The Real Islam Exposed

[Arabian]

You totally missed her point. Her point is that there are SOME Muslims that will CLAIM that Islam is not violent and hateful when it really IS. Her point is that there are some Muslims that believe that Islam is a peaceful religion but that those believers are either 1) not follow what Islam TRULY teaches or 2) putting on a false front to make it appear as some believe Islam is peaceful while knowing it is not (in other words, they are lying!).

There is no contradiction. You just didn't follow her train of thought.

actually i think there is something between you and telling lies,, u alwaya think that all peopls are liars,,
u keep saying laying laying ,, without any clue,,
what do u know about islam to say so,, what do u know about muslim except what u hear from media,,
you are always attaking, thinking that you the only one who have the truth,,
how u could know the truth if you didnt stop attacking and begin to listen,,,
if you wanna know you will know ,, but if you dont wanna know dont accuse others with lying without any clue,,
and why u dont reverse what you are saying,,,

TELL ME WHAT IS THE MEANING OF PEACE IN YOUR DICTIONARY?
if it mean humilating and dont fight to get your rights,, and give up your things,,
okay the peace in islam isnt that ,,,,,,


tell me what is the meaning of peace for you?

 

[mrsx]

Tom Madden is the Chair of the History Department at St. Lous U. and a well respected scholar. His provocative thesis that the Crusades were a defensive war by beleagured Christians is part of his political writings, not his scholarly research. It is a fun defence of our War on Terror and not taken seriously by historians.

Whatever one thinks of his idea, it has nothing to do with disputing the events and documents I refered to - in fact you can find affirmation of my assertions about the Venetians and the Trier pogrom in his Concise History.

This thread is being taken over by a familiar group with a familiar technique. On the offense they offer sweeping and unsubstantiated proclamations. On defense, they attempt nit-picking attacks on peripheral detail and when that fails, they resort to name calling.

When the name-calling point is reached, a handful of like-minded cohorts chime in with "affirmations" that their beleaguered colleague is right in his claims and add a few insults of their own. At first, I thought it was a single moron with MPD; later I discovered the Borg of the Half-Bright with which NAMGLA spreads its influence.

I admit to being caught off guard the first time these goons started calling me a "goat sucker" because they had nothing better with which to defend their absurd jingoism. That's when I Googled NAMGLA and discovered that there is a nation-wide network of wanna-be GI Joes trying to emulate their heroes, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, with macho claptrap and juvenile apologetics. They are satyrs without satire for fascists have no sense of humor.

I've had a good laugh watching them chase their tales (that's a pun, fellas, not a typo). The sad part comes from the folks who PM me with their agreement but are afraid to post publicly.

 

[Said1]

Tom Madden is the Chair of the History Department at St. Lous U. and a well respected scholar. His provocative thesis that the Crusades were a defensive war by beleagured Christians is part of his political writings, not his scholarly research. It is a fun defence of our War on Terror and not taken seriously by historians.

Whatever one thinks of his idea, it has nothing to do with disputing the events and documents I refered to - in fact you can find affirmation of my assertions about the Venetians and the Trier pogrom in his Concise History.

This thread is being taken over by a familiar group with a familiar technique. On the offense they offer sweeping and unsubstantiated proclamations. On defense, they attempt nit-picking attacks on peripheral detail and when that fails, they resort to name calling.

When the name-calling point is reached, a handful of like-minded cohorts chime in with "affirmations" that their beleaguered colleague is right in his claims and add a few insults of their own. At first, I thought it was a single moron with MPD; later I discovered the Borg of the Half-Bright with which NAMGLA spreads its influence.

I admit to being caught off guard the first time these goons started calling me a "goat sucker" because they had nothing better with which to defend their absurd jingoism. That's when I Googled NAMGLA and discovered that there is a nation-wide network of wanna-be GI Joes trying to emulate their heroes, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, with macho claptrap and juvenile apologetics. They are satyrs without satire for fascists have no sense of humor.

I've had a good laugh watching them chase their tales (that's a pun, fellas, not a typo). The sad part comes from the folks who PM me with their agreement but are afraid to post publicly.

So you're saying the Venetians called on Urban for help in assisting with the first crusade, not the Byzantines? Do you have a link, because I would like to see it, that way you won't have to write it all out.

 

[freeandfun1]

actually i think there is something between you and telling lies,, u alwaya think that all peopls are liars,,
u keep saying laying laying ,, without any clue,,
what do u know about islam to say so,, what do u know about muslim except what u hear from media,,
you are always attaking, thinking that you the only one who have the truth,,
how u could know the truth if you didnt stop attacking and begin to listen,,,
if you wanna know you will know ,, but if you dont wanna know dont accuse others with lying without any clue,,
and why u dont reverse what you are saying,,,

TELL ME WHAT IS THE MEANING OF PEACE IN YOUR DICTIONARY?
if it mean humilating and dont fight to get your rights,, and give up your things,,
okay the peace in islam isnt that ,,,,,,


tell me what is the meaning of peace for you?

Can you read? Obviously not. I was clarifying the point of the article for you since you entirely missed it. You must have a problem with ASSes cuz you sure like to ASS ume a lot.

 

[freeandfun1]

The Crusades: A Defensive Gesture

Popular perceptions paint the Crusades as an act of Christian aggression toward as alien Eastern culture. Although the desire to enrich Europe with captured plunder and lands, and the desire to spread the faith of Christianity were two important catalysts to the declaration of the Crusades, they were not the actual reasons that motivated these wars. Pope Urban II officially declared the First Crusade on Tuesday, November 27, 1095, with the goal of liberating the land formerly held by the Christians; and the liberation of oppressed Christians in the Middle East. Urban's declaration shows that the Crusades were not an aggressive venture by the Europeans, but rather a defensive move to count what they perceived as a looming threat to their lands and their faith.

Eastern aggression indirectly led to Pope Urban's declaration. After the death of Mohammed, Arab armies began successfully invading other nations. The Koran condemns aggressive acts of warfare, however, and a justification for these violations of Mohammed's principles was needed. Muslim jurists formed the concept of the jihad, or holy struggle, as the sought-after justification. The jihad's objective was to conquer the rest of the non-Muslim world "so that the world could reflect the divine unity [of God]" (Holy War, p. 40).

Under jihad, Arabs "conquered Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt" (Infopedia, Byzantium). Constantinople survived two sieges, one in the 670s and another in 717-718. After the decline of the influential Abassids, the more belligerent Seljuk dynasty dominated in the 11th and 12th centuries. The Seljuks converted to Islam in the 10th century and controlled most of Iran and Iraq under Togrul Beg (c. 990-1063). Togrul's successors, Alp Arslan (c. 1029-1072) and Malik Shah (1055-1092) extended the Seljuk empire into Syria and Palestine. In 1071, Arslan conducted a campaign that resulted in the battle of Manzikert, where he routed the Byzantines. The battle of Manzikert "was the indirect cause of the Crusades" (The First Crusade, p. 28), heralding Byzantium's loss of control in Asia Minor. This loss of control "lay behind the appeal to the West in 1095" (The Crusades, p. 2). For the next ten years, Byzantium was in chaos and unable to counter the Turks. Then Emperor Alexius I of Byzantium ascended to the throne and waited for a suitable time to launch a counter-offensive against the Turks. By 1095, Alexius was ready to attack the Turks, but he desperately needed soldiers for his army. Alexius decided to send envoys to Urban's Council at Piacenza, who appealed to the assembled bishops and to the Pope to "send members of their flocks eastward to fight for their faith" (The First Crusade, p. 40). It is said that Urban told his audience that "a grave report has come from the lands around Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople" (The Cross and the Crescent, p. 18), referring to Alexius' request for aid. Urban also stated that

'. . . a people from the kingdom of the Persians, a foreign race, a race absolutely alien to God . . . has invaded the land of those Christians, has reduced the people with sword, rapine and flame. . .' (The Cross and the Crescent, p. 18)

Clearly, Muslim aggression acted as a catalyst to Urban's declaration.

The rapid spread of Islam was another impetus to the Crusades. As fellow monotheists, Christians were considered a "People of the Book". Christians remained unharmed during the Muslim expansion, but occasionally were restricted by prohibitive taxes and laws. Many Christians eventually converted to Islam, due to the advantages of being a member of the ruling religions. These Christians were also attracted to a religion whose "theology was far simpler" (Holy War, p. 44), and one that nurtured "a new culture of great power and beauty" (Holy War, p. 45). Within a century of their conquest, Syria and Palestine were mostly Islamic nations. These conversions acted as the justification for the concept of jihad, feeding the need for Arab expansionism. In time, Muslims dropped the doctrine of jihad and developed trading and diplomatic contacts with non-Muslim nations. By then, the rapid spread of Islam was viewed with anxiety by the Christians.

To the Christians, Islam was absorbing Christianity with an alarming speed, "conquering countries which had been strongly Christians with ease" (Holy War, p. 42). A paranoia arose, with the jihad becoming "a bogey in the West for centuries" (Holy War, p. 42). This paranoia is exemplified best by Edward Gibbon's account of Sultan Abd al-Rahman's defeat at the "Battle of Poitiers" by Charles Martel in 732:

. . . the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or the Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet. From such calamities was Christendom delivered by the genius and fortune of one man [Martel]. (Holy War, p. 42)

Gibbon seemed to have been under the belief the al-Rahman's intention was a continuation of the jihad, which was false. The Sultan "had been invited into Christendom by Eudo, Duke of Aquitaine" (Holy War, p. 42), and had no intention of continuing the jihad or conquering Europe. Muslim historians only refer to the "Battle of Poitiers" in passing, referring "to it as an unfortunate but unimportant little raid" (Holy War, p. 42). The disparity between the two sides show that the Christians were wary of the burgeoning success of Islam. Urban himself denounced the conversions at Clermont, saying how the Muslims "enslaved them [Christian churches/people] to the practice of its own rites" (The Cross and the Crescent, p.18). The spread of Islam was another catalyst that prompted Urban to declare the First Crusade.

Paired with the defense of the faith was the defense of the people themselves. Christians in Muslim-dominated areas were restricted by taxes and regulatory laws. There were occasionally skirmishes between Muslims and their Christian subjects, and lurid reports would inevitably make their way to Europe. Urban coupled the defense of the people with the defense of Jerusalem itself, and proceeded to bolster the First Crusade with it. Urban appealed to the people at Clermont, detailing how

'. . . [the Muslim] has invaded the land of those Christians, has reduced the people with sword, rapine, and flame and has carried off some as captives to its own land, has cut down others by pitiable murder. . .'(The Cross and the Crescent, p. 18)

To Urban, the lands of the Middle East and the people of the Middle East were the property of the church, to be defended from the Muslims.

The Crusades were fostered in a climate of concern over the loss of Christian lands and people. The insurgencies upon Byzantium stirred the call to arms, the rapid rise of Islamic converts roused the indignation of Christian Europe, and the tales of persecution of Christians shocked the Christians. These were the reasons Pope Urban II used when he declared the First Crusade. Thus, the Crusades were a defensive counter to Eastern expansion, rather than an aggressive expansion.

"Deus hoc vult!"

Bibliography

* Armstrong, Karen. Holy War. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc. 1991
* Billings, Malcolm. The Cross and the Crescent. Sterling Publishing Company Inc. 1987 (in US, 1990)
* Infopedia Encyclopedia CD-ROM. Future Vision Holding Inc. 1995
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Crusades. BookCrafters, Inc. 1987
* Runchman, Steven. The First Crusade. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. 1991

 

[manu1959]

TELL ME WHAT IS THE MEANING OF PEACE IN YOUR DICTIONARY?

the meaning of peace in my dictonary can be defined as follows:

i do not attempt to blow up built icons of a country in the name of jesus christ

i do not video tape the beheading of civilians in the name of jesus christ

i do not attempt to rid my country of opposing religious beliefs in the name of jesus christ

i do not confuse political aims with religious beliefs in the name of jesus christ

shall i go on?

 

[manu1959]

The Crusades: A Defensive Gesture

Popular perceptions paint the Crusades as an act of Christian aggression toward as alien Eastern culture. Although the desire to enrich Europe with captured plunder and lands, and the desire to spread the faith of Christianity were two important catalysts to the declaration of the Crusades, they were not the actual reasons that motivated these wars. Pope Urban II officially declared the First Crusade on Tuesday, November 27, 1095, with the goal of liberating the land formerly held by the Christians; and the liberation of oppressed Christians in the Middle East. Urban's declaration shows that the Crusades were not an aggressive venture by the Europeans, but rather a defensive move to count what they perceived as a looming threat to their lands and their faith.

free,

cool info thanks............prior to 1095 and the christians occupying this land....who did the christians take it from? or was it always christain since the begining of time?

 

[Yurt]

mrsx,

Kindly refer back a page to my post with a question in it you. For if you don't, it makes me wonder why so many libs on this board refuse to answer my questions. For that matter, they refuse to answer any questions that proves them wrong. Typical. Guess I should just wait for your pie...

 

[freeandfun1]

free,

cool info thanks............prior to 1095 and the christians occupying this land....who did the christians take it from? or was it always christain since the begining of time?

Well, considering Christianity was around about 600 years before Islam.... I would guess Christians and/or pagans - whom by the way, lived side by side in peace for ages. The Christians were known for spreading the word of Christ in this area for centuries after Christ died. Most of the books of the NT are focused on teachings that took place throughout southern Europe, the Balkans, Asia minor, etc. ACTS, Corinthians, Romans, etc. were all written about the spreading of the Gospels in those areas well before Islam ever surfaced upon the scene.

 

[Markainion]

free,

cool info thanks............prior to 1095 and the christians occupying this land....who did the christians take it from? or was it always christain since the begining of time?

The Byzantium Empire was Christian, and so was Egypt (part of the Roman Empire) until the Moslem swarmed out of their deserts around the sixth century and captured it. Christianity originates in the Roman Empire, remember, Roman Solders crucified Christ.

 

[manu1959]

The Byzantium Empire was Christian, and so was Egypt (part of the Roman Empire) until the Moslem swarmed out of their deserts around the sixth century and captured it. Christianity originates in the Roman Empire, remember, Roman Solders crucified Christ.

who had the land before rome?

 

[Markainion]

who had the land before rome?

Well pretty much every ancient power in the ancient world had possessed the lands the Crusaders fought the Moslems over. Sorry I can’t really give you a good answer. If you want a good sight to visit on European and Meditation history go to this link.

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/euro-h.htm

A few history facts gather from the above link.

It looks like Roman took control of Jerusalem in 64 BC,

The creation of the Islamic Religion was in 622 AD.

Jerusalem fell to the Moslems from the Byzantine Empire in 632 AD

The First Crusade started in 1095 AD