| Joelcool7 said:
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. |
1st bolded: I have no clue where you are getting this. Muslims held the holy land for over 400 years before the first Crusade. The first Crusade was entirely because the Byzantines were losing land and asked the Catholics for help and the "holy land" was simply bait in how they got support from the Christian people's across Europe.
2nd bolded: That's purely your opinion that differs from historical facts in how Saladin acted in other battle's he won vs nonMuslims.
Finally, while there have been bad Muslim rulers prior to 200 years ago, Islam was FAR less violent before that, had no notion of extremism as we see it today, had far better woman's rights (rights to own land, equal education, etc) that all predated anything similar to the western concept of such, unparalleled religious freedoms, etc.
My thread's point was to demonstrate a few things.
1. Islam now is FAR worse now than it has ever been in its entire history. Islam from the beginning of the Arab Empire until about 1800AE was very, very different. This is easily demonstrated through Jewish history (pre-US and modern Israel) and especially Muslim controlled Spain since its highly recorded throughout history.
2. Islam now is the same as Christianity during its dark ages.
3. The Qur'an is not violent in nature, but its verses taken out of context and mixed with the Hadith literature that was recorded hundreds of years after Muhammad died is what has allowed the creation of this relatively modern concept of extremist Islam. Just study the concept of Wahhabism to see where it primarily started. Thank you Saudi Arabia for that.
4. People shouldn't focus on proving extremist theories in Islam, but should focus on proving why they are NOT Islamic in foundation and are actually contradictory to the message delivered in the Qur'an.
5. The hope that what we see today in various political revolutions will result in freer societies that will in turn question religious authority and begin an Islamic Renaissance.
Now, all of these points may not be fully detailed or expressed in my OP, but I think they are when you follow my various postings in this thread.
