The Crusades - Page 2

MMMMMM · #1 12-01-2005, 06:23 PM

Your diatribe aside, Chris, it is a fact that Mohammad and his armies, and later Muslim armies, spread Islam BY THE SWORD, and took entire regions under their totalitarian control via sheer military conquest coupled with institutionalized politico-religio-fascisim.

Do you think that is "OK", or that the Westerners had no business eventually driving back the Muslim conquistadores, and their totalitarian system? Northern Africa, parts of Spain, and other regions, including the area around Jerusalem, had been systematically put to the sword and conquered by Mohammad's armies and followers. Mohammed promised his warriors booty in this world and paradise in the next. Well, at least they got the booty. Quite a religion, eh?--and quite the way to raise and maintain an army.

Non-Muslims living under Islamic rule, if they would not convert to Islam, were either forced into subservience and second-class status under Islam or put to the sword.

By the way, I'm not demanding "punishment" of anyone--I don't know where you got that from; I don't even really believe in the concept of "punishment"--I'm simply against all forms of totalitarianism (WHICH ISLAM IS) and against all forms of fascism--especially those spread by force. Islam fit both bills, and in my view it was correct for the West to try to push back the invading relio-fascism, and its armies, to from whence they came.

I don't care WHOSE religion it is, or WHAT color anyone's skin is: I'm JUST AGAINST FASCIST TOTALITARIANISM. And that is precisely what Islam is, blended with a strong religious component. And the West was right in trying to push back against the speading religio-fascism of Islam. That doesn't mean they always went about it ideally; but in principle, FASCISM, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE, SHOULD ALWAYS BE RESISTED. PERIOD.

Chris Alger · #2 12-01-2005, 07:19 PM

I take your refusal to address my proof of your racism as tacit agreement with my position.

The rest is all silly fantasy and hypocrisy. Of course I've never said anything suggesting that it's "OK" to advance religion by arms -- you are the one explicitly defending that, or have you forgotten what you just wrote? The only clash I see with anything I've said is your silly quibble about whether killing people amounts to "punishment."

The rest of your post is more of the same unvelievable ignorance. At the time of the Crusdades, Islamic Spain was the most cosmopolitan, educated, and ethnically tolerant society in Europe. Your libel of this monument of Western civilization on the spurious grounds of opposing to "fascist totalitarianism . . . precisely what Islam is" is further proof of your unrepentant bigotry.

DVaut1 · #3 12-01-2005, 08:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your libel of this monument of Western civilization on the spurious grounds of opposing to "fascist totalitarianism . . . precisely what Islam is" is further proof of your unrepentant bigotry.

[/ QUOTE ]

And also, of course, proof of why circular logic is such an easily recognizable fallacy:

"Why were 11th century Islamic states so bad? ”

“Because they were totalitarian and fascist ”

“Why were they totalitarian and fascist? ”

“Because they were Islamic ”

“But what’s so bad about Islamic states? ”

“They’re inherently totalitarian and fascist ”

“But why are Islamic states so inherently totalitarian and fascist? ”

“Because they’re Islamic ”

-----------------------

You'll notice our friend in green is caught red-handed using this type of fallacious logic.

MMMMMM · #4 12-01-2005, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I take your refusal to address my proof of your racism as tacit agreement with my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris, we've argued about this before, and I categorically denied (and still deny) deny any form of racist ideology on my part. Moreover, YOU KNOW THAT I DO, and you know that such relentless accusations on your part, which I grew weary of endlessly rebutting, are the very reason I had you on ignore for so long. Therefore, you are herewith being UTTERLY disingenuous when you claim that you take my silence as tacit approval. You absolutely know better, and it is dishonesty like this that makes me seriously question your motives.

You know little of Islamic ideology, or of what the Koran says, or what Mohammed did and said, if you think ancient areas under Islam--including Spain--were not under a form of religio-fascistic control, a type of totalitarianism, as it were. Hey, and guess what? Today, most areas under Islam *still* are under a form of totalitarian control--a religio-political form--as you easily can see, looking at various Islamic countries around the world.

Guess what, Chris? It isn't "bigoted" to speak the TRUTH. And the truth is that Islam has always been an absolutist ideology. As Ibn Warraq says, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

I think you ought perhaps to read some Orianna Fallaci or Robert Spencer--unless perhaps the only freedoms you care about are Leftist causes. If you value human freedom, and religious freedom; and despise authoritarian control and totalitarianism, you will come to the conclusion that Islam simply is not conducive to freedom.

nicky g · #5 12-01-2005, 07:25 PM

"Northern Africa, parts of Spain, and other regions, including the area around Jerusalem, had been systematically put to the sword",

No, they hadn't.

Talking about fascism and totalitarianism 1400 years before they emerged in the 20th century is ridiculous.

MMMMMM · #6 12-01-2005, 07:42 PM

Nicky, Islam has always been a totalitarian system, and Mohammad and his armies spread it by the sword.

Cyrus · #7 12-01-2005, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It was correct for the West to try to push back the invading relio-fascism, and its armies, to from whence they came.

[/ QUOTE ] And Nut4Dawgs dares to whine about my high perch!

"Where they came"?! You tell us "where they came"! Should be interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I'm not demanding "punishment" of anyone.

[/ QUOTE ] You advocated the collective punishment of innocents and you have recommended mass retaliation against civilian populations -- in this very page. Either you forget easily or you think we do. (I don't.)

[ QUOTE ]
FASCISM, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE, SHOULD ALWAYS BE RESISTED. PERIOD.

[/ QUOTE ] Your ideas, such as sampled above regarding punishment of innocents, are quite close to totalitarianism, actually, although I'm sure you are blissfully unaware of it.

#8 12-01-2005, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And Nut4Dawgs dares to whine about my high perch!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been accused of a lot of things, Sparky, but whining has never, ever been one of them.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

andyfox · #9 12-02-2005, 02:40 AM

The latest scholarship is Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade: A New History, quite an entertaining read. Asbridge was a student of Jonathan Riley-Smith, who is something of an apologist for the Crusades. Yet, of the First Crusade, Asbridge says:

"The first point to acknowledge is that the call to arms was not directly inspired by any recent calamity or atrocity in the East. And although the Holy City of Jerusalem, the expedition's ultimate goal, was indeed in Muslim hands, it had been so for more than 400 years--hardly a fresh wound.

"The reality was that Islam and Christendom had coexisted for centuries in relative equanimity. There may at times have been little love lost between Christian and Muslim neighbours, but there was, in truth, little to distinguish this enmity from the endemic political and military struggles of the age.

"Europe was a long way from being engaged in an urgent, titanic struggle for survival. No coherent, pan-Mediterranean onslaught threatened, because, although the Moors of Iberia and the Turks of Asia Minor shared a religious heritage, they were never united in one purpose. Where Christians and Muslims did face each other across the centuries, their relationship had been unremarkable, characterized, like that between any potential rivals, by periods of conflict and other of coexistence. There is little or no evidence to suggest that either side harboured any innate, empowering religious or racial hatred of the other.

“Most significantly, throughout this period indigenous Christians actually living under Islamic law, be it in Iberia or the Holy Land, were generally treated with remarkable clemency. The Muslim faith acknowledged and respected Judaism and Christianity, creeds with which it enjoyed a common devotional tradition and a mutual reliance upon authoritative scripture. Christian subjects may not have been able to share power with their Muslim masters, but they were given freedom to worship. All around the Mediterranean basin, Christian faith and society survived and even thrived under the watchful but tolerant eye of Islam. Eastern Christendom may have been subject to Islamic rule, but it was not on the brink of annihilation, nor prey to any form of systematic abuse.”

[emphasis added]

bobman0330 · #10 12-01-2005, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Slaughter of entire cities and subsequent eating of the dead. Children put on spits and roasted, etc. Many millions of people killed (mostly islamic) in the name of religious cleansing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many Christian atrocities? Absolutely. But the claim of "many millions of people" is patently ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
" (the) massacre of civilian populations was always an integral part of US warmaking strategy"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now we can figure out the agenda of the manufacturers of the above patently ridiculous claim. For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much.