The Crusades Weren't One-Sided

[S.A.M.]

Kind of a racist comment, IMO.

Thats according to Fraggle, not moi.

2. The medieval Christians somehow managed to develop an aversion to water. (I don't know how they got this out of the bible. But since almost everybody was illiterate before the invention of the printing press, they were at the mercy of their priests to tell them what the bible said.) Knowing how to swim marked a person as a disciple of the devil, and merely bathing was socially unacceptable. Even what we consider minimal standards of cleanliness were way beyond them. At a time when Japanese cities had government employees regularly washing and sweeping their streets, European city leaders turned a herd of pigs loose once or twice a year to eat the garbage... and turn it into pig shit, which was somehow supposed to be an improvement. The "heathen" Romans invented the sewer, but their Christian descendants let them fall into disrepair. The Jews considered cleanliness to be a ritual of religious or near-religious importance. They bathed, kept their food preparation areas relatively sanitary, and even kept the streets in the shtetls much cleaner than in the surrounding Gentile communities. The kashruth's prohibition against eating the flesh of scavengers such as bears and pigs followed the same spirit, and reduced the incidence of parasite-borne illnesses. The result of all of this was that when the Plague (a parasite-borne disease carried by the fleas that infested the rats that infested the Gentile districts) hit Europe and killed off 25-30% of the Gentile population, the death rate in the Jewish community was so low in comparison that the only possible explanation was: Those damn Jews were in league with the devil.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2050415#post2050415

Apparently being dirty was a way of life to them.

You're an idiot. Islam made war on the Eastern Roman Empire - a Christian civilization, since you're apparently not aware of that, much as you're not aware of the meaning of Syriac or Manichaean. The Eastern Romans were from Constantinople, not the invading islamic armies.

You need a history refresher, and lots and lots of perspective.

Three words. Look it up.

The Arabs fought the Byzantine Empire in the 8th century,

. By the early 8th century, the Umayyad Caliphate had rapidly captured North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Spain from a predominantly Christian Byzantine Empire.

The Romans were invaded by the Seljiks in the 11th. The Turkomen were natives of the region who resisted the Roman Empire.

Turks are not Arabs, besides which the Muslims were just one of many. The rest included the pagans, gypsies, Slavs and Jews all of whom were slaughtered to make way for Christendom.

And if you want to be picky, the Romans were not native to any of the regions which through the Muslims were given back to the natives [slaves under the Romans].

 

[GeoffP]

Three words. Look it up.

The Arabs fought the Byzantine Empire in the 8th century,

Yes. So muslims fought and invaded Christian territory. This is what I've been saying.

The Romans were invaded by the Seljiks in the 11th. The Turkomen were natives of the region who resisted the Roman Empire...And if you want to be picky, the Romans were not native to any of the regions which through the Muslims were given back to the natives [slaves under the Romans

Really! And so the fact they were all Christian is meaningless to you. The muslim armies were coming to give the region back to the original inhabitants...who were all Christians! To give it back to themselves! I see. Because islam is all about liberating people to give back their pre-islamic roots.

Well, except for the pre-islamic part. N'est-ce-pas?

 

[GeoffP]

By the by: this also completely overlooks the invasion of the entire Middle East, which prior to islamic conquest was an actual mix of many different cultures. Thankfully, they were able to put an end to all that. Jahiliya, indeed.

 

[S.A.M.]

It was called the DARK AGES.

Thats English for Jahilliya.

The Turks took back what was theirs. The Romans had no right to be there anyway.

And the Crusaders destroyed the entire culture of the Slavs, Vikings, all the old Norman and Prussic peoples were murdered/converted by the Crusaders.

And anyway, the Romans were crazy. First they threw the Christians to the Lions, then converted to Christianity and began to kill everyone who was not Christian. Nuts.

 

[GeoffP]

lets not forget that during the crusades the jews fought for the muslims and not the crusaders.

The point being?

It was called the DARK AGES.

Thats English for Jahilliya.

Er, no, not really.

Jahiliyyah, al-Jahiliyah or jahalia (Arabic: جاهلية) is an Islamic concept of "ignorance of divine guidance" or "the state of ignorance of the guidance from God"[1] or "Days of Ignorance"[2] referring to the condition Arabs found themselves in pre-Islamic Arabia, i.e. prior to the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad. By extension it means the state of anyone not following Islam and the Qur'an.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliya

The Turks took back what was theirs. The Romans had no right to be there anyway.

Well, that's odd, because the inhabitants of the region were Christian. You see, I was under the impression that once a people were in a certain land for a given amount of time, it was basically theirs. I think it was you that suggested this. But you seem to have one rule for Palestine and one for Constantinople. Could you explain this bias in more detail? Did islam have any actual right to this region?

And the Crusaders destroyed the entire culture of the Slavs, Vikings, all the old Norman and Prussic peoples were murdered/converted by the Crusaders.

I'm sorry: are these nations in the Middle East? Is Hindu India in there? The Sudan? North Africa? The Balkans? Africa? This seems more like you're dragging in any point possible to slander the opposing viewpoint.

And anyway, the Romans were crazy. First they threw the Christians to the Lions, then converted to Christianity and began to kill everyone who was not Christian. Nuts.

I laughed so hard when I read this, I was in tears. I cannot possibly imagine that any reasonable person would credit this simplistic justification of islamic invasion of the Middle East, so I will assign it to the comedy pile.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, that's odd, because the inhabitants of the region were Christian. You see, I was under the impression that once a people were in a certain land for a given amount of time, it was basically theirs. I think it was you that suggested this. But you seem to have one rule for Palestine and one for Constantinople. Could you explain this bias in more detail? Did islam have any actual right to this region?

Islam? A religion does not have rights, people do, the Turkomen were natives, the Romans enslaved the natives. Don't forget that the Crusade also targeted the Eastern Orthodox Church in the same place [also natives]

I'm sorry: are these nations in the Middle East? Is Hindu India in there? The Sudan? North Africa? The Balkans? Africa? This seems more like you're dragging in any point possible to slander the opposing viewpoint.

These were all in Europe and all victims of the "defensive" First Crusade.

I laughed so hard when I read this, I was in tears. I cannot possibly imagine that any reasonable person would credit this simplistic justification of islamic invasion of the Middle East, so I will assign it to the comedy pile.

Turkey is in Asia.

 

[GeoffP]

Islam? A religion does not have rights, people do, the Turkomen were natives, the Romans enslaved the natives.

First, you'd need to prove this one. Second, the people there were Christian, as were a large proportion of the Assyrian and other Eastern communities in the region. So enslaving them to islam isn't helping them by any stretch. Or is it that the nasty other cultures don't have rights? It sure sounds like it.

Don't forget that the Crusade also targeted the Eastern Orthodox Church in the same place [also natives]

And? We're talking about motivations. Islam purports to protect religious minorities too, but obviously it doesn't - although to be honest it wasn't ever meant to.

These were all in Europe and all victims of the "defensive" First Crusade.

See above. It changes absolutely nothing about the Crusades actually being defensive responses to islamic aggression.

Turkey is in Asia.

Hair-splitting and diatribe. Heh.

Say, did you figure out what jahiliyyah means?

Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

First, you'd need to prove this one. Second, the people there were Christian, as were a large proportion of the Assyrian and other Eastern communities in the region. So enslaving them to islam isn't helping them by any stretch.

And? We're talking about motivations. Islam purports to protect religious minorities too, but obviously it doesn't - although to be honest it wasn't ever meant to.



See above. It changes absolutely nothing about the Crusades actually being defensive responses to islamic aggression.



Hair-splitting and diatribe. Heh.

Geoff

I don't think the Turks particularly cared about the religion of the Romans. Turks were shamans[pagans], Eastern Orthodox Christians and Muslims. They ALL fought against the Romans.

And if the Crusades were a "defensive" war explain why they slaughtered:

pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

 

[GeoffP]

I don't think the Turks particularly cared about the religion of the Romans. Turks were shamans[pagans], Eastern Orthodox Christians and Muslims. They ALL fought against the Romans.

Strange, then, that they "all" did it in the name of islam.

So if islamic armies invade Christian countries in the ME, and Christians respond to that, how is it not defensive? That's a better question.

Best,

Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

Not Christian countries, Christian empire, we had a Muslim empire for 800 years and a British Empire for 200 years in India, remember? Its not the Hindus who fought back, it was Indians. Just because one clan of the Seljuk embraced Islam, it doesn't mean the rest of the Turks would have preferred the Romans to hang around.

 

[GeoffP]

Well their victims probably wanted to keep their culture. Yet, it's gone. Where did it go? And what about all the other Christians and Jews in the ME? Did they evaporate?

 

[S.A.M.]

What victims? The Romans? They went the way of all things that came in the path of Christians

The Eastern Orthodox church is still around, the shamans probably assimilated when the Ottoman Empire was established. Being in a rich culture does tend to make assimilation an attractive option to the minorities.

 

[GeoffP]

What victims? The Romans? They went the way of all things that came in the path of Christians

Are you insane? The Eastern Empire were Christians. They were invaded by muslims. Hence Turkey today. This is not in question at all.

The Eastern Orthodox church is still around, the shamans probably assimilated when the Ottoman Empire was established.

"Shamans" of the church, eh? The history of islam in Turkey is the usual story of repression and savagery, culminating in the genocide of the Armenians.

Being in a rich culture does tend to make assimilation an attractive option to the minorities.

Being ruthlessly taxed, having your children stolen by the islamic authorities and possessing almost no legal recourse does tend to make assimilation an attractive option to the minorities.

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you insane? The Eastern Empire were Christians. They were invaded by muslims. Hence Turkey today. This is not in question at all.

The Roman Empire adopted Christianity, they killed those who were not Christians just like they had thrown the Christians to the lions.

The example of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, who were seen as "godly emperors (...) serving the church and crushing its enemies", was cited repeatedly by Christian author who endorsed religious persecution.[130] When Louis XIV of France issued the Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685, revoking the Edict of Nantes and persecuting the schismatic Christian Huguenots, he was saluted as a 'new Constantine' by Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet.[131]

This also goes for the later medieval Emperor Charlemagne, who in September, 774, decided that the Saxons (Westfali, Ostfali, and Angrarii) must be presented with the alternative of baptism or death.[132] and is also reported as having 4,500 pagan Saxons beheaded in the Massacre of Verden. According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen a council of bishops at Toledo in 681 called on civil authorities to seize and behead all those guilty of non-Christian practices of whatever sort.[133]

"Shamans" of the church, eh? The history of islam in Turkey is the usual story of repression and savagery, culminating in the genocide of the Armenians.

Yeah right and the pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes were just "collateral damages"

Being ruthlessly taxed, having your children stolen by the islamic authorities and possessing almost no legal recourse does tend to make assimilation an attractive option to the minorities.

Still reading Christian propaganda, eh?

The Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453

One of the successes of the social structure of the Ottoman Empire was the unity that it brought about among its highly varied populations through an organization named as millets. The Millets were the major religious groups that were allowed to establish their own communities under Ottoman rule. The Millets were established by retaining their own religious laws, traditions, and language under the general protection of the sultan. Plurality was the key to the longevity of the Empire. As early as the reign of Mehmed II, extensive rights were granted to Phanariot Greeks, and Jews were invited to settle in Ottoman territory. Ultimately, the Ottoman Empire's relatively high degree of tolerance for ethnic differences proved to be one of its greatest strengths in integrating the new regions but this non-assimilative policy became a weakness after the rise of nationalism.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm, I Wonder If Sam Is Slightly Biased On This Topic..

Its really shameful how people flaunt their ignorance as a point of view :spank:

 

[GeoffP]

The Roman Empire adopted Christianity, they killed those who were not Christians just like they had thrown the Christians to the lions.

Haw. If true, this justifies their invasion and conquest? A thousand years after the fact?

:roflmao:

Yeah right and the pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes were just "collateral damages"

How does this relate to the original point that islam invaded the Middle East and forced its inhabitants under repressive dhimmi status?

Still reading Christian propaganda, eh?

I love your uncited generalizations. Never mind what happened during the wars, or after, the devshirme, the jizya, dhimmitude. Don't you mind.



Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

Haw. If true, this justifies their invasion and conquest? A thousand years after the fact?

:roflmao:

Your clock is whacked. The Turks were the natives and they were clearly not Christian [not Muslim either till one clan of the Seljuks adopted Islam]

How does this relate to the original point that islam invaded the Middle East and forced its inhabitants under repressive dhimmi status?

Where? Look at the Middle East. The Arabs were only around for a hundred years, after that it was the Persians, Mongols and Turks.

I love your uncited generalizations. Never mind what happened during the wars, or after, the devshirme, the jizya, dhimmitude. Don't you mind.

Rewrite history with Christian propaganda if you like, the present ME is mute witness to the Ottoman legacy. They nationalised along the Millets and still retained their identity, 800 years hence, as did the Indians under another branch of Turko-Persians.

 

[GeoffP]

Your clock is whacked. The Turks were the natives and they were clearly not Christian

Haw! The inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire weren't Christian. Now that is a quote for quoting.

Where? Look at the Middle East. The Arabs were only around for a hundred years, after that it was the Persians, Mongols and Turks.

All under the auspices of Arab imperialism. Which language is the dominant one around those parts now? Aramaic? No...starts with an A though.

Rewrite history with Christian propaganda if you like, the present ME is mute witness to the Ottoman legacy. They nationalised along the Millets.

And wiped out all the infidels.

 

[S.A.M.]

Haw! The inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire weren't Christian. Now that is a quote for quoting.

No the Empire was. In fact, even after one clan of the Seljuks adopted Islam, the Seljuk empire was not made up of primarily Muslim inhabitants. Not until they invaded Iran and Iraq was the empire primarily Muslim.

All under the auspices of Arab imperialism. Which language is the dominant one around those parts now? Aramaic? No...starts with an A though.

Yeah its amazing how the Persians, Mongols and Turks all adopted Arabic. Even though in all three the court language was Persian [as it was in India]. I wonder why?

And wiped out all the infidels.

I think you are referring to the complete absence of non-Christians in Europe post Crusades here. Note this was not evident in any part of any of the Muslim Empires.

 

[GeoffP]

No the Empire was. In fact, even after one clan of the Seljuks adopted Islam, the Seljuk empire was not made up of primarily Muslim inhabitants. Not until they invaded Iran and Iraq was the empire primarily Muslim.

So they conquered Constantinople in the name of not-Allah. Gotcha. This is a fascinating revisionist history lesson. Let us return to the issue of the Crusades, however, which were directed at the recovery of the Assyrian Christian lands from invasion by islam. How is this not defensive?

Yeah its amazing how the Persians, Mongols and Turks all adopted Arabic. Even though in all three the court language was Persian [as it was in India]. I wonder why?

Religious fanaticism and the belief that Arabic was the only language of proper religion. Do you read the Quran in Hindi or Arabic, Sam?

I think you are referring to the complete absence of non-Christians in Europe post Crusades here. Note this was not evident in any part of any of the Muslim Empires.

And that's why there is such a diversity of religious cultures there today, with religious minorities comprising as much as 0.1%, or even 1% of the population.

Of course, they were probably invading aliens. Right, Sam?