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

[Joelcool7]

superchunk said:

Joelcool7 said:

 

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.

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.

I'm getting that from what I was taught in Social Studies. The Muslims began moving North towards Constantinople and Christians began being persecuted or at least thats what the church told everyone and what was recorded in the history books. Constantinople and the Byzantine empire called on the Catholic Church for help. The persecution and advances of the Muslims caused the Catholic Church to unite the Christian nations in a war which they considered holy.

I don't know why it took 400 years, actually I do the Christians were to busy fighting amongst each other to stop the Muslims from taking over. But when Constantinople was threatened and the Muslims began moving towards other Christian territories they got afraid and fought back.

Keep in mind Emperor Constantine built the first big christian church in Constantinople. Constantinople and Jerusalem were the two biggest Christian landmarks. Its like Jerusalem and Mecca is to Islam. Muslims controlling those two cities would be a horrible thing for the Christians especially if persecution was occuring as the Christians claimed it was.

As I said Muslim nations may have been better then the crusaders. But it wasn't an unprovoked war. Its not like one day for no reason the Catholic Church declared a holy war on Islam and marched into Jerusalem. It was hundreds of years of war and/or persecution that lead to the crusades.

I admit Muslims back in the middle ages were more civilized then the Catholics. But Muslims were still pretty violent and weren't entirely innocent in the Crusades or other wars. Also keep in mind the Catholics killed the protestants the same way today the Sunni's kill the Shiites and vice versa.