Were The Crusades Justified? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Were The Crusades Justified?

1. Yes, The Crusades Were Justified.
17
35%
2. No, The Crusades Were Not Justified.
16
33%
3. Neither, Both Sides Were Equally Justified or Not-Justified.
9
18%
4. Other.
7
14%
#14943973
SolarCross wrote:You didn't answer the question.

What would count as evidence for you, Mr Sea Lion?


You do realise you are sealioning by repeatedly asking me these questions, right?

There are plenty of online resources that list some or all of the Islamic campaigns.


Then start with reading them.

When and if you find one that supoorts your claims, paste a link and the supporting text.
#14943974
Pants-of-dog wrote:You do realise you are sealioning by repeatedly asking me these questions, right?

If it was then you of all people would have no right to complain. If you don't answer the question, and you still haven't, then repeating it is reasonable.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then start with reading them.

When and if you find one that supoorts your claims, paste a link and the supporting text.

Would you count it as evidence though? It's not like we haven't done this before you know; I know how you operate.
#14943975
SolarCross wrote:If it was then you of all people would have no right to complain. If you don't answer the question, and you still haven't, then repeating it is reasonable.


Since I already answered it many times, this is amusing.

Would you count it as evidence though? It's not like we haven't done this before you know; I know how you operate.


Yes, it would be evidence, if it was an actual source like a study or some other verifiable source.

You seem to be going to a lot of effort to avoid supporting your claim.
#14943977
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it would be evidence, if it was an actual source like a study or some other verifiable source.

You seem to be going to a lot of effort to avoid supporting your claim.

What do you mean by an "actual source"? Do you mean a politically correct leftist source?

The amount of material out there is vast, depending on how gung-ho I am I could spend hundreds of hours reading and referencing it. That's a lot of time to waste on you if all you are going to do is not read one word of it and say "that's not an argument" as if that makes any sense.

Though it might do for the subject of a new thread since it is only tangentially relevant to this thread and the volume of material is so huge, so there is that.
Last edited by SolarCross on 02 Sep 2018 22:06, edited 1 time in total.
#14943980
Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay, please provide evidence for your claim that there has been an ongoing war between Islam and Christianity for the last 1400 years.

Don't just repeat yourself like a fucking brain dead zombie, engage with my question:

What do you mean by an "actual source"? Do you mean a politically correct leftist source?

-----

Also my claim is that the Holy Wars of Islam (622 AD to present) conducted against the kuffar for being kuffar (which includes but is not limited to Christians) can be collectively considered to be the Islamic Wars. If I supply supporting evidence this is the claim I would be supporting with it.
Last edited by SolarCross on 03 Sep 2018 00:37, edited 1 time in total.
#14943985
SolarCross wrote:Don't just repeat yourself like a fucking brain dead zombie, engage with my question:

What do you mean by an "actual source"? Do you mean a politically correct leftist source?

-----

Also my claim is that the Holy Wars of Islam (622 AD to present) conducted against the kuffar for being kuffar (which includes but is not limited to Christians) can be collectively considered to be the Islamic Wars. If I supply supporting evidence this it the claim I would be supporting with it.


It's real simple, Solarcross. Any serious Muslim is aware that in their religion's conception of the world, the world is divided into two parts; the ''Dar-ul-Islam'' or ''House of Islam'', in which the Ummah or Deen of the Faithful are able to practice Islam and the land is in fact ruled by Islamic jurisprudence, and the ''Dar-ul-Harb'', or ''House of War'', in which the Kufr are ruling the land and Muslims have to fight by whatever means peaceful or otherwise in order to subjugate the land and make it part of the ''Dar-Ul-Islam''.

Islam is necessarily a universal religion, in which all men are called to be Muslim and all lands ruled by their concept of the laws of God (to them, Allah). Muhammad was a Warlord, and there is no shame in Islam to being a Warrior living by the sword raiding non-Muslims. Now, you may find-again as part of the idea of Islam being at war with Not-Islam-that Muslims will lie about there even being a war, the nature of the conflict, or whatever else... Because until a non-Muslim converts to Islam they are an enemy with whom it is alright to lie to in order to serve the purposes of the larger goals involved.

And just because there are indeed quite a few Muslims not inclined to that level of seriousness and commitment to the goals of their religion, does not mean that many Muslims do not admire the ones who are so inclined. Admired, and unlikely to be turned over to infidels and apostates under most circumstances.

It is probable that much of this will be denied or ignored, possibly you might get some Muslim to admit much of this. Some might be unaware themselves to the full extent of what a serious commitment to genuine Islam means. But these are the simple truths of the matter, which have been known for some 1400 years now.

The fact that the West has been so fatally weakened by internal rot and degeneracy to the extent that much of this is now denied, and radical Islamists are enabled by the Elites of the West, should not obscure the truth.

However, this does not justify the Crusades in any way. In fact, the evil of the Crusades energized the Islamic world and did incalculable damage as Islam not only revived but even expanded, much as Zionism energizes Islamists, will energize Islam to expand and conquer even more.
#14943988
@annatar1914

It's real simple, Solarcross. Any serious Muslim is aware that in their religion's conception of the world, the world is divided into two parts; the ''Dar-ul-Islam'' or ''House of Islam'', in which the Ummah or Deen of the Faithful are able to practice Islam and the land is in fact ruled by Islamic jurisprudence, and the ''Dar-ul-Harb'', or ''House of War'', in which the Kufr are ruling the land and Muslims have to fight by whatever means peaceful or otherwise in order to subjugate the land and make it part of the ''Dar-Ul-Islam''.


The idea of Dar-ul Islam and Dar-ul Harb is decades outdated. It isn't mentioned in the Quran nor in the Hadiths nor was it a term used by Mohammed during his Caliphate or by the Rashiduns. It was used by the Umayyads and, later, Abbasids as a way to excuse expansion into new territories. Also you misuse the term. Regular Muslims are not required to fight Kufr whenever necessary, only the Caliphate is capable of doing this. The Caliphate has a monopoly on violence in other territories. Muslims as a whole are not obligated to engage in any acts of violence in non-Muslims territories and the Quran itself is against this encouraging assimilation.

Islam is necessarily a universal religion, in which all men are called to be Muslim and all lands ruled by their concept of the laws of God (to them, Allah).


This is true. Except Sharia is not the laws of God which is probably what you think the laws of God are given how ignorant and biased you are about everything related to Islam. The laws of God refer to the natural laws of the world and what God has stated will happen. Sharia is a personal law that is meant to improve the lives of individuals and cannot be forced upon others.

Muhammad was a Warlord, and there is no shame in Islam to being a Warrior living by the sword raiding non-Muslims.


He was a merchant prior to creating Islam and he wasn't a warlord by definition given that there was no state or nation that existed prior to the Caliphate in Arabia (unless you're arguing that tribal confederations are states). There are two types of warlords: the first is a military leader that worked under the government and, due to circumstances, finds themself with autonomy, and exploits it; the second is a military leader who is a rebel or insurgent against a regime. There was no government nor a central regime in Arabia. Hell, Mohammed established a central government in Arabia, he cannot have possibly been a warlord given these conditions.

Furthermore, Islam prohibits the killing of innocent people. You only kill others in a war which would be out of self-defense. And no, out of context quotes from the Quran won't prove your point. The most cited out of context quote from the Quran that is supposed to prove that Islam encourages murdering innocents, when put into context, literally disproves that.

Now, you may find-again as part of the idea of Islam being at war with Not-Islam-that Muslims will lie about there even being a war, the nature of the conflict, or whatever else..


I'd like you to point to the Surah or Hadith that says Muslims should lie about there being a war. Furthermore, this is just propaganda since it tries to de-legitimatize the perspective of Muslims by saying they're all lying about it. To make matters worse, it's a really bad sin to lie in Islam so you're so ignorant about Islam that you don't even know it's most basic sins.

Because until a non-Muslim converts to Islam they are an enemy with whom it is alright to lie to in order to serve the purposes of the larger goals involved.


This is the most funniest thing I have ever read this day. Apparently you forgot Islam's concept of the People of the Book, the fact that Muslims have coexisted with non-Muslims for centuries while Christianity has wiped out any non-Christian religion in Europe, and the fact that many Islamic scholars who know 100% more about Islam than you ever will in a lifetime disagree with you on this matter.

And just because there are indeed quite a few Muslims not inclined to that level of seriousness and commitment to the goals of their religion, does not mean that many Muslims do not admire the ones who are so inclined. Admired, and unlikely to be turned over to infidels and apostates under most circumstances.


Wow look at Mr. Islamic expert overhear. He knows everything about Muslims despite never actually having met one and seriously asked them about their religion. I don't think you could even tell me what pet Mohammed had.

It is probable that much of this will be denied or ignored


Probably because it's not backed up by evidence or is supported by most of the Muslim population. If you think that's all lies then I'd have to ask you exactly why you think it's all lies since such an assertion would be unfounded.

possibly you might get some Muslim to admit much of this.


They'd probably laugh at you since you'd be using concepts that aren't a part of Islam at all and wouldn't be able to back up literally everything you're saying.

Some might be unaware themselves to the full extent of what a serious commitment to genuine Islam means.


That's true.

But these are the simple truths of the matter, which have been known for some 1400 years now.


Ah yes, these "truths" have been known before Islam even existed.

Also you need to prove that these are truths. You have done nothing of the sort. And I don't want Christian websites or sources, I want Islamic ones.

The fact that the West has been so fatally weakened by internal rot and degeneracy to the extent that much of this is now denied, and radical Islamists are enabled by the Elites of the West, should not obscure the truth.


Buddy, you wouldn't know the truth even if it hit you with a truck.

However, this does not justify the Crusades in any way. In fact, the evil of the Crusades energized the Islamic world and did incalculable damage as Islam not only revived but even expanded, much as Zionism energizes Islamists, will energize Islam to expand and conquer even more.


Yeah, it definitely energized Islam which is why the entirety of the world is Muslim. Oh wait. If you're talking about the Ottoman Empire then you forgot that it didn't even have half of the territory the Caliphate had and had to deal with two very aggressive neighbors next door (since you know as much about the Middle East as a toddler does about language the two aggressive neighbors were Persia and the Mughals; two Islamic powers that fought the Ottoman Empire and each other). It had no intention of taking over Europe and the point of the siege of Vienna was just out of prestige reasons and not religious ones (as is the case with all empires).

Your argument holds weight against the ignorant, but it doesn't hold weight against me, someone who has at least a pittance of Middle Eastern knowledge.
#14943995
@Oxymandias

I've heard that Mohammad went on kill rampage against dogs. Apparently that started because "Gabriel" couldn't enter Mo's house for an appointment because a puppy was in the house. Somehow I don't believe a real angel could be stopped by a dog. Dogs have good senses and good hearts and also known for detecting evil spirits. Perhaps this is a little bit of evidence that Mo was under the influence of a demon pretending to be an angel?

#14944017
Oxymandias, you said;



The idea of Dar-ul Islam and Dar-ul Harb is decades outdated.


''decades''? Later, you somewhat contradict yourself. Now, keep in mind that some of the things I've said make sense from a Muslim perspective, especially if Islam happened to be true. Now personally I do not believe that, but so it is that if you take God seriously, Faith does have to be encompassing as a whole way of life, informing the social collective of human beings as well as personal being. And if there is any shred of concern for the salvation of one's fellow human beings, this concern also applies.


It isn't mentioned in the Quran nor in the Hadiths nor was it a term used by Mohammed during his Caliphate or by the Rashiduns. It was used by the Umayyads and, later, Abbasids as a way to excuse expansion into new territories.


For context; are you a Twelver or Sevener Shia Muslim or some other sort of Shiite?


Also you misuse the term.


I don't believe so, because the following comment you make;

Regular Muslims are not required to fight Kufr whenever necessary, only the Caliphate is capable of doing this.


Muslims have been under what they believed to be Caliphates during most of Islamic history, and the Caliphate is to be obeyed by Muslims to fight Kufr when so ordered.


The Caliphate has a monopoly on violence in other territories.


Right. And the Caliphate is the normative state of how an Islamic society should be organized under.


Muslims as a whole are not obligated to engage in any acts of violence in non-Muslims territories and the Quran itself is against this encouraging assimilation.


Reams of paper have been used over just this argument and it's denial.



This is true. Except Sharia is not the laws of God which is probably what you think the laws of God are given how ignorant and biased you are about everything related to Islam.


As a Non-Muslim I am expected by you to be ''ignorant and biased about everything related to Islam'' almost by definition, ill-informed, otherwise you'd have to think that I'd be moved interiorly to convert and am just willfully against your religion.


The laws of God refer to the natural laws of the world and what God has stated will happen. Sharia is a personal law that is meant to improve the lives of individuals and cannot be forced upon others.


Right...



He was a merchant prior to creating Islam and he wasn't a warlord by definition given that there was no state or nation that existed prior to the Caliphate in Arabia (unless you're arguing that tribal confederations are states).


I am arguing that. They are states (not perhaps in the European secular modern sense) because all states come from the patriarchal family/collection of families in origin.

Muhammad did not shrink from warfare when he sensed he was obligated to do so, and he was the leader of the warriors gathered under his command.


There are two types of warlords: the first is a military leader that worked under the government and, due to circumstances, finds themself with autonomy, and exploits it; the second is a military leader who is a rebel or insurgent against a regime. There was no government nor a central regime in Arabia. Hell, Mohammed established a central government in Arabia, he cannot have possibly been a warlord given these conditions.


As per my previous definition which is by no means idiosyncratic, there is no necessary stigma to Muhammad being a Warlord under the internal logic of Islam itself.

Furthermore, Islam prohibits the killing of innocent people.


Islam also defines who are innocent.


You only kill others in a war which would be out of self-defense.


All Islamic wars are defined as out of self defense.


And no, out of context quotes from the Quran won't prove your point.


From an Islamic perspective, any quote from the Quran I use, because I am a Non-Muslim, is considered out of context.


The most cited out of context quote from the Quran that is supposed to prove that Islam encourages murdering innocents, when put into context, literally disproves that.


And what quote would that be?



I'd like you to point to the Surah or Hadith that says Muslims should lie about there being a war.


If I did, you would be obligated to deny it.


Furthermore, this is just propaganda since it tries to de-legitimatize the perspective of Muslims by saying they're all lying about it.


If you considered a certain religion to be a false one, that religion's perspective is already considered illegitimate by you. However it would be false to say that ''Muslims are liars'' as this is an unproven and unprovable generalization logically speaking.


To make matters worse, it's a really bad sin to lie in Islam so you're so ignorant about Islam that you don't even know it's most basic sins.


Concealing the truth from an enemy of Islam is not considered a lie.



This is the most funniest thing I have ever read this day. Apparently you forgot Islam's concept of the People of the Book, the fact that Muslims have coexisted with non-Muslims for centuries


Under Islamic rule and subject to obey guidelines as ''Dhimmis'', forced to pay the Jizya, etc..


while Christianity has wiped out any non-Christian religion in Europe


Cite an example of that specifically if you would, please.



, and the fact that many Islamic scholars who know 100% more about Islam than you ever will in a lifetime disagree with you on this matter.


I would expect any Islamic scholar worth his salt would disagree with me.


Wow look at Mr. Islamic expert overhear. He knows everything about Muslims despite never actually having met one


You're right, I haven't met ''one'', I've met hundreds and known dozens personally.


and seriously asked them about their religion.


I'm fairly polite, and I only speak with people who are serious about their religion, about their religion.



I don't think you could even tell me what pet Mohammed had.


I understand that to Muslims Muhammad and his life are exemplary and he is a personal model to them of faithful devotion to Allah, so that even the smallest details of his personal existence are remarked upon (such as his reddish hair, if I remember correctly).



Probably because it's not backed up by evidence or is supported by most of the Muslim population. If you think that's all lies then I'd have to ask you exactly why you think it's all lies since such an assertion would be unfounded.


You're are making a circular argument accusing me of the same :lol: .

I think that you are misunderstanding me, and as that seems the case I must apologize for that. There's actually no ill will on my part to members of the Islamic belief system, in fact as a traditionalist I feel that Muslims have in important and righteous ways have maintained the natural and human way of life in the face of modern tyranny and godlessness.

And again, as per the OP, the Crusades were not justified at all, and were a series of horrific crimes against true Christians and Muslims alike. And so when you say;



Yeah, it definitely energized Islam which is why the entirety of the world is Muslim. Oh wait. If you're talking about the Ottoman Empire then you forgot that it didn't even have half of the territory the Caliphate had and had to deal with two very aggressive neighbors next door (since you know as much about the Middle East as a toddler does about language the two aggressive neighbors were Persia and the Mughals; two Islamic powers that fought the Ottoman Empire and each other).


Since I do in fact know a fair amount of Middle Eastern history, I have to ask the responsible question and ask you which of those powers would you support? And if not those powers, which ones? Before I could turn and answer your question because of it's mutual relation.


It had no intention of taking over Europe and the point of the siege of Vienna was just out of prestige reasons and not religious ones (as is the case with all empires).


Well, it's safe to say then that you wouldn't support the Ottoman Caliphate/Sultanate, lol.

Your argument holds weight against the ignorant, but it doesn't hold weight against me, someone who has at least a pittance of Middle Eastern knowledge.


This is one of those conversations where each feels obligated to say what they believe should be said, but in the end, God is the Decider. And so, I leave it to Him to have the final say in His Sovereignty.
#14944019
@SolarCross

I've heard that Mohammad went on kill rampage against dogs. Apparently that started because "Gabriel" couldn't enter Mo's house for an appointment because a puppy was in the house. Somehow I don't believe a real angel could be stopped by a dog. Dogs have good senses and good hearts and also known for detecting evil spirits. Perhaps this is a little bit of evidence that Mo was under the influence of a demon pretending to be an angel?


:lol:

This is funny. What makes it even more funny is that the video didn't give any evidence of there being a war against dogs or that he went on a rampage to kill all dogs, just two hadiths (the quoted text is an english translation of the hadiths, not the Quran) that may be false which only talks about dogs being seen as unclean (which was a common sentiment amongst Christians in Arabia as well) and some superstitions against black dogs which can be comparable to the Christian superstitions against black cats.

There has not been a recorded event, both Islamic or non-Islamic, in which Mohammed went on a rampage to kill all dogs. Quite frankly, such a claim is ludicrious when you consider that Mohammed was kind to all animals and stated that those who are kind to them will go to Paradise. There is a story in the Quran of a prostitute in the desert who came upon a well. She pulled up some water, and she noticed that there was a dog by the well. She gave the dog water to drink before she drank the water herself. Mohammed said she was guaranteed Paradise just because of that one action.

Furthermore, Mohammed's closest wife, Aisha had a dog and the rest of his companions, including Mohammed, had cats as pets. This is not a man who would go on a rampage to kill all dogs, especially a guy with better things to do. You should be more skeptical of any information you find on the internet about Mohammed's life and you should not believe what a random YouTube video tells you. There are plenty of good non-Islamic resources on Mohammed's life written by actual historians. The only reason why you don't want to seek out those resources is because they'll destroy your biased perspective on Mohammed.
#14944031
@annatar1914

''decades''? Later, you somewhat contradict yourself. Now, keep in mind that some of the things I've said make sense from a Muslim perspective, especially if Islam happened to be true. Now personally I do not believe that, but so it is that if you take God seriously, Faith does have to be encompassing as a whole way of life, informing the social collective of human beings as well as personal being. And if there is any shred of concern for the salvation of one's fellow human beings, this concern also applies.


I am known to exaggerate. It doesn't change the fact that these concepts are outdated and aren't believed in by Muslims today. They didn't even exist during the time of Muhammed. Furthermore, you are going off-topic. It's not that what you're saying makes no sense, it's that what you're saying is wrong. All Muslims today do not believe in the idea of "Dar-al Harb". It has no basis in both Islamic religious texts and in history. This is why, whenever "Dar-al Harb" is mentioned in historical Islamic documents, it's almost always in secular or political documents, not ones concerning jurisprudence as you claim.

For context; are you a Twelver or Sevener Shia Muslim or some other sort of Shiite?


I am an ex-Zoroastrian. Just because someone is somewhat knowledgeable on Middle Eastern and Islamic history doesn't mean that he or she is Muslim similar to how one doesn't have to be Christian in order to be knowledgeable about European history.

I don't believe so, because the following comment you make;


In the following comment I humor you and your erroneous misuse of the term. In debate I tend to debunk not just the opponents arguments from an external logistic point of view but also within their own logic as such can be displayed in the likes of you.

Muslims have been under what they believed to be Caliphates during most of Islamic history, and the Caliphate is to be obeyed by Muslims to fight Kufr when so ordered.


Nope. It is in fact haram for the Caliphate to force Muslims to join the army or fight at all. This is why the Caliphate developed the professional army before Europeans did since the former could not rely on levies.

Right. And the Caliphate is the normative state of how an Islamic society should be organized under.


Depends on the sect, and in the case of Sunni and Shias, depends on the scholar. If you want to go deeper than that, it depends on the individual.

Islam is very decentralized.

Reams of paper have been used over just this argument and it's denial.


Why don't you show me these reams of paper?

By the way, modern or historical examples are completely unrelated to theology which is what we are discussing.

As a Non-Muslim I am expected by you to be ''ignorant and biased about everything related to Islam'' almost by definition, ill-informed, otherwise you'd have to think that I'd be moved interiorly to convert and am just willfully against your religion.


I've actually most non-Muslims I have met know more about Middle Eastern and the basics of Islam than most Muslims. It's just that you are not one of them. Furthermore, you are putting words in my mouth. I said you and not anyone else is misinformed about Islam. I did not single you out for being non-Muslim, I singled you out for being particularly ignorant about Islam.

Right...


If you don't believe me, just watch some videos about what Islamic scholars have to say about the subject. They literally have no reason to lie and often are very clear about the concepts present in Islam. They even have English versions.

am arguing that. They are states (not perhaps in the European secular modern sense) because all states come from the patriarchal family/collection of families in origin.


Well you certainly didn't make it the center of your point so I can only assume that you decided to argue that they are states after I gave you the idea. Also that isn't true since a state requires an organized political community under a central government. If you tried to implement something even resembling a central government on a tribal confederation it will immediately fall apart. Furthermore, in place of a political community, 7th century Arabian society operated upon a system of contracts. This is not an organized political community.

Muhammad did not shrink from warfare when he sensed he was obligated to do so, and he was the leader of the warriors gathered under his command.


He wasn't even the general of a majority of his battles. The only battle he ever partook in was in the siege of Mecca. Ever other conquest was done by his other, more capable, generals. His primary concern was with governance.

Islam also defines who are innocent.


You're right. An innocent, in Islam, consists of children, women, and all those who aren't fighting or are bystanders. Only soldiers can be killed but if one refuses or stops fighting, you can't kill him since he has stopped fighting.

All Islamic wars are defined as out of self defense.


Nope. If it isn't out of self-defense, then they don't call it an "Islamic war".

From an Islamic perspective, any quote from the Quran I use, because I am a Non-Muslim, is considered out of context.


That's wrong. Furthermore, even if I did say that, I would still not be an authority on the matter and thus shouldn't be taken seriously. By the way, I didn't say that and you're just shoving words in my mouth and running with them.

And what quote would that be?


This out of context quote: "Kill them wherever you find them"

This is the most widely used quote as "proof" that the Islam and Muslims are violent. But most of these people forget that IN THE VERSE RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE it says:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress (limits); for Allah loveth not transgressors.” 2:190

This basically says that you should only fight in self-defense. What Caliphates have done historically doesn't matter here since we are discussing theology.

If I did, you would be obligated to deny it.


I won't deny it. If there is evidence, then I will concede my point. You don't have any evidence since otherwise you wouldn't be able to resist showing it to me.

If you considered a certain religion to be a false one, that religion's perspective is already considered illegitimate by you. However it would be false to say that ''Muslims are liars'' as this is an unproven and unprovable generalization logically speaking.


Says the person who later goes on to state that Muslims are obligated to lie. Furthermore, your entire argument makes no logical sense.

Concealing the truth from an enemy of Islam is not considered a lie.


Alright, the burden of proof is on you to prove this.

Only Shias are allowed to lie and it's only when faced with persecution not just by non-Muslims but by anyone including Muslims and almost all major Shia sects disprove of this practice. This is nothing like lying to an enemy of Islam. What you are spouting is alt-right propaganda that has no basis in actual Islamic thought.

So prove it, prove that Muslims are obligated to lie.

Under Islamic rule and subject to obey guidelines as ''Dhimmis'', forced to pay the Jizya, etc..


This is true, but is certainly leagues better than the religious persecution found under Christian Europe. It's because of that tolerance that Christians and Jews were able to even survive in such sizeable numbers in the Islamic world while 99% of all of Europe is Christian (I wonder why...).

Cite an example of that specifically if you would, please.


There is literally an entire wikipedia article about the Christianization of the Germanic peoples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Christianity

But if you want specifics:

1. Saxons Wars

During the Saxon Wars, the Christian Frankish king Charlemagne waged war on the pagan Saxons for over 20 years, seeking to Christianize and rule the Saxons. During this period, the Saxons repeatedly refused Christianization and the rule of Charlemagne, and therefore rebelled frequently. In the year 782 of this period, Charlemagne is recorded as having massacred 4,500 rebel Saxon prisoners in Verden (the Massacre of Verden), and imposing legislation upon the subjected Saxons that including the penalty of death for refusing conversion to Christianity or for aiding pagans who did the same (such as the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae)

2. Northern Crusades

The Christianization of the pagan Balts, Slavs and Finns was undertaken primarily during the 12th and 13th centuries, in a series of uncoordinated military campaigns by various German and Scandinavian kingdoms, and later by the Teutonic Knights and other orders of warrior-monks, although the paganism of the inhabitants was used as justification by all of these actors. It involved the destruction of pagan polities, their subjection to their Christian conquerors, and frequently the wholesale resettlement of conquered areas and replacement of the original populations with German settlers, as in Old Prussia. Elsewhere, the local populations were subjected to an imported German overclass. Although revolts were frequent and pagan resistance often locally successful, the general technological superiority of the Crusaders, and their support by the Church and rulers throughout Christendom, eventually resulted in their victory in most cases - although Lithuania resisted successfully and only converted voluntarily in the 14th century. Most of the populations of these regions were converted only with repeated use of force; in Old Prussia, the tactics employed in the conquest, and in the subsequent conversion of the territory, resulted in the death of most of the native population, whose language consequently became extinct.

3. Christianization of Scandinavia

Olaf I of Norway, during his attempt to Christianize Norway during the Viking Age, had those under his rule that practiced their indigenous Norse Paganism and refused to Christianize tortured, maimed or executed, including seidmen, who were tied up and thrown to a skerry at low tide to slowly drown. After Olaf I's death, Norway returned to its native paganism.

These are just a couple of examples. I'm not even getting into the death toll. :)

I would expect any Islamic scholar worth his salt would disagree with me.


So you admit you are wrong and that you not only know nothing about Islam but also don't have any evidence to back yourself up? Well my job here is done.

You're right, I haven't met ''one'', I've met hundreds and known dozens personally.


Ok.
#14944032
@SolarCross

I'm not Muslim. Just because I know more about Islam than you doesn't mean I'm Muslim. It's just the side effect of living in the Middle East. What, are all Arabs and Persians Muslim to you since they know more about Islam than you?
#14944042
SolarCross wrote:Don't just repeat yourself like a fucking brain dead zombie, engage with my question:

What do you mean by an "actual source"? Do you mean a politically correct leftist source?


Since I have already answered this question in this thread, I have no idea why you keep bringing this up.

I will answer it yet again, and then you may present this evidence.

By evidence I mean a link to, and quote from, a source that provides support for your claim. This source should have a methodology or standard of objectivity, like a study or a news article.

For the purposes of this discussion, the ideal evidence would be a historical research paper that was peer reviewed.

Also my claim is that the Holy Wars of Islam (622 AD to present) conducted against the kuffar for being kuffar (which includes but is not limited to Christians) can be collectively considered to be the Islamic Wars. If I supply supporting evidence this is the claim I would be supporting with it.


Then this particular tangent is irrelevant, because the actual discussion you decided to join was specifically about Islam versus Christianity.

If you are now moving the goalposts, there is no reason to continue our discussion.
#14944051
@Pants-of-dog

This presentation gives a good overview of the classical to medieval Islamic Wars. He focuses mostly on the Islamic wars against the people of the middle east, north africa and europe, what we might call Islam's Western Front but some mention is also made of the wars on Islam's Eastern Front which ravaged Persia, India, Afghanistan and beyond.



When you have completed that we can discuss this source and then move on to some others.
#14944055
SolarCross wrote:@Pants-of-dog

This presentation gives a good overview of the classical to medieval Islamic Wars. He focuses mostly on the Islamic wars against the people of the middle east, north africa and europe, what we might call Islam's Western Front but some mention is also made of the wars on Islam's Eastern Front which ravaged Persia, India, Afghanistan and beyond.



When you have completed that we can discuss this source and then move on to some others.


Youtube videos are not peer reviewed or held to any methodology that strives for objective analysis.

Dr. Bill Warner is not even his real name. Bill French is a physics professor who is also an Islamophobe pundit.

If this (a Youtube video of someone making the same argumenst as you) is your best evidence, then no, you have no good evidence.
#14944057
Pants-of-dog wrote:Youtube videos are not peer reviewed or held to any methodology that strives for objective analysis.

Dr. Bill Warner is not even his real name. Bill French is a physics professor who is also an Islamophobe pundit.

If this (a Youtube video of someone making the same argumenst as you) is your best evidence, then no, you have no good evidence.

Which facts presented were incorrect?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19
How to deal with Trump?

Strip him of his wealth and properties as was don[…]

Election 2020

Absolute lunatic level rubbish. Why would Russia […]

February 26, Thursday The Cherokee Indian Nati[…]

What you saying Hammond....

The thing with this crisis is the truth has never[…]