• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

Morality Games said:
... you really don't care about historical facts.
Click to expand...

Degreez said:
You consider 'logical fallacy' to be a big word? Holy :rofl Batman!
Click to expand...

Its called sarcasm. Try looking it up. :2wave:

You see that part that I made bold? I know reading comprehension is difficult, so I highlighted an area to help you.

In which way is discussing the Crusades a solely Muslim and/or far left 'argument'? If this holds true, then it is only Christian apologists who say the Crusades were a response to Islamic "aggression" (despite being 400 years too late).
Click to expand...

I never used the word "solely"

If you are going to lie about what I say, try not to be so obvious next time.
 
texmaster said:
Thats a description best suited for your lack of historical knowledge of the period.
Click to expand...

When did the Arab-Egyptian Caliphate attack the Byzantine Empire?
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
When did the Arab-Egyptian Caliphate attack Europe?
Click to expand...


1. 613 Persians capture Damascus and Antioch

2. 614 Persians sack Jerusalem

3. 633 Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq

4. 635 Muslims begin the conquest of Persia and Syria

5. 635 Arab Muslims capture the city of Damascus

6. 636-637 Arab domination of Syria

7. 637 Arabs occupy Ctesiphon

8. 637 Jerusalem falls to Muslim forces

9. 638 Caliph Umar I enters Jerusalem

10. 639 Muslims conquer Egypt and Persia

11. 641 Islam spreads into Egypt

12. 641 Muslims conquer Alexandria

13. 649 Muawiya I leads raid against Cyprus sacking the capital Salamis-Constantia

14. 652 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

15. 653 Muawiya I leads raid against Rhodes

16. 654 Muawiya I conquers Cyprus

17. 655 Battle of the Masts

18. 661-680 Mu�awiya moves capital from Mecca to Damascus

19. 662 Egypt falls to the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates

20. 667 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

21. 668 First siege of Constantinople

22. 669 Muslim conquest reaches Morocco

23. 672 Muslims capture the island of Rhodes

24. 674 Arab conquest reaches Indus River

25. 698 Muslims capture Carthage

26. 700 Muslims raid Island of Sicily

27. 711 Muslims conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan

28. 711 Battle of Guadalate

29. 712 Conquest of Andulusia

30. 715 Muslim conquest of Spain

31. 716 Muslims captured Lisbon

32. 717 Cordova becomes capital of Andalusia (Spain)

33. 719 Muslims attack Septimania in Southern France

34. 721 Muslims cross the Pyrenees

35. 722 Battle of Covadonga First defeat of Muslims by Christians

36. 724 Muslims raid southern France and capture Carcassone and Nimes

37. 725 Muslim forces occupy Nimes, France

38. 730 Muslim forces occupy Narbonne and Avignon

39. 732 Battle of Tours (Christian Victory)

40. 735 Muslim invaders capture Arles

41. 750 Abbasids move capital to Baghdad

42. 756 The Emirate of Cordova is established

43. 759 Pippin III ends Muslim incursions in France

44. 792 Hisham I calls for a Jihad Thousands heed his call to cross the Pyrenees to subjugate France. Many cities are destroyed

45. 813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome

46. 816 The Moors support the Basques against the Franks

47. 827 Sicily is invaded by Muslims

48. 831 Muslims capture Palermo and make it their capital

49. 838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille

50. 841 Muslim forces capture Bari (in Italy)

51. 846 Muslim raiders attack areas near Ostia and Rome. Some enter Rome and damage the Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Leonine Wall is built to discourage further Attacks.

52. 849 Battle of Ostia (Christian Victory)

53. 850 Perfectus, a Christian priest in Muslim Cordova is executed � one of the first of Many

54. 85111 young Christians are executed for insulting the Prophet Muhammed

55. 858 Muslim raiders attack Constantinople

56. 859 Muslim invaders capture Castrogiovanni slaughtering several thousand

57. 869 Arabs capture the island of Malta

58. 870 Muslim invaders capture Syracuse

59. 876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy

60. 879 The Seljuk Empire unites Mesapotamia and a large portion of Persia

61. 884 Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground

62. 900 The Fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

63. 902 The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed when the Christian city of Toorminia is captured

64. 909 Sicily comes under control of the Fatimids

65. 909 The fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

66. 909 Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy � cutting off passage between the two countries

67. 920 Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse

68. 972 The Fatimids of Egypt conquer North Africa

69. 981 Ramiro III, king of Leon, is defeated at Rueda

70. 985 Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona

71. 994 The monastery of Monte Cassino is destrpyed a second time by Arabs

72. 997 Under the leadership of Almanzar, Muslim forces march out of the city of Cordova and head north to capture Christian lands.

73. 997 Muslim forces burn Compostela to the ground

74. 1004 Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa

75. 1009 The Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by Muslim armies

76. 1009 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed

77. 1012 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands

78. 1012 Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed

79. 1015 Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia

80. 1064 The Seljuk Turks conquer Christian Armenia

81. 1070 Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem and begin persecuting Christian Pilgrims

82. 1071-1085 Seljuk Turks conquer most of Syria and Palestine

83. 1071 Battle of Manzikert

84. 1073 Seljuk Turks conquer Ankara

85. 1078 Seljuk Turks capture Nicaea

86. 1084 Seljuk Turks conquer Antioch

67. 1086 Battle of Zallaca

68. 1088 Patzinak Turks begin forming settlements between the Danube and the Balkans

69. 1090 Granada captured by Yusuf Ibn Tashfin

70. 1091 Cordova is captured by the Almoravids

Not to mention the frequent Muslim attacks on Christian pilgrims to Israel.

Again, know your history before looking foolish
 
Degreez said:
Just as there were numerous bodies of people who welcomed the Muslim invaders over the oppressive Christian empire. Does that somehow give it more legitimacy.
Click to expand...

God I am so sick of the "golden age of Islam" horse****, the fact of the matter is that the Islamic invaders weren't welcomed, they offered three choices to the conquered, to convert, die, or live as 3rd class dhimmi half slaves, or in many cases (more than the western slave trade in fact) as actual slaves.

Ever hear of the Indian subcontinent? Well FYI sport dar al-Islam inflicted the largest genocide up until Stalin there.
 
texmaster said:
Wrong. Its dead on accurate.
Click to expand...
No, it's an opinion that is held in low regards in the historical community. It's hypocritical to say it was Islamic aggression when the Christian oppression outweighs said 'aggression'. Christians banned Jews from entering their holy city for over five hundred years. Muslims conquered the land and allowed them back into Jerusalem. You can call that aggression all you want, but the historical consensus contradicts you.

texmaster said:
That has absolutely no bearing on Muslim agression before the Crusades nor does it provide any reason for the Crusades other than the one already provided.
Click to expand...
Hmm, let's see. The Byzantine Emperor made a request to the Pope. The Pope agrees to send help, in hopes of fixing the schism between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches and getting the East under his control.

And while you call it Muslim aggression, it was Jews and Muslims who fought against the Franks in the Siege of Jerusalem. However, the Crusaders were not "aggressors", right? They treated the conquered populace better than the Muslim "aggressors", right?

Hell ****ing no.



texmaster said:
Why are you looking at this as racial? Islam is not a race.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
Because Pope Urban II issued a Crusade against the Turks. He only mentions Arabs once.

Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II: Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, according to Fulcherof Chartres
 
Agent Ferris said:
God I am so sick of the "golden age of Islam" horse****, the fact of the matter is that the Islamic invaders weren't welcomed, they offered three choices to the conquered, to convert, die, or live as 3rd class dhimmi half slaves, or in many cases (more than the western slave trade in fact) as actual slaves.

Ever hear of the Indian subcontinent? Well FYI sport dar al-Islam inflicted the largest genocide up until Stalin there.
Click to expand...

Nice display of ignorance of history.

"Live as 3rd class dhimmi half slaves".

The only thing the "dhimmis" had to do was a pay a jizya (poll tax) which exempted them from military service and was significantly cheaper than the zakat that all Muslims are obligated to pay.

And Islamic invaders were welcomed, as I already provided this evidence earlier in the thread. Who's boats did the Muslims use to get to Hispania? Exactly, remain ignorant of relevant history while spouting bull**** rhetoric.

Also FYI, Mao Zedong will disagree with your pathetic genocide argument.
 
Degreez said:
No, it's an opinion that is held in low regards in the historical community. It's hypocritical to say it was Islamic aggression when the Christian oppression outweighs said 'aggression'. Christians banned Jews from entering their holy city for over five hundred years. Muslims conquered the land and allowed them back into Jerusalem. You can call that aggression all you want, but the historical consensus contradicts you.
Click to expand...

The Islamic genocide perpetrated on the Indian Subcontinent far outweighs any genocide in history up until Stalin. (Yes worse than even Hitler twice as bad in fact) so if you're basing your justification for invasion on which group was more oppressive to those it conquered then again you still lose.
 
Agent Ferris said:
The Islamic genocide perpetrated on the Indian Subcontinent far outweighs any genocide in history up until Stalin. (Yes worse than even Hitler twice as bad in fact) so if you're basing your justification for invasion on which group was more oppressive to those it conquered then again you still lose.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong]Mao Zedong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

:2wave:
 
1. 613 Persians capture Damascus and Antioch

2. 614 Persians sack Jerusalem

3. 633 Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq

4. 635 Muslims begin the conquest of Persia and Syria

5. 635 Arab Muslims capture the city of Damascus

6. 636-637 Arab domination of Syria

7. 637 Arabs occupy Ctesiphon

8. 637 Jerusalem falls to Muslim forces

9. 638 Caliph Umar I enters Jerusalem

10. 639 Muslims conquer Egypt and Persia

11. 641 Islam spreads into Egypt

12. 641 Muslims conquer Alexandria

13. 649 Muawiya I leads raid against Cyprus sacking the capital Salamis-Constantia

14. 652 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

15. 653 Muawiya I leads raid against Rhodes

16. 654 Muawiya I conquers Cyprus

17. 655 Battle of the Masts

18. 661-680 Mu�awiya moves capital from Mecca to Damascus

19. 662 Egypt falls to the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates

20. 667 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

21. 668 First siege of Constantinople

22. 669 Muslim conquest reaches Morocco

23. 672 Muslims capture the island of Rhodes

24. 674 Arab conquest reaches Indus River

25. 698 Muslims capture Carthage

26. 700 Muslims raid Island of Sicily

27. 711 Muslims conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan

28. 711 Battle of Guadalate

29. 712 Conquest of Andulusia

30. 715 Muslim conquest of Spain

31. 716 Muslims captured Lisbon

32. 717 Cordova becomes capital of Andalusia (Spain)

33. 719 Muslims attack Septimania in Southern France

34. 721 Muslims cross the Pyrenees

35. 722 Battle of Covadonga First defeat of Muslims by Christians

36. 724 Muslims raid southern France and capture Carcassone and Nimes

37. 725 Muslim forces occupy Nimes, France

38. 730 Muslim forces occupy Narbonne and Avignon

39. 732 Battle of Tours (Christian Victory)

40. 735 Muslim invaders capture Arles

41. 750 Abbasids move capital to Baghdad

42. 756 The Emirate of Cordova is established

43. 759 Pippin III ends Muslim incursions in France

44. 792 Hisham I calls for a Jihad Thousands heed his call to cross the Pyrenees to subjugate France. Many cities are destroyed

45. 813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome

46. 816 The Moors support the Basques against the Franks

47. 827 Sicily is invaded by Muslims

48. 831 Muslims capture Palermo and make it their capital

49. 838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille

50. 841 Muslim forces capture Bari (in Italy)

51. 846 Muslim raiders attack areas near Ostia and Rome. Some enter Rome and damage the Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Leonine Wall is built to discourage further Attacks.

52. 849 Battle of Ostia (Christian Victory)

53. 850 Perfectus, a Christian priest in Muslim Cordova is executed � one of the first of Many

54. 85111 young Christians are executed for insulting the Prophet Muhammed

55. 858 Muslim raiders attack Constantinople

56. 859 Muslim invaders capture Castrogiovanni slaughtering several thousand

57. 869 Arabs capture the island of Malta

58. 870 Muslim invaders capture Syracuse

59. 876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy

60. 879 The Seljuk Empire unites Mesapotamia and a large portion of Persia

61. 884 Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground

62. 900 The Fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

63. 902 The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed when the Christian city of Toorminia is captured

64. 909 Sicily comes under control of the Fatimids

65. 909 The fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

66. 909 Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy � cutting off passage between the two countries

67. 920 Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse

68. 972 The Fatimids of Egypt conquer North Africa

69. 981 Ramiro III, king of Leon, is defeated at Rueda

70. 985 Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona

71. 994 The monastery of Monte Cassino is destrpyed a second time by Arabs

72. 997 Under the leadership of Almanzar, Muslim forces march out of the city of Cordova and head north to capture Christian lands.

73. 997 Muslim forces burn Compostela to the ground

74. 1004 Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa

75. 1009 The Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by Muslim armies

76. 1009 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed

77. 1012 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands

78. 1012 Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed

79. 1015 Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia

80. 1064 The Seljuk Turks conquer Christian Armenia

81. 1070 Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem and begin persecuting Christian Pilgrims

82. 1071-1085 Seljuk Turks conquer most of Syria and Palestine

83. 1071 Battle of Manzikert

84. 1073 Seljuk Turks conquer Ankara

85. 1078 Seljuk Turks capture Nicaea

86. 1084 Seljuk Turks conquer Antioch

67. 1086 Battle of Zallaca

68. 1088 Patzinak Turks begin forming settlements between the Danube and the Balkans

69. 1090 Granada captured by Yusuf Ibn Tashfin

70. 1091 Cordova is captured by the Almoravids
Click to expand...

Your response is tangential to my point.

There was no Muslim Pope or Muslim Church. The Muslim Pope and Muslim Church did not collect taxes or exercise authority (via excommunication) over Muslim nobles and "kings", because they did not exist. Imams, who were scholars and interpreters, were the closest thing to an Islamic Clergy. Caliphs, depending on the size of their domain and personal finances were roughly analagous to European kings and dukes, and they or their vassals were the ones who paid Imams, so I guess they were the closest thing to a "Head of Church." Therefore, reducing these conquests to "Muslims" is a strawman; regardless of their religious sympathies, you can count on aristocrats to conduct their wars according to (1) national security and (2) profit. Your use of the term "Muslims" implies a unity that does not exist, and a motivation which had a comparatively peripheral existence before the Crusades and the invention of the Jihad concept.

The Moors (Africa), the Turks (Asia Minor), and the Arabs (Egypt) were economically and politically disunited entities with their own interests and policies. Generally, they fought wars for the same reason the English and French aristocracies fought wars; to increase their territory and revenues. Usually, they fought against each other.

The Moors had halted their advance into Iberia (aka, Portugal, Spain, and Aragon) several centuries previously, after Charlemegne drove them back. Whether the Christian Iberian nobles had still had a right to drive into Africa after such a long period is questionable (do the Native Americans have the right to drive everybody else out of the Americas?). Sicily was a possession of the Byzantine Emperors; Moors were invited to take it in exchange for aid during a minor Byzantine Civil War. Later, the Arabs conquered it from the Moors, not from Christians.

The Turks were attacking the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. However, Western Europeans were attacking the the Empire's western frontier prior to the Crusades and seized territory over the course of their Crusades (indeed, many leaders in the Crusading movement were investors in the effort of Western Europeans to conquer Byzantine's western lands). So, calling "foul" on the Turks is a little overbearing.

The Arabs had minimal relations with the Europeans.

And now, far as the period of rapid advancement prior to encroachments into Europe, those were Pagan territories, not European or Christian ones, and Christians have a similar history of expansion against Pagans in the lands they later came to dominate. Furthermore, the "Muslim conquests" were more like hostile take overs; Islam spread quickly and held fast because it had a more appealing vision of life than the prevailing Pagan religions, so most populations were receptive to conversion attempts and it was comparatively easy to form new Islamic nations out of the old Pagan kingdoms of the Middle East.

Not to mention the frequent Muslim attacks on pilgrims to Israel.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly bandits exploiting the defenselessness of people far from home, maybe the Turks suspicious of aliens passing through their lands. The Arab-Egyptian Caliphate could not obtain significant material resources from raiding tourists and was reputed for exercising religious tolerance toward Jews and Christians.

In sum:

A religious war against the Moors wasn't really justifiable. They weren't advancing into Europe and hadn't for several hundred years.

A religious war against the Turks was potentially justifiable, although their were a great many hypocrisies and ironies in the execution.

A religious war against the Arabs was not justifiable.
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
Nice display of ignorance of history.

"Live as 3rd class dhimmi half slaves".

The only thing the "dhimmis" had to do was a pay a jizya (poll tax) which exempted them from military service and was significantly cheaper than the zakat that all Muslims are obligated to pay.
Click to expand...

lol your knowledge of Sharia is astounding, gee where should I begin, as a 3rd class Dhimmi (Islamic women were and are the 2nd class citizens within dar al-Islam) could be killed outright on the spot by a Muslim and all which would be need to be done was to pay a blood tax, they could not testify against Muslims in court, they could not pray openly or prostelytize, and again this is if they were not outright enslaved as the Islamic conquerors engaged in the greatest slave trade in history in the lands which they conquered, mainly in fact from Western Asia and North Africa.

And Islamic invaders were welcomed, as I already provided this evidence earlier in the thread. Who's boats did the Muslims use to get to Hispania? Exactly, remain ignorant of relevant history while spouting bull**** rhetoric.

Also FYI, Mao Zedong will disagree with your pathetic genocide argument.
Click to expand...

Yes yes I'm quite sure those 20 million or so Hindu's and Buddhists on the Indian subcontintent welcomed being systematically exterminated. I bet that every single Jewish tribe on the Arabian peninsula just loved the ethnic cleansing and outright genocide that Mohammad himself commanded against the Banu. I bet that they Jews and Christians just loved the burning of all churches and synagogues by Caliph Omar in 637, or when Caliph Muawiya engaged in massacre during the sack of Cyprus, or in 705 Caliph Walid gathered together the nobles in churches then burned them alive, crucifying other, and enslaving their women and children. I bet they loved the burning of monasteries in Egypt by Caliph Marwan between 744 and 750.

There's many many more examples of the "peaceful" conquest of dar al-Harab.

Furthermore; I said (up until Stalin). Reading is fundamental.
 
lol your knowledge of Sharia is astounding, gee where should I begin, as a 3rd class Dhimmi (Islamic women were and are the 2nd class citizens within dar al-Islam) could be killed outright on the spot by a Muslim and all which would be need to be done was to pay a blood tax, they could not testify against Muslims in court, they could not pray openly or prostelytize, and again this is if they were not outright enslaved as the Islamic conquerors engaged in the greatest slave trade in history in the lands which they conquered, mainly in fact from Western Asia and North Africa.
Click to expand...

"sigh" Come on, people. Quit sensationalizing history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Punishment_for_murder_of_a_dhimmi

The Hanafi school, which represents the vast majority of Muslims, believes that the murder of a dhimmi must be punishable by death, citing a hadith according to which Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a dhimmi. In other schools of Islamic jurisprudence the maximum punishment for the murder of a dhimmi, if perpetrated by a Muslim, was the payment of blood money; no death penalty was possible. For Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, the value of a dhimmi's life was one-half the value of a Muslim's life; in the Shafi'i school, Jews and Christians were worth one-third of a Muslim and Zoroastrians were worth just one-fifteenth.[86][87]

A peculiar practice developed in Yemen, where Arab tribes collected jizya from Jews, offering them protection. If a Muslim from one tribe killed a Jew protected by another tribe, then the other tribe could retaliate by killing a Jew protected by the tribe of the murderer. As a result, two Jews were murdered, while no direct sanctions were imposed on the Muslims.[88]
Click to expand...

Imams developed radically different outlooks on dhimmi status. Which interpretation was practiced in a legal district depended on their Caliph. Usually, treatment of Jews and Christians was equitable, because Jews and Christians had useful functions and keeping them happy was an imperative. Certainly, the Jews that fought alongside Arabs to defend Jereusulam during the First Crusade felt their society was worth fighting for.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Your response is tangential to my point.

There was no Muslim Pope or Muslim Church. The Muslim Pope and Muslim Church did not collect taxes or exercise authority (via excommunication) over Muslim nobles and "kings", because they did not exist. Imams, who were scholars and interpreters, were the closest thing to an Islamic Clergy. Caliphs, depending on the size of their domain and personal finances were roughly analagous to European kings and dukes, and they or their vassals were the ones who paid Imams, so I guess they were the closest thing to a "Head of Church." Therefore, reducing these conquests to "Muslims" is a strawman; regardless of their religious sympathies, you can count on aristocrats to conduct their wars according to (1) national security and (2) profit. Your use of the term "Muslims" implies a unity that does not exist, and a motivation which had a comparatively peripheral existence before the Crusades and the invention of the Jihad concept.

The Moors (Africa), the Turks (Asia Minor), and the Arabs (Egypt)
Click to expand...

The Caliph was the head of the Ummah and as such was both head of state and the head of the church, he was the exact equivalent of the pope not the "closest thing" as you say. To say that the Ummayyad, Abbassid, Fatimid, or Ottoman caliphates weren't united would be like saying that the Byzantine or Western empires weren't united.

were economically and politically disunited entities with their own interests and policies. Generally, they fought wars for the same reason the English and French aristocracies fought wars; to increase their territory and revenues. Usually, they fought against each other.

The Moors had halted their advance into Iberia (aka, Portugal, Spain, and Aragon) several centuries previously, after Charlemegne drove them back. Whether the Christian Iberian nobles had still had a right to drive into Africa after such a long period is questionable (do the Native Americans have the right to drive everybody else out of the Americas?). Sicily was a possession of the Byzantine Emperors; Moors were invited to take it in exchange for aid during a minor Byzantine Civil War. Later, the Arabs conquered it from the Moors, not from Christians.

The Turks were attacking the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. However, Western Europeans were attacking the the Empire's western frontier prior to the Crusades and seized territory over the course of their Crusades (indeed, many leaders in the Crusading movement were investors in the effort of Western Europeans to conquer Byzantine's western lands). So, calling "foul" on the Turks is a little overbearing.

The Arabs had minimal relations with the Europeans.

And now, far as the period of rapid advancement prior to encroachments into Europe, those were Pagan territories, not European or Christian ones, and Christians have a similar history of expansion against Pagans in the lands they later came to dominate. Furthermore, the "Muslim conquests" were more like hostile take overs; Islam spread quickly and held fast because it had a more appealing vision of life than the prevailing Pagan religions, so most populations were receptive to conversion attempts and it was comparatively easy to form new Islamic nations out of the old Pagan kingdoms of the Middle East.
Click to expand...

FTW? Ya I bet those 20 or so million Zoroastrian of the Sassanid empire and the Hindu and Buddhists of the Indian subcontintent who were systematically exterminated were just wide open to conversion. :roll: I'm sure they just loved being slaughtered, having their churches and libraries burned, their surrendered POWs loved being decapitated to the man, they were I'm sure quite wide open to the thousands, and I'm sure they were just thrilled by the whole enslavement thing.
 
The Caliph was the head of the Ummah and as such was both head of state and the head of the church, he was the exact equivalent of the pope not the "closest thing" as you say. To say that the Ummayyad, Abbassid, Fatimid, or Ottoman caliphates weren't united would be like saying that the Byzantine or Western empires weren't united.
Click to expand...

... the Byzantine and Western empires weren't united. Before the Crusade, aristocrats from all over Europe were investing in military expeditions to carve out holdings out of the failing Byzantire Empire while the Turks occupied its intentions on the eastern fronteir. Successors to Emperor Manuel regretted their ancestor's initiative, because Crusading nobles were orchestrating land grabs all the way across the Empire while on their way to Jereusulam.

Saying the Caliphates were united is like saying France and England were united, or that the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) and Poland were united. Indeed, the relationship between the Turks and Arabs rather pretty close to the relationship of England and France.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
"sigh" Come on, people. Quit sensationalizing history.

Dhimmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




From C.E.Bosworth:

"The legal testimony of a dhimmi was not admissible in a judicial suit where a Muslim was one of the parties, because it was felt that infidelity, the obstinate failure to recognize the true light of Islam, was proof of defective morality and a consequent incapability of bearing legal witness. In the words of the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (d. 483/1090), "the word of a dishonest Muslim is more valuable than that of a honest dhimmi." On the other hand, the deposition of a Muslim against a dhimmi was perfectly valid in law. It was further held by almost all schools of Islamic law (with the exception of the Hanafi one) that the diya or blood money payable on the killing of a dhimmi was only two-thirds or a half of that of a free Muslim."

It is the Maliki school which is predominant North Africa, West Africa, and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.

Imams developed radically different outlooks on dhimmi status. Which interpretation was practiced in a legal district depended on their Caliph. Usually, treatment of Jews and Christians was equitable, because Jews and Christians had useful functions and keeping them happy was an imperative. Certainly, the Jews that fought alongside Arabs to defend Jereusulam during the First Crusade felt their society was worth fighting for.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "depended on their Caliph"? The Caliph headed the Caliphate. It depended upon which Caliph was ruling at the time perhaps or maybe which governor who ultimately answered to the Caliph but you act as if there was no Islamic Imperial dynasties, the Caliph was nearly the exact counterpart to the pope, he was both head of church and head of state.
 
Last edited:
er Sharia law?


From C.E.Bosworth:

"The legal testimony of a dhimmi was not admissible in a judicial suit where a Muslim was one of the parties, because it was felt that infidelity, the obstinate failure to recognize the true light of Islam, was proof of defective morality and a consequent incapability of bearing legal witness. In the words of the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (d. 483/1090), "the word of a dishonest Muslim is more valuable than that of a honest dhimmi." On the other hand, the deposition of a Muslim against a dhimmi was perfectly valid in law. It was further held by almost all schools of Islamic law (with the exception of the Hanafi one) that the diya or blood money payable on the killing of a dhimmi was only two-thirds or a half of that of a free Muslim."
Click to expand...

Want to take a look at Western Europe's High Justice and its protocol for dealing with non-Christians?

Furthermore:

Various restrictions and legal disabilities were placed on Dhimmis, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[14] Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character.[15] Although persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical,[16] the limitations on the rights of dhimmis made them vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs.
Click to expand...

Also, "blood taxes" were universal punishment for murder; Muslims could pay a blood tax for killing Muslims. Incarceration was not practical in medieval times, and the death penalty was not always preferred in Muslim society. It isn't equitable that the life of a Jew or Christian was worth less money than that of a Muslim, but comparing to European High Justice, its not the worst deal.

Remember, "Sharia Law" is a theory, not a practice. How theories work out in practice tends to be different from their wording.


What do you mean by "depended on their Caliph"? The Caliph headed the Caliphate. It depended upon which Caliph was ruling at the time perhaps or maybe which governor who ultimately answered to the Caliph but you act as if there was no Islamic Imperial dynasties, the Caliph was nearly the exact counterpart to the pope, he was both head of church and head of state.
Click to expand...

In a medieval context, a Pope is a person who exercises limited organizing power over secular authorities. In practice, he shares authority with kings, because if they don't obey his wishes, he can excommunicate them and order those loyal to the Church to attack and nobles in his country to rebel.

A Caliph is religious and secular authority streamlined into one person. He only has authority over his own nation. He does not share authority with a Pope-type figure along with fellow Caliphs.

There is no Muslim Pope because there is no Muslim who presides over all Muslim kingdoms.
 
Last edited:
NoJingoLingo said:
RCC Revisionism hard at work.
Click to expand...

Historical ignorance at work. You do know that Pope Urban called for the firt Crusade as a DIRECT result of a plea made to him by the emperor of the Roman Empire in Constantinople to help against the advances of the Seljuq Empire through Anatolia, right?
 
Morality Games said:
Want to take a look at Western Europe's High Justice and its protocol for dealing with non-Christians?
Click to expand...

It was far better than the treatment of non-Muslims on the Indian subcontinent. But go right ahead.

Furthermore:


Also, "blood taxes" were universal punishment for murder; Muslims could pay a blood tax for killing Muslims. Incarceration was not practical in medieval times, and the death penalty was not always preferred in Muslim society. It isn't equitable that the life of a Jew or Christian was worth less money than that of a Muslim, but comparing to European High Justice, its not the worst deal.
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist, however, I would much prefer Canon Law over Sharia Law any day of the week.

Remember, "Sharia Law" is a theory, not a practice. How theories work out in practice tends to be different from their wording.
Click to expand...

The maximum punishment for the murder of a Dhimmi was always the blood payment. And can you please show me which school of Fiqh provides anything but the death penalty for the murder of a Muslim?


In a medieval context, a Pope is a person who exercises limited organizing power over secular authorities. In practice, he shares authority with kings, because if they don't obey his wishes, he can excommunicate them and order those loyal to the Church to attack and nobles in his country to rebel.

A Caliph is religious and secular authority streamlined into one person. He only has authority over his own nation. He does not share authority with a Pope-type figure along with fellow Caliphs.

There is no Muslim Pope because there is no Muslim who presides over all Muslim kingdoms.
Click to expand...

Then what the hell would you call the Ummayad, Abbassid, Fatimad, and Ottoman Caliphate dynasties then exactly?
 
Morality Games said:
... the Byzantine and Western empires weren't united. Before the Crusade, aristocrats from all over Europe were investing in military expeditions to carve out holdings out of the failing Byzantire Empire while the Turks occupied its intentions on the eastern fronteir. Successors to Emperor Manuel regretted their ancestor's initiative, because Crusading nobles were orchestrating land grabs all the way across the Empire while on their way to Jereusulam.

Saying the Caliphates were united is like saying France and England were united, or that the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) and Poland were united.
Click to expand...

The Holy Roman Empire was United. The Ummayyad Caliphate was united, the Abbassid Caliphate was united, the Fatimid Caliphate was united, the Ottoman Caliphate was united, and they all fell over roughly the same territory. Which Islamic kingdom are you referring to which fell outside of their purview? The only one I can think of was the Cordoba Caliphate of Hispania which slip after the Ummayyad dynasty was overthrown by the Abbassids.

Indeed, the relationship between the Turks and Arabs rather pretty close to the relationship of England and France.
Click to expand...

Um the Ottoman Caliphate encompassed the Arab states.
 
The Holy Roman Empire was United.
Click to expand...

The Holy Roman Empire was Germany. Do you mean the nations of Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire were united? They definitely were not.

The Ummayyad Caliphate was united, the Abbassid Caliphate was united, the Fatimid Caliphate was united, the Ottoman Caliphate was united, and they all fell over roughly the same territory.
Click to expand...

What? The Ummayyads / Abbasids were in Iberia (aka Spain, Portugul, and Aragon) and in northern Africa are what we call "the Moors." They weren't united among themselves, let alone with the Fatamids (Arabs) or the Ottomons (Turks) who were in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. The Fatimids and the Ottomons did coordinate attacks on the Kingdom of Jereusulam and the Principality of Antioch, but they fought each other as well; same as England and France fought each other over the course of the crusades.

You'll have to explain your sense of "united." They weren't politically united, had different militiaries and generals, fought each other, and had minimal economic ties, and followed different legal and philosophical schools of thought. If "united" means "occasionally worked together" and "weren't always fighting", then yeah, they were united.
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
No, it's an opinion that is held in low regards in the historical community.
Click to expand...

Accoridng to someone as clueless as you are on this issue thats not much of a problem.

It's hypocritical to say it was Islamic aggression when the Christian oppression outweighs said 'aggression'.
Click to expand...

Another lie. Take a look at the timeline again.

Christians banned Jews from entering their holy city for over five hundred years. Muslims conquered the land and allowed them back into Jerusalem. You can call that aggression all you want, but the historical consensus contradicts you.
Click to expand...

HAHHAHA if you ignore the rape and pillaging of 400 years of Muslim aggression from Iran to Spain that might be relevant.

Hmm, let's see. The Byzantine Emperor made a request to the Pope. The Pope agrees to send help, in hopes of fixing the schism between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches and getting the East under his control.
Click to expand...

Again ignoring the 400 years of Muslim rape and pillaging.

You would do anything rather than address that wouldn't you?

And while you call it Muslim aggression, it was Jews and Muslims who fought against the Franks in the Siege of Jerusalem. However, the Crusaders were not "aggressors", right? They treated the conquered populace better than the Muslim "aggressors", right?
Click to expand...

Lets see the source on that one.

Because Pope Urban II issued a Crusade against the Turks. He only mentions Arabs once.

Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II: Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, according to Fulcherof Chartres
Click to expand...

When you are ready to actually debate the 400 years of rape and pillaging by Muslims and acknowledge it, let me know.
 
Morality Games said:
Your response is tangential to my point.
Click to expand...

Of course you would say that because you can't address those points in history of Muslim aggression against Christians.

There was no Muslim Pope or Muslim Church.
Click to expand...

Its called a caliph.

For the love of God do some basic research.

The Muslim Pope and Muslim Church did not collect taxes or exercise authority (via excommunication) over Muslim nobles and "kings", because they did not exist.
Click to expand...

Thats right. They only did that to non believers. Its called the jizya.

Again, read some basic history.

Imams, who were scholars and interpreters, were the closest thing to an Islamic Clergy. Caliphs, depending on the size of their domain and personal finances were roughly analagous to European kings and dukes, and they or their vassals were the ones who paid Imams, so I guess they were the closest thing to a "Head of Church." Therefore, reducing these conquests to "Muslims" is a strawman; regardless of their religious sympathies, you can count on aristocrats to conduct their wars according to (1) national security and (2) profit. Your use of the term "Muslims" implies a unity that does not exist, and a motivation which had a comparatively peripheral existence before the Crusades and the invention of the Jihad concept.

The Moors (Africa), the Turks (Asia Minor), and the Arabs (Egypt) were economically and politically disunited entities with their own interests and policies. Generally, they fought wars for the same reason the English and French aristocracies fought wars; to increase their territory and revenues. Usually, they fought against each other.

The Moors had halted their advance into Iberia (aka, Portugal, Spain, and Aragon) several centuries previously, after Charlemegne drove them back. Whether the Christian Iberian nobles had still had a right to drive into Africa after such a long period is questionable (do the Native Americans have the right to drive everybody else out of the Americas?). Sicily was a possession of the Byzantine Emperors; Moors were invited to take it in exchange for aid during a minor Byzantine Civil War. Later, the Arabs conquered it from the Moors, not from Christians.

The Turks were attacking the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. However, Western Europeans were attacking the the Empire's western frontier prior to the Crusades and seized territory over the course of their Crusades (indeed, many leaders in the Crusading movement were investors in the effort of Western Europeans to conquer Byzantine's western lands). So, calling "foul" on the Turks is a little overbearing.

The Arabs had minimal relations with the Europeans.

And now, far as the period of rapid advancement prior to encroachments into Europe, those were Pagan territories, not European or Christian ones, and Christians have a similar history of expansion against Pagans in the lands they later came to dominate. Furthermore, the "Muslim conquests" were more like hostile take overs; Islam spread quickly and held fast because it had a more appealing vision of life than the prevailing Pagan religions, so most populations were receptive to conversion attempts and it was comparatively easy to form new Islamic nations out of the old Pagan kingdoms of the Middle East.



Almost certainly bandits exploiting the defenselessness of people far from home, maybe the Turks suspicious of aliens passing through their lands. The Arab-Egyptian Caliphate could not obtain significant material resources from raiding tourists and was reputed for exercising religious tolerance toward Jews and Christians.

In sum:

A religious war against the Moors wasn't really justifiable. They weren't advancing into Europe and hadn't for several hundred years.

A religious war against the Turks was potentially justifiable, although their were a great many hypocrisies and ironies in the execution.

A religious war against the Arabs was not justifiable.
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing you spew here addresses the fact that Muslims invaded Christian lands and took over Christian cities for 400 years before the first Crusade.

Until you can admit that there is nothing to discuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom