How Do You View Islam?

[ksen]

Just a small correction. The Saudis are not opposed to Wahhabism. The Saudis are Wahhabis. Bin Laden and his ilk are just much more violently zealous about Wahhabism that even the current Saudi regime, if such a thing is even possible.

The Saudi government made a deal with a deal with these fanatics after the terrorist's seized the Holy Mosque back in 1979. In effect, the Saudi government paid them off in exchange for an agreement to limit their attacks to outside of Saudi Arabia.
The recent wave of attacks against Saudi Arabia amply show the futility of trying to appease the terrorists of militant Islam.

I stand corrected, thanks.

 

[christianbeginning]

Taken beautifully out of context. During the time in which the Qur'an was "revealed" to Muhammad, they were being fenced in and horribly persecuted by the local Pagans, Christians, Jews, and other religionists (not always for religious reasons, but it did factor in). The Muslims and the others often signed peace accords in other to reduce strife and conflict. Unfortunately, it was the non-Muslims that repeatedly threw them in the trash.

3. And when the Animists and the Christians are the aggressors, are not the Muslim population allowed to defend itself?

As a historian it seems to me that this is a shameful distortion of history.

Knowing better isn't showing in your post.

 

[christianbeginning]

Although I believe that this is in some part true I would point out that it is hardly the case that only muslims and Jews suffered under the crusades, many orthodox christians were also indiscriminately butchered.

There's little point in trying to pretend that the crusades were other than they were, they are not a part of history of which western christianity ought to be proud.

What were the main engines - broadly speaking - driving the Papal Office's call for the Crusades?
1. The rise of Islam and the taking of Christian lands.
2. Reinstating safe passage for pilgrims to the holy land.
3. Islamic militancy against the Christian world outside of the holy land (N. Africa, Southern Europe, Islamic piracy in the Med. Sea)
3. To keep some unruly European princes busy and out of trouble at home.

Why did people heed the Crusader's call?
1. To re-take the holy land
2. To open up safe routes for pilgrims
3. To take advantage of the Papal Office's offer of forgiveness for anyone taking up the Crusader's call.
4. Bounty, money, treasure.

Most of the reasons center on religion. Islam first and Christianity second. Can you refute this?

 

[Axion]

sure there were other reasons like lust for power, land, money, slaves and a desire for cultural and political domination that motivated Islam to field armies against the West every spring - continuosly - for 8 or so centuries, but the religious aspect was very strong also.

As a historian, I know better than this.

Christianbeginning is quite right here. Islam is quite clear in that it is a religion of conquest, of jihad. It is the duty of Muslims to fight the non-muslims and to establish muslim rule over them. Muslims are commanded never to make a permanent peace with non-muslims, just a series of tactical truces until they can gather strength for the next assault. That is why from the 7th century onward Muslim armies have been continually attacking Christian (and other) lands and causing massive devastation.

This is a critical and systemic problem within Islam and is one of the reasons that they cannot live in peace with any of their neighbours. Islam demands an Islamic State to be practiced in its fullness. It is the duty of Muslims to try to create an Islamic state wherever they live. Look at many of the world's violent troublespots and you will find Muslims involved, usually in some sort of attempt to create an Islamic State.

Kashmir/India - muslim separatists
Nigeria - muslim jihadists
Sudan - Muslim jihadists
Yugoslavia - Muslim separatists
Philippines - Muslim separatists
Russia - Muslim separatists
Indonesia - Muslim jihadists
Cyprus-Turkey - Muslim separatists
Macedonia - Muslim separatists
Europe - Muslim terrorists
USA - Muslim terrorists
Saudi Arabia - Muslim fundamentalists
Algeria - Muslim fundamentalists
Afghanistan - Muslim fundamentalists
Kosovo - Muslim separatists
Egypt - Muslim fundamentalists
Ethiopia - Muslim separatists
Iran - Muslim fundamentalists
Ivory Coast - Muslim separatists
Thailand - Muslim separatists
Kenya - Muslim terrorists

This is not even to mention the Arab-Israel conflict.

Trying to gloss over this element in Islam out of misguided charity, does no one any favours. It is something that must be faced and acknowledged and dealt with by Muslims themselves.

The Crusades were a direct response to the aggressions of Islam against formerly Christian lands.

Wishful thinking but absolutely false.

Again I must agree fully with Christianbeginning. The crusades were largely a defensive war following 600 years of continuous Muslim aggression on peacable Christian lands. In the period from 600Ad Muslim armies invaded (unprovoked) and conquered the Christian lands of Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Mesopotamia, North Africa, tunisia, Morocco and Spain, they had attacked France and invaded Italy, attacked Anatolia and Armenia and laid siege to Constantinople. Quite a record for such peaceable put-upon folk!

The immediate cause of the Crusades was two fold; Quoting Schaff's History at ccel: A sudden check was put upon the pilgrimages by the Seljukian Turks, who conquered the Holy Land in 1076. A rude and savage tribe, they heaped, with the intense fanaticism of new converts, all manner of insults and injuries upon the Christians. Many were imprisoned or sold into slavery. Those who returned to Europe carried with them a tale of woe which aroused the religious feelings of all classes.

And secondly the continuing Moslem assault on the Eastern Empire...
Romanus Diogenes was defeated in battle with the Turks and taken prisoner in 1071. During the rule of his successor, an emir established himself in Nicaea, the seat of the council called by the first Constantine, and extended his rule as far as the shores of the sea of Marmora. Alexius Comnenus, coming to the throne 1081, was less able to resist the advance of Islam and lost Antioch and Edessa in 1086. Thus pressed by his Asiatic foes, and seeing the very existence of his throne threatened, he applied for help to the west.

The fact is that the Crusades halted Muslim encroachment on Christendom for two centuries and so perhaps saved christianity altogether.

 

[rooster]

It is quite hard to judge the intentions of Alexius Comnenus, Pope Urban II and the various Princes that participated in that first Crusade. Although their intentions could very well had been noble, events suggest otherwise.

First of all, the Eastern Roman Empire's greatest threat came not from the Turks, but from Christian Normans with the Papacy very much involved in this intrigue. Also at the time of the appeal to the west, the Byzantines was in the ascendency for the first time since Manzikert.
Western and eastern christiandom were not very fond of each other but for Asia minor to be recollected into the Byzantine fold, Alexius needed western support and thus appealed to the west for military aid.
This came at a very opportune time since Alexius had just reopened the Latin churches in Constantinople having closed after he was excommunicated by the previous Pope, Gregory VII.

Perhaps the very moment after Clermont, the crusade became a tool for regal ambitions and political intrigue. Advancement of Christiandom and regaining the holylands for Christ became more a slogan then the intention.

 

[SolomonVII]

....First of all, the Eastern Roman Empire's greatest threat came not from the Turks, but from Christian Normans .......

The short term immediate peril of this or that barbarian tribe have historically not been proved to be the greater threat. The more primitive, unsophisticated barbarian tribes may for a time militarily defeat more sophisticated people, but in a short period of time they adopt the higher culture of the people that they have defeated. Their victory is only military.

On the other hand, Byzantine and Moslems were equally sophisticated in terms of their respective cultures. There was no question of Moslems adapting Byzantine ways after their military defeat of Byzantium.

History itself has amply demonstrated the Moslem Turks to be the bigger threat to the Byzantine empire over the long term. The double-edged sword of jihad and dhimmitude have a sense of purpose and a patience that has proved to be much more insiduous that the short term gratification sought out by barbarian tribes. Barbarians are lured by trinkets. Islam is lured by the prospect of gathering more souls into their fold.

 

[NewToLife]

As far as the first crusade goes it seems clear that the Byzantines request was actually for a small to medium sized force to bolster the imperial army in reclaiming previously lost territory.

The Papacy's call for 'pilgrimage' also seems clearly to have been aimed at the fighting classes of Europe alone and its doubtful that Pope Urban really expected anything like the response that he actually got. I've no doubt that he would have been utterly appalled by the actions of the crusaders on the first crusade, particularly the habit of slaughtering Orthodox Christian and Jew ( both allowed to exist peacefully under Muslim rule ) along with the Muslim enemy.

Whatever the intent of those who initiated the crusades was we have only to look at the history of them to realise that they were in the end disasterous, playing a major role as they did in forging Islam into a coherent political force which eventually destroyed Byzantium. Which of course the crusades had initially been intended to aid.

 

[SolomonVII]

That Islam was able to become a cohesive force is probably much more to the credit of the Turks than it is to the Western Crusaders. On the other hand, the inability of the western and eastern branches of Christendom to likewise unify into an equally cohesive force has been to the discredit and bane of Christendom to this very day.
ther never existed any great chasm of belief between the Eastern and Roman branches of the Church. The divisions that prevented them from becoming a unified force were always political, and more often than not of a petty nature.
In the west the barbarian and viking invasions had the effect of eventually invigorating the lands under the rule of Rome, and gave the empire new blood and greater vitality. Unable to overcome its differences with the west either before or after the crusades, the Byzantium stood alone.

 

[dnich163]

2. Non-Christian religion that is:
a. from God but was wrongly interpreted, understood, set down..............................."why would God send his message to someone who was unable to understand or in an unitelligable form?"...............................Basically, I'm interested in knowing how Christians view Islam. Do you believe Muslims give glory to the same God that Christians do?

Firstly I think this is too limited a question.

We should take into account that there are a number of Christian "type" religions that seem to worship completely a different God from each other.
I think we need to remember that Muslims are just Christians by another name; human being's made in the image of God.

In terms of the religion of Islam itself, we have to look at what each one of us who follow's their own path to God lives with his brother/sister.

Does every Muslim believe in the "same" God?
I wonder if every christian believes in the "same" God....in fact I know they don't ......we just need to look at some of the replies posted here to affirm that.

I personally take the selective choice...there are aspects of Islam which I agree with, there are other parts I don't.

Do I agree with Islam coming from God??....Those aspect's that are of God's work is my response

David

 

[rooster]

The short term immediate peril of this or that barbarian tribe have historically not been proved to be the greater threat. The more primitive, unsophisticated barbarian tribes may for a time militarily defeat more sophisticated people, but in a short period of time they adopt the higher culture of the people that they have defeated. Their victory is only military.

On the other hand, Byzantine and Moslems were equally sophisticated in terms of their respective cultures. There was no question of Moslems adapting Byzantine ways after their military defeat of Byzantium.

History itself has amply demonstrated the Moslem Turks to be the bigger threat to the Byzantine empire over the long term. The double-edged sword of jihad and dhimmitude have a sense of purpose and a patience that has proved to be much more insiduous that the short term gratification sought out by barbarian tribes. Barbarians are lured by trinkets. Islam is lured by the prospect of gathering more souls into their fold.

Oops i meant to say "most immediate threat". But to say that the Normans were the greatest threat was not far off the mark because nobody would have doubted Robert Guiscard could have taken Constantinople while the turks were still eons away from that.

I find it curious that you would give so much significance to the Dhimmi system, perhaps you could specify your cause.

Seljuk turks at that time were still very much the "steppe wandering trinket hunters". Also they often hired themselves out to either the Byzantines, or the Frankish Principalities in the Levant.

 

[SolomonVII]

Oops i meant to say "most immediate threat". But to say that the Normans were the greatest threat was not far off the mark because nobody would have doubted Robert Guiscard could have taken Constantinople while the turks were still eons away from that.

The Normans never did take Constantinpole. The Moslems under the Turks did, and even those Moslem rulers that weren't really interested in fighting were under social compulsion to lead at least one jihad against the infidel during their reign. I understood what you meant, though.

I find it curious that you would give so much significance to the Dhimmi system, perhaps you could specify your cause.

I am one of these strange western types that seems to think that people's rights shouldn't depend on their race or religion. As I disagree with american segration of blacks, so too am I against dhimmitude. As long as Muslims keep on advocating such a position as the better way, I'll keep voicing my opposition.

Seljuk turks at that time were still very much the "steppe wandering trinket hunters". Also they often hired themselves out to either the Byzantines, or the Frankish Principalities in the Levant.

As were the Mongols until they conquored China and most of the Islam world, thereby becoming Islamic and Chinese in the process. Simpler cultures cannot rule sophisticated empires by the same tribal rules. They adapt, and become like the people they conquered. If not the empire crumbles quickly.

 

[rooster]

The Normans never did take Constantinpole. The Moslems under the Turks did, and even those Moslem rulers that weren't really interested in fighting were under social compulsion to lead at least one jihad against the infidel during their reign. I understood what you meant, though..

Remember the topic i was addressing with my original post was whether the muslims at the moment was the greatest threat to the Byzantines. The fact is the muslims was not, the normans (Bohemund Guiscard even went around gathering support for a another crusade after the first, this time against Constantinople,with Papal support.) and the pechenegs were the biggest thorns in the Emperor's side not the myriad of tribes of turks arrayed across anatolia.
Thus the rationale for a crusade to reverse the muslim tide would seem quite weak. As mentioned by another poster, all Alexius wanted was military aid to regain land lost to the muslims, a united European expedition was a surprise and a shock to him.

I am one of these strange western types that seems to think that people's rights shouldn't depend on their race or religion. As I disagree with american segration of blacks, so too am I against dhimmitude. As long as Muslims keep on advocating such a position as the better way, I'll keep voicing my opposition..

Sorry, i misread your statement. I thought you implied that Dhimmitude and Jihad was in large part responsible for the eventual Muslim triumph over the Byz.

As were the Mongols until they conquored China and most of the Islam world, thereby becoming Islamic and Chinese in the process. Simpler cultures cannot rule sophisticated empires by the same tribal rules. They adapt, and become like the people they conquered. If not the empire crumbles quickly.

i'm sorry, the mongols were not in any way like the turks. This analogy does not fit very well.
They did not wander out of the steppes due to migratory pressure, hunting and raiding as they went along. They were united and remarkably organised.

 

[SolomonVII]

rooster,
But the evidence that Moselms had already taken Edessa and Antioch has already been presented by Axion, I believe. In turn , your evidence seems to center on papal intrigues and a Norman invasion that never happened.
............................
Certainly there are differences among the peoples of the steppes. But the similarity between them is there relative lack of toolsof the more developed empires that always attracted their pillages in the first place. The point I was making was that these tribal peoples may have been an immediate threat to this or that empire, and caused many to fall, but in terms of the Byzantine, Islamic, Indian, or Chinese empires that they mamanged to conquor, they did not have the cultural tools required to pose a threat to the actual civilisations that these empires were founded upon.

Barbarians sacked Rome, but became Romanized. Mongols conqored the Middle Kingdom, but became Chinese, or adapted Islamic civilisation and imposed a Mogul rule over India.

Which brings us to the point of the real threat that America holds over much of the Islamic world today. America is not feared by the Islamic Middle East because of its military might, nor its many mistakes, misteps and oversteps in foreign policy. What is most feared and hated about America is its culture. American and Western culture is not amendable to sharia law. While the vast majority of Moslems of the Middle East would give their eye teeth to live the American lifestyle as it is lived by many Muslims in the West today, the Islamic religious establishment realised well that adopting such a lifestyle for their own would fundamentally change traditional Islamic civilisation itself.

For most of their history, Moslems have been led to believe that their great military success has been preordained by God. The last 300 years have left them reeling. Rather than adopt and adapt as most of the world is attempting to do, reactionary forces within Islam have chosen instead to regard western culture as the enemy.

And indeed modern western culture is as superior to a medieval sharia culture as it is to the medieval culture of Europe. Who would possibly want to live under either a European feudal society, or the slightly more advance sharia system of Islamic law now being advocated by so many fundamentalists not just here at CF, but even from the seats of power of much of the Middle East?

 

[Axion]

Remember the topic i was addressing with my original post was whether the muslims at the moment was the greatest threat to the Byzantines. The fact is the muslims was not, the normans (Bohemund Guiscard even went around gathering support for a another crusade after the first, this time against Constantinople,with Papal support.) and the pechenegs were the biggest thorns in the Emperor's side not the myriad of tribes of turks arrayed across anatolia.
Thus the rationale for a crusade to reverse the muslim tide would seem quite weak. As mentioned by another poster, all Alexius wanted was military aid to regain land lost to the muslims, a united European expedition was a surprise and a shock to him.

I'm not sure who you are referring to as the "Normans". As far as I know, pre-crusades, the normans got no closer to Byzantium than Sicily. And I would certainly ike to see some evidence for the idea that a "crusade" was being prepared against Constantinople with papal support. When the 4th Crusade was diverted from its target towards Constantinople by the Venetians, this was in the teeth of Papal denunciations, and eventual excommunication of those involved.

Similarly I don't know what Alexius was expecting when he sought aid from the West, the reconquest of Jerusalem was probably not on His mind, but he certainly sought sizeable western armies to drive back the muslim forces. Aiding the Eastern Empire certainly seems one of the prime concerns of the crusaders:

Pope Urban 11, call for a Crusade: 1095 Council of Clermont:
For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

The area the Turks had taken from the eastern Empire was vast, following the defeat at Manzikert in 1071. It included virtually all of present-day Turkey. This was land vital to the survival of the Byzantine Empire, since it sustained and protected Constantinople. The invasion of this territory was a mortal blow to the Empire. No other threat was anything like as severe.

The point of all this being that Islam continued to present a mortal threat to Christendom at the time of the Crusades, and that (revisionist historians notwithstanding), the Crusades were in essence defensive.

The issue with present-day Islam is that there is indeed, in many ways, a "Clash of Civilizations". Islam has always been an expansionist religion, which seeks to impose a universal Islamic Culture everywhere, through Sharia Law and dhimmitude. Unlike other religions, this is inseparable from the faith. Ways of facing this issue and coming to terms with it, therefore need to be dealt with. One of the worst things we can do is to feed the sense of Muslim grievance and hatred by re-writing history to show the Christians as the criminals, and the Islamic occupiers as hard-done-by.

 

[christianbeginning]

The issue with present-day Islam is that there is indeed, in many ways, a "Clash of Civilizations". Islam has always been an expansionist religion, which seeks to impose a universal Islamic Culture everywhere, through Sharia Law and dhimmitude. Unlike other religions, this is inseparable from the faith. Ways of facing this issue and coming to terms with it, therefore need to be dealt with. One of the worst things we can do is to feed the sense of Muslim grievance and hatred by re-writing history to show the Christians as the criminals, and the Islamic occupiers as hard-done-by.

Very well put.

 

[rooster]

First of all, i am no Muslim apologist nor am i a revisionist of history!
I regard them as a false religion and there should be no compromise when it comes to their claims as the "true faith" or the rightness of their "ethics" and "laws".
But we need to treat history and events objectively and not through cultural or religious lenses.
First of all the tensions between the papacy and the Emperor in Constantinople had existed for a long long time. Some popes were even kidnapped by emperors when the emperor saw a need for such.

I'm not sure who you are referring to as the "Normans". As far as I know, pre-crusades, the normans got no closer to Byzantium than Sicily. And I would certainly ike to see some evidence for the idea that a "crusade" was being prepared against Constantinople with papal support. When the 4th Crusade was diverted from its target towards Constantinople by the Venetians, this was in the teeth of Papal denunciations, and eventual excommunication of those involved.

The matter i am discussing have nothing to do with the fourth crusade. (Although it was the fourth crusade that dealt the mortal blow to the Byzantines, not the Muslims)
Perhaps you would like to expand upon how far you know because it would aid in this discussion a lot. I mean this with no sarcasm. It would save a lot of time because the events i had brought up are well-known and easily available, although their implications might not be clear and that is where our discussion should lie, not in disputing known facts.

"In Italy, Robert Guiscard went to help his brother in Sicily, once the Byzantines had been driven from the mainland. Together Robert and Roger captured Palermo, the Sicilian capital, in 1071. Then Robert got another idea to match his ambitions--could he take Constantinople itself? He decided to try it; in 1081 he crossed the Adriatic with an army, captured Corfu and the Albanian port of Durazzo, and defeated a Byzantine force led by the emperor. Before he could proceed to the imperial capital, though, Byzantine agents launched more revolts in Apulia, forcing the Normans to go home. In 1085 Robert made one more attempt to march east, only to fall victim to the same typhoid epidemic that killed many of his men."​

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/europe/eu08.html#Roger

And of the matter concerning the Latin intrigue against the Greeks surmounting to a possible crusade, we read of Bohemund after conversations with Pope Paschal II, went to France"accompanied by a Papal legate with instructions to preach a Holy war against Byzantium" (J.J Norwich, Short History of Byzantium 1999, Vintage books; p 261)

Similarly I don't know what Alexius was expecting when he sought aid from the West, the reconquest of Jerusalem was probably not on His mind, but he certainly sought sizeable western armies to drive back the muslim forces. Aiding the Eastern Empire certainly seems one of the prime concerns of the crusaders:

Pope Urban 11, call for a Crusade: 1095 Council of Clermont:
For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

I am not disputing the fact that he sorted military aid, but the scale of the effort was a shock to him. And this was remarked by Anna Comnenus in her biography of her father (Alexius) which i read off from the book i mentioned above.
Aiding the eastern empire was not at all a concern for the latin princes, you could read above the length at which Alexius went to secure their promises that byzantine territory would be restored to the Byzantines. And the fact that byzantine forces actually have to drive the latins out of asia minor speaks as much for itself.
I am also not disputing the fact that the crusade had good and religious intentions, but it is not all that and soon after the crusade was set on its course, regal ambitions and internecine christian rivalry took over.

Anyway there are no transcripts of the Pope speech that we know are his exact words for certain. What we have are perhaps at best only the substance of that speech. This is also fairly evident from the link you have posted.

The area the Turks had taken from the eastern Empire was vast, following the defeat at Manzikert in 1071. It included virtually all of present-day Turkey. This was land vital to the survival of the Byzantine Empire, since it sustained and protected Constantinople. The invasion of this territory was a mortal blow to the Empire. No other threat was anything like as severe.

The point of all this being that Islam continued to present a mortal threat to Christendom at the time of the Crusades, and that (revisionist historians notwithstanding), the Crusades were in essence defensive.

Muslims in their first onslaught under the Umayyads had already made an attempt against the walls of constantinople in the 674. The lands in Asia minor constanly change hands it is nothing new to the byzantines. Yes there was a threat against the byzantines from the muslims, but the situation was not as bleak as immediately after manzikert. Alexius was on the ascendency

The issue with present-day Islam is that there is indeed, in many ways, a "Clash of Civilizations". Islam has always been an expansionist religion, which seeks to impose a universal Islamic Culture everywhere, through Sharia Law and dhimmitude. Unlike other religions, this is inseparable from the faith. Ways of facing this issue and coming to terms with it, therefore need to be dealt with. One of the worst things we can do is to feed the sense of Muslim grievance and hatred by re-writing history to show the Christians as the criminals, and the Islamic occupiers as hard-done-by.

I am not fighting for the cause of muslim grievance, but the sooner we recognize what was right AND what was wrong about the crusades, the sooner our words would gain credibility.
The crusade is harmful moreso to christianity itself, because of the travesties and atrocities committed in God's name. Armed conflict against the muslims was necessary and there is no denying of that. There is no re-writing of history here, just that some have decided to read history too selectively.

 

[rooster]

Soloman.

Perhaps to summarize my point of view. Muslims were not the only threat to the Emperor in Constantinople, but it was the only threat where the emperor could play the religious card.
Norman invasion of the Eastern Empire did take place and was turned away by disease.
Papal intrigue was aplenty in those days because the Pope was a political heavyweight and a player in the politics of Europe. An examination of the crusade in just its religious terms would be sadly incomplete, since the political considerations on the part of the Pope and the latin princes would had been tremondous.
Likewise to claim the the crusade was a defensive war for Christiandom would be true but it would only give a very incomplete picture, its like saying "Lord of the Rings" was just a story about Frodo when it is so much more then that.

---------
Ok i see your general point about vigourous invading barbarians and the old culturally rich civilisations that they conquer. And how this point would lead you to your point about american culture. But how relevent it was to our previous discussion, that i do not see

Your obversation about muslims and the threat of cultural assimilation by the Western "American" culture is very true and spot on.
But it is a curiousity that Islam is today the fastest growing religion in the world, and the occurances of these conversions is happening in the west as well. I believe this topic could be a could discussion in itself. Why are people converting, disillusioned with the "modern" western consumer culture perhaps, put of by the amount of hippocracy in the church perhaps.

 

[SolomonVII]

Soloman.

Perhaps to summarize my point of view. Muslims were not the only threat to the Emperor in Constantinople, but it was the only threat where the emperor could play the religious card.
Norman invasion of the Eastern Empire did take place and was turned away by disease.
Papal intrigue was aplenty in those days because the Pope was a political heavyweight and a player in the politics of Europe. An examination of the crusade in just its religious terms would be sadly incomplete, since the political considerations on the part of the Pope and the latin princes would had been tremondous.
Likewise to claim the the crusade was a defensive war for Christiandom would be true but it would only give a very incomplete picture, its like saying "Lord of the Rings" was just a story about Frodo when it is so much more then that.

---------
Ok i see your general point about vigourous invading barbarians and the old culturally rich civilisations that they conquer. And how this point would lead you to your point about american culture. But how relevent it was to our previous discussion, that i do not see

Your obversation about muslims and the threat of cultural assimilation by the Western "American" culture is very true and spot on.

But it is a curiousity that Islam is today the fastest growing religion in the world, and the occurances of these conversions is happening in the west as well. I believe this topic could be a could discussion in itself. Why are people converting, disillusioned with the "modern" western consumer culture perhaps, put of by the amount of hippocracy in the church perhaps.

Sometimes differences of opinions are merely looking at the same data from different perspectives.


In terms of islam being the fasterst growing religion, however, it should be understood that Moslem countries also have among the highest birth rates in the world. Even in western countries, Moslems, often newly arrived, maintain a relatively higher birth rate for a time. This accounts for why Islam is faster growing.
The rate to which conversions are occuring among western people themselves is not entirely clear. It should be understood though, that in an uncertain society with no clear answers such as ours, among the fastest growing Christian churches are those that deliver the message with the most certainty. Fundamentalist Islam is similar to fundamentlaist Christianity in this regard.
In terms of hypocrisy, I doubt that there is any religion, or any other grouping in any society that holds a monopoly on that vice.

 

[rooster]

Sometimes differences of opinions are merely looking at the same data from different perspectives.


In terms of islam being the fasterst growing religion, however, it should be understood that Moslem countries also have among the highest birth rates in the world. Even in western countries, Moslems, often newly arrived, maintain a relatively higher birth rate for a time. This accounts for why Islam is faster growing.
The rate to which conversions are occuring among western people themselves is not entirely clear. It should be understood though, that in an uncertain society with no clear answers such as ours, among the fastest growing Christian churches are those that deliver the message with the most certainty. Fundamentalist Islam is similar to fundamentlaist Christianity in this regard.
In terms of hypocrisy, I doubt that there is any religion, or any other grouping in any society that holds a monopoly on that vice.

Hypocrisy when actions do not match the actions preached. it exist in all religions.
There is a lot of other reasons to account for the growth of islam, one cannot explain it away with just high-birth rates. Anyway this rates of growth are being experianced in western countries where they were suppose to be assimilated. Although some forms of islam is archaic, other forms are pretty adaptable.

 

[ICHTUS]

My view about Islam is,

a religion. In this case, a prophetic religion. Islam arise from the dynamic leadership and moral challenge of a great leader and tend to sweep across the world within a century of their origin. Islam, which made enormous inroads into the Middle East and North Africa within a few decades of the death of Muhammad, is one excellent example. However, Islam eventhough a high view of God doesn't offer worshiper intimacy with God. Allah reveals his message, but he never reveals himself. The Muslim/Muslimin pray to him but cannot be said in away to know Allah or have a personal relationship with him. Such a claim is deemed blasphemous.

GBU...