Christianity Is Not To Blame For The Crusades......

[Nephi]

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:
"Is it not a far better triumph for the church to convince and convert the Jews than to put them all to the sword? Has that prayer which the church offers for the Jews, from the rising up of the sun to the going down thereof, that the veil may be taken from their hearts so that they may be led from the darkness of error into the light of truth, been instituted in vain? If she did not hope that they would believe and be converted, it would seem useless and vain for her to pray for them. But with the eye of mercy she considers how the Lord regards with favour him who renders good for evil and love for hatred."
It was because of his intervention on their behalf during this time that Jews came to regard Bernard of Clairvaux as a Righteous Gentile.

Thank you very much, and fascinating quote. I think this thread has rekindled my interest in studying the time of the Crusades.

It's a shame that the one course I've had so far on the Crusades was built up of mostly Islamic primary sources with the professor having very obvious Arab/Islamic sympathies that turned the Crusades into a massive brutality campaign on the side of the Christians, and a re-liberation (since they had liberated the peoples of the conquered territories once before) of the occupied territories of the Crusader states.

An example of this would be to show the brutalities recorded in Christian sources regarding the conquests of Jerusalem (e.g. streets filled with blood and bodies), and the comparatively peaceful conquests (e.g. offering to let everyone go free if a ransom were paid) as recorded by Islamic sources.

 

[wayseer]

Really? So how do you account for Islam's rapid spread throughout its first century of existence?

Quite simple - they were smarter.

As I said read all the history not the selected bits. Islam was the seat of learning and it was this learning that paved the way, well ahead of any army, for Islam.

 

[Nephi]

Quite simple - they were smarter.

As I said read all the history not the selected bits. Islam was the seat of learning and it was this learning that paved the way, well ahead of any army, for Islam.

Bahahaha. Just because something is repeated constantly does not make it true.

Prove that Islam was the seat of learning prior to its conquest of neighbouring civilizations. You won't be able to because they primarily acquired their technology, logic, literary traditions, etc. through conquest.

You make statements such as "read all the history," care to provide such history from the primary sources? Care to provide your primary sources proving that Islam was the seat of learning? Care to provide your primary sources showing that Islam conquered their enemies through knowledge rather than brutal force?

 

[wayseer]

Prove that Islam was the seat of learning prior to its conquest of neighbouring civilizations. You won't be able to because they primarily acquired their technology, logic, literary traditions, etc. through conquest.

Your ignorance is on par with most Christians.

Mathematics was refined by Islamic scholars.

Our present numeral system that we use today is thanks to Islamic scholars. The system allowed users to add, subtract and multiply in one's head which Romans numerals could never achieve.

Medicine, agriculture, horticulture, tiled bathrooms and running water were all provided by Islam.

Names such as Valencia and oranges and lemons were introduced by Islam.

So was algebra and logarithms.

Islamic scholars knew the earth was round and not flat.

They were smart and while Europe languished in what is rightfully called the Dark Ages, Islam was providing the Light that would eventually become the Enlightenment.

Care to provide your primary sources showing that Islam conquered their enemies through knowledge rather than brutal force?

Try the local library rather than the fundamentalist stuff which you feed on at present.

 

[Nephi]

Your ignorance is on par with most Christians.

Unnecessary generalization and an unnecessary attack against my person because of a disagreement of opinion.

Mathematics was refined by Islamic scholars.

By the time that mathematics became a big part of Islam the First Crusade was over; thus it is irrelevant to early Islam's alleged conquests by knowledge rather than by sword.

Our present numeral system that we use today is thanks to Islamic scholars. The system allowed users to add, subtract and multiply in one's head which Romans numerals could never achieve.

I'm afraid that this just a fallacy. The numeral system we use was originally devised by Indian mathematicians - not Muslims.

Medicine, agriculture, horticulture, tiled bathrooms and running water were all provided by Islam.

These may have been lost in Western Europe, but if I recall the Byzantine Empire still had all of these things - and were by extension NOT creations under Islam.

Names such as Valencia and oranges and lemons were introduced by Islam.

Names contributed to the alleged non-violent conquest of neighboring regions? I'm afraid that's a bit absurd.

So was algebra and logarithms.

Again BOTH of these were developed by Greek and Indian mathematicians - then translated into Arabic which then spread through the Islamic world. Not created within the Islamic world.

Islamic scholars knew the earth was round and not flat.

Yeah, and many Greek scholars knew this as well. Your point?

They were smart and while Europe languished in what is rightfully called the Dark Ages, Islam was providing the Light that would eventually become the Enlightenment.

While Western Europe went through the Dark Ages, the Byzantine Empire was still in its Golden Age and preserved what had become lost in what was the western part of the Roman Empire. To say that the only existence of any form of "light" was in the Islamic world is contrived at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

Have you studied the Byzantine Empire any at all?

Try the local library rather than the fundamentalist stuff which you feed on at present.

Way to conclude what I read based on my opinion; somehow I don't think it works that way.

I'm going to presume that by your statements you've done little research into the primary and secondary sources relating to the development of Islam. You should, and don't assume I merely spit out rhetoric from "fundamentalist" stuff that you assume I've even read to begin with as I haven't. I've had classes on Islam from Arab Islam-sympathetic professors in which we studied the Islamic primary and secondary sources.

Somehow I don't think those works constitute as Christian "fundamentalist" opinions.

Again I asked you to quote primary sources which you did not. You merely spouted off random statements and assumptions.

 

[Biblicist]

The false notion that our current numbering system was developed by Muslims is certainly humorous considering that it had its origins in India a number of centuries before Islam was developed; but I suppose we should not let the facts get in the way of a good story and certainly Islam is rather short of good stories to tell.

I often wonder what would have happened within the Middle East if Islam had not been forced upon it. Luckily for Islam it was able to absorb a wealth of knowledge both in science and construction from numerous cultures which had been going for many centuries.

If the darkness of Islam had not descended on these regions I tend to wonder if Europe would have developed as it has – or if there would be a need for it to do so. If these early powerful societies in the Middle East were to have been allowed to develop within a Christian ethic I suspect that the worlds power base would have returned to this region instead of being subservient to the West as these regions currently are.

Of course we need to ask why the Lord allowed Mohammed to be deceived by some satanic angels in the first place. My opinion is that he wanted the children of Ishmael to become or at least to maintain their heritage even if it was a result of their choosing to believe a deception; as they are guilty of believing a deception the guilt is upon them and no one else. So we have the children of Israel being kept as a people due to the promises that God made to the Patriarchs even though many millions have perished over the centuries. It seems that the children of Abraham through Ishmael have been kept as a people though certainly under a curse of bondage and misery.

 

[dcyates]

Thank you very much, and fascinating quote. I think this thread has rekindled my interest in studying the time of the Crusades.

It's a shame that the one course I've had so far on the Crusades was built up of mostly Islamic primary sources with the professor having very obvious Arab/Islamic sympathies that turned the Crusades into a massive brutality campaign on the side of the Christians, and a re-liberation (since they had liberated the peoples of the conquered territories once before) of the occupied territories of the Crusader states.

An example of this would be to show the brutalities recorded in Christian sources regarding the conquests of Jerusalem (e.g. streets filled with blood and bodies), and the comparatively peaceful conquests (e.g. offering to let everyone go free if a ransom were paid) as recorded by Islamic sources.

Warfare is always a tragic and gruesome affair, but it was perhaps especially so during the Middle Ages, if only due to the weapons involved. Nevertheless, as applies in so many other instances as well, nothing is gained in terms of moral insight by anachronistically imposing the Geneva Convention on these times and people. And besides that, the sources you refer to above may have greatly exaggerated the extent of the massacre, if only because those same writers routinely reported armies of "nearly a million men!" and "hundreds of thousands of casualities!" on each side in various battles. Surely, no sensible person actually takes literally Raymond of Aguilers' report that "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." Most likely, what happened was, as the distinguished historian John France worded it, "not far beyond what common practice of the day meted out to any place that resisted."
The truth is, the basic convention of Medieval warfare common to both Christian and Muslim armies was to offer generous terms for the citizens of those cities that surrendered, and to severely punish the citizens of those cities that did not. Both scenarios were to act as examples for other cities a given army may beseige.

 

[wayseer]

Unnecessary generalization and an unnecessary attack against my person because of a disagreement of opinion.

But may well be true - particular in light of you Islamphobia

By the time that mathematics became a big part of Islam the First Crusade was over; thus it is irrelevant to early Islam's alleged conquests by knowledge rather than by sword.

What?

I'm afraid that this just a fallacy. The numeral system we use was originally devised by Indian mathematicians - not Muslims.

Not quite - in was initially Indian but modified by Islamic scholars.

These may have been lost in Western Europe, but if I recall the Byzantine Empire still had all of these things - and were by extension NOT creations under Islam.

Are you suggesting they were 'created' by Europe?

Names contributed to the alleged non-violent conquest of neighboring regions? I'm afraid that's a bit absurd.

As I said, you are blinded by your agenda and bias.

Again BOTH of these were developed by Greek and Indian mathematicians - then translated into Arabic which then spread through the Islamic world. Not created within the Islamic world.

Wrong. Even the name algebra is Islamic.

Yeah, and many Greek scholars knew this as well. Your point?

... and Europe?

While Western Europe went through the Dark Ages, the Byzantine Empire was still in its Golden Age and preserved what had become lost in what was the western part of the Roman Empire. To say that the only existence of any form of "light" was in the Islamic world is contrived at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

As I said, it's your agenda.

Have you studied the Byzantine Empire any at all?{/quote]

No. Have you studies Islam?

I've had classes on Islam from Arab Islam-sympathetic professors in which we studied the Islamic primary and secondary sources.

You need another course.

 

[wayseer]

The false notion that our current numbering system was developed by Muslims is certainly humorous considering that it had its origins in India a number of centuries before Islam was developed; but I suppose we should not let the facts get in the way of a good story and certainly Islam is rather short of good stories to tell.

I often wonder what would have happened within the Middle East if Islam had not been forced upon it. Luckily for Islam it was able to absorb a wealth of knowledge both in science and construction from numerous cultures which had been going for many centuries.

If the darkness of Islam had not descended on these regions I tend to wonder if Europe would have developed as it has – or if there would be a need for it to do so. If these early powerful societies in the Middle East were to have been allowed to develop within a Christian ethic I suspect that the worlds power base would have returned to this region instead of being subservient to the West as these regions currently are.

Of course we need to ask why the Lord allowed Mohammed to be deceived by some satanic angels in the first place. My opinion is that he wanted the children of Ishmael to become or at least to maintain their heritage even if it was a result of their choosing to believe a deception; as they are guilty of believing a deception the guilt is upon them and no one else. So we have the children of Israel being kept as a people due to the promises that God made to the Patriarchs even though many millions have perished over the centuries. It seems that the children of Abraham through Ishmael have been kept as a people though certainly under a curse of bondage and misery.

As I said, you demonstrate very aptly the slide towards fundamentalism.

 

[dcyates]

Quite simple - they were smarter.

As I said read all the history not the selected bits. Islam was the seat of learning and it was this learning that paved the way, well ahead of any army, for Islam.

First of all, I want to express how very tired I am of people who respond by simply cherry picking from the post to which they are offering the response. Here you tell me to "read all the history not the selected bits" as a response to a post in which I ask you to supply me with an example of just such a book!
Second, this response is a joke, right? The Arabs were smarter?!? That's how Islam spread so quickly -- "well ahead of any army"?!? You must be kidding! Where on earth are you getting this?
As far as the Arabs being "smarter," most of their scholars weren't Arabs at all, but rather Persian, Egyptian, and Syrian. And of these, they weren't even Muslim, but were Jewish, Christian (virtually all their best physicians were Nestorian Christians), or even Zoroastrian. Neither were their best astronomers Muslim but were instead members of the pagan Sabian sect (who were star worshippers, hence their particular interest in astonomy). In fact, even as late as the mid 11th-century, the Muslim writer Nasir-i Khrusau reported, "Truly, all the scribes here in Syria, as is the case of Egypt, are all Christians... (and) it is most usual for the physicians... to be Christians." As well, in A History of Palestine: 634-1099, the excellent Jewish historian Moshe Gil testifies, "the Christians had immense influence and positions of power, chiefly because of the gifted administrators among them who occupied government posts despite the ban in Muslim law against employing Christians (in such positions) or who were part of the intelligentsia of the period owing to the fact that they were outstanding scientists, mathematicians, physicians, and so on" (p. 94). And finally, the prevalence of Christian officials was also acknowledged by Abd al-Jabbar, who wrote in c. 995 that "kings in Egypt, al-Sham, Iraq, Jazira, Faris, and in all their surroundings, rely on Christians in matters of officialdom, the central administration and the handling of funds."
I'm sorry, wayseer, but whatever your source is for your information regarding this subject, it's just plain wrong!
Further proof (if it's needed) is readily seen in the fact that, after the Arab Muslims conquered Northern Africa, for the next several centuries throughout that region, one basic implement of technology virtually disappeared -- the wheel!
That's right! Carts and wagons quickly fell into disuse in favour of simple pack animals and people. Why? It wasn't because Muslims weren't aware of the wheel, but rather because wheels require sturdy, relatively smooth roads, whereas pack animals do not. Is that kind of attitude conducive to scientific and technological progress to you?

 

[dcyates]

Your ignorance is on par with most Christians.

Nice ad hominem attack there, wayseer. This is sadly typical of most people who are losing an argument.

Mathematics was refined by Islamic scholars.

While it's true that were several notable Islamic mathematicians, this is most likely due to the discipline being abstract enough so as to insulate its practitioners from possible religious criticism. And even so, much of what is normally attributed to Muslims is done so mistakenly. For example, Thabit ibn Qurra is rightly regarded for his many contributions to geometry and number theory, and is usually identified as an "Arab mathematician," but he was actually a member of the aforementioned pagan Sabian sect.

Our present numeral system that we use today is thanks to Islamic scholars. The system allowed users to add, subtract and multiply in one's head which Romans numerals could never achieve.

No, our present numeral system that we use today is thanks to Hindu scholars of India. (This is quite common knowledge now, wayseer.)

Medicine, agriculture, horticulture, tiled bathrooms and running water were all provided by Islam.

Medical advances in Muslim lands are more properly attributed to the Nestorian Christians residing there.
Agriculture? What advances did Muslims contribute to agriculture? It was European Christians that developed the collar and harness that allowed horses to pull heavy wagons and plows instead of oxen, thus greatly increasing speed. They also came up with iron horseshoes sometime in the 8th-century that increased speed and pulling capacity even further. By the 9th-century, Europeans also developed the front axel that allowed it to swivel, as well as an adequate braking system, thus allowing the distinct advantages inherent in such capabilities as turning and stopping while tranporting or simply pulling large, heavy loads.
As a result of these inventions, they also bred big draft horses that further increased food production. This also made it possible to develop a very heavy plow that could actually dig deeper into the soil and to turn it over to make a proper furrow. To this "share" was added a second blade to slice the turf being turned by the first one. Then was added a moldboard to completely turn over the sliced-off turf. Finally was added wheels to the plow making it transportable to other fields and possible to set at different depths. This made land that was previously impossible to farm now fully arable and exceedingly productive.
This was far beyond anything one would find in the Arab world at the time, wayseer, and I could go on and on.
Tiled bathrooms? Fine, I'll give you that. Big deal. And there were Roman homes that had running water way before the advent of Islam.

Names such as Valencia and oranges and lemons were introduced by Islam.

Yes, fruit, spices, silk garments. Fine. But none of this is evidence of scientific or technological supremacy.

So was algebra and logarithms.

Al-Khwarizmi, credited as being the father of algebra, was a Persian with an Arabic name. And incidentally, al-Uqlidisi, who introduced fractions, was a Syrian.

Islamic scholars knew the earth was round and not flat.

The Celtic Psalter is the longest religious poem to emerge from early Ireland. It's divided into 150 shorter poems in imitation of the Psalms of David, and it relates the entire biblical story, from the creation to the resurrection. It's attributed to Oengus the Culdee, an Irish hermit living in the 9th-century. The sixth stanza reads:

"King, you stretched out the sky above the earth,
a perfect sphere like a perfect apple,
and you decorated the sky with stars to shine at night."

Apparently Islamic scholars weren't the only ones who knew the earth was round and not flat.

They were smart and while Europe languished in what is rightfully called the Dark Ages, Islam was providing the Light that would eventually become the Enlightenment.

I'm honestly sorry to be this blunt, wayseer, but this is utter nonsense and there's hardly a credible historian alive today who still labels the Medieval Period as the "Dark Ages." This is scurrilous nonsense dreamed up by the likes of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Edward Gibbon -- in other words, anti-Christian writers of the Enlightenment whose overriding goal was to paint the Catholic Church in as poor a light as possible, historical accuracy and truthfulness be darned.

Try the local library rather than the fundamentalist stuff which you feed on at present.

Why do you obstinately refuse to provide us with specific references to your sources, wayseer?

 

[Nick T]

Quite simple - they were smarter.

As I said read all the history not the selected bits. Islam was the seat of learning and it was this learning that paved the way, well ahead of any army, for Islam.

I will certainly agree with you that during the Middle Ages the Islamic world (that is the areas under Islamic rule regardless of religous or ethnic affiliation of the population) was a great seat of learning and knowledge where old Roman and Greek ideas preserved in Byzantium but lost in the West were studied and expanded upon. As others have pointed out (perhaps unintentionally) one advantage of the Islamic world at the time is that it provided a culture in which non-Islamic scholars could also thrive, while in Western Europe education was generally tied into the Catholic Church.
As others have said it is true that in Byzantium this knowledge was preserved and the University of Constantinople continued to teach a wide variety of subjects (including law, philosophy, medicine, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and rhetoric) right up until its destruction at the hands of the 4th Crusade. Sadly the difficult military situation (Byzantium was at a near constant state of war on most fronts) meant that they were unable to significantly expand on this knowledge.

However I must admit I am bit intrigued by your claim that this is somehow connected to the rise of the Rashidun Caliphate (that is to say the initial expansion of Islam out of Arabia to conquer North Africa, the Middle East, and Persia). All the books I have read on the subject indicate that the rise of the Caliphate was the result of the ineffective Byzantine and Persian military (having barely recovered from a war between the two) and the fact that they permitted the local elite (both secular and religious) to continue governing as long as they accepted Islamic authority.
I find it odd that you would suggest that Islamic learning and advancement was the key factor, considering that the aforementioned learning and advancement only began to flourish during the later Umayyad Caliphate, when Greek, Roman and Persian knowledge began to be compiled and studied by the Arab scholars. Indeed I have never heard any mention that such learning was present in Arabia before the expansion; the main learning centres seem to have been Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo and Cordoba. Do you have any sources for your claim?

 

[wayseer]

Why do you obstinately refuse to provide us with specific references to your sources, wayseer?

Because it would not make any difference as you well know.

What I attacking is the hate material underpinning this discussion. I too am tired of Christians cherry picking history to support their convoluted view that Christianity and Western civilization are the great gift to the world. They are not - as recent events ably demonstrate.

The salient point is that Islam was a whole lot intellectually smarter than Europe which was living is the Dark Ages. They were not called Dark Ages for nothing - they were intellectually and spiritual Dark, if not Black.

The Crusades where an evil visited on Islam at the insistence of the Pope, for his own reasons which were about protecting the Church, the Western Church (there was no such concern for the Eastern Church), from the internal conflict between various wannabe kings.

But as others have noted - it is the winner who get to write history. So you can go on banging the 'West is so good' drum and repeating your mantra 'Islam is evil' but the facts actually say otherwise.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If you're going to pick a Crusade that was ugly and a black eye on Christianity the ones involving Islam aren't even where you would want to start anyway. I'd pick the Albigensian crusade.

 

[Nephi]

Because it would not make any difference as you well know.

Try us. I'm extremely open-minded when factual evidence is presented to me as compared to conjecture.

The Crusades where an evil visited on Islam at the insistence of the Pope, for his own reasons which were about protecting the Church, the Western Church (there was no such concern for the Eastern Church), from the internal conflict between various wannabe kings.

The Byzantine Emperor Alexius I, defender of the Eastern Church, requested Pope Urban II for help against the invading Seljuk Turks. I somehow do not think this constitutes as "no such concern."

But as others have noted - it is the winner who get to write history. So you can go on banging the 'West is so good' drum and repeating your mantra 'Islam is evil' but the facts actually say otherwise.

If you can provide evidence for such "facts," then I will more than gladly change my perspective on things.

Also, I kindly request you to follow the rules of this forum:
"Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster."

 

[Philothei]

Hello all

I know this is a bit touchy subject but please let's remain calm in our conversation here . I am very interested in this subject myself and would love very much to refresh/learn on this subject but let's all focus a bit more on the issue at hand...

I know the west has a bit "tainted" this part of history but like all history there are bits and pieces that are overlooked by historians *depending who writes what* of course.

I would like to also discuss Ranciman on this subject and see why he has been Soooo greatly discrededed as a scholar... (although I have a hint) ...

Looking forward to this edifying convorsation y'all

 

[Nephi]

Hello all

I know this is a bit touchy subject but please let's remain calm in our conversation here . I am very interested in this subject myself and would love very much to refresh/learn on this subject but let's all focus a bit more on the issue at hand...

I know the west has a bit "tainted" this part of history but like all history there are bits and pieces that are overlooked by historians *depending who writes what* of course.

I would like to also discuss Ranciman on this subject and see why he has been Soooo greatly discrededed as a scholar... (although I have a hint) ...

Looking forward to this edifying convorsation y'all

I think that the best means of learning about this topic (as you said that historians choose what to write about and will often ignore other sources depending on their bias ) would be to find books compiling the primary and secondary sources on the subject.

There are a number of these books out there, including both from a Western Christian and an Islamic perspective. I'll admit that I've hardly read any of the Eastern Christian (Byzantine, specifically) sources, but I'm certain these would be just as easy to come by.

 

[Philothei]

Ostrogorsky comes to mind (The History of the Byzantine state) and Ranciman that the west hates bitterly... . I relied on books by Jaroslave Pelikan while studying at the seminary...but I am open to more suggestions. The Islamic sources/authors I for sure do not trust as they paint everything (and that is an opinion ) throught he superiority of Islam I would think anyhow. The west had a lot of issues to "cover" up such as the persecution of the Jews, Constantinople's sacking, and all barbarocities... related with these "crusades". Most issues have been revealed by historians though...

 

[wayseer]

Also, I kindly request you to follow the rules of this forum:
"Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster."

It is also of concern to me that while Christians apparently have no difficulty in directing their ill-conceived and otherwise ignorant posts at .... (fill in the blank) they are inevitable the first to claim that it is all terribly unfair and one has to play by 'the rules' when such posts happen to be directed at them.

This thread is nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on Islam.

The world at large is rather tired of Christians claiming the high moral ground when their own faith is in such turmoil.

Hypocrisy comes to mind.

I have attempted add some balance to the thread. But I see that balance is not part of the agenda. Bye.

 

[dcyates]

Because it would not make any difference as you well know.

On the contrary, wayseer, if anything, it appears that it’s you who automatically rejects any information that fails to coincide with your own preconceived notions on this subject.

What I attacking is the hate material underpinning this discussion. I too am tired of Christians cherry picking history to support their convoluted view that Christianity and Western civilization are the great gift to the world. They are not - as recent events ably demonstrate.

My goodness, wayseer, whole volumes could be – and have been – written on, generally speaking, the tremendous boon Western civilization has been to humanity. In terms of science, technology, culture, political and legal structures, Western civilization, with the Judeo-Christian tradition as its foundation, is easily light-years ahead of any potential rival. And the facts are: Islamic civilization isn’t even a close second (or third, for that matter).

The salient point is that Islam was a whole lot intellectually smarter than Europe which was living is the Dark Ages.

As I’ve already noted, the label ‘Dark Ages’ isn’t even used by credible historians anymore. This was merely the invention of militantly anti-Christian French philosophes of the Enlightenment, who wished to link themselves with the Classical Greco-Roman era and to do so by vehemently distinguishing themselves from what they also termed the 'Middle Ages'. The truth is, the Greco-Roman era was far from some open, free, intellectual, and scientific golden age, and neither was the Enlightenment. In fact, the so-called ‘Dark Ages’ in Western Europe saw tremendous technological advances in terms of agriculture, architecture, and technology. It was during the so-called ‘Dark Ages’ that Western Europe saw the abolition of slavery, the liberation of women and the development of courtly love, checks and balances on absolutism, artistic achievements of medieval cathedrals, the invention of the book, the musical scale, the mechanical clock, the rise of reason and rules of logic, and the formulation of the chivalric code.
On the other hand, it was with the Renaissance and its emphasis on a return to Classical thinking that saw the reintroduction of slavery (and in a far more egregious form than that of the ancient world), the subjugation of women, the return of the Roman notion of the jus utendi et abutendi which put an end to the legal rights enjoyed by medieval serfs and feudal lords and which, in turn, resulted in the exploitation of the worker and the rise of the absolutist state. (Kind of like what you find in most Islamic nations today. In fact, are there any that aren't totalitarian in nature?)

They were not called Dark Ages for nothing - they were intellectually and spiritual Dark, if not Black.

Black. So, you’re claiming that during the time and in the place that the Bible and Christ’s Church held their greatest sway over a people, they were spiritually ‘black’ and intellectually bereft. Why do you even choose to identify yourself as a Christian, wayseer, when it’s so obvious you regard it as such an utter failure in improving a society in which it operates?

The Crusades where an evil visited on Islam...

No, the Crusades were an understandable response to centuries of Muslim aggression.

...at the insistence of the Pope, for his own reasons which were about protecting the Church, the Western Church (there was no such concern for the Eastern Church)...

Huh? So the Byzantine emperor, Alexius I Comnenus, didn’t plead for the West’s aid in repelling the constant onslaught of the Seljuk Turks? Again, wayseer, are you joking?

...from the internal conflict between various wannabe kings.

Yes, I’ll grant you there did exist internal conflicts between European nobles. Given human nature as it is though, it would be a greater surprise if there hadn’t been. And it certainly as if this wasn't also true among the Muslims. In point of fact, it was internal squabbles within fractious emirates that helped to initiate the Reconquista of Spain. And the same was true of the Christian reconquest of southern Italy and Sicily.

But as others have noted - it is the winner who get to write history. So you can go on banging the 'West is so good' drum and repeating your mantra 'Islam is evil' but the facts actually say otherwise.

Okay. But an obvious question in response to your posts, wayseer, is why is it that the West ever became the "winners" you refer to? If Islam was so much better and conducive to the pursuit of learning and scientific endeavour, why did they ever fall so far behind?
Even if I were to grant you every claim you've made so far regarding this alleged Muslim superiority, name, say, five significant contributions Islamic civilization has made to any scientific discipline within the past hundred years. Heck, make it two significant contributions within the past FIVE hundred years!