I am real sick of people saying that Jihad is deserved over things like the crusades. Lets examine some timelines here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests Spain was First attacked by Muslims in 711 Sicily was First attacked by Muslims in 831 Italy was first attacked by Muslims in 900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade The first Crusade was in 1096. But what about Eastern Europe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe Conquest began in 1354 by the Ottoman Empire. But that's all well and good but in reality the Attempted conquest of Europe really began much earlier at the battle of Marathon did it not? Granted they were not Muslims but they were predecessors to Islam. So please lets not compare Christianity to Islam. There can be no comparison on who invaded who first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kc
I agree, he comparison is more to the Christian inquisitions then the crusades imo it's violent religious fanaticism that feels if they can eliminate everyone that doesn't believe like they do, God will reward them .
Bloody Hell, You're conflating ISLAM with the ****** PERSIANS? I mean, Jebus, the ONLY similarity is that they both came from the same DIRECTION. They weren't even the same PEOPLE, the Achaemaenids were about as much predecessors to Islam as the Indians were predecessors to the USA. I'm surprised you didn't throw the Mongols in there too. They also menaced Europe from the East , didn't they?
you also forget that most of the middle east did not peacefully convert either when the muslims showed up egypt, north africa, syria, jerusalem where all christian lands there where plenty of christians in iraq and persia at the time to considering over half the christian lands at the time where conquered by brute force (germany/scandinavia/east europe wasnt christian yet at the time) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Christianity i'd say the crusades is a fairly natural result eitherway where the jihad has no right to complain unles we actually invade arabia or nuke mekkah/medinah
I fail to see the premise and therefore don't really understand the response either. The Jewish religion, the base model for both Christianity and Islam, didn't spread by converting people. To this day there are virtually no Jewish people going around in order to convert other peoples. The converting is the revolutionary thing of the new testament, and this idea of spreading the religion in order to save souls. Islam used a similar concept but with a roughly 600 year delay. Now whether you believe in the one, the other or neither is besides the point. The point is that both religions seek out new followers, and were (and to some extent still are) willing to forcefully get people to follow their religion. It is only natural that they would fall in opposition to people who didn't want to get converted. The harder it is to convert another people the more likely are continues conflicts. This is true for either religion. What label you put over these methods, is really not that important in my opinion. I fail to see the difference between the two in that regard. It just depends on the year in history you look at. Since you mentioned a few conflicts already engaged by Islam, let me point to a few engaged by Christianity: 1. Christianity spreads through the Roman empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire 2. Charlemagne spreads Christianity to the Germans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Christianity 3. Christianity spreads to the Slavs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendish_Crusade 4. Christianity spreads into Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Poland 5. Christianity spreads to the American continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Goa Territories which border the Islamic and Christian religions therefore naturally tend to provide most conflict because neither is willing to move away from their beliefs. Since Jews can't really be converted either, both Christianity and Islam have Anti-Semite tendencies and persecute Jewish communities depending on the century and location you look at.
There were forced conversions. John Hyrcanus conquered the whole of Edom and undertook the forced conversion of its people. Isabella of Spain said convert or die in 1499. There was also the rape case in the OT.. The brothers all converted and were circumcised and while they were recovering they were all murdered.
The point is modern day DEFENDERS of islam use the excuse of the crusades (aka obama in his crusade speech) to excuse or justify the actions of Jihad. I am pointing out the hypocrisy in that notion as the crusades did not even being for a full 300 years after the first Jihad into christian lands. At no point am i saying that Christianity does not have its own demons but for the most part Christianity has left those far in the past compared to Islam today.
I wasn't entirely sure what you meant by Obama's crusade speech, so I googled and found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFNDIl42E20 I don't see your point I'm afraid. He mentioned the crusade as a well known example. He could have chosen to talk about the Inquisition, or something closer to home like "converting" native Americans, by killing the vast majority, but I think that would have been political suicide. Americans don't like to be reminded that they had a genocide as well. Also there are more recent examples which come to mind. George W. Bush's rhetoric of calling the war against terrorism a crusade as you see in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsjgjM56HRw But outside the US you have plenty of examples as well. Closer to my home: The Bosnian genocide in the Yugoslav war in the 1990s. Croats (Catholics), Bosnians (Muslims) and Serbs (Orthodox) share a common language. Because the region wasn't ethnically "clean", there were Orthodox Serbs living alongside their Croat neighbors for centuries. The religious practice was the distinction and the war was fought on religious grounds as well as political ones. Killing people because of their faith. I don't think the rhetoric used by Obama is any different from what Bush used. Both president's policies include bombing Muslim countries and spreading the good will of Christianity by force rather than taking refugees. Not that Europeans are any different! A hand full of Christians get attacked in Mali, a country with 80% Muslim population, and you can't even finish reading the article in the news about it, before French planes and troops are attacking Muslim strongholds in Mali.
The earliest Crusaders...at least on a mass scale...was the Roman's of the Roman Empire under Constantine. This is, at least, the known earliest point where Christianity became politicized and militarized on a mass scale. Further, in comparing the devestation wrought by Chritisan militant groups, peoples, and organizations, compared to Islam, there is no real comparrison. Christianity has set out to conquer entire continents. The Pope "gave" Spain the land rights to the entirety of North and South America under the condition that all natives b converted to Christianity. They would do similar things in Africa, Australia, and throught the East-European states. Plus, you must realize that Christianity is NOT a European religion. It is a Semetic one. The Roman's adopted it and then forced on one everyone they conquered. Some centuries later, we now say "our" religion versus "their's". In other words, Europe was the first forced-convert of Christianity.
And their can be no doubt that Christianity, in some locations, was forced on people by the sword or gun. But by modern standards Christianity is NOT being forced on people by the sword and gun with a very few notable exceptions. Meanwhile Islam is absolutely continuing the same methods of persuasion that they have used since the 6th century while the majority of Christianity has moved passed that. In any case Justifying Jihad because of the sins of the crusades or passed Christan atrocities is baffling when taken in the context of living now in the 21st century. It is something I will never understand about liberals as Islam is the complete antithesis of everything liberalism stands for.
It's a tough competition for most "evil" religion, but I think Islam is winning today. They were pretty evenly matched in medieval times, though. I think Christianity might win for most hypocritical religion in the world. Jesus said to turn the cheek, pope said to kill infidels to atone for sins. At least Muhammad didn't pretend to be a nice guy.
Ah yes, I actually thought of mentioning the Northern Crusades (which went beyond just the Wends.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades I read a lot about eastern European history awhile ago, and I was surprised at how the whole region was sort of forced into Christianity. My favorite part was the story of the pagan Czech chieftains in the 9th century, who were all baptized in the hopes of making peace with the Frankish empire. Once they found out they were going to be invaded anyway, they all converted back. Says a lot about the motivations of many conversions back then. If you include the Christianization of Poland, then count Rus as well. Prince Vladimir pretty much said anyone who didn't get baptized was an enemy of the state. In another thread I mentioned how both religions have a history of forced conversion and conquest. The main difference seems to be that this tradition can be traced all the way back to the founder of the religion, in the case of Islam, whereas with Christianity, it originates somewhat later. Whether or not that is significant is debatable.
Here's something to chew on. Everyone is ambitious. Everyone wants to be on top. How do you think the west became so rich and powerful? Because they spent centuries looting and destroying and invading and killing people all over the world. When we were colonials struggling under British domination of the world economy and world power, how did w free our selves? Did we talk it over in a nice room by a fire, cast votes and patiently wait for corrupt international courts owned by this or that to give us freedom, or did we declare war? How did we even becom a nation? Did we find any empty plot of land and build a nation from sound moral principles or did we gun down, cheat, and extort anyone we came across? How do we maintain what we have? We destroy all serious competitors. Russia? Neutralized. Germany? Neutralized. China...well, there in our crosshairs simply for becoming competitors. But we cry foul when someone else does the same thing. They are supposed to follow "the rules". This is not a realistic interpretation of the world. People, not Islam, are volatile because the west has always been in that region manipulating and extorting them- killing them- to this day. Like the drone strikes. You know how many civilians are killed by drones. Before that it was air strikes. But you don't complain about this injustice. It's not Islam that's the problem. Islam has been around for a long time. It's not any more or less violent than any other group. It's just that our media has successfully correlated Islam with anything that happens concerning the ME. The root cause of anything, according to a western perspective, is relgious fanaticism rather than the secualr struggle for stability, prosperity, and dignity- challenged, for decades, by foreign interlopers. Come on, man...
Most liberals are NOT and never have, "defended" Islamic extremists. Conservatives only say that to demonize them. Liberals ARE saying that we shouldn't REVIVE the Crusades and try to kill all the 1.5 billion Muslims in existence which, AFAICT, IS what many conservatives want to do, and yes I am demonizing conservatives in my turn myself there, but how else should we interpret things like "there are NO moderate Muslims" and "ALL Muslims HAVE to want to kill us, it's in their religion" etc.
