Islam The Christian crusades

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes because no word in our languages were capable of defining such attrocities.

Jihad comes to mind.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes because no word in our languages were capable of defining such attrocities.

No, because atrocities were the normal operating procedures within Islam from the beginning; no special word was needed.

 

[anatolian]

Jihad comes to mind.

No, because atrocities were the normal operating procedures within Islam from the beginning; no special word was needed.

Muslim mujahids did not insiced the wombs of pregnant women in the cities they conquered. Crusaders killed anyone walking but Muslim mujahids kept it in the battle field only.

 

[mindlight]

Muslim mujahids did not insiced the wombs of pregnant women in the cities they conquered. Crusaders killed anyone walking but Muslim mujahids kept it in the battle field only.

In the last century alone there seems to be evidence to the contrary and on a scale that would make most crusaders blanch.

Armenian Genocide - Wikipedia
Greek genocide - Wikipedia
Assyrian genocide - Wikipedia

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Muslim mujahids did not insiced the wombs of pregnant women in the cities they conquered. Crusaders killed anyone walking but Muslim mujahids kept it in the battle field only.

Since we are going back and forth with accusations instead of realising the brutality of war in the middle ages should you not reckon with Islam's giving the permission of Muslims to enslave their enemies? Even perhaps recognise that we as Non Muslims have no rights under Islamic law except but to live in humiliation? Slavery is an interesting point of contention since it is not only in the casual sense of the word but also includes sexual slavery, up to as many as the Muslim might want to possess. Such was standard practice within the Islamic world. What of the Islamic mandate to spread Islam via war to as much of the world as possible (without this mandate there is no justification for Islam's rapid spread within it's own theology).

This isn't to mention Muslim treatment of Hindus under the Mughals, treatment of Copts under the Mamluks or Orthodox under the Turks.

I'm quite willing to own the brutality of Christians generally in the past (though I am Orthodox and the Orthodox did not participate in all of the Crusades and were at times victims of it) but would you be willing to do the same for Islam? This is where the two traditions diverge, to you Muslims have done nothing wrong in their conquests and subjugation of others. To me Christians have done a lot wrong their participation in such things. This doesn't invalidate Christianity as a whole like it would Islam, since Islam approves of such things. Just war is nearly an impossible standard that no one followed.

To pretend Muslims were 21st century Humanitarians in the war since Muhammad and till now is an absurdity. The Crusades were just as legitimate as Islamic expansion into Christian lands were.

 

[anatolian]

In the last century alone there seems to be evidence to the contrary and on a scale that would make most crusaders blanch.

Armenian Genocide - Wikipedia
Greek genocide - Wikipedia
Assyrian genocide - Wikipedia

1. These incidents were not jihad
2. They are still controversial subjects and open to disscusion
3. If you want to open the Genocide book christians are still by far better than muslims

 

[anatolian]

Since we are going back and forth with accusations instead of realising the brutality of war in the middle ages should you not reckon with Islam's giving the permission of Muslims to enslave their enemies? Even perhaps recognise that we as Non Muslims have no rights under Islamic law except but to live in humiliation? Slavery is an interesting point of contention since it is not only in the casual sense of the word but also includes sexual slavery, up to as many as the Muslim might want to possess. Such was standard practice within the Islamic world. What of the Islamic mandate to spread Islam via war to as much of the world as possible (without this mandate there is no justification for Islam's rapid spread within it's own theology).

This isn't to mention Muslim treatment of Hindus under the Mughals, treatment of Copts under the Mamluks or Orthodox under the Turks.

I'm quite willing to own the brutality of Christians generally in the past (though I am Orthodox and the Orthodox did not participate in all of the Crusades and were at times victims of it) but would you be willing to do the same for Islam? This is where the two traditions diverge, to you Muslims have done nothing wrong in their conquests and subjugation of others. To me Christians have done a lot wrong their participation in such things. This doesn't invalidate Christianity as a whole like it would Islam, since Islam approves of such things. Just war is nearly an impossible standard that no one followed.

To pretend Muslims were 21st century Humanitarians in the war since Muhammad and till now is an absurdity. The Crusades were just as legitimate as Islamic expansion into Christian lands were.

Yes orthodoxes were the victims of the crusades along with muslims and jews. It was a catholic brutality. I could consider them legitimate if they did not expand it on civilians. History records all the brutality they commited against civilians. Islamic slavery was also wrong and contradicts with Islam too. We have clear hadiths telling not to touch women and children in the wars. Quran and sahih sunnah draws the borders of jihad.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes orthodoxes were the victims of the crusades along with muslims and jews. It was a catholic brutality. I could consider them legitimate if they did not expand it on civilians. History records all the brutality they commited against civilians. Islamic slavery was also wrong and contradicts with Islam too. We have clear hadiths telling not to touch women and children in the wars. Quran and sahih sunnah draws the borders of jihad.

Where in the Quran or Hadiths is one ever forbidden in enslaving the inhabitants of an enemy city? Especially a city that resists submission to Islam? (dhimmitude) Whatever booty the soldiers could secure for themselves in the form of gold, property or people is lawful them (Quran 8:69) and this included women and children. Enslaved women, possessed by the right hand of the Muslim man were valid sexual partners for the Muslim as the Quran tells us (Quran 4:24). Muslims were not 21st century Humanitarians, they looted, plundered and raped as much as (if not more so) than those soldiers in the Christian world.

As to Catholic Brutality, I would not count Orthodox history as being free of Brutality nor are the Orthodox perfectly innocent when it comes to the Crusades. Byzantine Emperors sought Western help to recapture their lands from the Muslims we might remember. I would prefer however Catholics had reigned in the Holy Land and the Middle East than those Islamic powers that arose there.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If you want to open the Genocide book christians are still by far better than muslims

Let's compare the two most prominent examples on each side. The Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust.

The first, Turkey, denies to this day it ever sought to deliberately eradicate a minority community. The Turks refuse to admit guilt on the matter of the Armenians and no one cares, modern day Turkey basically being welcomed into the modern world by everyone and Hitler based his decision to kill the unwanteds partly on the world's indifference to the Armenian plight. In other words, Muslims did nothing wrong to the Armenians.

The Second, Germany, has enshrined in it's law that it is a crime to deny the Haulocaust. This event is admitted and remembered and a deep guilt is felt even to this day by Germany and perhaps the western world as a whole for what it did to this people (not only Jews mind you, but Poles, Romani and other elements that didn't fit in with the third Reich). Christianity is routinely blamed and Christians are at fault.

If you want to say Christians are guilty of Genocides, alright, we are guilty of genocides. Unlike the Islamic world, the Christian world can admit it's guilt in the past, it's flaws and hubris. I think it foolish to accuse Christianity of genocide however and not 20th century Eugenics ideology or a western Imperialism which was largely impartial to Christian Moral concerns. Who truly represents Christianity more, Hitler of Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

 

[withwonderingawe]

There was a war, both sides killed both sides died, get over it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There was a war, both sides killed both sides died, get over it.

That statement seems rather dismissive.

 

[withwonderingawe]

That statement seems rather dismissive.

Its so dang long ago, nobody today is responsible for what anyone did back then, so stop blaming.

 

[anatolian]

Where in the Quran or Hadiths is one ever forbidden in enslaving the inhabitants of an enemy city? Especially a city that resists submission to Islam? (dhimmitude) Whatever booty the soldiers could secure for themselves in the form of gold, property or people is lawful them (Quran 8:69) and this included women and children. Enslaved women, possessed by the right hand of the Muslim man were valid sexual partners for the Muslim as the Quran tells us (Quran 4:24). Muslims were not 21st century Humanitarians, they looted, plundered and raped as much as (if not more so) than those soldiers in the Christian world.

As to Catholic Brutality, I would not count Orthodox history as being free of Brutality nor are the Orthodox perfectly innocent when it comes to the Crusades. Byzantine Emperors sought Western help to recapture their lands from the Muslims we might remember. I would prefer however Catholics had reigned in the Holy Land and the Middle East than those Islamic powers that arose there.

This is Quran 8:69 "Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" M.H.Shakir

I fail to see what you inserted into it above. It mentions the lawful and good (things) which we can acquire in a war. So there are the things which are unlawful and bad we can also aquire. Also if you read the entire Surah you will see that it legitimizes the war against the enemy who broke the agreement and betrayed the Muslims..

This is Quran 4:24 "And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise." M.H.Shakir

I cant blame you on this because even some Muslim commentators interprete it like you but it is rather a controversial subject I guess. I dont see that meaning in this ayah. The women whom our right hands possess can be our already married wives.

I did not say the Muslims were 21st century humanitarians. But when you study the history of both sides, you cannot find an attorcity with the same level of crusaders in the Muslim side. But they were the second. Mongolian invaders were the worst.

 

[anatolian]

Let's compare the two most prominent examples on each side. The Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust.

The first, Turkey, denies to this day it ever sought to deliberately eradicate a minority community. The Turks refuse to admit guilt on the matter of the Armenians and no one cares, modern day Turkey basically being welcomed into the modern world by everyone and Hitler based his decision to kill the unwanteds partly on the world's indifference to the Armenian plight. In other words, Muslims did nothing wrong to the Armenians.

The Second, Germany, has enshrined in it's law that it is a crime to deny the Haulocaust. This event is admitted and remembered and a deep guilt is felt even to this day by Germany and perhaps the western world as a whole for what it did to this people (not only Jews mind you, but Poles, Romani and other elements that didn't fit in with the third Reich). Christianity is routinely blamed and Christians are at fault.

If you want to say Christians are guilty of Genocides, alright, we are guilty of genocides. Unlike the Islamic world, the Christian world can admit it's guilt in the past, it's flaws and hubris. I think it foolish to accuse Christianity of genocide however and not 20th century Eugenics ideology or a western Imperialism which was largely impartial to Christian Moral concerns. Who truly represents Christianity more, Hitler of Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

This whole genocide thing is just a hypocrisy and propaganda tool today. What makes these two "the most prominent examples" ? There is only one reason, both the Germans and Ottoman were defeated in the wars in which they were accused of those incidents. If they were victorious, you wouldnt be talking about those events today. However, we all know all the massacres commited by the European collonialists in North and South America, Africa, Assia and Austriallia against the indigenous people. Only the British Empire is responsible of the murder of over one hundred million people all over the world during their collonial period according to some historians. They are by far the bloodiest Empire in history. White Americans, litterally cleansed the roots of the native americans in the north. How many aboriginals were killed in your Australlia? You must know better than me. However, none of these incidents are considered a genocide today. Because they were all victorious and the history is written by the victorious. I have half Circassian ethnicity from the maternal side for example. They migrated to Anatolia from Circassia in the late 19th century running from a large scale massacre commited by the Russian Empire. No one talks about this genocide commited by just another Christian people against a Muslim people today. You see, it is just hypocrisy and I dont buy it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This is Quran 8:69 "Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" M.H.Shakir

I fail to see what you inserted into it above. It mentions the lawful and good (things) which we can acquire in a war. So there are the things which are unlawful and bad we can also aquire. Also if you read the entire Surah you will see that it legitimizes the war against the enemy who broke the agreement and betrayed the Muslims..

This is Quran 4:24 "And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise." M.H.Shakir

I cant blame you on this because even some Muslim commentators interprete it like you but it is rather a controversial subject I guess. I dont see that meaning in this ayah. The women whom our right hands possess can be our already married wives.

I did not say the Muslims were 21st century humanitarians. But when you study the history of both sides, you cannot find an attorcity with the same level of crusaders in the Muslim side. But they were the second. Mongolian invaders were the worst.

The translation I have used differs and I would suggest that based on the verses following that it is not about food specifically but plunder in general.

69 So consume what you have taken of war booty [as being] lawful and good, and fear Allah . Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
70 O Prophet, say to whoever is in your hands of the captives, "If Allah knows [any] good in your hearts, He will give you [something] better than what was taken from you, and He will forgive you; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." Sahih International.

I don't pretend to be an expert on Arabic or the Quran, so unless it can be shown to me the verse definitively means only eating and not simply having whatever it is you have taken from the enemy (their lives included) I am not convinced.

As to Muslims being somehow less cruel than the Crusaders, this is a debate of history and I don't think you can substantiate what you have said. I'm willing to admit the Crusaders engage in viscous slaughters (such as Richard the Third's slaughter of Prisoners when Saladin would not pay ransom), yet we know Saladin routinely killed Christians who refused to convert to Islam and we have an even more pernicious celebration of Rape by the Islamic Historian Imad Ad din who was commenting on the fall of Jerusalem.

Women and children together came to 8,000 and were quickly divided up among us, bringing a smile to Muslim faces at their lamentations. How many well-guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married and noble women given away, and miserly women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free women occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things put to the test, and virgins dishonoured and proud women deflowered, and lovely women’s red lips kissed, and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed and happy ones made to weep. How many noblemen took them as concubines, how many ardent men blazed for one of them, and celibates were satisfied by them, and thirsty men sated by them and turbulent men able to give vent to their passion….” Imad Ad Din.

Now I usually like to give a specific reference but this comes from an article by Dr Andrew Holt on his blog site and I trust a Professor to not make up his sources. The book this comes from in particular is called "Arab Historians of the Crusades," which is a bit too expensive for me to buy and quote from. Here is his website on the matter with the quote in question. ISIS and the Medieval Spoils System: The Fate of Captured Women

Ultimately whether your interpretation of the Quran is correct is irrelevant for discussing it's historical application. Imad seemed delighted in the rape of non Muslimas and I suspect this was a powerful motivating factor for Jihadis then as it is today. The Promise of women, riches and land certainly makes me understand how Islam Spread through war so rapidly.

Now you could bring up any amount of Crusader sins, but it will not refute my main point. That Muslims during warfare committed heinous actions which cannot be justified. To pretend Muslims were somehow more morally virtuous than the Crusaders is a mistake, also to pretend that also Crusades were equal in their moral worth is a mistake also. Some Crusades, like the first, were more Justified than others.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This whole genocide thing is just a hypocrisy and propaganda tool today. What makes these two "the most prominent examples" ? There is only one reason, both the Germans and Ottoman were defeated in the wars in which they were accused of those incidents. If they were victorious, you wouldnt be talking about those events today. However, we all know all the massacres commited by the European collonialists in North and South America, Africa, Assia and Austriallia against the indigenous people. Only the British Empire is responsible of the murder of over one hundred million people all over the world during their collonial period according to some historians. They are by far the bloodiest Empire in history. White Americans, litterally cleansed the roots of the native americans in the north. How many aboriginals were killed in your Australlia? You must know better than me. However, none of these incidents are considered a genocide today. Because they were all victorious and the history is written by the victorious. I have half Circassian ethnicity from the maternal side for example. They migrated to Anatolia from Circassia in the late 19th century running from a large scale massacre commited by the Russian Empire. No one talks about this genocide commited by just another Christian people against a Muslim people today. You see, it is just hypocrisy and I dont buy it.

I don't know if you know this, but the West's propensity towards self-flagellation at it's treatment of indigenous people is a point never forgotten and we are routinely reminded of the West's apparent evils again and again. This is not a discussion about colonialism in general however though I would contest the use of the word genocide in some of the circumstances you mention. In that I don't think you can justify the British ever wanted to ethnically cleanse the native populations of their colonies. What devastated the natives of these colonies more than any factor were the virus' brought from the Old world, which is not genocide but a tragedy.

If Christianity is truly better at committing genocide and seems to ignore it since obviously we are the victors (though we are in reality the losers in the 21st century), why do we criticise ourselves more than we criticise others? Few would justify Italy's invasion of Ethiopia today and few would argue that the Africans are barbarians who need to be governed by an enlightened western government. Why do we not forget the Holocaust, yet the Islamic world denies totally the Armenian genocide? If not denying it, questioning it's scope.

We have kind of gotten off track from the main topic however. I would like to ask you a question. If Islam had a legitimate Casus Beli against the world to conquer and subjugate and bring as many people under the fold of Islam as possible, by what right can you criticise the Crusaders for seeking to liberate what was previously Christian lands?

 

[Limo]

Limo you have no idea. First off its a fact to this day that most of any architectural value and culture is roman or greek. Secondly over the course of a millenial some people will have grievances. The Byzantines as modetn history refers to them persecuted other byzantines if they became troublemakers, many emperors in the 5th century prefered the monophysite party, when the economy went down they found fault with the Latins (what you call roman catholics). The fact is to this day the successors to the byzantines which are the modern nation states of Greece and Cyprus are 10x times more civilized than anything in the Levant. Also before 1950 the crown jewel cities of muslim nations were still the predominant christian cities of Alexandria and Beirut (known back then as the paris of the middle east). The fact is the East Roman Empire was the greatest empire ever and this can easily be proven by being a tourist and visiting those areas. You can go to Turkey and see the most amazing architectural marvels and realize Anatolia did not become truly Turkish until under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk drove out the native peoples between 1914-1924. Muslims stole roman lands and subjugated the indigenous natives to minority status or forced coverted them through taxation and janiseriesm

A simple advice: don't point finger to people starting your words with "You've no Idea" because simply you're the one who have no idea what you're talking about.
Roman and Greek culture/empires were one of the most bloody and raciest empires.
Both Empires in addition to Byzantine have killed millions of Jews, Christians, and other Churches Christians as well.
They're simply have slaved peoples and stolen the wealth of the middle east and Europe.
in 20th century, both Alexandria and Beirut were under bloody British and French colonialism.
FYI, Jerusalem have been opened peacefully with an agreement that guarantees freedom of worshiping and safety of properties for both Jews and Christians.
For the first time in History only under Islam Jews and Christians have lived peacefully together in Jerusalem .

 

[Barney2.0]

A simple advice: don't point finger to people starting your words with "You've no Idea" because simply you're the one who have no idea what you're talking about.
Roman and Greek culture/empires were one of the most bloody and raciest empires.
Both Empires in addition to Byzantine have killed millions of Jews, Christians, and other Churches Christians as well.
They're simply have slaved peoples and stolen the wealth of the middle east and Europe.
in 20th century, both Alexandria and Beirut were under bloody British and French colonialism.
FYI, Jerusalem have been opened peacefully with an agreement that guarantees freedom of worshiping and safety of properties for both Jews and Christians.
For the first time in History only under Islam Jews and Christians have lived peacefully together in Jerusalem .

Wrong, Jews and Christians had to live by the pact of Umar in Jerusalem, a disgusting pact which makes non Muslims slaves:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar

Christians and Jews couldn’t even build new Churches or Synagogues or open new ones or even wear religious symbols in public, if that’s freedom in your view then I’d rather die then live under such oppression. The Muslims have so far done the biggest act of colonialism and slave trade in the world. The Arab slave trade was way bigger and longer then anything the Europeans had ever done. Also I’m part Lebanese and Egyptian while colonialism under the hands of the British and French might not have been the best thing, but we still had our rights and non Muslims were protected. The French brought education to Lebanon and freedom of belief and order, ask any Lebanese now and they’ll say they’d rather still be under French colonialism then their present state. Also colonialism isn’t motivated by religion. The Byzantines didn’t kill millions of people and steal wealth, where’d you read that from, an Islamic websites. The Byzantines were the only Europeans who were literate and bathed daily and brought culture to the Muslims, where do you think the Muslims got the Greek books which they translated into Arabic to start the so called “Islamic Golden Age?”

 

[Barney2.0]

It's not a source of grievance at all.
It's a source of shameful history of Church and Christianity.
It was bloody barbarian campaigns.
I was wandering, you believe that Muslims conquering Roman/Byzantine land?
Did you read your books? Not ours!!!!
Did you read what Romans did for Jews, Christians, and others.
Even when the Byzantine became Christians, did they stop killing other Christian or others.
Muslims were bringing freedom to people.
Compare Jews and non-Roman Catholic live under Byzantine empire to their live after Islamic opening of the area

Stick to your Quran and Hadith not to real history, as you clearly don’t know it.

 

[Barney2.0]

The Crusades (atleast the first one) were a response to Islamic conquests and invasions. The Byzantine empire couldn’t militarily defend itself anymore after the great loss endured during the battle of Manzikert and the loss of much of Anatolia. So a plea was sent to Western Europe for military aid and a chance to push back the Muslims from invading Christian land while regaining lost christian land. I’m until this day greatful that our Western Christian brethren answered our cries for help, I pray that one day they might hear them again.