0
   

Jihad vs Crusades: A historical perspective

 
 
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 05:11 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I_To-cV94Bo

 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 05:13 pm
@gungasnake,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  6  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 07:58 pm
The historical distortion here is just incredible. At the outset, he talks about Islam attacking "classical Greece." Classical Greek civilization describes a period of two centuries, the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. Islam does not arise until the beginning of the 7th century CE--more than a thousand years later. At the time that the Muslims of Arabia marched out into the Sassanid (Neo-Persian) empire, Greece was a part of the Roman Empire; the later Roman Empire, usually called the Byzantine Empire. It was not until the 16th century that Muslims, in the form of the Osmanli (Ottoman) Turks invaded the Balkan peninsula. This was not jihad, it's only purpose was to expand the political control (and therefore, the taxation base) of the Osmanli dynasty. No one was required to convert to Islam.

That's just for starters. This clown is presenting a distorted view of history in order to support a straw man fallacy with which he begins his screed. He asserts, without presenting any evidence, that people (a sufficiently vague group about which to make a claim) respond to remarks about jihad by bringing up the crusades. But leaving aside the fallacious basis for his rant, he is also fudging the data. So, for example, he lists all manner of "battles" in what we would call France. However, there was a single campaign in 732 CE, conducted by the satrapy of Al Andalus on behalf of the Umayyad Caliphate. After the Franks and Burgundians defeated the Muslims at a battle usually called the battle of Tours in 732, the Muslims withdrew and never again attempted the conquest of "France" (a political entity which did not exist at that time). The little red dots in France are the record of the continuing defeats the Franks inflicted on the Arab-Berber army until they finally crossed the mountains, never to return.

This clown keeps speaking of "Islam" as though it were a coherent monolith with a set policy of "jihad." Certainly Muslims, just like Christians, liked to conquer their neighbors so that they could plunder them, and then, it was hoped, tax the bejesus out of them ever after. This sort of behavior was common all over the world in those centuries, and had nothing to do with religion. The Umayyad dynasty took control of of most (but certainly not all) of the Muslim world after the First (first, mind you) Muslim civil war, which took place less than 30 years after the death of the Prophet. This joker explains none of this. The conquests of the Umayyads were largely private ventures, and were initially successful because of corrupt or decayed administrations which they overthrew. That doesn't mean, however, that everyone rushed to become Muslims, or tore off as fanatical holy warriors. The invasion of what we call Spain was slowed and hindered over more than a generation by revolts among the Berbers, most of whom had become Muslims, but had no interest in trading their former oppressive German masters (Vandals and Visigoths) for new oppressive Arab masters. This delayed the progress of the Umayyad conquest, and the disastrous defeat of the dynasty by Leo III in 717, followed by a half century of military reverses fighting the Romans and the surviving German (Visigothic) "kings" in Iberia lead to the collapse of the dynasty when they falied to crush the Abbasid revolt.

In fact, as Muslims could not be taxed in most situations, but infidels (Christians and Jews) could, it was not in the interest of the Umayyads and their Abbasid successors to promote the conversion of the people of newly conquered regions. Some jihad . . .

Most the little red dots on this horseshit map are cobbled together out of petty raids and counterattacks of the Christians whom they tried to conquer. Most of the "battles" which appear in the middle east in the years after the two muslim civil wars (the battles of which he lists as examples of "jihad") were cases of either rebellion, or of the Romans fighting back, and doing so successfully. When Leo III drove the Arabs away from their siege of Constantinople in 717, two major factors were the attack of the Bulgars on the Arab besieging army (they had no screening army--buncha military putzes) and a defection of a large portion of the Arab fleet, who found the prospect of raiding Christian shipping far more lucrative than blockade duty for an inept army.

Gunga Dim knows about as much about history as he does about science--which is to say, next to nothing.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 11:26 pm
@Setanta,
Do you ever get tired of being a legend in your own mind?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 12:40 am
@gungasnake,
Set really is stupid not to accept the supremacy historical wisdom of a PhD in both Physics and Mathematics.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 02:33 am
@gungasnake,
This isn't about me, Bubba, it's about your phony-baloney source. (So much for having me on ignore, eh, Bubba?)
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 02:47 am
The guy uses the term "The classical civilization of Rome and Greece" and makes it clear that he's speaking about that civilization AFTER it came into the hands of Germanic peoples in the west and the Byzantine empire in the East.

Setanta's claim that "At the outset, he talks about Islam attacking "classical Greece." Classical Greek civilization describes a period of two centuries, the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. Islam does not arise until the beginning of the 7th century CE--more than a thousand years later." is thus seen to be flagrant ****.

Setanta, you're a lying sack of **** and you've finally made it to my ignore button, welcome to the outer darkness.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 02:53 am
Ah-hahahahahaha . . . you've claimed to have me on ignore many times over the years. Truth hurts, huh, Bubba?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 08:08 am
@Setanta,
Because I'm not a native English speaker, I have missed what the doctor said about the massacres of Jews by the Crusaders.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 10:14 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Or the sacking of Christian Byzantium by the first Crusaders.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 10:51 am
@bobsal u1553115,
obvious case of somebody looking at something the wrong way...

nonetheless the case I was making still stands, the crusades altogether do not amount to a hill of beans compared to the history of muslim conquest and jihad.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 01:48 pm
Let us not forget the oh-so-civilized crusaders who killed and ate their Muslim captives:

Quote:
A chronicler, Radulph of Caen wrote (in 1107, 9 years after the fact):

Some people said that, constrained by the lack of food, they boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots, impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled.

These events were also chronicled by Fulcher of Chartres, who wrote:

I shudder to tell that many of our people, harassed by the madness of excessive hunger, cut pieces from the buttocks of the Saracens already dead there, which they cooked, but when it was not yet roasted enough by the fire, they devoured it with savage mouth.


Source at Wikipedia, which, for these chroniclers, cites Edward Peters, The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998). Amin Maalouf makes the same report, citing Christian sources, in Les Croisades vues par les Arabes ("The Crusades through Arab Eyes"). The English translation was published in the U.S. in 1984, by Schocken Books.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 10:32 am
@Setanta,
Or the Christian ship owners of Italy who hauled all the children from the Children's Crusade and sold them into slavery in north Africa.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2015 05:29 am
This is what lies and hate spread by lowlifes like Gungasnake leads to.

Quote:
Three young students in the college town of Chapel Hill in North Carolina were shot dead on Tuesday. According to reports, the victims were students at nearby universities, from Muslim faith backgrounds and were related to each other - 23-year-old Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19. A man named Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, has been arrested in connection with the case. He has expressed atheist views on Facebook, according to reports.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-31421363<br />
Murdered just for being Moslems.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2015 06:30 am
@izzythepush,
Sadly enough, that's justification for too many here in the "Land of the Free."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Jihad vs Crusades: A historical perspective
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 09:13:49