Christianity ruins families.

[MrFun]

When I quoted Barnabas in my response, I reacted to this with my "for record" comment:

Why are islamic conquests sacred, good and to be respected, while christian attempts to reconquer former christian lands (which were generally predominantly christian lands under islamic rule) seen as unjustified outrageous attacks?

[giblets]

MrFun: I don't know. I, personally, was only reacting to Ben's demonizing of Muslims and determination to justify everything ever done by Christians.

With protestantism the seperation of church and state was introduced, which was more or less adopted soon by the Roman Catholics as well. (The RC was forced to rethink their theology because of the reformation)

I'm not very positive of true Muslims adopting the separation of church and state.
Such a doctrine can easily be based on the Bible or Jesus, but not on the Quran.

I think that people too easily consider all religions alike, and therefore conclude that all religions will follow the same path. (like: islam will go through a reformation as well).

I think it's entirely possible for people to change with the times without abandoning their religion. For example, the Bible has plenty of sexist garbage, but most Christians have moved with the times and reinterpreted the religion and they're now completely at odds with what early Christians thought.

[MrFun]

So then why did Barnabas feel that he had to make a statement concerning that?

[giblets]

And for record, my own opinion about Muslim invasions versus Christian crusades is not to demonize the crusaders and glorify Muslim conquerors. I have a much more balanced view.

What a massive strawman. No one is trying to glorify muslim conquerors and pointing out that crusaders committed atrocities isn't "demonizing". It's a fact...

[OzzyKP]

Exactly BeBro.

[BeBMan]

I've recently been on a minor military history kick, trying to read some of the basics. Supposedly, many medieval soldiers relied on a military manual written by some ancient Roman. He said that the principal aim of war is to destroy the countryside so your opponent can no longer support his army (apparently this guy was a big RTS player). Also, Henry V is said to have remarked, "War without fire [ie, burning villages] is like sausage without mustard."

Which is the main reason why I don't find the Muslim conquests quite as abhorrent as the Crusades. Yes, they were both conquerors, but when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, the streets are said to have quite literally run red with all the innocent blood they spilled. Saladin retook Jerusalem, massacred nobody. Muslims captured by Christians got the rack, or worse. Christians captured by Muslims were largely treated as second-class citizens, which is pretty good by comparison.

The massacre in Jerusalem 1099 certainly stands out as atrocity, but it's not that similiar stuff didn't happen elsewhere too. Not everyone was a Saladin on the muslim side, just read what happened when Baibars began to finally destroy the Crusader states in the Holy Land. A prime example is the siege of Antioch in 1268 where he promised to to spare the lives of its inhabitants, then changed his mind, killed large parts of the population and sold the rest into slavery. Torched earth style stuff was also not uncommon for him. Esp. during the last decades until 1291 when the last christian city fell in the ME massacres etc. from the muslim side were hardly a rare occurence.

I'm not interested to excuse anything vs. anything, but I don't buy that medieval war and conquest were esp. brutal on one side only...

[Robert]

I've recently been on a minor military history kick, trying to read some of the basics. Supposedly, many medieval soldiers relied on a military manual written by some ancient Roman. He said that the principal aim of war is to destroy the countryside so your opponent can no longer support his army (apparently this guy was a big RTS player). Also, Henry V is said to have remarked, "War without fire [ie, burning villages] is like sausage without mustard."

Which is the main reason why I don't find the Muslim conquests quite as abhorrent as the Crusades. Yes, they were both conquerors, but when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, the streets are said to have quite literally run red with all the innocent blood they spilled. Saladin retook Jerusalem, massacred nobody. Muslims captured by Christians got the rack, or worse. Christians captured by Muslims were largely treated as second-class citizens, which is pretty good by comparison.

Also, human history is basically one long story of people taking other people's ****, going back to the Cro-magnon conquest of the Neanderthals--which is why I find claims of 'original ownership' pretty silly. The Turks took Constantinople from the Byzantines, who inherited it from the Romans, who I suppose took it from some damned post-Alexander dynasty, who took it from Alexander's retarded half-brother, who got it from Alexander, who took it from some barbarian tribe, who I imagine took it from Greek colonists around 1000 BC or some such, said colonists possibly having pushed certain other people out of the way to found their colony...Antarctica is pretty much the only real estate on Earth that hasn't been taken by force, and that's because it's worthless.

+1

Of course we can't compare the crusades to our moral standards, but even compared to those days moral standards it was very wrong.
Especially because they used false motives and masacred the countryside and the local population.

During the middle ages the muslims were a lot more civilized then we were.

[Robert]

With protestantism the seperation of church and state was introduced, which was more or less adopted soon by the Roman Catholics as well. (The RC was forced to rethink their theology because of the reformation)

I'm not very positive of true Muslims adopting the separation of church and state.
Such a doctrine can easily be based on the Bible or Jesus, but not on the Quran.

I think that people too easily consider all religions alike, and therefore conclude that all religions will follow the same path. (like: islam will go through a reformation as well).

[Barnabas]

Which is the main reason why I don't find the Muslim conquests quite as abhorrent as the Crusades. Yes, they were both conquerors, but when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, the streets are said to have quite literally run red with all the innocent blood they spilled. Saladin retook Jerusalem, massacred nobody. Muslims captured by Christians got the rack, or worse. Christians captured by Muslims were largely treated as second-class citizens, which is pretty good by comparison.

In a way that is true, Christians only became tolerant (more tolerant than muslims) after the European religious wars between Catholics and Protestants that involved pretty much everyone (Spain, Holy Roman Empire, France, England, the Netherlands, Sweden etc) they were so devastating that pretty much Europeans stopped fighting over religion after that, like it was not wise to endure so much destruction for an abstract idea like religion (unlike land, money and resources).

Muslims were much more violent against people who were not of the book, I guess Aneeshm could tell you many horror stories of the islamic conquest of India (lets not forget that Pakistan used to be 100% India)

And Christians were still one fanatic dinasty away from being converted forcibly to Islam. I don't think a Christian could have lived in Taliban Afghanistan even if he was willing to pay taxes.

[MrFun]

Ben, I don't want to insult you, but I think you bring a lot of protestant baggage with you when you say that Jews have a claim to the Holy Land, no catholic would ever say that (I also see that when you oppose state intervention to help the poor, as if catholic countries had a history of free market capitalism like England or the Netherlands)
.
That territory you mentioned from the Euphrates to the Nile, was never ever controlled by jews in their History, Israel was from Dan to Beersheba, not from the Nile to the Euphrates, that was just wishful thinking.

And that territory would include most holy christian sites like the church of the Nativity, and the patriarchate of Jerusalem, one of the 5 most important sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople), you can't have both christians and jews having a valid claim over the same territory.

By the way, the Islamic conquest was great for the Papacy, Rome is the only "free" apostolic see, all others fell in control of muslims.

The islamic conquest is probably the only reason why I am a Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.


I don't see anything outrageous or unjustified about the crusades, and I don't think the muslims thought the crusaders had outrageous beliefs. They were enemies, infidels, but they were only acting like the muslims who conquered everything in sight from Spain to China. The muslims understood the pshychology of Holy War too well to be outraged by the crusaders.

Why are islamic conquests sacred, good and to be respected, while christian attempts to reconquer former christian lands (which were generally predominantly christian lands under islamic rule) seen as unjustified outrageous attacks?
It is not like muslims half a millenium later had not recovered all the crusader lands, conquered all the byzantine empire, and had advanced as far as Vienna twice.

Do you all think that Spanish christians should have remained happy with only one fifth of their former country, locked between the mountains and the sea? Muslims in Spain would refer to those Christian northerners as dogs, but they saw nothing weird in their constant skirmishes and attempts to advance to the south. It is not like muslims asked for permission when they tried to invade or conquer someone.

As late as the 1950 lebanon had a christian majority, a century ago christians were still over 30% of Syrians, and in many parts of palestine christians were the majority of the population (bethlehem, galilee), the % of christians was much higher during the first crusade. Before the disaster of manzikert, it looked like arabs had lost steam and that the Byzantine Emperor was going to end up reconquering Syria.

This post here is pure awesome.

And for record, my own opinion about Muslim invasions versus Christian crusades is not to demonize the crusaders and glorify Muslim conquerors. I have a much more balanced view.

[Elok]

I loved the part where people debated the 'justification' of war and conquest in the middle ages. Let's remember that was when everyone regardless of religion bought into principles of modern intl law and enlightenend pacifism.

I've recently been on a minor military history kick, trying to read some of the basics. Supposedly, many medieval soldiers relied on a military manual written by some ancient Roman. He said that the principal aim of war is to destroy the countryside so your opponent can no longer support his army (apparently this guy was a big RTS player). Also, Henry V is said to have remarked, "War without fire [ie, burning villages] is like sausage without mustard."

Which is the main reason why I don't find the Muslim conquests quite as abhorrent as the Crusades. Yes, they were both conquerors, but when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, the streets are said to have quite literally run red with all the innocent blood they spilled. Saladin retook Jerusalem, massacred nobody. Muslims captured by Christians got the rack, or worse. Christians captured by Muslims were largely treated as second-class citizens, which is pretty good by comparison.

Also, human history is basically one long story of people taking other people's ****, going back to the Cro-magnon conquest of the Neanderthals--which is why I find claims of 'original ownership' pretty silly. The Turks took Constantinople from the Byzantines, who inherited it from the Romans, who I suppose took it from some damned post-Alexander dynasty, who took it from Alexander's retarded half-brother, who got it from Alexander, who took it from some barbarian tribe, who I imagine took it from Greek colonists around 1000 BC or some such, said colonists possibly having pushed certain other people out of the way to found their colony...Antarctica is pretty much the only real estate on Earth that hasn't been taken by force, and that's because it's worthless.

[giblets]

Why are islamic conquests sacred, good and to be respected, while christian attempts to reconquer former christian lands (which were generally predominantly christian lands under islamic rule) seen as unjustified outrageous attacks?

Who said their conquests were sacred and good?

[OzzyKP]

Barnabas

[Barnabas]

Ben, I don't want to insult you, but I think you bring a lot of protestant baggage with you when you say that Jews have a claim to the Holy Land, no catholic would ever say that (I also see that when you oppose state intervention to help the poor, as if catholic countries had a history of free market capitalism like England or the Netherlands)
.
That territory you mentioned from the Euphrates to the Nile, was never ever controlled by jews in their History, Israel was from Dan to Beersheba, not from the Nile to the Euphrates, that was just wishful thinking.

And that territory would include most holy christian sites like the church of the Nativity, and the patriarchate of Jerusalem, one of the 5 most important sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople), you can't have both christians and jews having a valid claim over the same territory.

By the way, the Islamic conquest was great for the Papacy, Rome is the only "free" apostolic see, all others fell in control of muslims.

The islamic conquest is probably the only reason why I am a Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.


I don't see anything outrageous or unjustified about the crusades, and I don't think the muslims thought the crusaders had outrageous beliefs. They were enemies, infidels, but they were only acting like the muslims who conquered everything in sight from Spain to China. The muslims understood the pshychology of Holy War too well to be outraged by the crusaders.

Why are islamic conquests sacred, good and to be respected, while christian attempts to reconquer former christian lands (which were generally predominantly christian lands under islamic rule) seen as unjustified outrageous attacks?
It is not like muslims half a millenium later had not recovered all the crusader lands, conquered all the byzantine empire, and had advanced as far as Vienna twice.

Do you all think that Spanish christians should have remained happy with only one fifth of their former country, locked between the mountains and the sea? Muslims in Spain would refer to those Christian northerners as dogs, but they saw nothing weird in their constant skirmishes and attempts to advance to the south. It is not like muslims asked for permission when they tried to invade or conquer someone.

As late as the 1950 lebanon had a christian majority, a century ago christians were still over 30% of Syrians, and in many parts of palestine christians were the majority of the population (bethlehem, galilee), the % of christians was much higher during the first crusade. Before the disaster of manzikert, it looked like arabs had lost steam and that the Byzantine Emperor was going to end up reconquering Syria.

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought the myth was that they are descended from Ishmael?

Sigh. I had the wrong generation. Serves me right for relying on memory. Yes, you are correct.

They claim they are descended from Ishmael.