Political Crossfire Forums

[triffidfood]

Here in the UK, I've heard "moderate" Moslems defend their faith post-7/7 (the London bombings) by denouncing suicide bombers on the basis that ANYONE who takes their own life goes into the eternal fire (-hell) when they die, to be punished for all eternity.

Okay then .. so, from a Quranic p.o.v., suicide bombing is wrong because ... why?

Because killing innocent people is wrong? Nope - the Quran (as the Bible) has no meaningful concept of "innocent people", after all. Instead, according to this loving, peaceable religion, suicide bombing is wrong simply because taking your OWN life is wrong, and an even greater atrocity awaits ANYONE who does this .. ie.anyone who chooses to take their own life, for whatever reasons - including victims of oppression & abuse, or anyone who simply can't take any more, etc etc - will go to 'hell'.

The very concept of "hell" is atrocious .. the Quran makes it clear that this is a place of unimaginable torment, an everlasting fire where MILLIONS (apparently - figure it out, how many people have taken their own lives since the dawn of time?...how many "disbelievers" have there been/ are there?) - where millions of people will spend eternity being punished for their supposed transgressions.

Any faith that has at it's heart a concept as brutal, unforgiving and viscious as 'hell' cannot claim any sort of morality, in my opinion, and cannot talk about "innocent people" .. if you sincerely believe, because your religion demands you to believe this, that countless numbers of people will go into an eternal fire to be punished for eternity, simply for taking their own lives, or for choosing not to believe in the same (loving & merciful :roll:) god as you, then how can you believe any of these people to be "innocent", in any sense? It's contradictory & absurd. Not to mention vile, inhumane, and atrocious.

[triffidfood]

Just to expand a little on things, the following quote(s) [from the Quran] seem to relate to the above...

[4:29] [....] Do not kill yourself [yourselves]. [-Because..] GOD is Merciful towards you.

[4:30] Anyone who commits any of these transgressions [including suicide], maliciously & deliberately, we will be condemned to Hell. This is easy for GOD to do.

Merciful & Loving??? Okay... :-|

[pharaoh]

Quote: Because killing innocent people is wrong? Nope - the Quran (as the Bible) has no meaningful concept of "innocent people"

No The Quran has a meaningful concept of innocent people.
The Quran command muslims not to kill or harm or cause mischief to those who havent attacked them.
During a war the muslim warriors must not kill old men and women,children,men who have surrendered,religious people,...
The Quran says that if you killed a person who was innocent it is like you have killed whole mankind.

Quote: according to this loving, peaceable religion, suicide bombing is wrong simply because taking your OWN life is wrong, and an even greater atrocity awaits ANYONE who does this .. ie.anyone who chooses to take their own life, for whatever reasons - including victims of oppression & abuse, or anyone who simply can't take any more, etc etc - will go to 'hell'.


Killing yourself for whatever reason is wrong because it just means you have no faith in god.It means that you cant handle your hard life or your problems and instead of praying to god and asking to ease things you kill yourself because you dont think god can ease your troubles!
In a way you have become an atheist.
Thats why suicide is such a terrible sin...it just means you have no faith in god.
God didnt create us to kill ourselves when we pleases.No,god created us to test us.The test includes having faith in god and being patient to hardship.By killing yourself you just get a big zero.

Quote: Any faith that has at it's heart a concept as brutal, unforgiving and viscious as 'hell' cannot claim any sort of morality, in my opinion, and cannot talk about "innocent people" ..

As there is a horrible place like hell there is a very beautiful place beyond your wildest imagination called Heaven.
We are here on earth to either live peacefully and follow gods commands or rules or to cause mischief and misery on earth.
The 2 cant be equal,each choice has its own result.
You are free to choose yours.

[Bag of Rags]

Quote: No The Quran has a meaningful concept of innocent people.
The Quran command muslims not to kill or harm or cause mischief to those who havent attacked them.
During a war the muslim warriors must not kill old men and women,children,men who have surrendered,religious people,...
The Quran says that if you killed a person who was innocent it is like you have killed whole mankind.

I'd be interested to see where those verses are in the Quran.

I'd be even more interested to see somebody try to explain away the FACT that what your saying is NOT followed by Muslims in any kind of war.

[Demonic Spoon]

Yes Bag of Rags, historically, people in wars for religious reasons have ALWAYS followed their religions' doctrine when fighting. That's why nearly every holy war in history (despite the fact that nearly every religion promotes goodwill and kindness, especially to innocent people) has resulted in MASS AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE DYING. Find a holy war (without Islam in it) that didn't result in atrocities by both sides and I'll take you seriously. Islam is not the only religion whose followers abandoned morality in wartime.

And Traffidfood: In Islam, Hell is a place of purifying. The Islamic belief is that you go to hell for a little stay, before spending the rest of eternity in Paradise. The purpose of Hell is to purify you of sins. Also, murdering innocents AND suicide is forbidden.

[pharaoh]

Quote: I'd be interested to see where those verses are in the Quran.


Ok,examples:

Surah 5, verse 32:

*{… if anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.}*

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

and this link might help:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015848&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE


Quote: I'd be even more interested to see somebody try to explain away the FACT that what your saying is NOT followed by Muslims in any kind of war.

lol not in any kind of war?! For starters,plz read about the crusades, like what did they do when they entered Jerusalem and then read what the muslims did when they liberated it.
Have a nice time.

[Bag of Rags]

pharaoh wrote: Quote: I'd be interested to see where those verses are in the Quran.


Ok,examples:

Surah 5, verse 32:

*{… if anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.}*

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

and this link might help:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015848&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE


Quote: I'd be even more interested to see somebody try to explain away the FACT that what your saying is NOT followed by Muslims in any kind of war.

lol not in any kind of war?! For starters,plz read about the crusades, like what did they do when they entered Jerusalem and then read what the muslims did when they liberated it.
Have a nice time.

You're blind! :rotf:

The Crusades! Had there NOT been decades of warfare and wholesale slaughter - DONE BY MUSLIMS - there never would have been the Crusades.

Again, I have denounced the atrocities and slaughter, caused by "Christians", during the Crusades.
Can you/will you deonunce the atrocities and slaughter, caused by MUSLIMS, during the Crusades?

Of course you won't, because you're a raging hypocrite. You ENDORSE it! :lol:

[Bag of Rags]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Yes Bag of Rags, historically, people in wars for religious reasons have ALWAYS followed their religions' doctrine when fighting. That's why nearly every holy war in history (despite the fact that nearly every religion promotes goodwill and kindness, especially to innocent people) has resulted in MASS AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE DYING. Find a holy war (without Islam in it) that didn't result in atrocities by both sides and I'll take you seriously. Islam is not the only religion whose followers abandoned morality in wartime.
I don't care whether you take me seriously or not.

See, here's the problem... I never said anything about "holy war" did I? Further, I'm not the one making idiotic and completely false claims like this one of Pharoah's. Quote: During a war the muslim warriors must not kill old men and women,children,men who have surrendered,religious people,...
The Quran says that if you killed a person who was innocent it is like you have killed whole mankind.

I utterly amazes me that people will bend over backwards defending the violence and slaughter that continues to be perpetrated by Muslims - and simply try to claim that it doesn't happen!

Am I suppose to believe that the suicide bombers are NOT killing innocent civilians. :roll:

[pharaoh]

Quote: You're blind!

One of us is...stick with me and we will find out!

Quote: The Crusades! Had there NOT been decades of warfare and wholesale slaughter - DONE BY MUSLIMS - there never would have been the Crusades.


What do you mean? That the crusades were conducted for a juste reason? That Christians should massacre jews and muslims in the name of the lord?
And again plz....what are these "wholesale slaughter" that you are talking about?! LINK?!
And since you chose to ignore my question about Jerusalem.Well then plz allow me to answer it:

Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. Although many Muslims sought shelter in Solomon's Temple (known today as Al-Aqsa Mosque), the crusaders spared few lives. According to the anonymous Gesta Francorum, in what some believe to be an exaggerated account of the massacre which subsequently took place there, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."[3]. Other accounts of blood flowing up to the bridles of horses are reminiscent of a passage from the Book of Revelation (14:20). Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he was unable to prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. According to Fulcher of Chartres: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared."[4]

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

While on the other, Saladin’s triumphant entry into the third holiest city of Islam was very peaceful. He explicitly forbade reprisals and insisted that the city revert to its former status - open to worshippers of all three faiths. Saladin calmed down the hot heads of his camp - who were demanding the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. “The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was not to be touched,” he declared.

Quote: Again, I have denounced the atrocities and slaughter, caused by "Christians", during the Crusades.


Very good.

Quote: Can you/will you deonunce the atrocities and slaughter, caused by MUSLIMS, during the Crusades?


What did the "muslims" do during the Crusades? They were liberating their lands, thats what i know. And if there were some wrong doings here and there then ofcourse I denounce them but in no way were they anything compared to terrorism that the crusades had caused for about 200 years.

Quote: Of course you won't, because you're a raging hypocrite. You ENDORSE it!

Tsk tsk tsk....did you take your medication today...or ever? :lol:

[Bag of Rags]

You're still dancing, Pharoah. And I'm not buying it, nor am I letting you off the hook that easily.

What took place in Jerusalem BEFORE Pope Urban II ordered the Crusades?

In other words, why and how were the Muslims in Jerusalem in the first place? Mohammed was from Mecca and Medina!

Let me give you a hint... The Muslim marauders had invaded the Holy Land, slaughtering innocent people and continuing their murderous spread Northward. This, my friend, is what led directly to the Crusades (the Crusades being something I have long since denounced as wrong and anti-Christian).

So dance all you want, deny all you want, refuse to denounce Muslim atrocities all you want.


But before you continue the arrogant denial, I'd suggest you do some honest study of history.

Until then, just keep right on endorsing bloodshed and slaughter in the name of Allah. :roll:

[pharaoh]

Quote: You're still dancing, Pharoah. And I'm not buying it, nor am I letting you off the hook that easily.


What are you talking about?! I answered all your questions and comments!
Its you who im not letting off the hook!
I showed you how the crusades behaved when they entered Jerusalem then I showed you what the muslims did after about 88 years of occupation and suffering.With all this we showed tolerance and mercy,because its in our nature and in our religion!
Can you say the same thing about yours?
Ah yes,you can see "our religion tells us to turn the other cheek" but then ask yourself this question: Did it ever happen?! Not before not now and it wont happen!

You said you were talking about what took place before the crusades. Then please tell me what did the muslims and jews and eastern christians do to deserve being wiped out completely when the crusaders entered Jerusalem?! Even IF, and i say again IF, the muslims commited some wrong goings then why oh why should the jews and eastern christians be punished and killed too?!
Those crusaders came from an enviroment where there is no mercy and compasion and faith. Even faith has been distorted and twisted so in the end it didnt reach the heart of the Christians. Hence such barbaric attitude.

What did the muslims do when they entered Jerusalem the first time? You keep saying they commited "wholesale slaughter" but you still ignore my requests for a Link!
Then I'll tell you -in short- what did the muslims do when they entered Jerusalem the first time:

In 637, after a prolonged siege of Jerusalem, the Muslims took the city. Umar was given the key to the city by the Greek Orthodox patriarch, Sophronius, and invited to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar chose to pray some distance from the Church, so as not to endanger its status as a Christian temple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_al-Khattab

And here:

Sophronius died soon after the fall of Jerusalem to the caliph Umar I in 637, but not before he had negotiated the recognition of civil and religious liberty for Christians in exchange for tribute. The caliph himself came to Jerusalem, and met with the patriarch at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Sophronius invited Umar to pray therebut he declined, fearing to endanger the Church's status as a christian temple.


You can search all your life for something like this that a Christian emperor or king did during medeivel time (and maybe untill now!) and you will still wont find something as merciful and tolerant as this.
You guys showed your tolerance when you entered Jerusalem.

[Bag of Rags]

Good grief. I don't need to provide a "link". Go read a history book - any history book that is not Muslim propaganda. You might learn something about your violent religion.

MUSLIMS TOOK JERUSALEM BY FORCE - BY SLAUGHTER AND BLOODSHED - BEFORE THE CRUSADES. Jerusalem, and the surrounding area, did NOT belong to the Muslims. They took it! They invaded it! They slaughtered the people who were living there, occupied the territory, and took over. What part of that do you NOT understand?

The Crusades were an attempt - albeit a stupid one - to drive the Muslims BACK OUT OF JERUSALEM and the Holy Land. What part of that do you NOT understand?


I'm not going to waste my time with somebody who is completely, totally and willfully ignorant of history - and who refuses to learn anything about it. :ah:

[Demonic Spoon]

Oh please. If that is really history, then you can find it on the internet. You made a claim, it is YOUR responsability to back it up.

[pharaoh]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Oh please. If that is really history, then you can find it on the internet. You made a claim, it is YOUR responsability to back it up.

Precisely.

[Bag of Rags]

pharaoh wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Oh please. If that is really history, then you can find it on the internet. You made a claim, it is YOUR responsability to back it up.

Precisely.

Good grief. Just how ignorant and lazy are you two?

Let me start with a little primer here... This MIGHT give you a little taste of the "other side" of the Crusades - though it's a popular delusion that they were one-sided.

Keep in mind that there is SO MUCH MORE. All you have to do is look, read and learn (three things you'll both refuse to do).

I'll even bold a few highlights - since I know NEITHER of you will actually read this scholarly article.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

Quote: The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden

With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?

Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.

Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

* * *

Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’"

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? ...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?

The reconquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was not colonialism but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one’s love of God. Medieval men knew, of course, that God had the power to restore Jerusalem Himself—indeed, He had the power to restore the whole world to His rule. Yet as St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached, His refusal to do so was a blessing to His people:

Again I say, consider the Almighty’s goodness and pay heed to His plans of mercy. He puts Himself under obligation to you, or rather feigns to do so, that He can help you to satisfy your obligations toward Himself.... I call blessed the generation that can seize an opportunity of such rich indulgence as this.

It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.

The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews’ money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered.... Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."

Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.

By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause. Many of them died, either in battle or through disease or starvation. It was a rough campaign, one that seemed always on the brink of disaster. Yet it was miraculously successful. By 1098, the Crusaders had restored Nicaea and Antioch to Christian rule. In July 1099, they conquered Jerusalem and began to build a Christian state in Palestine. The joy in Europe was unbridled. It seemed that the tide of history, which had lifted the Muslims to such heights, was now turning.

* * *

But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.

When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East.

Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were asked to sacrifice their wealth and, if need be, their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front, all Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin, the great unifier, had forged the Muslim Near East into a single entity, all the while preaching jihad against the Christians. In 1187 at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of ports held out.

The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I Lionheart of England. By any measure it was a grand affair, although not quite as grand as the Christians had hoped. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land. Philip and Richard came by boat, but their incessant bickering only added to an already divisive situation on the ground in Palestine. After recapturing Acre, the king of France went home, where he busied himself carving up Richard’s French holdings. The Crusade, therefore, fell into Richard’s lap. A skilled warrior, gifted leader, and superb tactician, Richard led the Christian forces to victory after victory, eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. But it was a bitter pill to swallow. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe.

The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart.

The remainder of the 13th century’s Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was quickly outwitted by the Egyptians and forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of a disease that ravaged the camp. After St. Louis’s death, the ruthless Muslim leaders, Baybars and Kalavun, waged a brutal jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslim forces had succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.

* * *

One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. One of the great best-sellers of the time, Sebastian Brant’s The Ship of Fools, gave voice to this sentiment in a chapter titled "Of the Decline of the Faith":

Our faith was strong in th’ Orient,

It ruled in all of Asia,

In Moorish lands and Africa.

But now for us these lands are gone

’Twould even grieve the hardest stone....

Four sisters of our Church you find,

They’re of the patriarchic kind:

Constantinople, Alexandria,

Jerusalem, Antiochia.

But they’ve been forfeited and sacked

And soon the head will be attacked.

Of course, that is not what happened. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a beachhead for his invasion of Italy. Rome was evacuated. Yet the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plan died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy.

Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.

From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

[Bag of Rags]

So... are you girls ready for a little more?

Remember - you ASKED for this.

http://www.biblia.com/islam/history.htm

Quote: History of the Muslims
Empires of Islam

Links

1- In Medina (Arabia): The initial period of the Prophet Muhammad (622-632).
2- In Medina and Kufa: the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs (632-661).
- Ali, the Fourth Caliph, moved the Arab capital from Medina to Kufa in southern Iraq.
- Islam splits into two major groups: Sunni and Shiite.
3- Empire in Damascus (Syria): The Umayyad Caliphate(661-750).
4- Empire in Cordoba (Spain): The Umayyad (750-1492).
5- Empire in Baghdad (Iraq): The Abbasid Dynasty (750-1258)... The Crusades.
6- Empire in Istanbul, (Turkey): The Ottoman Caliphate (1290-1924)... the Last Empire.
7- Empire in Northern India: The Mogul Caliphate (1526-1857).
Muslims Today

1- In Medina (Arabia): In the Beginning, the Prophet Muhammad (622-632):

In Medina (Arabia), the Prophet Muhammad himself combined both the religious and political power:

- He was Allah's Prophet (or Messenger) and thus exercised religious and spiritual authority as Allah's direct representative.
- At the same time he served as a governor and the highest civil authority of his expanding community. This included not merely governing the town and the surrounding area, but also mustering an army and leading it in battle about 80 times in 10 years. Mohammed continued to receive revelations of the Koran as the Prophet of Allah and to govern Medina until his death in 632.

As a Muslim web site states, "roughly speaking, the Prophet launched 80 campaigns during the ten years from his migration in A.D. 622 to his death in A.D. 632. Some of these campaigns were nothing more than reconnaissance missions..." http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/20.htm

But here are some of the real wars fought by the Prophet Himself, again, as stated in Muslim web sites:

The Battle of Badr The Battle of Badr-2. The Battle of Ohod The Battle of Uhud-2 The Battle of Trench
The Banu Quraizah The Battle of Haibar The Battle of Mut'ah The Conquest of Makkah
The Battle of Hunayn The Battle of Ta'if The Battle of Tabuk Conquest of Mecca

In 630 ce, two years before Mohammed’s death, the Moslems took control of Mecca and cleansed the Kaba, reestablishing it as the center for worship of Allah. Although Mohammed was seen as the leader of all Moslems, he stayed in Medina to govern and did not return to live or govern in Mecca.

Islam Religion Islam: Wars and Terrorism

The battles and wars continued with his "successors" (the "caliphs"):

2- In Medina and Kufa: The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs (632-661)
- Ali, the Fourth Caliph, moved the Arab capital from Medina to Kufa in southern Iraq.
- Islam splits into two major groups: Sunni and Shiite.

"Caliph" (Arab. kalifa), "successor", was the title used by the people who took over the leadership of the Umma (the Moslem community) after the death of Mohammed. The institution of the caliphs is called the "Caliphate." The office of caliph was held first by the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, then by the Umayyads, and then the Abbasids. The death of the last Abbasid emperor in Baghdad ended the caliphate for all intents and purposes.

1- Abu Bakr (632-634):
After Mohammed’s death, the leadership of the Umma (Muslim Community) was taken up by Abu Bakr, who took the title Caliph. This title, which means "successor," indicates that he was the successor to the Prophet of God. This means that he claimed all Mohammed’s political and administrative power, and that he became the religious leader.
Arabia is unified under Islam by 634.

2- Umar (634-644):
Umar, the second Caliph, lead the Moslem troops to conquer all of Arabia, and then north into Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Iran, as well as westward into Egypt and North Africa.
He was murdered by a Muslim slave in 644.

3- Uthman (644-656):
The third Caliph, was elected over the strong contesting by Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law Ali.
Uthman finalizes the Quran
Although a pious and humble man, he was a weak ruler and too much influenced by his relatives of the Umayyad clan of the Koreish tribe (who had been "late" converts to Islam).
Finally, his supporters turned on him and he was killed by a mob of Muslims in 656.

4- Ali (656-661):
Ali became the last Rightly Guided Caliph in 656.
Of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs, Ali was the only one who was a close blood relative of Mohammed. From Mohammed’s death, his followers thought that the succession should not be decided by election, but by birth. They thought that the ability to communicate with Allah was passed on in this way.
These followers were known as the "Shia" ("party") of Ali, formed the basis of what later became Shiite Islam. When Ali was elected Caliph, they believed that their views would finally dominate, but after Ali’s assassination, the leadership of the umma moved to the Umayyads.
Ali was assassinated in 661 by Muawiyah, the founder of the Umayyad Dynasty, who took his place as caliph.
Muslim loyalties split, but most remained Sunnis, loyal to the Umayyad Dynasty (about 80% of Muslims). Ali's descendant led the splinter group, the Shi'ites (about 10% of Muslims). Islam Religion

Moslem-controlled territory at the end of the period governed by the Four Righteous Caliphs: Map #1.

By 640, Islamic military campaigns had brought all of Mesopotamia and most of Syria and Palestine under the control of Islam. Egypt was conquered by 642 and the Persian Empire by 643. These were some of the richest regions in the world guarded by powerful militaries—and they fell into Islamic hands in a heartbeat.

They took control of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, all Mesopotamia... capturing Damascus in 635, Jerusalem in 638, Cairo in 641, Alexandria in 642...Iraq and Persia 640-644, North Africa 647, Cypress 649 ...


3- Empire in Damascus (Syria), The Umayyad Caliphate (661-750):

The Empires: After Ali's death, Islam began a long succession of empires. These were led by individuals and their descendants who claimed the title of "caliph" as had the Four Righteous Caliphs.

These empires were primarily based on Sunni Islam, and that meant that there was no religious authority to counterbalance the political power exercised by the caliphs. According to Sunni beliefs, each individual must work out their own submission to Allah; there is no priest or other religious authority to intercede upon a person's behalf or to lead the religious aspects of the community. There were experts who carried the title of Mullah or Ulama, but they were not leaders, so much as a combination of scholars, lawyers and judges.

Within Sunni Islam, then, the civil and political power of Mohammed continued through the office of the caliphs of the empires, but the kind of religious authority Mohammed exercised vanished. There was no one and no office that retained Mohammed's strong connection to Allah, who served as his Messenger. There was no one who could provide infallible guidance for the umma (community) and undisputed interpretation of Allah's message.
The Umayyad Caliphate (661-750):

After Ali’s death, the Umayyad dynasty established itself in Damascus (Syria).

The Umayyad clan of the Koreish Jewish tribe, had been "late" converts to Islam.

The Umayyads were relatives of Uthman, the Third Righteous Caliph, and presented themselves as continuing the authority of the four preceding leaders.

The Umayyads were a political and military power, conquering west through North Africa into Spain, Portugal and southern France as well as east through Afghanistan to the Indus river in modern-day Pakistan.

Expansion into Eastern Turkey, India and China. (650-732). See Map #2.

After Damascus and the Umayyad dynasty fell in 750, a different line of the Umayyad dynasty continued in Spain until 1492.

4- Empire in Cordoba (Spain), Umayyad Spain, (755-1492):

In 755, the UMAYYAD DYNASTY was ousted in Damascus, replaced by the ABBASID DYNASTY which resided in Baghdad.

The last Umayyad prince, ABD AR-RAHMAN fled to Spain where he could take control of the peninsula. Now Muslim Spain was independent from the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad - the Umayyad EMIRATE OF CORDOBA.

At this time there were the two capitals of the rival caliphates, Abbasid Baghdad and Ummayad Cordoba. Both eventually exerted a beneficial effect on the development of Western culture, the lesser center, Cordoba , probably exercising a greater influence because of its geographical accessibility.

'Abd al-Rahman III was passionately interested in both the religious and the secular sciences. He was also determined to show the world that his court at Cordoba equaled in greatness that of the caliphs at Baghdad. Sparing neither time nor expense, he imported books from Baghdad and actively recruited scholars by offering hand some inducements. Soon, as a result, scholars, poets, philosophers, historians, and musicians began to migrate to Cordoba. Soon, too, an infrastructure of libraries, hospitals, research institutions, and centers of Islamic studies grew up, establishing the intellectual tradition and educational system which made Spain outstanding for the next four hundred years.

Charles Martel and Charlemagne reverse Muslim expansion in France to mid-Spain by 759.

The Muslims stayed in Portugal for 600 years and in Spain for 800 years, until 1492, defeated by Kings Elisabeth and Ferdinand of Spain in Granada, the last city they held in Spain.

Here is a list of European countries which were occupied by Muslims (either Arabs, Moors, or Ottoman Turks):
Spain 800 years, Portugal 600 years, Greece 500 years, Sicily 300 years, Serbia 400 years, Bulgaria 500 years, Rumania 400 years, Hungary 150 years... Italy, Austria, Bosnia, Croatia, Wallachia, Albania, Moldavia, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, the Ukraine, and eastern and southern Russia were all battlefields where Islam conquered or was conquered in violent conflicts marked by cruelty, bloodlust, and a fearful loss of life, spread over considerably more than a thousand years... stopped in France by Charles Martel.
What do Islamic scholars have to say about offensive war? See Islam Offensive War to Spread
European history has remained transfixed on the Christian Crusades of the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, it has largely ignored these Muslim attacks and invasions...When accusing the West of imperialism, Muslims are obsessed with the Crusades, but they have forgotten their own longer and more gruesome Jihad


5- Empire in Baghdad (Iraq), The Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258):

In 755, the UMAYYAD DYNASTY was ousted in Damascus, replaced by the ABBASID DYNASTY which resided in Baghdad (Iraq).

Although their empire had its ups and downs, it was generally peaceful and stable. It was during this time that Islamic art flourished, the Hadith was edited, the main elements of the Sharia were developed, and important schools of philosophy and religious thought came about. This was also the time when Sufism developed.

During this period, the Arab hold on Islam was finally broken, and all Moslems came to be seen as equals... Arabs and non-Arabs.

In the empire’s later centuries, its peace was disturbed by Seljuk Turks who came down out of the north, converted to Islam, and ultimately settled in what is today Turkey.

From the 11th century onwards was the period of The Crusades, when armies of Christian soldiers came to "liberate" the Holy Land from the "infidel" Moslems. These wars caused great destruction and large numbers of indiscriminate killings (mostly but not exclusively by the Christian forces), but ultimately resolved nothing. In 1250, most of Palestine remained in Moslem hands, and that amount dwindled as the decades passed. The Crusades were important in that they gave the Moslems their first experience with the Christian West since their initial expansion. The impression left on the Moslems was that of ruthless barbarism, a view that still influences Moslem understanding of the West today.

- For a map of the Abbasid Empire prior to the Seljuks and the Crusades, see Map #3.
- For a map of Moslem holdings just prior to the fall of the Abassid Empire, see Map #4.

6- Empire in Turkey: The Ottoman Caliphate (1290-1924):

After the destruction of Baghdad and the Abbasid Empire by the Moghuls in 1290, the Ottoman Empire came into power. It was dominated by the Turks and centered in what is modern-day Turkey. In 1453, they conquered Constantinople (which had been founded as the capital of all Christendom by Constantine himself), renamed it Istanbul, and made it the capital of their Empire.

Here the leaders are called Sultans ("emperors").

The Ottoman Empire expanded into southeastern Europe (the Balkans and Hungary) and then east and south into Iraq, Arabia, and Egypt. See Map #6 (which includes the Moghul Empire).

After rising to its zenith under Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent (died 1566), the Empire gradually began to deteriorate before the increasing technological and industrial might of the European nations. It did not come to a final end until World War 1, however, when the Allies managed to encourage many of the dissident factions within the Empire to bring about such internal strife that it fell as much from internal troubles as from the Allies’ external attacks.

After the Turks in 1924, no more Muslim Empires.


7- Empire in Northern India: The Moghul Caliphate (Mongol) (1526-1857):

The Moghul Empire (a.k.a., Mongol Empire) began in 1526 in Northern India.

By 1605, the third emperor Akbar had managed to extend the Empire throughout most of India. Akbar took an enlightened view towards Hinduism and encouraged equal treatment of all religions. This policy helped keep peace in the empire. His two successors continued this policy and extended the empire southward while keeping it stable and peaceful.

Under Shah Jahan (1628-58), art and architecture flourished. The most famous example of this was the Taj Mahal which the Shah built to honor one of his wives.

The Shah’s son Aurengzeb (1658-1707) reversed the tolerance policy, however, and introduced a tax on non-Moslems. Forced conversions happened and Hindu temples were destroyed. By the end of his reign, instability set in. Matters deteriorated until the British conquered the Indian sub-continent in 1858. (See the eastern part of Map #6.)

During the Moghul Empire, millions of Indians became Moslems—most of them by choice. But it also created a large amount of hatred and distrust between Moslems and Hindus. In the twentieth century, this required the creation of Pakistan (in 1947) to give Moslems a nation of their own to protect them from mistreatment by the now-dominant Hindus.

The Moghul Empire in India also served as a jumping off point for the movement of Islam into the southern Pacific. Today, the nations of Malaysia and Indonesia are largely Moslem.

Muslims Today:

Extension of Islam Today:

Today there are 1,100 Muslims, and Islam is not only Arab, but it is represented in all the major races and cultures in over 60 countries... most of it conquered by war!.

Indonesia has the largest membership of Muslims: 130 million...

Asia and Middle East: 760 million: Indonesia: 130m. (90%). India: 80m. (13%). Pakistan: 73m. (97%). Bangladesh: 72m. (85%). Turkey: 56M. (98%). Iran: 35m. (98%). China: 19m. (2%). Afghanistan: 15m. ((99%). Iraq: 13m. (95%). Saudi Arabia: 9m. (95%). Syria: 8m. (87%). Malaysia: 7m. (50%). Yemen: 6m. (99%). Jordan: 4m. (93%). Philippines: 3 m. (5%). Lebanon: 2 m. (51%). Kuwait: 2m. (93%). Thailand: 2m. (4%). Burma: 2m. (4%). Sri Lanka: 2m. (7%). Gaza: 1m (80%). West Bank: 1m. (98%). Israel: 1m. (8%). Oman: 1m. (100%).

Africa: 301 million: Egypt: 38m. (91%). Morocco 21m. (99%). Algeria: 20m. (97%). Sudan: 13m. (72%). Tunisia 8m. (99%). Niger: 6m. (85%). Libya: 4m. (98%). Mauritania: 3m. (96%)...

Europe: 32 million (plus U.S.S.R.): U.S.S.R.: 56m. (19%). Yugoslavia: 6m. (19%). Albania: 3m (70%). (Bulgaria: 2 m. (11%).

Latin-America: 1.5 million. North-America: 5.5 million. Oceania: 382,000.

(Data from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1996)

Muslims Wars are going on Today:

The Iraq war just started.
The Aphganistan War just finished.
The Muslims Palestinians have a continuos war of terrorism against Israel.
In Sudan, Africa, the Muslim government of the north have already killed over one million Christians in the south.
Algeria is wracked by bitter fighting between Islamic Fundamentalists and the military.
Nigeria is in the midst of a civil war between Moslems and Christians.
In Kenya the Islamic Party has declared Holy War on the government.
Colonel Khaddafy and his Libyan army have carried out numerous military excursions into neighboring Chad, and, like Aphganistan and Iran, is the basis for terrorism plots.
In Turkey the secular Muslim government is being challenged by militant Refah Islamic Party.
A war also rages between Christian Ethiopia and Muslim Eritrea.
The fight between Christian Armenians and Muslim Azerbaijans ( 35,000 casualties), after which tiny Armenia was shrunk further because of territory "gained" by the "breeding-with-a-vengeance" Muslims population.
A war between the Christian Serbs and the Muslim Albanians could spark at any moment.
Muslims in Chechnya, Daghestan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have ignited insurrection against the pro-Russian regimes.
Two articles in the L.A. Times wrote about Muslims in Indonesia forcing Christians of all denominations to convert to Islam or get their throats slit. Thousands upon thousands of Christians have been first converted, and then sexually mutilated with kitchen knives and razor blades to make them conform to Muslim standards. Afterwards, they are enslaved to their local Muslim chieftain. This was not some aberration of Islam, but rather business as usual for all but the moderate factions. They have a history of murder, terror, lies and brainwashing to advance their cause of global conversion and subjugation... Their Jihad!.

Other Links:
http://www.biblia.com/islam/islam.htm
http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/ReligioNet/ER/Islam/iorg.htm
http://www.balaams-ass.com/alhaj/bukhar52.htm
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/spain/umayyadspain.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/CALIPH.HTM.
http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm
http://religion-cults.com/Islam/islam.htm
http://www.islamset.com/islam/civil/conque.html
http://ragz-international.com/islam.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/glossary/islam-chron.htm
http://www.westmont.edu/~work/classes/theo353/islam.html
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/news1/an011026-12.html
http://www.safeplace.net/members/mer/MER_a040.htm
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/islamic_conquests_632.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~snowlion2/slahadin.html Aladin


Home-Index

[Bag of Rags]

So tell me, Pharoah and Demonic Spoon...

Would you like more evidence that Islam has always been a religion of violence, or would you simply like to continue living in ignorance?

I can cite (literally) hundreds of sources if you would like me to.

[pharaoh]

Wow...Crisismagazine,what is crisismagazine??
Well then,lets read they say about themselves:


The mission of CRISIS Magazine is to interpret and shape the direction of contemporary culture from a standpoint of Catholic tradition. We are dedicated to the proposition that the crisis of modernity can be answered by a Christian humanism rooted in the teachings of the Catholic Church. We bring the wisdom of the Catholic tradition into direct dialogue with contemporary politics and culture.


woooow...So Bag of Rags,couldnt you find a source more biased than that?! :lol:
Anyway...lets take a look at the title of the article:

"The Real History of the Crusades"


Yeah these guys werent kiding,they really are interpreting history their own way.For instance,here they are giving us the "real hisotry" of the crusades...after about 1000 years since they all started.

The true history of the crusades (in their understanding) is that it were a direct responce to "muslim aggression" and "muslim conquests of Christian lands"
Now I find that quite funny,someone should tell your "crusader historian" just how bad the people of the middle east were treated under the Byzantine rule. Someone should tell him that they looked at the arabs as liberators and they were in fact treated far better than under the Byzantines. Someone should tell him that it was the "Chrisitans" who declared war on the muslims not the other way around!
I thought you said that crusades were wrong,whats happened? You changed your mind already?
Cause this "historian" right here is defending the crusades,even though he is a catholist and even though the bible says turn the other cheek!
You guys are funny...really...

Okay...lets move to your other outstanding source...biblica.com (sounds great already)
Well,I tried to find an "about us" link in their find but I didnt find it.
Oh well,its obvious anyway, biblica.com is a site dedicated to Christians and the bible.And just to show you how bias they are,when I clicked on the Islam link,I was greeted by a nice and big "The dark side of Islam" title!
Tell me Bag of Rags,do they tell you in these sites how horribly the Byzantines treated the conquered people? Do they tell you that this very much encouraged the these people to convert to Islam? Do they tell you that it was the Byzantines who declared war on the muslims and not all the other way around?!
Or do they consider telling you such things as not in their best interest so they just decide to stick with their ignorance and lies?

Quote: So tell me, Pharoah and Demonic Spoon...

Would you like more evidence that Islam has always been a religion of violence, or would you simply like to continue living in ignorance?


YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING! :lol:

[Bag of Rags]

pharaoh wrote: Wow...Crisismagazine,what is crisismagazine??
Well then,lets read they say about themselves:


The mission of CRISIS Magazine is to interpret and shape the direction of contemporary culture from a standpoint of Catholic tradition. We are dedicated to the proposition that the crisis of modernity can be answered by a Christian humanism rooted in the teachings of the Catholic Church. We bring the wisdom of the Catholic tradition into direct dialogue with contemporary politics and culture.


woooow...So Bag of Rags,couldnt you find a source more biased than that?! :lol:
Anyway...lets take a look at the title of the article:

"The Real History of the Crusades"


Yeah these guys werent kiding,they really are interpreting history their own way.For instance,here they are giving us the "real hisotry" of the crusades...after about 1000 years since they all started.

The true history of the crusades (in their understanding) is that it were a direct responce to "muslim aggression" and "muslim conquests of Christian lands"
Now I find that quite funny,someone should tell your "crusader historian" just how bad the people of the middle east were treated under the Byzantine rule. Someone should tell him that they looked at the arabs as liberators and they were in fact treated far better than under the Byzantines. Someone should tell him that it was the "Chrisitans" who declared war on the muslims not the other way around!
I thought you said that crusades were wrong,whats happened? You changed your mind already?
Cause this "historian" right here is defending the crusades,even though he is a catholist and even though the bible says turn the other cheek!
You guys are funny...really...

Okay...lets move to your other outstanding source...biblica.com (sounds great already)
Well,I tried to find an "about us" link in their find but I didnt find it.
Oh well,its obvious anyway, biblica.com is a site dedicated to Christians and the bible.And just to show you how bias they are,when I clicked on the Islam link,I was greeted by a nice and big "The dark side of Islam" title!
Tell me Bag of Rags,do they tell you in these sites how horribly the Byzantines treated the conquered people? Do they tell you that this very much encouraged the these people to convert to Islam? Do they tell you that it was the Byzantines who declared war on the muslims and not all the other way around?!
Or do they consider telling you such things as not in their best interest so they just decide to stick with their ignorance and lies?

Quote: So tell me, Pharoah and Demonic Spoon...

Would you like more evidence that Islam has always been a religion of violence, or would you simply like to continue living in ignorance?


YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING! :lol:

You are free to disagree with a person's interpretation of a historical event (or events).

However, if you deny that these historical events took place, you are a liar.

You, Pharoah, are a Muslim liar.


Hate the message, hate the messenger. However, you are trying to deny history. Historical FACT is that the Muslims were marauders and invaders that were sweeping northward - using terrorism, bloodshed and savagery in their quest for lands and power. It is a historically proven FACT.

So you keep right on dancing around the truth. :lol:

[Evildonut]

1095-1291
Since the time of Constantine, Christians had gone on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Even though Moslems had ruled Jerusalem since 638, Christians were still allowed to visit the city. By the 11th century, however, the situation had changed. Just as the number and frequency of pilgrimages to Jerusalem was at new peaks, the Seljuk Turks took over control of Jerusalem and prevented pilgrimages.

The First Crusade
Pope Urban II (1088-1099, see art below) was responsible for assisting Emperor Alexus I (1081-1118) of Constantinople in launching the first crusade. He made one of the most influential speeches in the Middle Ages, calling on Christian princes in Europe to go on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks. In the speech given at the Council of Clermont in France, on November 27, 1095, he combined the ideas of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with that of waging a holy war against infidels.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/crusades.stm