Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

[alang1216]

Hey stupid it was Christians fighting Christians.

No, it was Christians fighting heretics.

 

[alang1216]

Except there has been no major forcing of people to convert. Because Christianity does not work that way.

Why were Native Americans forced to push aside the way they worshiped their God and forced to accept worshiping another God in another way? The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, “convert or die.”

Islam on the other hand says to force people and to this day is conducting violence to force people to submit.

Islam is hard on pagans but explicitly includes both Jews and Christians as 'people of the book'. Like Christianity, Islam has been interpreted differently by different groups in different times. The Spanish were brutal, others were kind. Same for the ancient Islamic conquerors, some used terror some did not. Not unlike today.

Sorry, never heard anyone interpret any part of the Bible as instructing them to blow up children or saw the head off your wife for being raped.

They didn't have explosives but they did have stones.

 

[koshergrl]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

 

[alang1216]

Except there has been no major forcing of people to convert. Because Christianity does not work that way.

Why were Native Americans forced to push aside the way they worshiped their God and forced to accept worshiping another God in another way? The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, “convert or die.”

Islam on the other hand says to force people and to this day is conducting violence to force people to submit.

Islam is hard on pagans but explicitly includes both Jews and Christians as 'people of the book'. Like Christianity, Islam has been interpreted differently by different groups in different times. The Spanish were brutal, others were kind. Same for the ancient Islamic conquerors, some used terror some did not. Not unlike today.

you got a citation for your allegation that the SPANISH conquerors in North and South America forced native americans to convert to Catholicism ----or FACE
DEATH. ? Its news to me. Try not to tell me about what muslims who ruled
the various lands in which jews had lived even before rapist pig of Arabia was born. My very own husband is an escapee from a SHARIAH SHIT HOLE----his community of jews lived in the land of his birth for more than 1000 years before the rapist pig of Arabia was born. You know very little about islam. Your Imam forgot to tell you what the pig did in Khaybar. The details of the disgusting
PACT OF OMAR have never been repudiated by the followers of the rapist pig

Citation. Neither Khaybar nor the PACT OF OMAR seem so terrible for their time. If Muslims had been fighting Pagans at Khaybar would you be so outraged? Arabs have been living in Palestine for more than 1,000 years so I don't think that's much of an argument. Maybe we should find the Philistines and give the whole area back to them?

 

[alang1216]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

 

[irosie91]

Except there has been no major forcing of people to convert. Because Christianity does not work that way.

Why were Native Americans forced to push aside the way they worshiped their God and forced to accept worshiping another God in another way? The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, “convert or die.”

Islam on the other hand says to force people and to this day is conducting violence to force people to submit.

Islam is hard on pagans but explicitly includes both Jews and Christians as 'people of the book'. Like Christianity, Islam has been interpreted differently by different groups in different times. The Spanish were brutal, others were kind. Same for the ancient Islamic conquerors, some used terror some did not. Not unlike today.

you got a citation for your allegation that the SPANISH conquerors in North and South America forced native americans to convert to Catholicism ----or FACE
DEATH. ? Its news to me. Try not to tell me about what muslims who ruled
the various lands in which jews had lived even before rapist pig of Arabia was born. My very own husband is an escapee from a SHARIAH SHIT HOLE----his community of jews lived in the land of his birth for more than 1000 years before the rapist pig of Arabia was born. You know very little about islam. Your Imam forgot to tell you what the pig did in Khaybar. The details of the disgusting
PACT OF OMAR have never been repudiated by the followers of the rapist pig

Citation. Neither Khaybar nor the PACT OF OMAR seem so terrible for their time. If Muslims had been fighting Pagans at Khaybar would you be so outraged? Arabs have been living in Palestine for more than 1,000 years so I don't think that's much of an argument. Maybe we should find the Philistines and give the whole area back to them?

Except there has been no major forcing of people to convert. Because Christianity does not work that way.

Why were Native Americans forced to push aside the way they worshiped their God and forced to accept worshiping another God in another way? The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, “convert or die.”

Islam on the other hand says to force people and to this day is conducting violence to force people to submit.

Islam is hard on pagans but explicitly includes both Jews and Christians as 'people of the book'. Like Christianity, Islam has been interpreted differently by different groups in different times. The Spanish were brutal, others were kind. Same for the ancient Islamic conquerors, some used terror some did not. Not unlike today.

you got a citation for your allegation that the SPANISH conquerors in North and South America forced native americans to convert to Catholicism ----or FACE
DEATH. ? Its news to me. Try not to tell me about what muslims who ruled
the various lands in which jews had lived even before rapist pig of Arabia was born. My very own husband is an escapee from a SHARIAH SHIT HOLE----his community of jews lived in the land of his birth for more than 1000 years before the rapist pig of Arabia was born. You know very little about islam. Your Imam forgot to tell you what the pig did in Khaybar. The details of the disgusting
PACT OF OMAR have never been repudiated by the followers of the rapist pig

Citation. Neither Khaybar nor the PACT OF OMAR seem so terrible for their time. If Muslims had been fighting Pagans at Khaybar would you be so outraged? Arabs have been living in Palestine for more than 1,000 years so I don't think that's much of an argument. Maybe we should find the Philistines and give the whole area back to them?

 

[irosie91]

[QUOTE="
Try not to tell me about what muslims who ruled
the various lands in which jews had lived even before rapist pig of Arabia was born. My very own husband is an escapee from a SHARIAH SHIT HOLE----his community of jews lived in the land of his birth for more than 1000 years before the rapist pig of Arabia was born. You know very little about islam. Your Imam forgot to tell you what the pig did in Khaybar. The details of the disgusting
PACT OF OMAR have never been repudiated by the followers of the rapist pig[/QUOTE]
Citation. Neither Khaybar nor the PACT OF OMAR seem so terrible for their time. If Muslims had been fighting Pagans at Khaybar would you be so outraged? Arabs have been living in Palestine for more than 1,000 years so I don't think that's much of an argument. Maybe we should find the Philistines and give the whole area back to them?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


your answer-===alang1216 is idiotic garble and actually reveals that actual stink
which is muhummad. Try to remember----that dog is supposed to have been the EPITOME of civilized and TERRIFIC person FOREVER-----not just "for his time" -----furthermore the vile filth with the dog fomented in the SEVENTH CENTURY AD-------as not accomplished by prehistoric APE MAN-----20,000 years ago.
It was the Machinations for your great and glorious and final prophet for all
time IN MODERN TIMEs ---a mere 1400 years ago. MODERN TIMES
Speaking of MODERN TIMES-----in the 1930s ---my very own mother-in-law had to be rescued from the LOCAL IMAM pig------because according to the KORANIC LAW------since her father had died when she was 11-----your disgusting "FINAL
PROPHET" decreed that she would be the sex slave to the local IMAM dog----
ALLAHUAKBAR. ---good news----she survived that filth you laud as FINE FOR ITS TIME------you are sickening-------find me the KORANIC SCHOLAR who repudiates the shit that you claim was "FINE FOR ITS TIME"----mid 1930s. Shit mouth Imam I have heard speak have claimed that enslaving jewish orphans is the HEIGHT OF "compassion" to orphans

 

[Weatherman2020]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Except there has been no major forcing of people to convert. Because Christianity does not work that way.

Why were Native Americans forced to push aside the way they worshiped their God and forced to accept worshiping another God in another way? The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, “convert or die.”

Islam on the other hand says to force people and to this day is conducting violence to force people to submit.

Islam is hard on pagans but explicitly includes both Jews and Christians as 'people of the book'. Like Christianity, Islam has been interpreted differently by different groups in different times. The Spanish were brutal, others were kind. Same for the ancient Islamic conquerors, some used terror some did not. Not unlike today.

Sorry, never heard anyone interpret any part of the Bible as instructing them to blow up children or saw the head off your wife for being raped.

They didn't have explosives but they did have stones.

Where does the Bible command to stone unbelievers, moron?

Typical leftist defending your Muslim masters with lies.

 

[irosie91]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

I will help you to understand the Islamic mindset----weathervane. Invasion and
exploitation in the service of ALLAH----is divine-----FURTHERMORE any land upon
which a muslim has defecated at any point in history is----BY DIVINE DEFINITION---
"muslim land". forever try to cope--------ANY LAND UPON WHICH A MOSQUE HAS EVER BEEN BUILT ----remains MUSLIM LAND FOREVER. The muslim claim to Palestine is based on the FACT that BURAQ took a dump as he flew over
Jerusalem------even if he did not. Several years ago there was a dispute over
a HINDU HOLY CITY------AYODHIYA ----which is the birth place of the "god"---
RAMA. Muslims claimed it as ISLAMIC FOREVER---because some pervert --
BARBUR-----raped a few women there-----thousands of years after the birth of Rama. Look around your city-------if there are any mosques there-----YOU GOT IT!!!! MUSLIM LAND FOREVER-----it is the will of allah

 

[irosie91]

Except there has been no major forcing of people to convert. Because Christianity does not work that way.

Why were Native Americans forced to push aside the way they worshiped their God and forced to accept worshiping another God in another way? The invading Christians labeled the indigenous people as heathens. They set out with a vengeance to cleanse the land of these heathens. The dictates of the Spanish conquerors were, “convert or die.”

Islam on the other hand says to force people and to this day is conducting violence to force people to submit.

Islam is hard on pagans but explicitly includes both Jews and Christians as 'people of the book'. Like Christianity, Islam has been interpreted differently by different groups in different times. The Spanish were brutal, others were kind. Same for the ancient Islamic conquerors, some used terror some did not. Not unlike today.

Sorry, never heard anyone interpret any part of the Bible as instructing them to blow up children or saw the head off your wife for being raped.

They didn't have explosives but they did have stones.

Where does the Bible command to stone unbelievers, moron?

Typical leftist defending your Muslim masters with lies.

ALang is either a muslim who believes that weekly crappy Khutbah Jumaat----
or he is a non muslim who believes Islamic propaganda

 

[alang1216]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

 

[alang1216]

Where does the Bible command to stone unbelievers, moron?

Typical leftist defending your Muslim masters with lies.

ALang is either a muslim who believes that weekly crappy Khutbah Jumaat----
or he is a non muslim who believes Islamic propaganda

Or he is someone who sees the world without the filters of religion or ethnicity or hate.

 

[alang1216]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

I will help you to understand the Islamic mindset----weathervane. Invasion and
exploitation in the service of ALLAH----is divine-----FURTHERMORE any land upon
which a muslim has defecated at any point in history is----BY DIVINE DEFINITION---
"muslim land". forever try to cope--------ANY LAND UPON WHICH A MOSQUE HAS EVER BEEN BUILT ----remains MUSLIM LAND FOREVER. The muslim claim to Palestine is based on the FACT that BURAQ took a dump as he flew over
Jerusalem------even if he did not. Several years ago there was a dispute over
a HINDU HOLY CITY------AYODHIYA ----which is the birth place of the "god"---
RAMA. Muslims claimed it as ISLAMIC FOREVER---because some pervert --
BARBUR-----raped a few women there-----thousands of years after the birth of Rama. Look around your city-------if there are any mosques there-----YOU GOT IT!!!! MUSLIM LAND FOREVER-----it is the will of allah

Wow, a billion people with a single mindset! Do all Christians share a single mindset? How about all Jews?

 

[Weatherman2020]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

Because you are uninformed. Hell, Islam is even practicing slavery today here in the 21st century.

 

[alang1216]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

Because you are uninformed. Hell, Islam is even practicing slavery today here in the 21st century.

So instead of refuting my point about Muslims in the 10th century you deflect. Nice work.

 

[Weatherman2020]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

It was my understanding that, although considered second class citizens, Christians and Jews were allowed to live and worship in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. An improvement for the Jews who were banded from the city by the Byzantines. They don't sound like 'murderous barbarians'.

Because you are uninformed. Hell, Islam is even practicing slavery today here in the 21st century.

So instead of refuting my point about Muslims in the 10th century you deflect. Nice work.

What is happening today is a tad more relevant than what occurred a thousand years ago.

 

[Taz]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

Muslims all see things differently because Islam is a barbaric mental disorder.

 

[alang1216]

What is happening today is a tad more relevant than what occurred a thousand years ago.

The OT, NT, and Koran are all more than a thousand years old, if they are irrelevant we should not be talking about them.

 

[irosie91]

European Christians actually didn't *invade*. They came to defend Christian communities from the murderous barbarians.

Sounds like a historical rewrite to me. Do you have any sources?

Shitforbrains, Muslims took the Holy Land by force. The Crusades were a counterattack.

I will help you to understand the Islamic mindset----weathervane. Invasion and
exploitation in the service of ALLAH----is divine-----FURTHERMORE any land upon
which a muslim has defecated at any point in history is----BY DIVINE DEFINITION---
"muslim land". forever try to cope--------ANY LAND UPON WHICH A MOSQUE HAS EVER BEEN BUILT ----remains MUSLIM LAND FOREVER. The muslim claim to Palestine is based on the FACT that BURAQ took a dump as he flew over
Jerusalem------even if he did not. Several years ago there was a dispute over
a HINDU HOLY CITY------AYODHIYA ----which is the birth place of the "god"---
RAMA. Muslims claimed it as ISLAMIC FOREVER---because some pervert --
BARBUR-----raped a few women there-----thousands of years after the birth of Rama. Look around your city-------if there are any mosques there-----YOU GOT IT!!!! MUSLIM LAND FOREVER-----it is the will of allah

Wow, a billion people with a single mindset! Do all Christians share a single mindset? How about all Jews?

you really LOVE to quote CANARDS. Try to think for YOURSELF. So
far you have been a PARROT.