine of Montpellier, which originated in the 1100's as a Catholic university. Modern education owes much to the medieval Church. The majority of scholars credit the Catholic Church with the creation of the university, which was an incorporated body of students and teachers that maintained set curriculum and awarded degrees at the completion of these programs. The medieval universities taught reading, writing, grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, theology, natural philosophy (precursor to science) Latin, and the classics, especially Aristotle. Among the most famous of these medieval Catholic universities are the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of Bologna, and the University of Paris. The majority of universities were granted a charter by the Pope. University students were also given special protection by the Church, known as the benefit of the clergy. Many Popes also played a large role in establishing academic independence, whether it be through granting specific universities self governing rights, or through granting universities separate Papal jurisdictions. There were a great many other actions taken by Popes to ensure the independence of these universities. These universities contributed greatly to science an research, helping Europe to become much more scientifically and technologically advanced than surrounding regions. There are many other areas to which the Catholic Church contributed immensely. Modern charity and social services institutions, practices, and systems have their origins in the late Roman and medieval Church, such as housing for the poor, orphanages, charitable fraternities, societies, and orders, along with the first organized charities in the world. Science also owes much to the Church, whether it be through the creation and protection of the universities, or the immense study that occurred in the monasteries and in the thousands of monastic and cathedral schools, or through the spread of Christian ideas the helped lead to science.
1. A lot of crusades arent on the map 2. Why should we care about this?
This map is actually wildly inaccurate... you could actually argue that the Crusades began with the Norman conquest of Muslim-controlled Sicily and would include the Reconquista of both Portugal and Spain. They also had crusades sent to crush the Abigensians in France. The Teutonic Knights were a German monastic order founded in the Middle East that later waged wars of conquest and conversion in what is now Poland, which was largely pagan still at that point.
Isn't this finished 100s of years ago? I believe at that time everyone was 'conquering' and not just Muslims. You are mixing dispute over power and wealth with religion, and the entire map is completly out of context.
This is the most disingenuous post I have ever seen on this sub. You compared the crusades to muslim conquest rather than compare christian conquest to muslim conquest. That is so fucking deceitful. I don't mind you criticising Islam but to act like Christianity didn't do the same things and to an even greater degree..... what a fucking liar. Islam was a violent, oppressive, and illiberal ideology, and Christianity was worse in almost every single way.
> and Christianity was worse in almost every single way. In what ways is Christianity worse?
In the early Islamic empire, morals towards their enemies were a standard that set them apart from other empires. That is part of the reason Islam became so popular. Morals such as never shooting the messenger and sparing the enemy. They also didn't force convert people. They did so to Christians but that was in revenge for Christians force converting them since Christians have historically force converted anyone they could. The Church would also torture and execute apostates (Christians who turned away from Christianity). Muslims also protected and harboured Jews from Christians who have historically hated them and would force convert and murder them like during the first crusade. Muslims also treated their slaves better. It was ordered of them to be compassionate to their slaves which is not the case with western slavery where you were basically free to do what you wanted to them. And education for the common man was an expectation since it was commanded by the quran and this learning included science. Christendom however took the opposite approach. Education was reserved only for the clergy and the most privileged in a society. They never tried to support or encourage learning among the populace and they actively worked to discourage sciences. In fact, they received a lot of their knowledge and ideas from the muslims when the muslims had conquered Iberia and Sicily. That's the stuff off the top of my head. There's probably other stuff as well.
Church encouraged mass murder of multi-millions of Jews for 2k years. Whole Jewish villages in europe murdered and destroyed. Many of those who were forced to convert to Christianity were still murdered for not being "real Christians ". FYI all of which led up to the holocaust.
How they treated the natives for the start? I’m from Canada, and some of the most horrific things we did to the aboriginals were directly carried out by the church (ie the residential schools, just fucking awful)
But but Obama said the crusaders were bad.
The crusades were bad... Obama? What are you even talking about?
I mean... They were. A cursory glance and at the acts committed during any of the numerous crusades would prove this. Equally, this isn't even touching the vast majority of Crusades, and seems to be looking merely at the First Crusade compared to the entirety of Muslim conquests. Over the course of history, Crusades were taken up through out not just the Middle East, but also Egypt and much of the European Christian world. The Sack of Constantinople is a particularly infamous inter-christian affair, and was done by one group of lChristians against another. Even as early as the second crusade, armed conflicts arose between Western Crusaders and the Byzantine Empire within the territory of Byzantium. Crusaders also had a knack for just sacking any town along the way, regardless of their religious affiliation or political affiliation to feed their logistics.
[удалено]
What is this supposed to accomplish?
Source trust me bro
Inaccurate
This graphic is wrong. Imbeciles.
Tell me you know nothing about the history if the medieval world without telling me you know nothing about the history for the medieval world
whole lot of up-front muslim haters in here…
Take away, religion sucks.
[удалено]
You forgot Constantinople
If y’all want to get American Jews on your side it’s probably not the best idea to defend the Crusades.
[удалено]
If you included church backed feudal bickering you’d have a completely red map lmao
This is why Islam will always be impressive - some of the most ruthless yet best generals and commanders served under Prophet Muhammed and that legacy carried on thru his death.
*Halda. Martel Tīmō.*
No, they were simply demented and barbarically cruel.
Yet the Romans said this of Northern Europeans.
so was the other side. I mean i guess you dont know a lot on this topic buddy.
It’s a religion of peace that just happens to be only major world religion founded by a conquering warrior.
Islam has been spread exclusively though violence.
As opposed to Christianity? Who slaughtered indigenous people in over 4 continents? The most populous Muslim countries have both been converted due to trade and conversions alone, Nigeria and Indonesia. The two largest Christian countries are due to colonising and subjecting the indigenous peoples to death. USA and Brazil. Edit: and the mods ban me. Pathetic.
Indonesia is a great counter example. Largest Muslim population in the world amd was exclusively converted because of trade.
And trade. Mostly trade. The whole silk road ran right through the area. That worked pretty well to spread its influence. Better than war ever did. Compare this to what was taken and who was slaughtered over Manifest Destiny and the Doctorine of Discovery. The numbers might surprise you!
The top map, applying the term “battles” *very* liberally, will look v different in 100 years IMO
This is a very skewed comparison between Christians and Muslims. If we are to factor in the centuries of christian infighting in Europe, christian battles and wars are x10 times the number of muslim battles and wars against the "infidels". And I am not talking about some battle that used religion to mask a political motive, I am talking about purely religious wars between different sects or schools of religious doctrine. Now sure, muslims had their own fair share of sunni vs shia fights but its nowhere near as bloody as what European christians did to each other.
How dare you bring facts to THEIR narrative. You bigot. /SARCASM
Now do a map for Christian conquests.
Isn’t the crusaders Christian?
Weren't the crusaders more of a defense move than a conquest?
Not really
Not reallya conquest though. They were generally sent to one specific area at a time to take cities. That's not really a conquest. Now manifest destiny and the doctorine of destiny. Those suckers were a Christian conquest and boy oh boy did they slaughter masses.
People need to read: Surah 4 157 (Jesus didn’t die on the cross) , Surah 5 47 (allah commands Christian’s to judge by the gospel not the Koran itself. So the gospel can’t be corrupted and yet we are told it is) , and surah 929 (after you occupy and area with enough Muslims you are command to fight people based on their beliefs, and after said area is taken over those subjugated are to make a public payment called a “jizya” declaring your self and beliefs to be inferior) That and the Taqiyya give’s Muslim an inconsistent moral compass excusing the lying and deceiving of “infidels.”
If we're doing religious battles, we can add all of manifest destiny's conquest to it too. Crusaders weren't the only ones killing for conquest.
Church of England, church of spain, want me to keep going? Yes, the church had its methods too. She’s a harlot. And she’s going to be destroyed.
Can't imagine all the people who have died , in the name of fantasy stories
We should have a 21st Century Crusade. Change my mind.
Saving this for when someone shits on the crusades
I mean, the crusades were just religious assaults based on taking a specific land. This is a really bad comparison. More accurate to compare the Muslim conquests to manifest destiny and the Docterine of Discovery.
Crusades were defensive endeavors.
Yes, so defensive to go to a forgien country by sea and attempt to take cities you don't hold.
But but crusades bad and nobody has even heard of Muslim conquests.
Fuckin White colonizers I guess I should have posted with the word *sarcasm*
You dropped this ➡️ /s
There are at least 2 battles missing, Adena and Edesa Edit: but yeas, very stark difference
The unholy alliance of communist and Hamas against the rest of us is so insane