Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes - that is exactly what I am saying.
Looking at the centuries long conflict between Christendom and Islam, and starting with the so-called 'Crusades', is like looking at World War 2 and starting with the D-Day invasion of Normandy. It effectively makes the wrong side look like the aggressor.
I think pretty much any history book that touches in any way on the rise of Islam will testify to its innate militancy ever since its inception. In point of fact, none of the armies of Europe invaded a single square foot of Muslim land that hadn't been previously dominated by Christianity. Moreover, Islamic armies had repeatedly invaded Europe throughout the centuries leading up to the so-called crusades. It was only with the crusades that Christendom finally went on the offensive. And it certainly can't be said that they hadn't been sufficiently provoked.Could you supply a reference for you view.
[FONT="][/FONT]
There were of course many localised massacres organised under the authority of the Roman Curia as well.
[/color]
Then you need to read different history books.
Are you denying the role of Muhammad as both a spiritual and a military leader?
I have a significant problem with people (ususally non-believers) who continually try to make Christianity out to be a "bad religion" by throwing things like The Crusades in the face of believers........
Really? So how do you account for Islam's rapid spread throughout its first century of existence? The rest of the ancient Near East, Northern Africa, Sicily, and a significant portion of the Iberian Peninsula didn't succumb to Islam via the Muslims' persuasive use of reason, nor were they won over by Muslim acts of charity.[/color]
Then you need to read different history books.
Pardon? I don't understand since I was replying to your general assessment of Islam - nothing to do with the Crusades despite the subject of the thread.Muhammad was not around at the time of the Crusades.
Then you need to look at the dark side of Christianity and you will get a similar picture. You might also look at what is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Revenge is not an option for self-pofessing Christians.
While a somewhat simplistic way of putting it, yes, many Jews were horribly and tragically persecuted and killed as "crusading" armies journeyed south. But it's also only fair to note that these actions were roundly condemned by those regions' bishops and that many Jews actually sought and received protection from those bishops during such depredations.Indeed. The Crusaders took to killing and raping Jews just for practice along the way.
While a somewhat simplistic way of putting it, yes, many Jews were horribly and tragically persecuted and killed as "crusading" armies journeyed south. But it's also only fair to note that these actions were roundly condemned by those regions' bishops and that many Jews actually sought and received protection from those bishops during such depredations.
One need look no further to show the militancy of early Islam than by looking at Mohammad's life itself. The battles of Uhud and Badr immediately come to mind.[/quote]Muhammad was not around at the time of the Crusades.
Ideally speaking, no. But in neither Afghanistan nor in Iraq can it be said that the invasion of either was motivated by an unalloyed desire for revenge. I think it can also be argued that there was intent to protect the weak involved in both.wayseer said:Revenge is not an option for self-pofessing Christians.
It was during the lead-up to both the First and Second Crusades that saw savage persecutions of Jews in both France and Germany. In the 1140s, the authorities were better prepared to prevent such attacks, but there was still such figures as the monk Radulf, whose vitriolic preaching incited the murder of Jews in northern France and the Rhineland (it was not widespread). Responding to an appeal from Archbishop Henry of Mainz, none other than Bernard of Clairvaux ordered Radulf back to his monastery and strove to end the violence. In 1146 he wrote to the archbishop:You seem to have more knowledge of the Crusades than I do; which Crusade was it in which a separate, peasant-based force attacked a Jewish settlement/town? My memory's fuzzy on the subject and the course I had only briefly mentioned it. I'm wanting to say it was the First or the Second.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?