Revival: The Muslim Response to the Crusades

[MarkusS]

Pretty typical for an Emperor of Rome.

no, not typical. Most emperors ruled for many years, some for decades.

Elagbal was that pathetic that he was seen as one of the worst. His oriental mentality was not compatible with roman values.

He was weak and extremly decadent. He tried to rule the empire in the way orientals rule. Without care for the senate.

He also married a Vesta Virgin and believed that would be seen as awesome from the romans...in the end it was his death sentence.

Are you trying to be ignorant on purpose?
1) You can read it written by Christians, no one asked you to read it from Arabs..
2) The Arabs conquered Europe after the crusades.. they got Europe out of the dark ages..

the arabs never conquered Europe. They opressed Spain and thats it. Beside that they constantly attacked Italy. No day passed without souther italian cities and villages under attack from this savages.

After the crusades started the attacks stopped. Thats what matters, evrything else is irrelevant.

 

[Malik Alashter]

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades_timeline.htm

634-644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus.

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636).

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet’s daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman’s assassination. Ali’s partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali’s supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661-680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad’s grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad’s death.

705 Abd al-Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governorship.

732 The Muslim Crusaders are stopped at the Battle of Poitiers (Tours) ; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance.

View attachment 360983
749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids.

756 Foundation of Umayyid emirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids.

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid emirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia.

807 Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses and of the Church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem.

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy.

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country.

831 Muslim Crusaders capture of Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy.

850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer.

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837-901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France.

869-883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia.

928-969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969).

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places.

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked .

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo.

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East.

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids.

1003 First persecutions by al-Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed.

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses.

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (also known as Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate.

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia.

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine.

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia.

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana.

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies.

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca.

1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands.

1094 Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970.

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

If AhlulBayt rulled right after the prophet pbuh all that wouldnt happen just read the period prior to his pass away.

 

[The SC]

no, not typical. Most emperors ruled for many years, some for decades.

Elagbal was that pathetic that he was seen as one of the worst. His oriental mentality was not compatible with roman values.

He was weak and extremly decadent. He tried to rule the empire in the way orientals rule. Without care for the senate.

He also married a Vesta Virgin and believed that would be seen as awesome from the romans...in the end it was his death sentence.



the arabs never conquered Europe. They opressed Spain and thats it. Beside that they constantly attacked Italy. No day passed without souther italian cities and villages under attack from this savages.

After the crusades started the attacks stopped. Thats what matters, evrything else is irrelevant.

They were attacking Sicily, because the people of Sicily were oppressed and asked them to , revise your history please..

 

[saiyan0321]

That is very funny.

Italy (if you mean Venice, the Papal States and ect...) had little to no interaction with the Muslim Empire. It was the Byzantines who were primarily at war and it was them who caused the war. Muslims hardly ever ventured into Europe except in Spain before the crusades.

The Crusades brought no such 'safety' to Italy or Southern Europe. The Crusades unified the Muslims and solidified 'Christian Europe' as the enemy of Islam. The Caucasus, Balkans, Crimea, Cyprus, Crete and countless other territories all fell to the Muslim counter-invasion. Italy was also ravaged by constants North African raiders and incursions. The Crusades in a sense was a complete and total military disaster.


It was the Byzantines that started the war and the so called 'oppression' of pilgrims was a myth invented to further justify the Crusades. The Crusaders ended up backstabbing the Byzantines, they also massacred the same pilgrims they were sent to 'protect' - countless Christians were killed by the Crusaders during the sack of Jerusalem.


No wonder you are so ignorant.


Are you dumb or something?

Organized raids primarily began after the Crusades as retaliation. Muslim raiders especially Barbarys ravaged the European coast and were feared throughout Europe and didn't end till 1864.

A discussion about crusades between Muslims and Christians is like a discussion about the 1947 or 1965 war between pakistanis and Indians. Both will protect their side of the story vigorously.

They are going to protect their view point. The thing is that in a sense crusades can be defined as a defensive offensive war. Look at it from their point of view at that time. The Muslim forces united had immediately rose and challenged two super powers that had locked horns for centuries with each other unable to completely conquer the other. The Muslim forces united defeated the Byzantines horribly reducing the super power of the west to a barely regional power that was barely able to hold Constantinople from the Muslims. Meanwhile they watched their once equally matched adversary the Sassanid empire get wiped out and as years passed by the Muslims expanded and although the ummayad and Abbasid lost a lot of power but the areas were under Muslim kingdoms and sultanate.

The crusades were announced as a way to retake the holy land to showcase not only christian survival ( which was under extreme pressure) but also secure the western world aka Europe especially southern Europe and Rome from Muslim invasion. From a military aspect on paper it was need of the hour. To create a cause equivalent of such a grand scale operation that would take the cooperation of rival kingdoms, it had to be garbed under retaking something as important as the holy land Jerusalem. Otherwise nobody would else would have come.

So the crusades began. They retook Jerusalem and the holy land in the first crusade. They massacred everybody.

The issue came after some time when raids started to happen on Muslim cities and near the holy cities of mecca and Medina causing salahuddin to move forward and secure the holy land.

Militarily the crusades failed. The raids did not stop and Europe was not secured. Although the Muslim world was ravaged by mongol invasions, the turks took over the holy land and then they did something not even the early Muslims did. They conquered Constantinople and entered Europe. Eastern southern and mid eastern Europe was under the ottoman control and the ottomans locked horns with southern Europe a lot. To say the crusades secured Europe is ignorant. It was a military nightmare that did more harm than good. Their brutalities in the holy land as well as their conquest of Constantinople ( which weakened it so badly that the ottoman conquered it and ended the Byzantine) severely harmed Europe and the security of christian kingdoms.

I am on mobile so this is a very short version.

Anyhow both sides justify their causes and will defend their outlook.

I myself am a huge fan of salahuddin and the Muslim battles in the crusades and their victories.

Anyhow the king fools in this discussion are those that brought we are master race and greatest race rubbish and posted maps and those that started to criticize the caliphs. They should take their inferiority complexes out of this thread.

 

[MarkusS]

They were attacking Sicily, because the people of Sicily were oppressed and asked them to , revise your history please..

I dont live on sicily. I live in Tuscany. Beside that yeah sure. Italians asked to get attacked, to get mirdered, robbed, taken by pirates and so on.

The arabs even sailed up the tiber and attacked rome. Did rome ask to get attacked?

You smoke some hard stuff dude.

How you explain that after crusades the arab threat ended?

Thats the only thing that matters for me. That we had peace.

A discussion about crusades between Muslims and Christians is like a discussion about the 1947 or 1965 war between pakistanis and Indians. Both will protect their side of the story vigorously.

They are going to protect their view point. The thing is that in a sense crusades can be defined as a defensive offensive war. Look at it from their point of view at that time. The Muslim forces united had immediately rose and challenged two super powers that had locked horns for centuries with each other unable to completely conquer the other. The Muslim forces united defeated the Byzantines horribly reducing the super power of the west to a barely regional power that was barely able to hold Constantinople from the Muslims. Meanwhile they watched their once equally matched adversary the Sassanid empire get wiped out and as years passed by the Muslims expanded and although the ummayad and Abbasid lost a lot of power but the areas were under Muslim kingdoms and sultanate.

The crusades were announced as a way to retake the holy land to showcase not only christian survival ( which was under extreme pressure) but also secure the western world aka Europe especially southern Europe and Rome from Muslim invasion. From a military aspect on paper it was need of the hour. To create a cause equivalent of such a grand scale operation that would take the cooperation of rival kingdoms, it had to be garbed under retaking something as important as the holy land Jerusalem. Otherwise nobody would else would have come.

So the crusades began. They retook Jerusalem and the holy land in the first crusade. They massacred everybody.

The issue came after some time when raids started to happen on Muslim cities and near the holy cities of mecca and Medina causing salahuddin to move forward and secure the holy land.

Militarily the crusades failed. The raids did not stop and Europe was not secured. Although the Muslim world was ravaged by mongol invasions, the turks took over the holy land and then they did something not even the early Muslims did. They conquered Constantinople and entered Europe. East and northern Europe was under the ottoman control and the ottomans locked horns with southern Europe a lot. To say the crusades secured Europe is ignorant. It was a military nightmare that did more harm than good. Their brutalities in the holy land as well as their conquest of Constantinople ( which weakened it so badly that the ottoman conquered it and ended the Byzantine) severely harmed Europe and the security of christian kingdoms.

I am on mobile so this is a very short version.

Anyhow both sides justify their causes and will defend their outlook.

I myself am a huge fan of salahuddin and the Muslim battles in the crusades and their victories.

Anyhow the king fools in this discussion are those that brought we are master race and greatest race rubbish and posted maps and those that started to criticize the caliphs. They should take their inferiority complexes out of this thread.

when was northern europe (germany, denmark, dutch, scandinavia, baltics) under ottoman rule?

some of your statements are correct but this is rubbish.

Also the Ottomans tried several times to conquer Italy but thanks god always lost the sea battles so never reached here. They tried it through land based invasion but got massacred two times at Vienna.

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades_timeline.htm

634-644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus.

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636).

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet’s daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman’s assassination. Ali’s partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali’s supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661-680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad’s grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad’s death.

705 Abd al-Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governorship.

732 The Muslim Crusaders are stopped at the Battle of Poitiers (Tours) ; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance.

View attachment 360983
749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids.

756 Foundation of Umayyid emirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids.

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid emirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia.

807 Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses and of the Church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem.

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy.

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country.

831 Muslim Crusaders capture of Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy.

850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer.

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837-901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France.

869-883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia.

928-969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969).

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places.

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked .

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo.

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East.

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids.

1003 First persecutions by al-Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed.

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses.

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (also known as Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate.

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia.

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine.

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia.

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana.

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies.

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca.

1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands.

1094 Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970.

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

Answering Islam? Really? Reported for Islamaphobia.

 

[saiyan0321]

when was northern europe (germany, denmark, dutch, scandinavia, baltics) under ottoman rule?

Northern is my mistake. Thank you for correcting. Eastern south eastern Europe would have to be. Infact eastern Europe wouldn't be correct t as well bcz complete eastern would mean conquest of Poland which never happened.

Eastern southern Europe and mid eastern europe would be the correct term.

 

[MarkusS]

Answering Islam? Really? Reported for Islamaphobia.

answer to muslim agression would be better.

I wonder how do muslims judge the wars Italy fought against muslim attacks. First from arabs and later against turks.

Rome always was the target for the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman Sultan gave himself the title "emperor of Rome.

The struggle between the Ottoman empire and the italian Republics is interesting. The Ottomans were an centralized Empire while Italy was many city states. The Ottomans never were able to defeat us.

While the Ottomans had the absolute military power, they lacked the economic and scientific power of our city states.

Inventions like Flamethrowers and so on.

It was a very important time for Italy and laid the base for the reunion.

 

[TMA]

A discussion about crusades between Muslims and Christians is like a discussion about the 1947 or 1965 war between pakistanis and Indians. Both will protect their side of the story vigorously.

They are going to protect their view point. The thing is that in a sense crusades can be defined as a defensive offensive war. Look at it from their point of view at that time. The Muslim forces united had immediately rose and challenged two super powers that had locked horns for centuries with each other unable to completely conquer the other. The Muslim forces united defeated the Byzantines horribly reducing the super power of the west to a barely regional power that was barely able to hold Constantinople from the Muslims. Meanwhile they watched their once equally matched adversary the Sassanid empire get wiped out and as years passed by the Muslims expanded and although the ummayad and Abbasid lost a lot of power but the areas were under Muslim kingdoms and sultanate.

The crusades were announced as a way to retake the holy land to showcase not only christian survival ( which was under extreme pressure) but also secure the western world aka Europe especially southern Europe and Rome from Muslim invasion. From a military aspect on paper it was need of the hour. To create a cause equivalent of such a grand scale operation that would take the cooperation of rival kingdoms, it had to be garbed under retaking something as important as the holy land Jerusalem. Otherwise nobody would else would have come.

So the crusades began. They retook Jerusalem and the holy land in the first crusade. They massacred everybody.

The issue came after some time when raids started to happen on Muslim cities and near the holy cities of mecca and Medina causing salahuddin to move forward and secure the holy land.

Militarily the crusades failed. The raids did not stop and Europe was not secured. Although the Muslim world was ravaged by mongol invasions, the turks took over the holy land and then they did something not even the early Muslims did. They conquered Constantinople and entered Europe. Eastern southern and mid eastern Europe was under the ottoman control and the ottomans locked horns with southern Europe a lot. To say the crusades secured Europe is ignorant. It was a military nightmare that did more harm than good. Their brutalities in the holy land as well as their conquest of Constantinople ( which weakened it so badly that the ottoman conquered it and ended the Byzantine) severely harmed Europe and the security of christian kingdoms.

I am on mobile so this is a very short version.

Anyhow both sides justify their causes and will defend their outlook.

I myself am a huge fan of salahuddin and the Muslim battles in the crusades and their victories.

Anyhow the king fools in this discussion are those that brought we are master race and greatest race rubbish and posted maps and those that started to criticize the caliphs. They should take their inferiority complexes out of this thread.

Please do not fall for the Crusades were Christian wars. Nay they were but barbarians in guise of Christianity. The Orthodox Christian was savagely persecuted by them.
What the barbarians in the guise of Christianity failed to achieve back then, they achieved it when the cloak fell off, when (imposter) Israel came back.

 

[Hamza913]

Muslims used senseless violence to capture the Holy land, so what.
At that time, Muslims were agressively attacking Christians.
It is not surprising there was a backlash.


No country is required to recognize another country.
Any country can boycott another country without reason.
War, however is more serious today and you have to have a good reason,
and if You manage to occupy another country You have to follow certain rules.

Rules are different now than during crusades.
At that time it was perfectly OK send an Army to the Holy Land.
As for hurting the Jews, that was not called for by the church,
and those sacking Constantinople were excommunicated,​

So your moral standards change with the times? What kind of morals are those if you base them on what's popular?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

So your moral standards change with the times? What kind of morals are those if you base them on what's popular?

That is not "my" moral standards, that is the result of development of International Law.
Islam was often spread through conquest, and if modern International Law was applied,
most of the Muslim countries should be considered occupied territories.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Let me clarify:
At the time of the Crusade, if someone had treasure that was wanted by another party,
then war was an option.
Nowadays, it is not like that, but You cannot apply todays rules for things happening 1000 years ago.
You can only apply the rules of that time.

So the fact that Muslims were attacking the Byzantine Empire, and repression of pilgrims,
was certainly enough reasons for the Pope to call for the Crusades.

The earliest Christian state was the Roman Empire.

What part of this post below did you not understand?

The so-called Christians of Sham during the 6th and 7th century were fellow Arabs (Ghassanids) mostly.

In fact the Ghassanid Kingdom (220-638) was one of the earliest Christian states if not the earliest. The neighboring Arab Lakhmids had adopted Christianity as well. Let alone Nabatea and Tadmor.

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





You cannot claim ownership of a region that you have nothing to do with other than a very short time period in the recorded history of the region (overall), ruled by proxy (through locals) let alone use Christianity (itself a Semitic religion native to Sham - not Europe) as an excuse.

Arab Muslim conquests of Southern Europe were in fact pay-back for that prior occupation. Natives of the Arab world never had to conquer Europe during that era or previous eras as it was much less developed and everything that was needed was already present indigenously.

And no, history does not magically change/disappear just because people happen to change religious beliefs.

For instance recently a comprehensive DNA study of the earliest Neolithic cultures and civilizations on the planet located in Southern Levant, showed that modern-day Saudi Arabians, have the closest genetic affinity to those 10.000 + years old skeletons. The first farmers on the planet.

Let me quote an old post of mine:

"Speaking about Neolithic peoples, Saudi Arabians show the greatest genetic affinity to Neolithic mummies.

Recently a DNA study proved that modern-day Saudi Arabians, Palestinians, Jordanians and Egyptians have the largest ancestral claim on the Neolithic civilizations that first appeared in Southern Levant.

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

A culture that existed from 12.5000 BC to 9.500 BC whose people are known to have built the first Neolithic settlements on the planet as well as made the first attempts at agriculture, organized included. It was also arguably the first sedentary culture of this size in the world as well.

Here are the DNA results from this year (2016)

https://plot.ly/~PortalAntropologiczny9cfa/1.embed?share_key=za9Lb3y1UX6nJRG9v4EXOL

Here is the entire report:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

It's quite cool that Saudi Arabians (in particular as they scored the highest percentage, one sample 60.38%!), Palestinians, Jordanians, "Israeli" Bedouins and Egyptians (afterwards other Arabs in the Near East and other MENA people) show the strongest genetic affinity to the ancient Natufian culture (12.500 BC - 9.500 BC) that was not only the first settled Neolithic civilization/community in the world but the first culture and people who introduced farming and built the first known settlements! More so knowing that the Natufians did not hail from the outside whether nearby Europe or Africa! They were indigenous."

Can you tell me what relationship Swedes and other Europeans have with those native peoples of our region in comparison for you to dare to talk about what is yours? Or maybe it is the parallel universe that you are located in that states the opposite. In fact Vikings were Arabs and native peoples of today's Arab world were Europeans, in particular Swedes and Italians. That must be the conclusion!

If that is how your logic works, I want ownership of most of Southern Europe. It is Arab land under occupation! I can do with Iberia which is arguably the most beautiful part of Europe.

BTW, I cannot see what that fake "Italian" is writing as he is on my ignore list. In any case the region discussed has nothing to do with him regardless of what he claims to be.

You mean the same Byzantine Empire that occupied ancient Semitic/Arab territory (as explained in my post in detail and accompanied by numerous sources) and employed local Semitic/Arab governors to control that territory of the Byzantine Empire on the behalf of the Byzantine emperor?

Arab Muslim conquests just reestablished the previous millennia old status quo and chased the invaders and their native representatives (traitors) away. The level field became leveled when that territory was regained and came under direct native control again and afterwards when European lands were occupied for as long if not longer as payback.

The crusades had nothing to do with settling a score in round 2 but were an attempt to start round 3.

As for the earliest Christian state being the Roman Empire, I think that you need to study a bit more history if you think so.

The Arab Ghassanid Kingdom that composed 90% of modern-day Sham was already majority Christian before Constantine the Great even ascended power and made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

In fact you can find one of the very oldest churches in the world in the Eastern Province of modern-day KSA (historical ancient Eastern Arabia) of all places, that predates Constantine the Great's reign.

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

It's funny that many Europeans believe that history in our region began 64 BC, 30 BC and 106 when the Roman Empire reached Sham, Egypt and Northern Arabia respectively. I am afraid that this is not how it works.

Also I do not understand why you are trying to "legitimize" the Crusades when 95% of all Swedes are not religious let alone Catholics. Nor do I believe that you care much about Christian Arabs, Assyrians, Copts etc. of the region.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

@Markus Two questions for you?

1. Is Christianity a Asiatic or Oriental religion?
2. Was Jesus and his flock Semites with one group of descendants being Arabs?


*This should pull the rug under your feet.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

That is not "my" moral standards, that is the result of development of International Law.
Islam was often spread through conquest, and if modern International Law was applied,
most of the Muslim countries should be considered occupied territories.

In the first 2 centuries of Islamic rule, Arab Muslims had no great interest in mass-converting people but they were rather more interested in making them pay Jizya which during that era was a revolutionary and very progressive system. Especially the Umayyads. Besides the most populous Muslim country in the world (Indonesia) became majority Muslim mostly through trade and cultural interaction between Arabians who dominated the Arabian Sea (notice the name), Indian Ocean and those sea trade routes, and natives of South East Asia. Sailors, explorers, bureaucrats, businessmen, people looking to start from scratch etc. LONG after Prophet Muhammad's (saws) death. That is why there are 5 million Indonesians of Arab descent and significant Arab communities (those dating back to that early contact established in the Middle Ages and which even existed in pre-Islamic times and more recent ones such as the Hadhrami) in all South East Asian countries.

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

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

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

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

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

Many ruling/royal families of South East Asia are of Arab origin originally (Sultan of Brunei for instance and numerous others ruling as well as non-ruling today) or claim such an origin and much of the Muslim elites in that region have Arab origin as well.

You can ask some of the Indonesian members such as @Indos etc.

Hell Arab (Arabian) traders owned more than 50 percent of modern-day Singapore into the 20th century.

This article below (ARAMCO world) explains this wonderfully and in detail.

http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/201404/the.arab.traders.of.singapore.htm

You can read how Islam spread in much of Africa and other parts of Asia while you are at it.

In any case the spread of Islam was not any more bloody than the spread of Christianity. That is for certain. Just ask the average Sub-Saharan African in for instance Congo.

This Belgian Catholic "Wahhabi" below used to be particularly brutal.





The problem is that both groups of people lack the full story and the simplistic versions of history is a thing that engulfs the view of both groups (Europeans/Arabs etc.) The reality was way more complex and nuanced on both fronts.

 

[The SC]

That is not "my" moral standards, that is the result of development of International Law.
Islam was often spread through conquest, and if modern International Law was applied,
most of the Muslim countries should be considered occupied territories.

Conquest of what? lands where people were oppressed and called for help, or lands that have threatened Islam and tried to finish it?
Have you ever heard about Qanun, the Muslim civil law that made the basis of European law and by transitivity the modern international law you are branding as an excuse for defending colonization and apartheid..