Islam is not bad, too many of you are ignorant of history.

[Joelcool7]

superchunk said:

Joelcool7 said:

 

Super Chunk that is alittle exagerated don't you think? During the Crusades it wasn't all one sided. The Moores (Muslims) forced many to convert. Sure they may not have gone to the extent of Genocide as often as some of the crusaders did but they were just as brutal.

Infact if you study the Crusades the only reason Saladin didn't slaughter every Christian in Jerusalem when he took it, was that the Crusaders threatened to execute every Muslim within the walls as well as destroy every Muslim Mosque and holy site. Saladin had the option kill them all and loose Jerusalem for ever or let some Christian's leave and enslave the remainder.

The Moores were known to be very brutal, also you talk about how under Muslim rule the Christians and jews were both allowed to worship freely in Jerusalem. Thats not what I learnt in social studies a large reason for the crusades was that many Christian's were persecuted. Several priests were killed.

You then say Christian's didn't allow Muslims to worship (At least I believe you said that) that is entirely not true. Muslims were also allowed to worship in Jerusalem under Christian rule to the same extent Christians were allowed in Muslim rule. Many were persecuted and imprisoned but some were allowed to worship.

Islam has been violent just as long as Christianity. The only difference is the New Testiment which is the basis for Christianity not once orders Christian's to slaughter non-believers. In Revelations it says God will unleash his rath on the non-believers but the New Testiment does not order Christians to kill infidel.

The Qur'an is very easily taken out of context because it is very violent. You mention that it was war time when it was written. But the New Testament was written during persecution from the romans. The Romans and Jews killed many believers feeding them to Lions or making them into human torches. Yet the Bible says to love those that persecute you.

The major difference is the New Testament can't be taken out of context to support mass murder. The violence of the Crusades was largely because nobody but the priests could read the Bible, so when the Catholic Church ordered its followers to defend Constantinople and retake Jerusalem they were able to lie to the people and convince them that killing Infidel was Christian.

Islamic extremists don't even have to lie to their congregations they can just take stuff out of context. Its in the Qur'an they just have to twist it. The same can not be done with the New Testiment.

I know Sapphi Snake was quick to mention that the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople were enemies. However when the Muslims continued advancing North they became a bigger threat to the Christian countries then each other were.

Example say the US and Russia were at War. But in the middle of that war aliens invaded the US or Russia. They would set aside their differences to fight off the invaders. Why? because they are both human and have more in common with each other then the aliens.

Well, your one class is nice. However my entire minor and original Bachelor's degree was on religion (predominately history of) as well as Middle Eastern Studies.

During the Crusades, i.e. a time of war, I'm positive Muslims committed atrocities to Christians just as was the reverse. However, I also know that Saladin rebuilt the Church of the Sepulcher as well as ordered all nonMuslims to be treated equivocally. Also, most scholars would disagree with the image you push regarding Saladin

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

"His chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, especially in the accounts of the siege of Kerak in Moab, and despite being the nemesis of the Crusaders he won the respect of many of them, including Richard the Lionheart; rather than becoming a hated figure in Europe, he became a celebrated example of the principles of chivalry."

In fact, reading just this summary in wikipedia regarding the incident you stated, it sounds like you goofed the details a bit. Saladin never threatened to kill the Christians. He actually offered a very good set of terms for surrender which the Crusaders rejected. Then during the siege, the he stopped his attack when the Crusaders threatened to kill all the Muslims inside as well as destroy the Muslim holy areas. Then Saladin went ahead and re-offered some of the terms and Jerusalem was then handed to him. Additionally, when it was all said and done, Saladin sent out requests for the Jews who had fled the Crusaders to return to their homes and resettle in Jerusalem. Which many did. (See same wiki article and its sources)

************

I would never state that it was 100% rosy gardens while dancing in the streets holding hands for the 1200 years (before my 200 time frame) between Muslims and nonMuslims, however, It's also historical fact that during all this time conditions were FAR better than really, any place in modern Islamic countries.

 

When I talked about the atrocities most were not commited by Saladin. When I mentioned in Social Studies I was refering to learning of how the first Crusade began. Many priests were killed and Christian's were being persecuted in the Holy Land after the Muslims took it.

I think after the first Crusade the only reasons Muslims allowed Christians to worship more freely and Christian's allowing Muslims to worship is because both Christians and Muslim realized neither of them could control Israel and Jerusalem without the other's somewhat support.

Yes Saladin was honourable and yes he was very nice after conquering Jerusalem. But I stand by my statement. If the Crusaders didn't threaten to slaughter every Muslim within the walls and destroy every holy site then I'm pretty sure Saladin would have killed the majority of them. Notice he enslaved everyone who could not pay a ransom, what would he have done if they didn't come to terms? I'm pretty sure it would have been far worse.

Its simply a fact that Islamic countries and Government's and Muslims have been very violent since the middle ages if not earlier. In the same way Christian's were (Which is the point of your thread right?)

However every time you talk about the Muslims and Christian's being violent , you refer to Islam as being less violent and having only been extreme for the last 200 years. Fact is your right Islam is and has been as violent as Christianity ever was. I won't argue that Islam has been more violent then organized Christianity. But to argue it was less so is futile.

Their have been atrocities commited by the Crusaders (Christians), the Moores and Al-Quida (Muslims) and even today the Jews (Israeli occupation and abuse).

No matter which way you look at it Islam is and has been for a very long time a violent religion. No less violent then organised Christianity no matter which way you slice it.